Assessment of the President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić o that the shooting took place in a tent settlement in the center of Belgrade, known as Chaciland, was a "terrible terrorist attack" is political, not the assessment of a lawyer, the interlocutors of "Vremen" agree.
At the same time, they interpret the assessment of the chief public prosecutor differently Nenad Stefanović who characterized the incident as attempted murder, illegal possession, carrying and trafficking of weapons, trafficking of explosive substances and causing general danger.
A series of criminal acts by the police and Vučić
Attorney Borivoje Borović tells "Vreme" that the legal qualification defined by Stefanović is correct.
"From a formal and legal point of view, based on the information we have from the media, it can only be about the criminal acts that he defined. Politicization in the sense of terrorism, which does not exist, is unacceptable, because terrorism requires serious organization and serious actions," says Borović.
He points out that the public had the opportunity to see a series of criminal acts committed by the police during the apprehension of the suspect, but that there were also criminal acts in Vučić's address at the press conference held on the occasion of the shooting.
"We saw that they policemen committed a number of criminal acts, such as extorting testimony, abusing and torturing a person who gives a statement with his face on concrete and obstruction of justice, which means that, along with the criminal act committed by President Vučić himself, his comment will negatively affect the criminal proceedings and the rights of the defendant," says Borović.
The distorted image of the event is interpreted in a political way
Since Vučić during the aforementioned press conference, and before presenting his assessment that the shooting in Ćaciland is a "terrible terrorist attack", praised himself for being a "very good lawyer", we asked Borović how he evaluates what Vučić says about himself.
Borović says that the fact that Vučić praises himself as "very good lawyer" is not even worth commenting on.
"It has nothing to do with legal conclusions about the actions of committing a criminal offense, and especially about the essence of a criminal offense, which he likes to use as a platitude for anything and everything. A distorted picture of an event cannot be interpreted in a political way. So, if we stick strictly to the law, it is a classic case of attempted murder, causing general danger and perhaps illegal possession of weapons, because a man who is a former security guard may have a permit to carry weapons," says Borović.
He concludes that Vučić's statement is pressure on the prosecution and the court, and that "we will see who will win."
The court decides on the qualification of the criminal act
Lawyer and vice president of the League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina Alexander Olenik says that neither Vučić nor Stefanović decides what will be the qualification of the criminal act committed during the shooting in Ćaciland, but the court.
"Only the court gives the qualification of the criminal offense, and what the prosecutor writes in the indictment or in the order for the investigation is just a musical wish, because that is not set in stone either," says Olenik.
He points out that both Vučić and Stefanović "unfortunately gave political assessments of the event".
"The legal qualification of Stefanović is a little closer to the truth, but I am not sure that it corresponds to the factual situation, while what Aleksandar Vučić said is absolutely a political pamphlet. Terrorism can only be that they are in tents in front of Assembly of Serbia they are found by armed men and as much as they can scare the buildings," says Olenik.
"Terrorism is what is in front of the Serbian Parliament"
It reminds us that terrorism an act aimed at scaring citizens.
"Terrorism is what those people, armed with alcohol and other means of relaxation, have been doing for months in front of the Serbian Parliament, because they are scaring the citizens," Olenik points out.
He estimates that it was "only a matter of time" when there would be a conflict between those who are housed in Ćaciland.
"I'm sure, I've seen the information, that the man who shot is not in an organization, nor does he participate in student or opposition protests, and he has nothing to do with the blockades, but that's why he has something to do with DB, so I'd rather call it an internal conflict of those who are illegally on the street, armed, supporting Vučić," says Olenik.
Vučić is not a good lawyer.
He assesses that it is "unintelligent" from the legal point of view that Vučić refers to the fact that he is a "very good lawyer" and therefore gives himself the right to qualify the act.
"What he is referring to does not give him the right to qualify the act. He has not proven anywhere that he is a good lawyer and he has never practiced law, since he has never practiced anything else in his life except politics, and the fact that he graduated from the university does not mean that he is a good lawyer. It is intended for the small number of voters that he has left and that he is trying to keep," says Olenik.
He points out that Vučić's entire press conference is a "violation of the law" and states that Vučić and the police committed "10 to 15 criminal acts in a row" at that conference.
He adds that first the real motive of the man who came to Ćaciland with the gasoline should be determined.
"The information is that he came there for his claims that were not paid for his stay in that area, in those tents. Only when we resolve that can we talk about the motives in a more serious way, and not in a political-marketing style," concludes Olenik.
This October, "Vreme" celebrates and honors - as much as 35 percent discount for our 35th birthday! Valid for semi-annual and annual subscriptions. Subscribe now!
