vesti

now browsing by category

 

POŠTOVANJE OSNOVNIH STANDARDA KAZNENOG PRAVA U KAZNENOM SISTEMU REPUBLIKE SRBIJE / COMPLIANCE WITH BASIC STANDARDS OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

ENGLISH VERSION click here

SRPSKA VERZIJA:

-Po odredbama čl.194 st.1Ustava Republike Srbije pravni poredak Republike Srbije je jedinstven, po st.2 ustav je najviši pravni akt Republike Srbije, a po st.3 svi zakoni i opšti akti doneti u Republici Srbiji moraju biti saglasni sa Ustavom.

Po odredbama čl.194 st. 4 Ustava , potvrdjeni medjunarodni ugovori i opšteprihvaćena pravila medjunarodnog prava deo su pravnog poretka Republike Srbije, potvrdjeni medjunarodni ugovori ne smeju biti u suprotnosti sa Ustavom, a po st.5 tog člana zakoni i drugi opšti akti doneti u Republici Srbiji ne smeju biti u suprotnosti sa potvrdjenim medjunarodnim ugovorima i opšteprihvaćenim pravilima medjunarodnog prava.

-Po odredbi čl.16 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije opšteprihvaćena pravila medjunarodnog prava i potvrdjeni medjunarodni ugovori, sastavni su deo pravnog poretka Republike Srbije i neposredno se primenjuju, a potvrdjeni medjunarodni ugovoru moraju biti u skladu sa Ustavom.

-Po odredbi čl.18 st.1 Ustava Republike Srbije”ljudska i manjinska prava zajamčena ustavom neposredno se primenjuju

-Po odredbama čl.18 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije, Ustavom se jemče, i kao takva, neposredno se primenjuju ljudska i manjinska prava zajamčena opšteprihvaćenim pravilima medjunarodnog prava, potvrdjenim medjunarodnim ugovorima i zakonima.

-Po odrebi cl.18 st.3 Ustava Republike Srbije odredbe o ljudskim i manjinskim pravima tumače se u korist unapredjenja vrednosti demokratskog društva, saglasno važećim medjunarodnim standardima ljudskih i manjinskih prava, kao i praksi medjunarodnih institucija koje nadziru njihovu primenu.

– Po odredbama čl.21 st.1 Ustava Republike Srbije, pred Ustavom i zakonom, SVI su jednaki, a po odredbi st.2 SVAKO ima pravo na jednaku zakonsku zaštitu bez diskriminacije, po bilo kom osnovu.

-Odredbama čl.34 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije krivična dela i krivične sankcije odredjuju se Zakonom , a kazne se odredjuju prema propisu koji je važio u vreme kada je delo učinjeno, izuzev kada je kasniji propis povoljniji za učinioca.Ustav kao najviši pravni akt u Republici Srbiji za primenu ovog standarada, ne koristi procesne termine, kao što su “osumnjičeni”, “okrivljeni” i “optuženi” kojim se označavaju lica za koje nije u skladu sa zakonom utvrdjeno da su učinila krivično delo, i za koja važi pretpostavka nevinosti, već koristi termin “Učinioc”, koji se koristi za lice za koje je nesumnjivo utvrdjeno da je učinilo krivično delo, niti propisuje da će se odredba o primeni kasnije donetog zakona koji je blaži za učinioca, nejednako i selektivno primenjivati samo na lica koja imaju status”osumnjičenog”, “okrivljenog” ili”optuženog”, a ne i na “učinioca”krivičnog dela za koga je pravnosnažnom presudom utvrdjeno da je učinio društveno opasno delo, koje je zakonom odredjeno kao krivično delo.

-Ustavom Republike Srbije propisana je retroaktivna primena krivičnog zakona, ali samo u korist UČINIOCA.

– To pravo učiniocu krivičnog dela priznaje i Medjunarodni pakt o gradjanskim i političkim pravima kao ratifikovani medjunarodni ugovor(Službeni list SFRJ br.7/1971), odredbom čl.15 st.1 da “Ako posle izvršenja krivičnog dela zakon predvidja lakšu kaznu krivac treba da se koristi time.Medjunarodni pakt o gradjanskim i političkim pravima još je konkretniji pri odredjivanju svojstva lica koje može i treba da koristi privilegiju kasnije donetog blažeg zakona, koristeći termin “krivac”kao oznaku za lice za koje je nadežni u skladu sa zakonom ustanovljeni sud, u zakonito i pravično sprovedenom sudskom postupku pravnosnažnom presudom utvrdio da je izvršilo krivično delo i da je KRIVO.

