Ribnikar case: written verdict deadline and appeal ahead
After the first-instance verdict against the parents was issued again at Belgrade's Higher Court, a lawyer for the injured parties explains what comes next - the deadline for the written verdict and a possible appeal.
- Belgrade's Higher Court issued a first-instance verdict against the parents in the Ribnikar case: 14 years and 6 months for the father, 2 years and 11 months for the mother.
- The court must prepare the written verdict within 20 to 30 days.
- Once it is delivered, the parties have 15 days to appeal to the Appellate Court in Belgrade.
- This is the second first-instance verdict - the Appellate Court earlier overturned the previous one over procedural irregularities.
The Higher Court in Belgrade has issued a first-instance verdict against the parents of the boy who carried out the mass killing at the Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School on May 3, 2023. Vladimir Kecmanovic was sentenced to 14 years and 6 months in prison for a serious crime against public safety and for the neglect and abuse of a minor, while Miljana Kecmanovic was sentenced to 2 years and 11 months in prison for the neglect and abuse of a minor.
Although the verdict is an important moment for all the affected families, it is not yet final. Guilt established at first instance can be confirmed, modified, or overturned only by a decision of a higher court, and until then the proceedings are not considered concluded. For that reason, public attention now shifts from the courtroom to the procedure that follows.
What exactly comes after the verdict is delivered?
Marko Jankovic, a lawyer for the injured parties, explained that the oral delivery of the verdict is followed by its written drafting. According to him, the Higher Court in Belgrade must prepare the written verdict within 20 to 30 days, and only once that document is delivered to all parties does the deadline for an appeal begin to run.
Jankovic noted that, once the written verdict is delivered, the parties have 15 days to lodge an appeal with the Appellate Court in Belgrade. The right to appeal, he specified, belongs to the prosecution, the defense, and the defendants, while representatives of the injured parties cannot challenge the verdict on their own at this stage. That means the final outcome depends on whether, and which, authorized participants turn to the second-instance court.
These procedural rules are not a formality. The deadlines for the written verdict and for an appeal set the rhythm of the entire process and prevent a decision from becoming final before all parties have a chance to review it. In cases with such grave consequences, consistency in following procedure matters all the more, because any lapse can open the door to a fresh challenge.
Why does it matter that this is the second first-instance verdict?
This is the second first-instance verdict in the case. The Appellate Court in Belgrade earlier overturned the previous first-instance decision over procedural irregularities and returned the case for retrial. That sent the entire process back to the start of the first-instance stage, which also explains why a final outcome is expected only after another round of review.
When the Appellate Court in Belgrade receives any appeals, it may confirm the verdict, modify it, or overturn it again and order a new trial. Each of these outcomes carries different consequences for how long the proceedings last and for the legal certainty of the affected families, who have now been waiting for a final decision into a third year.
For now, only what the law prescribes is certain: first the written verdict, then the deadline for an appeal, then the decision of the second-instance court. Everything beyond that remains a matter of expectation, not fact. In a case that has marked the entire country, is patiently following the procedure the only fair way to wait for a final conclusion?
