Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade filed an appeal against verdict in the Kecmanović case

The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade has again proposed the imposition of the maximum sentences prescribed by the Criminal Code for the criminal offenses with which the defendants are charged.

The prosecution maintains that there are no mitigating circumstances on the part of the defendants, particularly taking into account that their minor son, on May 3, 2023, killed 10 people, nine of whom were minors, and seriously injured six people, five of whom were minors. The prosecution stated that this was an appalling tragedy and that nothing can compensate for the loss suffered by the victims’ families.

In its appeal, the prosecution requested that the Court of Appeal in Belgrade amend the first-instance verdict of June 18 by first sentencing Vladimir K. to 12 years in prison for the criminal offense of causing serious danger to public safety, and to three years in prison for the criminal offense of neglect and abuse of a minor, after which he would be sentenced to a single prison term of 14 years and 11 months. It also requested that Miljana K. be sentenced to three years in prison for the criminal offense of neglect and abuse of a minor.

According to the prosecution’s position, the court correctly and fully established the facts, finding that the actions of Vladimir K. and Miljana K. contained the essential subjective and objective elements of the criminal offenses charged in the indictment of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade. Based on all evidence presented, their guilt was established beyond doubt, while no violations of criminal procedure or criminal law provisions occurred during the proceedings.

However, considering all circumstances and the specific nature of the criminal event, the facts affecting the severity of the sentence, as well as the rules for determining sentences for multiple offenses committed by Vladimir K., the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office believes that the court made an incorrect decision regarding the severity of the criminal sanctions imposed, because the sentences were not properly determined in accordance with general sentencing rules.

The first-instance court had previously determined individual sentences for Vladimir K.: 11 years and 11 months in prison for the offense of causing serious danger to public safety, and two years and 11 months for neglect and abuse of a minor. It then imposed a single sentence of 14 years and six months in prison, with time spent in detention to be credited.

Miljana K. was sentenced to two years and 11 months in prison for neglect and abuse of a minor.

However, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade considers that these criminal sanctions were not properly determined and that they will not fully achieve the purpose of criminal sanctions and punishment.

Regarding Vladimir K., the prosecution argues that, when determining individual sentences, the court should have imposed prison terms corresponding to the statutory maximums for the offenses charged, given that all circumstances of the case and the defendant’s personality justified such an approach, regardless of the facts the court considered mitigating.

The court correctly considered the severity of the threat and violation of the protected legal interest as an aggravating circumstance, noting that it concerned an appalling tragedy. However, despite this, the court deviated when determining the single sentence from the principles and criteria it applied when setting the individual sentences, because the final sentence was below the statutory maximum range applicable to multiple offenses committed together.

The prosecution stated that this kind of reduction in the final assessment of the sentence was illogical from both a criminal-law and criminal-policy perspective, since the diversity and number of unlawful acts committed by the defendant, when viewed together and in connection with one another, represent a greater degree of unlawfulness and social danger than when considered individually.

The prosecution therefore believes that the incorrect sentencing decision resulted from the court’s failure to fully assess the significance and seriousness of the criminal offenses in their mutual relationship, rather than only individually. It also argues that the court unjustifiably treated certain facts as “mitigating circumstances” even though they should not be considered such in this criminal proceeding.

Among other things, the court took into account that Vladimir K. was a doctor and the father of two minor children, while, according to the prosecution, it overlooked that he had referred to his son as a “psychopath,” psychologically neglected him, took him to a shooting range, trained him to handle firearms, and kept what was effectively an arsenal of weapons in the family apartment, where he lived with his wife and two minor children. The prosecution states that these circumstances contributed to the tragedy of May 3, 2023, enabling his minor son to kill his classmates.

The prosecution pointed out to the appellate court that the facts concerning Vladimir K.’s defense, his conduct throughout the proceedings, and his attitude toward the participants in the criminal procedure, especially the victims’ families, clearly indicate that there is no circumstance on his side that should be considered mitigating when determining the sentence. At the same time, the aggravating circumstances, according to the prosecution, are fully present.

The prosecution further stated that the defendant’s conduct after the crimes and his attitude toward the victims remained unchanged during the retrial, with an absolute lack of remorse for the actions he took and the actions he failed to take, which resulted in such severe consequences — consequences that, according to the prosecution, appear to be disputed by the defendant himself.