– Ovim ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom nije propisano da se ova odredba o primeni kasnije donetog blažeg zakona primenjuje selektivno i nejednako samo kao “procesna odredba” na lica koja imaju status “osumnjičenih”, “okrivljenih” i “optuženih” prema kojime je krivični postupak u toku, i za koja veži pretpostavka nevinosti, već naprotiv da se primenjuje na lice koje je krivo.

-Odrebom čl.33 “Posebna prava okrivljenog”, Ustav Republike ne priznaje okrivljenom kao posebno pravo da se samo i isključivo na njega primenjuje medjunarodni standard o primeni kasnije donetog zakona koji je blaži, a koji važi za učinioca po Ustavu ili za krivca po Medjunarodnom paktu o gradjanskim i političkim pravima.

– Ovaj medjunarodni standard ne predvidja Zakonik o krivičnom postupku da se primenjuje isključivo na lica za koja je redovni krivični postupak u toku, već se primenjuje odredba čl.5 st.2 Krivičnog zakonika koja se u skladu sa odredbom čl.34 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije i čl.15 st.1 Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i političkim pravima, primenjuje pre svega na učinioca krivičnog dela ili krivca.

-Imajući u vidu napred izneto sasvim je pogrešan, i u Ustavu, ratifikovanom medjunarodnom ugovoru i domaćem krivičnom zakoniku neutemeljen stav pojedinih sudova, sudija i pravnika da odredbe čl.34 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije, čl.15 st.1 Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i političkim pravima i čl.5 st.2 domaćeg Krivičnog zakonika o imperativnoj primeni kasnije donetog blažeg zakona imaju procesni karakter i da se primenjuju samo na osumnjičenog ili optuženog za koga je krivični postupak u toku, za koga važi pretpostavka nevinosti i nije pravnosnažno osudjen i oglašen krivim, a ne i za lice za koje je pravnosnažnom presudom nadležni sud u skladu sa zakonom sprovedenim postupkom utvrdio da je učinilac krivičnog dela i da je krivac, jer takav stav je u suprotnosti sa Ustavom, domaćim krivičnim zakonom i ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom, a sudovi i sudije i pravnici koji zastupaju takav stav za isti nikada nisu ponudili odredbu Ustava, ratifikovanog medjunarodnog ugovora ili domaćeg zakona na kojoj taj stav zasnivaju, već takav stav suprotno odredbama čl.33 Ustava,ratifikovanog medjunarodnog ugovora i domaćeg zakona zasnivaju na zaklučku koji izvode proizvoljnim tumačenjem imperativne odredbe čl.5 st.2 domaćeg Krivičnog zakonika, da se ta odredba i odredbe čl.34 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije i čl.15 st.1 Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjaniskim i političkim pravima odnose na fazu sudjenja.

– Jedan od najnovijih primera za takav stav sudova i sudija, koji nema utemeljenje u odredbama čl.142 st.2, čl.145 st.2, čl.33 i čl.34 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije, ni u odredbi čl.15 st.1 Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i političkim pravima, kao ratifikovanog medjunarodnog ugovora koji je po Ustavu sastavni deo pravnog poretka Republike Srbije i neposredno se primenjuje, sa kojim domaći zakoni i opšti akti ne smeju biti u suprotnosti, niti ima utemeljenje u imperativnoj odredbi čl.5 st.2 Kriičnog zakonika koja je u saglasnosti sa Ustavom i ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom, je zauzeo Apelacioni sud u Nišu u obrazloženju rešenja 17 Kž.2br.182/22 od dana 04.04.2022 godine.Dokument br.1.

– I Ustavom Republike Srbije,i Medjunarodnium paktom o gradjanskim i političkim pravima kao ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom koji je sastavni deo pravnog poretka Republike Srbije, i Krivičnim zakonikom koji nema procesni karakter, odredjena je jednaka primena ovog medjunarodnog standarda na sve učinioce krivičnih dela bez obzira koji status imaju, bez diskriminacije, označene kao učinioce ili krivce, u cilju sprečavanja primene selektivne i neregulisane privatne pravde, a u cilju afirmisanja prava svih bilo da je prema njima postupak u toku ili da su osudjeni pravnosnažnom presudom, da budu jednako kažnjeni na osnovu zakona, i primene ustavne odredbe o jedinstvu pravnog poretka Republike Srbije.

