Sapic Not Detained: Prosecutors on Micic Injuries
Belgrade's Third Basic Public Prosecutor's Office says it had no information about serious bodily injuries to councilwoman Tatjana Micic when it questioned the mayor.
The Third Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade said on November 12 that it did not order the detention of Belgrade Mayor Aleksandar Sapic because, when he was questioned, it had no information about serious bodily injuries to Kreni-Promeni councilwoman Tatjana Micic. The incident took place on September 28 in Bezanijska Kosa.
The statement came on the same day Kreni-Promeni told the public that a court expert hired by the prosecutors had confirmed that Sapic inflicted serious bodily injuries on Micic. The prosecutors neither confirmed nor disputed that claim in their statement, and they did not disclose the result of the expert examination.
What did prosecutors know when Sapic was questioned?
According to the statement, Sapic was questioned four days after the incident, and Micic, the injured party, was questioned the same day. During the four hours he spent at the police station, the prosecutors, working through police officers who were gathering documentation from the Emergency Center, had information only about light bodily injuries, not serious ones. The office explains its decision not to order detention as follows:
“According to the information available at the time, there was no injury caused by a means that would point to prosecution ex officio. For that reason, detention was not ordered. Had the prosecutor’s office then had information about serious bodily injuries, the decision would have been different.”
The prosecutors also say why the information about Micic’s injuries was not available at that moment. She was examined only the following day, at a time shortly before the protest in front of the office:
“The injured party was examined the next day around noon, two hours before the scheduled protest in front of this prosecutor’s office, so the data from that examination were not available when the initial decision was made. Medical documentation was obtained and an expert examination of the injuries was carried out.”
What happens next in the case?
The prosecutors say two more witnesses are still to be questioned, along with the injured party I. M. in the capacity of a witness, after which a decision will be made in accordance with the law. The statement does not explain who I. M. is or what role he has in the case.
In the same statement, the prosecutors also addressed criticism of how they have handled the case:
“The prosecutor’s office always informs the public accurately, in line with the facts at its disposal at the time of the announcement. The prosecutor’s office has never ordered detention under any kind of pressure, nor will it do so, and will make decisions solely on the basis of the law and the available evidence. The work of public prosecutors is subject to legal oversight, and anyone has the right to file a complaint if they believe the law was not followed.”
What did each side claim earlier?
Kreni-Promeni also said in its statement that the prosecutors gave inaccurate information about the councilwoman’s injuries right after the incident, despite the medical documentation from the Emergency Center. In today’s statement the prosecutors answer that claim by explaining the order of the examination and the questioning, and do not dispute it directly.
Sapic has previously denied striking the councilwoman and said he pushed her away in self-defense after a clash with her husband. The movement’s leader, Savo Manojlovic, has claimed that Micic’s nose was broken. Until the prosecutors decide, which depends on the remaining testimony and the expert findings, the public has only these competing claims and the prosecutors’ statement.
