In the case conducted against the defendant S.S. from Smederevo before the Basic Court of Nis on the basis of indictment preferred by the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Nis charging him with the qualified form of the offence of Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons specified in Art 350, paragraph 3 in relation to paragraph 2, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year.
The conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal in Nis and the case was remitted to the court of first instance for rehearing. On a new trial, the Basic Public Prosecutor from Nis defined the indictment more precisely charging the defendant S.S. with the commission of the offence of Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons defined in Art 350, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia which at the time of the commission of the offence stipulated punishment of imprisonment from six months to five years and did not rule out the possibility of penalty mitigation.
On a new trial conducted against S.S., the Basic Court of Nis reheard the defendant who, in his new testimony, claimed that while he was returning from Vranje, where he was on business, he accidentally came across a number of persons, who turned out to be illegal migrants, and gave them a lift without knowing who they were. In the course of evidence procedure, the court read the statements of four migrants, citizens of Libya, who all gave the same account of what had happened on their arrival in Macedonia. They said that they had met a man who had helped them to cross the state border between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Serbia illegally for the same amount of money (€300 per each of them) and with whom they had arranged the transport to Subotica. Only one of the four witnesses understood the deal with the person, for whom they claimed was an Albanian from Macedonia, in a different way. He thought that they had to pay for a lift from the Macedonian-Serbian border at the end of the drive, i.e. after arriving in Subotica. All witnesses claimed that the person who had taken them across the Macedonian-Serbian border had phoned someone when they had entered Serbian territory and told them the exact location where they had to wait for a white car (only one of them had to be on the watch while the others had to be hidden) by which they would be taken to Subotica. When the white car turned up after an hour, they got into it (only one witness said that he had recognized the brand of the car – “Volkswagen”).
While establishing relevant facts, the Court took into account the final order of the Magistrates’ Court of Nis which found guilty the four Libyan citizens of crossing the state border between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Serbia without valid travel documents thus committing the offence specified in Art 65, paragraph 1 of the Law on State Border Protection. They were also found guilty of illegal stay on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, According to the Law on Foreigners Art. 85 para 3, so they were sentenced to mandatory fines of 6000 RSD. Each defendant was also sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment.
Having obtained evidence by rehearing the police officials and having had access to the police report on the temporary seizure of objects, the Court refuted the defendant’s proposal to obtain and check up the footage made by surveillance cameras on the highway near Nis wanting to prove that he had been driving along the highway from Smederevo to Vranje on a private matter in the company of a female person. Since the Court considered the presented evidence sufficient and was of the opinion that new evidence would unjustifiably prolong the procedure, the defendant’s proposal was refuted.
Taking a decision on the type and amount of punishment imposed on the defendant S.S., the Court established as mitigating circumstances that the defendant was a family man, father of three underage children and of poor living conditions without regular income. On the other hand, the Court established the existence of aggravating circumstances - the defendant S.S. had been convicted of various offences several times before.
In the case conducted against the defendant S.S. from Smederevo before the Basic Court of Nis on the basis of indictment preferred by the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Nis charging him with the qualified form of the offence of Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons specified in Art 350, paragraph 3 in relation to paragraph 2, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year.
The conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal in Nis and the case was remitted to the court of first instance for rehearing. On a new trial, the Basic Public Prosecutor from Nis defined the indictment more precisely charging the defendant S.S. with the commission of the offence of Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons defined in Art 350, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia which at the time of the commission of the offence stipulated punishment of imprisonment from six months to five years and did not rule out the possibility of penalty mitigation.
On a new trial conducted against S.S., the Basic Court of Nis reheard the defendant who, in his new testimony, claimed that while he was returning from Vranje, where he was on business, he accidentally came across a number of persons, who turned out to be illegal migrants, and gave them a lift without knowing who they were. In the course of evidence procedure, the court read the statements of four migrants, citizens of Libya, who all gave the same account of what had happened on their arrival in Macedonia. They said that they had met a man who had helped them to cross the state border between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Serbia illegally for the same amount of money (€300 per each of them) and with whom they had arranged the transport to Subotica. Only one of the four witnesses understood the deal with the person, for whom they claimed was an Albanian from Macedonia, in a different way. He thought that they had to pay for a lift from the Macedonian-Serbian border at the end of the drive, i.e. after arriving in Subotica. All witnesses claimed that the person who had taken them across the Macedonian-Serbian border had phoned someone when they had entered Serbian territory and told them the exact location where they had to wait for a white car (only one of them had to be on the watch while the others had to be hidden) by which they would be taken to Subotica. When the white car turned up after an hour, they got into it (only one witness said that he had recognized the brand of the car – “Volkswagen”).
While establishing relevant facts, the Court took into account the final order of the Magistrates’ Court of Nis which found guilty the four Libyan citizens of crossing the state border between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Serbia without valid travel documents thus committing the offence specified in Art 65, paragraph 1 of the Law on State Border Protection. They were also found guilty of illegal stay on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, According to the Law on Foreigners Art. 85 para 3, so they were sentenced to mandatory fines of 6000 RSD. Each defendant was also sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment.
Having obtained evidence by rehearing the police officials and having had access to the police report on the temporary seizure of objects, the Court refuted the defendant’s proposal to obtain and check up the footage made by surveillance cameras on the highway near Nis wanting to prove that he had been driving along the highway from Smederevo to Vranje on a private matter in the company of a female person. Since the Court considered the presented evidence sufficient and was of the opinion that new evidence would unjustifiably prolong the procedure, the defendant’s proposal was refuted.
Taking a decision on the type and amount of punishment imposed on the defendant S.S., the Court established as mitigating circumstances that the defendant was a family man, father of three underage children and of poor living conditions without regular income. On the other hand, the Court established the existence of aggravating circumstances - the defendant S.S. had been convicted of various offences several times before.