-Po odredbama ćl.142 st.2 I čl.145 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije sudovi u Republici Srbiji sude i odluke donose na osnovu Ustava,ratifikovanih medjunarodnih ugovora, opšteprihvaćenih pravila medjunarodnog prava, zakona i opštih akata kada je to predvidjeno zakonom, dok je po odredbama čl.3 st.1 I st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije vladavina prava osnovna pretpostavka Ustava i počiva na neotudjivim ljudskim pravima , a ostvarije se “i povinovanjem vlasti Ustavu i zakonu.

– U tom smislu u krivčnoj praksi Republike Srbije medjunarodni standard o primeni kasnije donetog blažeg zakona na učinioca ili krivca, primanjivan je i na lica optužena za krivična dela za koja je postupak u toku, i na lica koja su pravnosnažno osudjena za krivična dela i izrečena im je kazna.

-PRIMENA MEDJUNARODNOG STANDARDA O PRIMENI KASNIJE DONETOG BLAŽEG ZAKONA NA UČINIOCA, NA LICA OPTUŽENA ZA KRIVIČNA DELA ZA KOJA JE REDOVNI KRIVIČNI POSTUPAK U TOKU, U REPUBLICI SRBIJI.

-Nakon stupanja na snagu Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakonika Savezne Republike Jugoslavije(Službeni list SRJ broj:61 od 09.11.2001) i Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakona Republike Srbije(Službeni glasnik broj 10 od 01.03.2002 godine), kojim je u Republici Srbiji ukinuta Smrtna kazna, Vrhovni sud Srbije je presudama Kž.III 12/01 od 18.11.202 godine i Kž.III/01 od dana 20.Maja 2022 godine učiniocima krivičnog dela Ubistvo kojima je nepravnosnažno bila izrečena Smrtna kazna, u postupku po žalbi po službenoj dužnosti Smrtnu kaznu preinačio u blažu kaznu zatvora, primenom kasnije donetog zakona koji je blaži za učinioca.

-Dokumenti br.3 i br.4.

-PRIMENA MEDJUNARODNOG STANDARDA O PRIMENI KASNIJE DONETOG BLAŽEG ZAKONA NA UČINIOCA KOJI SU PRAVNOSNAŽNOM PRESUDOM BILI OSUDJENI U REPUBLICI SRBIJI,

-Nakon što je Zakonom o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakonika Savezne Republike Jugoslavije (Službeni list SRJ broj: 61 od 09.11.2001 godine), i Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakona Republike Sbije( Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije broj: 10 od 01.03.2002 godine), ukinuta Smrtna kazna, nad nijednim od više lica koja su pravnosnažnim presudama bila osudjena na Smrtnu kaznu,i koje presude su bile izvršne, u Republici Srbiji nije izvršena Smrtna kazna, jer više nije postojala u kaznenom sistemu Republike Srbije pa samim tim nije mogla ni da se izvrši.

– U skladu i primenom medjunarodnog pravnog standarda iz čl.15 st.1 Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i političkim pravima, Predsenik Republike Srbije je dana 02 Avgusta 2002 godine doneo Odluku broj 3.KPRS 208 kojom je sva ta lica pomilovao tako što im je Smrtne kazne zamenio blažom kaznom zatvora, koja je bila propisana kasnije donetim zakonom koji je po njih blaži.-Dokument br.4.

Odredbom čl.5 st.1 Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakonika (Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije broj 35/2019), koji je stupio na snagu 01.Decembra 2019 godine, izmenjene su odredbe čl.45 st.3 i st.4 Krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije,(Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije broj 85/2005, br.88/2005, br.107/2005, br.72/2009, br.111/2009 i dr.) tako sto su iz kaznenog Sistema Republike Srbije brisane kazne zatvora od 30(trideset) i 40(četrdeset) godina, a ostala je na snazi odredba čl.45 st.1 Krivičnog zakonika kojom je kao najveća kazna zatvora propisana kazna od 20(dvadeset) godina zatvora, koja je blaža po trajanju, od kazne zatvora od 30 i 40 godina, koja je kasnije donetim zakonom brisana i više ne postoje u kaznenom sistemu Republike Srbije.

-Više od 2(dve) godine nakon što su iz kaznenog sistema Republike Srbije izbrisane kazne zatvora od 30 i 40 godina, na stotine zatvorenika izdrzavaju te kazne koje ne postoje u Kaznenom sistemu Republike Srbije, koje su teže od kazne zatvora od 20(dvadeset) godina koja je kao maksimalna odredjena da postoji u Republici Srbiji po kasnije donetom zakonu, suprotno odredbama čl.18 st.1 i st.2, i čl.34 st .2 Ustava Republike Srbije, suprotno čl.16 st.2, čl.194 st.4 i st.5 Ustava Republike Srbije i čl.15 st.1 Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i političkim pravima i čl.5 st.2 Krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije, i to u državi koja je član Saveta Evrope i ozbiljan kandidat za članstvo u Evropsku uniju.

