Dear all:
This is to inform you that the judge for the Court for Infractions in Podgorica, Maja Rakocevic, refused our request for restitution, which I submitted in the matter of the €6000 fine imposed in abstention on Vanja Calovic. The fine was in contravention of her right to be informed of the charges against her and the right to defend oneself.
The new ruling by Judge Rakocevic, demonstrates that she is insistent upon punishing Calovic on the basis of the statements provide by a single police officer whom she didn’t even pose a single question to. An example of such a manner of imposing fines is difficult to find even during the Inquisition, when the accused were also denied the right to defend themselves, though the punishment was handed out on the basis of statements provided by at least two witnesses.
Furthermore, by refusing our request for restitution, Judge Rakocevic also demonstrated an extreme lack of knowledge and readiness to justify her illegitimate rulings with obvious untruths. Therefore, in her ruling she ‘explains’ that the trial was not scheduled for 07.11.2012, as specified in the order that she adopted, but on 26.11.2012, as specified in the summons supplied by the Police Directorate. Thus, according to Judge Rakocevic, the trial was scheduled by the courier who brought the summons to the police, not the date specified – as required by law. Furthermore, four months later, Judge Rakocevic states that the discrepancy was a result of “a technical error while typing.” In this way Judge Rakocevic is attempting to hide her illegal work and the fact that the trial was initially scheduled for 07.11.2012, the same day that the courier ostensibly left an invitation before Vanja Calovic’s apartment door.
However, the main problem of Judge Rakocevic, is that we examined and copied the lists, so the “technical error” now cannot be corrected. Judge Rakocevic should in her ‘rationale’ give more convincing responses than referring to a ‘technical error in typing.’ Until then, we will consider that the key error is not a technical one, but a substantive and material error: the fact that there are judges that are ready to set punishments in the manner outlined above without offering the accused any right to representation and defence, and when mistakes are uncovered they justify them as “technical errors.”
We expect that the Council for Infractions will consider the legal implications of Judge Rakocevic’s “errors,” and we are convinced that her decisions will have to be ruled illegitimate and that it is only a matter of which Court will have to rule in this manner.
At the same time I would like to inform you that at the request of the Police Directorate another matter has been initiated against Vanja Calovic, this time relating to a MANS performance in which she is alleged to have “obstructed and belittled” a police officer when she hugged and kissed him. However, in contrast to Judge Rakoceivc, the judge in this case properly summoned Calovic and informed her about the accusations so that she could properly use her rights to defence.
In the end, given the fact that the police isn’t concerned with fighting crime – not to mention numerous examples of corruption and abuse within the ruling party and the executive branch of government – and that a significant part of the repressive apparatus of the police is directed towards frightening critics who dare “obstruct and belittle” police officers by hugging them, it is of the utmost importance to secure respect for the basic rights to defence and to be informed of the charges against one’s person regardless of how ridiculous the charges may sound.
