The Constitutional Court's decision states that the Supreme Court's position would lead to a situation where no court would substantively examine the legality and justification of detention. Ljubo Bigović, Saši Boreti, Ljubo Vujadinović i Milan Šćekić.
The Constitutional Court annulled the Supreme Court's decision and returned the case to that court for a new trial and decision.
On September 3, 2025, after the conviction, the Court of Appeal extended the detention of the four defendants, with the legal instruction that they have the right to appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court.
"The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the appeals as inadmissible, reasoning that the Court of Appeal, as a second-instance court, was not authorized to extend detention, but only to order or terminate it after the High Court's judgment was reversed. The court assessed that the detention of the accused after the High Court's judgment in 2012 had already lasted until the judgment became final, that is, until the sentences expired, so the Court of Appeal could not issue a new decision on detention. For the Supreme Court, the fact that the Court of Appeal gave an incorrect legal advice cannot constitute a right to appeal," the Constitutional Court said in a statement.
The Constitutional Court did not accept the Supreme Court's argument about the uninterrupted continuity of detention, bearing in mind that in the meantime the final judgments had been revoked, but also the obvious simultaneous existence of two decisions on the extension of detention, by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Court considers that the Supreme Court failed to examine whether all the circumstances for further extension of detention were actually met at the time of the Court of Appeal's decision, given the fact that the law did not foresee this situation, i.e. that there is a legal gap.
"This is especially true given the fact that this is a case in which the Constitutional Court has already twice found a violation due to the long duration of detention, as has the European Court of Human Rights, and that the defendants Saša Boreta, Ljubo Vujadinović and Ljubo Bigović have been in detention continuously for 20 years, and Milan Šćekić for 15 years," the Constitutional Court's decision states.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the Supreme Court, by rejecting the appeals as inadmissible, had in fact accepted and legitimized the ambiguity regarding the court that extended the detention, and had shifted the burden of that ambiguity onto the defendants.
"The Supreme Court is obliged to ensure real and effective judicial control of the legality of detention in the retrial, by removing ambiguity with its decision and clear interpretation and ensuring effective review of the legality of the deprivation of liberty and the continued duration of detention," the Constitutional Court concluded.