-Ni Republičko javno tužilaštvo ni Predsednik Republike Srbije ne preduzimaju delotvorne mere da se u cilju uspostavljanja vladavine prava, kazneni sistem u Republici Srbiji uskladi sa Ustavom, ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom i domaćim kaznenim zakonom, dok sudovi odbijaju sve napore i pokušaje osudjenih lica koja u Republici Srbiji izdržavaju kazne koje ne postoje u njenom kaznenom sistemu i njihovih advokata, da se kazneni sistem uskladi sa Ustavom, retifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom i domaćim kaznenim zakonom, na način što bi im se nepostojeće kazne zatvora od 30 i 40 godina, zamenile blažom kaznom od 20 godina zatvora, koja je kao jedino moguća najviša kazna zatvora odredjena da postoji u Republici Srbiji, prema kasnije donetom zakonu, u skladu sa odredbom čl.34 st.2 Ustava Republike Srbije.

-Danas u Republici Srbiji to više nije pravno, već je političko pitanje čije rešenje zavisi od političke vlasti pre svega od volje Predsednika Republike Srbije koji vodi populističku politiku, a pod čijom neposrednom kontrolom se nalaze tužilaštva i sudovi, tužioci i sudije koji nemaju dovoljno profesionalne hrabrosti a često ni pravničkog znanja, koji su po službenoj dužnosti morali da preduzmu delotvorne mere da se kazneni sistem u Republici Srbiji uskladi sa Ustavom, ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom i domaćim krivičnim zakonom, da spreče da se u Republici Srbiji masovno izvršavaju kazne koje NE POSTOJE u njenom kaznenom sistemu, u cilju uspostavljanja vladavine prava i afirmacije Republike Srbije kao pravne države, sa ozbiljnom kandidaturom za članstvo u Evropsku uniju.

-Niko od njih nije u stanju da argumentovano sa pozivom na odredbe Ustava, ratifikovanog medjunarodnog ugovora i domaćeg krivičnog zakona, objasne kako je bilo moguće da se nakon ukidanja Smrtne kazne ne izvrši ni jedna od Smrtnih kazni koje su bile izrečene pravnosnažnim i izvršnim presudama, a da se izvršavaju kazne zatvora od 30 i 40 godina, koje ne postoje u kaznenom sistemu Republike Srbije, isto kao što ne postoji Smrtna kazna.

-Klasičan primer nejednake primene medjunarodnog standarada o primeni kasnije donetog zakona koji je blaži za učinioca.

-Svi pokušaji zatvorenika koji u Republici Srbiji izdržavaju nepostoječe kazne od 30 i 40 godina zatvora i njihovih branioca-advokata, da se uspostavi jednakost u primeni medjunarodnog standarada o primeni kasnije donetog zakona koji je blaži za učinioca krivičnog dela, i da se isti primeni i na njih nailazili su na snažan otpor sudova, tužioca i drugih državnih organa daleko od očiju i ušiju javnosti.

-Ova dokumentovana istraživačka studija ima za cilj da ovaj pravni problem aktuelizuje, da pre svega pravnička javnost bude argumentovano upoznata sa njim, kako bi se i pravnička i politička javnost delotvorno angažovala na njegovom rešavanju u cilju jednake primene medjunarodnog standarda o primeni kasnije donetog zakona koji je blaži za učinioca ili krivca, bez diskriminacije po bilo kom osnovu u kaznenom sistemu Republike Srbije, i njene afirmacije kao pravne države de facto.

-Iz tog razloga u saradnji sa Odborom za ljudska prava u Leskovcu, pozivamo advokate, profesore pravnih fakulteta, sudije , tužioce i druge domace i strane organe javne vlasti i nevladine organizacije da svojim učešcem daju doprinos u rešavanju ovog pravnog pitanja a u Republici Srbiji pravnog problema u skladu sa Ustavom, Medjunarodnim paktom o gradjanskim i političkim pravima kao ratifikovanim medjunarodnim ugovorom, domacim kaznenim zakonom i domacom praksom u primeni ovog standarada.

Autor pravnik i operativni saradnik Odbora za

Ljudska prava Leskovac

Dragutin Vidosavljević s.r.

EN:

COMPLIANCE WITH BASIC STANDARDS OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

– According to the provisions of Article 194, par. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the legal order of the Republic of Serbia is unique, according to par. 2, the Constitution is the highest legal act of the Republic of Serbia, and according to par. 3 all laws and general acts made in the Republic of Serbia must be in accordance with the Constitution.

