In continuance, Stanko Subotic trial before Special Section of Belgrade Higher Court was passed in reading photocopied documentation that prosecutor could not explain where it came from, as well as new original documents that defense lawyers have denied authenticity, insisting that they have showed up from nowhere and appointing on obvious forgeries that were among the documents.
During the last day of this session, lawyers have dealt with statements by Serbian Minister of Justice, Snezana Malovic, who said in interview for daily „Blic“ (over weekend) that if Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came to power, „Sarics and Subotics would sleep soundly“.
In April 25th, 2010 issue of „Blic“, Minister of Justice gave interview to journalist Irena Radisavljevic (page 2 and 3). Under headline there was a part written in larger font: „By disqualifying Supreme Court president, SNS wants to gain cheap political points from non-elected judges and prosecutors. A clear message is sent that Sarics, Subotics and others can sleep soundly if that party ever gained power.“ One of answers says: „You know, when you say that president of Supreme Court and Minister of Justice are mobstress, and those are people defending us (in front rows) in this battle against organized crime, then you send clear message to everyone that Sarics, Subotics and others can sleep soundly if SNS ever came to power.“
The lawyers have characterised these remarks by minister Malovic as violation of rights for fair trial and then stated that:
„In ’Blic’ issue of April 26th, 2010 (pgs. 14 and 15) in article written by Tamara Markovic Subota titled ’Jocic warned Cume and Subotic’, the last sentence reads: ’Subotic Cane was main participant in Pukanic’s series of articles on cigarette smuggling but also the key connection between Jocic and Darko Saric, narco boss on the run“.
In last amendments and addenda to Criminal Code from September 2009, a new criminal act named „Inappropriate public comments on judges’ acts“ (Article 336a CC) reads:
„Whoever gives statements in public media during trial and prior to legally binding verdict, with intention to hurt assumption of innocence or independence of court, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment up to six months“.
Article 6, Paragraph 1 of Law on Organization of Courts in Serbia reads: „Use of public office, public media and any public appearance that may influence the course and outcome of judicial proceedings is prohibited“.
In items 2 and 4 of UN’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary reads:
“The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason” (2)
“There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process…” (4).
The lawyers said that use of defendant’s last name in trial that is under way as generic synonym for organized crime is obviously violating assumption of innocence and that claims that he and people like him could sleep soundly only if authorities changed presents open message that in opposite case one can not expect acquittal verdict, which means interfering with the judicial process and direct pressure on the court.
They also said that there is not a court in Serbia that could trial Subotic objectively and independently. Based on her statement one could conclude that Ms. Malovic knows that, unless authorities change, Subotic will be sentenced.