After the main public hearing in chambers, the Basic Court in Subotica ruled and publicly announced the sentence by which the defendants, the citizens of Afghanistan who had regulated their status – A.A.J. (who had an ID card for foreigners 77/2014 issued by the Police Department of Novi Sad), P.S. (who had and ID card for foreigners issued by the Police Department of Novi Sad; the final order stated the number of the ID card which was identical to the one from the ID card of the accused A.A.J. without specifying that it was an ID card for foreigners) and A.S. (for whom there was no information as regards his status in the Republic of Serbia) were sentenced to imprisonment of five months and expulsion from the country for a period of five years.
Although the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred indictment against three defendants for the commission of the offence Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons as per Art 350, paragraph 3 in relation to paragraph 2 (for which the stipulated punishment at the time of its commission was imprisonment ranging from one to ten years without the possibility of penalty mitigation) and for the qualification of which they could have taken into account that it was committed by a group, i.e. that they smuggled a large number of persons (seven), it changed the indictment later and charged the defendants with the commission of the form of the offence Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons defined in Art 350, paragraph 2 for which the stipulated punishment is imprisonment ranging from six months to five years with the possibility for mitigation of penalty stipulated in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia.
The procedure ended five months after the commission of the offence, i.e. the apprehension of the accused. In the course of the procedure, the defendants were in custody from the time of their arrest 4 p.m. on 30 May 2016 until the Court ruled differently, as stated in the final order. Since the Basic Public Prosecutor who prosecuted the case, the defendants and their counsels stated after the Court’s ruling that they waived their right to an appeal and since they did not request a judgment rendered in writing, the final order did not contain rationale pursuant to Art 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia.
Since all three defendants were foreign citizens with the place of residence in Afghanistan, it could be assumed, although it was not stated in the final order, that while ruling a judgment (voted by the panel so precisely that all parties in the case were satisfied), the prison term pronounced to all three defendants was identical serving as the measure for amount of punishment. In other words, having been released after the ruling of the final order since the time spent in custody was credited to the prison term (which was not stated in the judgment) they were sentenced to, the defendants were expelled from the country.
The defendants, were also sentenced to expulsion from the country as per Art 88, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia specifying that the period of expulsion commences on the day the decision becomes effective, and the time spent in prison shall not be credited to the term of this measure. However, in the verdict there are no reasons for the court to reach this specific decision, nor the court took into consideration the time and gravity of a committed offence, motives for committing of the offence, manner of commission and other circumstances for declaring the foreigner a persona non grata in Serbia. Additionally, since the Criminal Code prescribes that the measure of expulsion of a foreigner from the country referred shall not be ordered against an offender enjoying protection pursuant to the ratified international treaties, the court is obligate also to address the personal circumstances of defendant and especially application of the principle of non-refoulement.
Hungary
After the main public hearing in chambers, the Basic Court in Subotica ruled and publicly announced the sentence by which the defendants, the citizens of Afghanistan who had regulated their status – A.A.J. (who had an ID card for foreigners 77/2014 issued by the Police Department of Novi Sad), P.S. (who had and ID card for foreigners issued by the Police Department of Novi Sad; the final order stated the number of the ID card which was identical to the one from the ID card of the accused A.A.J. without specifying that it was an ID card for foreigners) and A.S. (for whom there was no information as regards his status in the Republic of Serbia) were sentenced to imprisonment of five months and expulsion from the country for a period of five years.
Although the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred indictment against three defendants for the commission of the offence Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons as per Art 350, paragraph 3 in relation to paragraph 2 (for which the stipulated punishment at the time of its commission was imprisonment ranging from one to ten years without the possibility of penalty mitigation) and for the qualification of which they could have taken into account that it was committed by a group, i.e. that they smuggled a large number of persons (seven), it changed the indictment later and charged the defendants with the commission of the form of the offence Illegal Crossing of State Border and Smuggling of Persons defined in Art 350, paragraph 2 for which the stipulated punishment is imprisonment ranging from six months to five years with the possibility for mitigation of penalty stipulated in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia.
The procedure ended five months after the commission of the offence, i.e. the apprehension of the accused. In the course of the procedure, the defendants were in custody from the time of their arrest 4 p.m. on 30 May 2016 until the Court ruled differently, as stated in the final order. Since the Basic Public Prosecutor who prosecuted the case, the defendants and their counsels stated after the Court’s ruling that they waived their right to an appeal and since they did not request a judgment rendered in writing, the final order did not contain rationale pursuant to Art 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia.
Since all three defendants were foreign citizens with the place of residence in Afghanistan, it could be assumed, although it was not stated in the final order, that while ruling a judgment (voted by the panel so precisely that all parties in the case were satisfied), the prison term pronounced to all three defendants was identical serving as the measure for amount of punishment. In other words, having been released after the ruling of the final order since the time spent in custody was credited to the prison term (which was not stated in the judgment) they were sentenced to, the defendants were expelled from the country.
The defendants, were also sentenced to expulsion from the country as per Art 88, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia specifying that the period of expulsion commences on the day the decision becomes effective, and the time spent in prison shall not be credited to the term of this measure. However, in the verdict there are no reasons for the court to reach this specific decision, nor the court took into consideration the time and gravity of a committed offence, motives for committing of the offence, manner of commission and other circumstances for declaring the foreigner a persona non grata in Serbia. Additionally, since the Criminal Code prescribes that the measure of expulsion of a foreigner from the country referred shall not be ordered against an offender enjoying protection pursuant to the ratified international treaties, the court is obligate also to address the personal circumstances of defendant and especially application of the principle of non-refoulement.