– According to the provisions of Article 194 par.4 of the Constitution, ratified international agreements and generally accepted rules of international law are part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia. Confirmed international agreements must not be in conflict with the Constitution, and according to par. 5 of this Article, laws and other general acts adopted in the Republic of Serbia must not be in conflict with ratified international agreements and generally accepted rules of international law.

– According to the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, generally accepted rules of international law and ratified international agreements are an integral part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia and are directly applicable, and ratified international agreements must be in accordance with the Constitution.

– According to the provisions of Article 18 par. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, human and minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution are directly applicable„.

– According to the provisions of Article 18, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the Constitution guarantees, and as such, directly applies human and minority rights guaranteed by generally accepted rules of international law, ratified international agreements and laws.

– According to Article 18, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, provisions on human and minority rights are interpreted in favor of promoting the values ​​of a democratic society, in accordance with applicable international standards of human and minority rights, as well as the practice of international institutions.

– According to the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, before the Constitution and the law, ALL are equal, and according to the provisions of par. 2 EVERYONE has the right to equal legal protection without discrimination, on any grounds.

– The provisions of Article 34 par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, criminal offenses and criminal sanctions are determined by law, and penalties are determined according to the regulation in force at the time the act was committed, except when the later regulation is more favorable for the perpetrator. The Constitution, as the highest legal act in the Republic of Serbia, for the application of this standard does not use procedural terms, such as „suspects“, „defendants“ and „accused“, which denote persons who are not found to have committed a crime in accordance with the law and for which the presumption of innocence applies, but rather uses the term „perpetrator“, which is used for a person who is undoubtedly found to have committed a crime, and it does not prescribe that the provision on the application of a later law that is more lenient for the perpetrator will be unequally and selectively applied only to persons who have the status of „suspect“, “ defendant“ or „accused“, and not to the perpetrator of a criminal offense for whom a final judgment has established that he committed a socially dangerous act, which is defined by law as a criminal offense.

– The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia prescribes retroactive application of the criminal law, but only in favor of the PERPETRATOR.

– This right is recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a ratified international agreement (Official Gazette of the SFRY No. 7/1971), by the provision of Article 15, paragraph 1, “If, after the commission of a criminal offense, the law provides for a more lenient sentence, the perpetrator should use it”. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is even more specific in determining the status of a person who can and should use the privilege of a later lenient law, using the term „culprit“ as a designation for a person for whom a competent authority, in the conducted court procedure, determined by a final judgment that he had committed a criminal offense and that he is GUILTY.

– This ratified international agreement does not stipulate that this provision on the application of the later enacted more lenient law is applied selectively and unequally only as a „procedural provision“ to persons who have the status of „suspects“, „defendants“ and „accused“ under criminal proceedings, and for which the presumption of innocence applies, but, on the contrary, to be applied to the person who is guilty.

– According to Article 33 „Special Rights of the Defendant“, the Constitution of the Republic does not recognize the defendant as a special right to apply only and exclusively to him an international standard on the application of a later law which is more lenient and which applies to the perpetrator under the Constitution on civil and political rights.

– This International Standard does not stipulate that the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to persons for whom regular criminal proceedings are pending, but the provision of Article 5 par. 2 of the Criminal Code, which in accordance with the provision of Article 34 par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Article 15 par. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, applies primarily to the perpetrator of the crime.

– Taking into consideration the above, it is completely wrong, and in the Constitution, ratified international agreement and domestic criminal code unfounded position of some courts, judges and lawyers to the provisions of Article 34 par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, Article 15 par. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 5 par. 2 of the domestic Criminal Code on the imperative application of a later more lenient law, which have a procedural character and apply only to a suspect or accused for whom criminal proceedings are pending, for whom the presumption of innocence is valid and he has not been convicted and found guilty, and not for a person for whom the competent court has determined in a final judgment in accordance with the law, that he is the perpetrator of the crime and that he is guilty, because such an attitude is contrary to the Constitution, domestic criminal law and ratified international agreement, and courts and judges and lawyers advocating such an attitude have never offered a provision of the Constitution, ratified international agreement or domestic law on which they base that position, but such a position contrary to the provisions of Article 33 of the Constitution, ratified international agreement and domestic law is based on a conclusion derived by arbitrary interpretation of the mandatory provision of Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Code, that the provision and the provisions of Article 34, par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Article 15, par. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relate to the trial phase.

