N12.T5 – Dragan Kovačević Acquitted by High Court – Judge’s Formulation Raises Concerns
HRA NEWSLETTER 12 – TOPIC 5
Former Director of the Real Estate Administration, Dragan Kovačević, was acquitted by the High Court in Podgorica of charges of creating a criminal organization aimed at the unlawful appropriation of land in the maritime zone.
In addition to Kovačević, the charges were dismissed for his son Danko, former head of the Tivat Cadastre Ana Lakićević-Grdinić, surveyor Veselin Tomašević, notary Dalibor Knežević, as well as Sanja Popović, Aleksandar Boljević, and the Podgorica-based company Geo-&Arh.
The Special State Prosecutor’s Office had accused them of a range of criminal offenses, including criminal organization, abuse of office, tax evasion, extortion, and forgery of documents.
During the verdict reading, Judge Zoran Radović reportedly stated, according to Pobjeda, that the decision was made under Article 373, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and added: “when it is not proven that the defendants committed the criminal offense they are charged with, not that they did not commit the offense.” He also explained that this clarification was important to ensure the media informs the public accurately.
This formulation is problematic because it contradicts the principle of presumption of innocence (Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). When a court delivers an acquittal, the defendants are legally considered innocent and not criminally responsible; leaving room for speculation that they might be guilty undermines this principle.
It is true that the law recognizes different grounds for acquittal—either that the act the defendant is charged with does not constitute a criminal offense or that there is insufficient evidence that the defendant committed it. However, in all cases, the outcome is the same: the defendant must be regarded as innocent. For this reason, a judge should not relativize an acquittal, as it diminishes its authority and harms those who have been cleared of guilt. This is a first-instance verdict, subject to review in the appeals process.
English