Special evidentiary actions such as interception and recording of communications conducted by telephone (Covert Interception of Communications), coverts surveillance, bank transaction reports, etc. played a crucial role in the establishment of the facts. There were thereby links to members operating within this organized criminal group and their specific roles were ascertained.

Elaborating the analysis of the evidences, the court showed in a sufficiently clear and transparent manner the link between evidences produced and its reasoning when evaluated the evidences. For example, on the basis of audio records of the intercepted communication between the defendant and other members of organized criminal group, the court upheld the defendant’s confession in regard to how the act of the offence was committed. Furthermore, the court found that the act of offence of the accused, according to his confession, can be confirmed, inter alia, from: findings of the dactylopic fingertips identification which showed that defendants fingertips were in the vehicle in which migrants were transported; from testimonies of smuggled migrants and from judgments of misdemeanour courts, in which smuggled migrants were declared guilty for illegal entry into the Serbian territory, according to Law on Foreigners of the Republic of Serbia.

It is important to note that the court, contrary to defendant’s claims, had undoubtable determination that defendant participated in organized criminal group on the basis of the evidences produced in the proceedings. Thus, the court had determined this circumstance from number of evidences produced during public hearing, but mostly from defence of, now convicted, other members of organized criminal group and from the content, amount and intensity of mutual telephone communication. Further, the defendant allegations that he was not familiar with the entire plan of operation and was not in direct contact with all other members of organized criminal group, the court regarded as proof that all members had certain roles in previously arranged plan of illegal transit of foreign citizens and that they undoubtedly had to be aware that the transit and the crossing of the state border could be carried out only if each of them undertake certain actions in order to achieve final goal.

When deciding on the type and duration/amount of imposed punishment the court did not further elaborate, nor did it reflect in it’s reasoning on the conditions in which a group of 45 and 55 illegal migrants was smuggled. Namely, on August 31, and October 12, 2014 the accused S.R. had picked up and drove a group of 45 and then 55 migrants, in the same van that, in regard to capacities, is not determined to carry that many passengers. However, the court had considered other aggravating (previous conviction) and mitigating (his sincere and correct his behaviour during the hearing) circumstances when deciding on the type of punishment, and most interesting, it noted that for this type of offence (illegal crossing of the state border and smuggling of migrants committed by organized criminal group) the prescribed incrimination is imprisonment in duration between 3 to 12 years, and thus its minimum penalty may not be mitigated.