– One of the latest examples of such an attitude of courts and judges, which has no basis in the provisions of Article 142, par. 2, Article 145, par. 2, Article 33 and Article 34, par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, nor in the provision of Article 15, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as a ratified international agreement which is an integral part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia and directly applicable, with which domestic laws and general acts must not be in conflict, nor should it have basis in the imperative provision of Article 5, par. 2 of the Criminal Code, which is in accordance with the Constitution and the ratified international agreement, taken over by the Court of Appeals in Nis in the explanation of the decision 17 Kz. 2 No.182 / 22 dated on 04.04.2022. Document number 1.

– Both the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a ratified international agreement which is an integral part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia, and the Criminal Code which has no procedural character, determine equal application of this international standard to all perpetrators no matter their status, without discrimination, marked as perpetrators or culprits, in order to prevent the application of selective and unregulated private justice, and in order to affirm the rights of all, whether their procedure is ongoing or if they are convicted by a final judgment, to be equally punished by law, and to apply the constitutional provision on the unity of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia.

– According to the provisions of Article 142, par. 2 and Article 145, par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, courts in the Republic of Serbia make decisions on the basis of the Constitution, ratified international agreements, generally accepted rules of international law, laws and general acts when provided by law, while according to Article 3, par. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the rule of law is the basic premise of the Constitution and is based on inalienable human rights, and is realized “by the obedience of the authorities to the Constitution and the law.

– In that sense, in the criminal practice of the Republic of Serbia, the international standard on the application of a later, more lenient law to the perpetrator of the crime was applied to persons accused of criminal offenses pending, and to persons convicted of criminal offenses and their punishment is pronounced.

– APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LATER LENIENT LAW ADOPTED TO THE PERPETRATORS, TO THE PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR WHICH REGULAR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE IN PROGRESS, IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA.

– After the entry into force of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Official Gazette of the FRY No. 61 of November 9th, 2001) and the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia (Official Gazette No. 10 of March 1, 2002), by which the Death Penalty was abolished in the Republic of Serbia, the Supreme Court of Serbia, by Judgments Kz.III 12/01 on November 18th, 2002. and Kz III / 01 on May 20th, 2022 to perpetrators of the criminal offense of Murder who were sentenced to death, in the procedure of appeal ex officio changed the death penalty to a more lenient prison sentence, by applying a later law that is more lenient for the perpetrator .

-Documents no. 3 and no. 4.

– APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LATER ADOPTED MORE LENIENT LAW FOR PERPETRATORS WHO WERE CONVICTED IN A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

-After the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Official Gazette of the FRY No. 61 of November 9, 2001), and the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 10 of March 1, 2002), the Death Penalty was abolished, none of the several persons who were sentenced to death by final judgments, and whose verdicts were enforceable, was not executed in the Republic of Serbia, because it no longer existed in the penal system of the Republic of Serbia it could not be carried out.

– In accordance with and applying the international legal standard from Article 15, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on August 2, 2002, the President of the Republic of Serbia made Decision No. 3 of the KPRS 208 pardoning all those persons by replacing the sentences with more lenient prison sentence, which was prescribed by a later law that is more lenient for them.-Document no.4.

– The provision of Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 35/2019), which entered into force on December 1st, 2019, amended the provisions of Article 45, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of the Criminal Code Code of the Republic of Serbia, (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 85/2005, No. 88/2005, No. 107/2005, No. 72/2009, No. 111/2009, etc.) by deleting them from the Criminal System of the Republic of Serbia imprisonment of 30 (thirty) and 40 (forty) years, and the provision of Article 45, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code remained in force, which prescribes a sentence of 20 (twenty) years in prison, which is less severe in duration, from a prison sentence of 30 and 40 years, which was later deleted by a law passed and no longer exists in the penal system of the Republic of Serbia.

-More than 2 (two) years after the 30 and 40 years of imprisonment were deleted from the penal system of the Republic of Serbia, hundreds of prisoners are serving those sentences that do not exist in the Penal System of the Republic of Serbia, which are more severe than 20 (twenty) years which is determined as the maximum to exist in the Republic of Serbia under a later law, contrary to the provisions of Article 18, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, and Article 34, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, contrary to Article 16, paragraph 2, Article 194, paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Article 15, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, in a country that is a member of the Council of Europe and a serious candidate for membership in the European Union.

– Neither the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office nor the President of the Republic of Serbia are taking effective measures to harmonize the penal system in the Republic of Serbia with the Constitution, ratified international agreement and domestic criminal law, while the courts reject all efforts of convicts in the Republic of Serbia who are serving sentences that do not exist in its penal system, and their lawyers, to harmonize the penal system with the Constitution, ratified international agreement and domestic criminal law, by replacing non-existent prison sentences of 30 and 40 years with a more lenient sentence of 20 years of imprisonment, which is the only possible maximum sentence of imprisonment determined to exist in the Republic of Serbia, according to a later law, in accordance with the provision of Article 34, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

– Today in the Republic of Serbia it is no longer legal, but a political issue whose solution depends on political power, primarily on the will of the President of the Republic of Serbia who pursues populist policy, and under whose direct control are prosecutors’ offices and courts, prosecutors and judges that lack professional courage and often legal knowledge, who ex officio had to take effective measures to harmonize the penal system in the Republic of Serbia in accordance with the Constitution, ratified international agreement and domestic criminal law, to prevent mass executions in the Republic of Serbia that do NOT EXIST in its penal system, in order to establish the rule of law and the affirmation of the Republic of Serbia as a state governed by the rule of law, with a serious candidacy for membership in the European Union.

– None of them is able to argue with reference to the provisions of the Constitution, ratified international agreement and domestic criminal law, and explain how it was possible that after the abolition of the death penalty none of the death sentences imposed by final and enforceable judgments has been executed, while prison sentences of 30 and 40 years, which do not exist in the penal system of the Republic of Serbia, have been executed, just as there is no death penalty.

– A classic example of unequal application of the international standard on the application of a later law that is more lenient for the perpetrator of the crime.

– All attempts of prisoners serving non-existent sentences of 30 and 40 years in prison in the Republic of Serbia and their defense attorneys to establish equality in the application of the international standard on the application of a later law that is more lenient for the perpetrator, and to apply the same, met with strong resistance from courts, prosecutors and other state authorities away from the eyes and ears of the public.

– This documented research study aims to bring this legal problem to the forefront, so that the legal public is informed about it, so that both the legal and political public can be effectively engaged in solving it in order to equally apply the international standard on later legislation which is more lenient for the perpetrator of the crime or the culprit, without discrimination on any grounds in the penal system of the Republic of Serbia, and its affirmation as a de facto state governed by the rule of law.

– For that reason, in cooperation with the Human Rights Committee in Leskovac, we invite lawyers, professors of law faculties, judges, prosecutors and other domestic and foreign public authorities and non-governmental organizations to contribute to solving this legal issue and the legal problem in the Republic of Serbia, in accordance with the Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a ratified international agreement, domestic criminal law and domestic practice in the application of this standard.

Author, lawyer and operational associate of the Human Rights Committee Leskovac

Dragutin Vidosavljevic s.r.

List Danas: Odbor za ljudska prava Leskovac – Sporadična tortura u zatvorima / Newspaper Danas: Committee for Human Rights Leskovac

Today, in an extremely serious newspaper Danas, an article about our organization was published. The text says that our monitoring showed that a regular visit to prisons in Serbia has an effect, because if we do not visit some prison for some time because of a lack of funds, cases of torture.Therefore, there is a need for constant monitoring in institutions for the execution of prison sanctions. We will monitor as long as possible.
In the text, we announced that we have launched a major campaign that the state will form an informal body of non-party figures that will monitor throughout the year and report to the Serbian government about the situation in Serbian prisons. We will carry out the action during 2019 together with other NGOs dealing with human rights and all those who want to participate in the action. Among other things, we also need important help.

O slobodi izražavanja i mišljenja / On the freedom of thought and expression

O SLOBODI IZRAZAVANJA I MISLJENJA

U toku 2013. godine kritikovao sam rad clana gradske vlade u Leskovcu. On me je tuzio sudu.Osnovni sud u Leskovcu nije uvazio moje razloge da imam pravo na kriticko misljenje po clanu 46 Ustava Srbije , po clanu 19 Univerzalne Deklaracije o Ljudskim Pravima UN I Konvencije o ljudskim pravima clan 10.

Proglasen sam krivim za krivicno delo uvrede iz cl.170 st.1 Krivicnog Zakona. Ja sam se zalio Visem sudu ali je sud potvrdio kaznu Osnovnog suda. Platio sam clanu gradske vlade advokatske I sudske troskove u iznosu od oko 900 E.

Podneo sam zalbu Ustavnom sudu Srbije I jos cekam odluku. U medjuvremenu taj clan gradske vlade je podneo tuzbu za naknadu nematerijalne stete a po osnovu osudjujuce presude, u kojoj trazi da platim 150 000 dinara za dusevne bolove zbog povrede casti I ugleda.

Ako su u procesu pristupanja EU otvorena poglavlja 23 I 24 koji se odnose ,izmedju ostalog,I na prava na slobodu misljenja a bez posledica po onog koji iznosi misljenje,da li ova prava vaze za leskovacko pravosudje.

Zakoniti zastupnik Odbora za ljudska prava Leskovac,Dobrosav Nesic

ON THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION

During 2013, I had criticized the work of the member of the city government in Leskovac. He sued me. Basic Court in Leskovac did not accept my reasons that I have the right to express criticism according to the Article 46 of the Constitution of Serbia, the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of UN and according to the Convention on Human Rights, the Article 10.

I was declared guilty of the criminal offense of insult described in the Article 170, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law. I had complained to the Higher Court, but the Court confirmed the sentence of the Basic Court. I paid attorney’s fees and court costs to the member of the city government in the amount of approximately 900e.

I filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court of Serbia and I am still anticipating a decision. In the meantime, the member of the city government has filed a claim for non-pecuniary damage based on the convicting verdict, in which he is asking me to pay 150.000 dinars for mental distress due to the violation of honor and reputation.

If the chapters 23 and 24 have been opened during the process of accession to the EU, that are referring to, inter alia, the right to freedom of opinion without consequences for the one who expresses his opinion, do these rights apply to Leskovac judiciary?

Legal representative of the Committee for Human Rights, Leskovac, Dobrosav Nesic.

Novi sajt Odbora / New Site

Nepoznati hakeri su pre nekoliko meseci potpuno unistili sajt Odbora za ljudska prava.Nista nije moglo da se sacuva ,vec smo morali da radimo potpuno novi sajt.
Naravno to je process koji jos uvek traje,i polako,ali sigurno,radimo na izradi novog sajta.
Odbor ima saznanja ko je unistio i obrisao sajt,ali kako nemamo dokaza nismo u mogucnosti da objavimo ime pocinioca.

Zakoniti zastupnik Odbora,
Dobrosav Nesic

Unknown hackers, a few months ago, have completely destroyed the site of the Committee for Human Rights. Nothing could be saved, so we had to make a brand new site.
This is, of course, a process that is still going on and we are working on a development of a new site slowly but surely.
The Committee has the information on the one who destroyed and wiped off the site, but because of the lack of evidence we are not able to publish the name of the perpetrator.

Legal representative of the Committee,
Dobrosav Nesic

20 godina Odbora za ljudska prava / The Twentieth Anniversary of the Committee for Human Rights

Odbor za ljudska prava Leskovac je 13. decembra 2016. godine proslavio 20 godina rada. U tom vremenu pružili smo razne vrste pravne pomoći za preko 50.000 hiljada građana Leskovca i Jablaničkog okruga.
Skromnoj svečanosti u našim prostorijama obeležen je početak rada treće decenije.

Gosti Odbora iz Hong Konga / Guests from Hong Kong

Povodom ovogodišnjeg jubileja, 20. godišnjice osnivanja i rada leskovačkog Odbora za ljudska prava, u poseti Leskovcu i ovoj nevladinoj organizaciji 8 januara boravilo je 45 studenata Svetskog univerziteta iz Hong Konga.

Ova prestižna naučna ustanova, sa kojom leskovački Odbor ima višegodišnju plodnu saradnju, obrazuje kadrove za rad u nevladinom sektoru, u različitim oblastima, od zaštite ljudskih prava, do angažmana na zaštiti čovekove okoline.

Poseta hongkonškog Univerziteta ima svečani karakter, ali su gosti, znajući za uslove rada Odbora i drugih nevladinih organizacija, odnosno najznačajnije probleme građana,poželeli da upoznaju Leskovac i okolinu, odnosno da se detaljnije upoznaju sa društvenim prilikama na jugu Srbije.

U okviru posete, biće razmenjena iskustva, pogotovu na uspostavljanju komunikacije među nevladinim organizacijama, njihovom umrežavanju i preduzimanju zajedničkih akcija koje imaju za cilj postupno rešavanje problema, te poboljšanje odnosa u komunikaciji sa organima lokalne samouprave i države. Svetski univerzitet iz Hong Konga ima u toj oblasti zapažene uspehe i prilazi ovim problemima kroz njihovo uključivanje u naučno – nastavni program.

Do saradnje Odbora i Univerziteta došlo je na insistiranje gostiju, koji su detaljno upoznati sa delatnošću nevladinih organizacija u Srbiji.

Tokom posete studenti iz Hong Konga obiisli su prostorije Odbora I razgovarali sa aktivistima,upoznali grad I njegovu istoriju,I bili primljeni kod zamenika gradonacelnika Leskovca.