Kriv in nedolžen - analiza sodnega primera M. N. : magistrsko delo

Zelić, Adriana

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Kriv in nedolžen - analiza sodnega primera M. N. : magistrsko delo
Authors:	ID Zelić, Adriana (Author) ID Flander, Benjamin (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Zelic_Adriana_2022.pdf (1,34 MB) MD5: 35346547E064804C0D9AC765E0B22460 PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/0ac5efd2-c8f7-438c-8296-fbb905106b84
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	FVV - Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security
Abstract:	Predmetna kazenska zadeva zoper dr. M. N. je zagotovo eden najodmevnejših primerov v Sloveniji do sedaj. Umorjen je bil direktor enega izmed ljubljanskih inštitutov v prednovoletnem času. Obtoženega je preganjalo Specializirano državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije, čeprav je šlo zgolj za enega samega obtoženega v zadevi. Skozi instančno sojenje se je ugotavljala krivda oziroma nedolžnost dr. M. N. Sodišče je na prvi stopnji izreklo obsodilno sodbo. Tako obtoženi, kot tudi njegova obramba, sta med potekom kazenskega postopka zatrjevala, da je preganjana napačna oseba ter da je potrebno pravega storilca še odkriti. Višje sodišče v Ljubljani je obsodilni sodbi pritrdilo, a je nato Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije sodbi sodišča prve in druge stopnje razveljavilo ter zadevo vrnilo v ponovno sojenje. Istočasno z navedeno odločitvijo Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije je pričel teči dveletni zastaralni rok. Na drugem sojenju na prvi stopnji je sodišče ugotovilo, da obtoženi ni kriv storitve očitanega mu kaznivega dejanja in celo v sodbi nakazovalo na izvršitev umora oškodovanca s strani tretjih oseb, izjave predsednika senata pa so sprožile burne razprave v medijih, kot tudi oster odziv slovenskega pravosodja. Višje sodišče je nato oprostilno sodbo razveljavilo in ugodilo predlogu tožilstva za izločitev predsednika senata, s tem pa se je pričelo tretje sojenje na prvi stopnji. Tudi na tem sojenju je bila tik pred zastaranjem kazenskega pregona zoper dr. M. N. izrečena oprostilna sodba. Tožilstvo in pooblaščenec oškodovanke sta se na odločitev prvostopenjskega sodišča pritožila, vendar pa je Višje sodišče v Ljubljani s sodbo ugotovilo, da je kazenski pregon zoper obtoženega zastaral. Analiza sodnega primera dr. M. N. je pokazala, da je tekom postopka moč zaznati več kršitev pravic obtoženemu. Mogoče pa je tudi razbrati prizadevanje državnega tožilstva, da se pravici vendarle zadosti, še zlasti ob upoštevanju odločitve Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije.
Keywords:	kazensko pravosodje, sodbe, domneva nedolžnosti, analiza primera, magistrska dela
Place of publishing:	Ljubljana
Place of performance:	Ljubljana
Publisher:	[A. Zelić]
Year of publishing:	2022
Year of performance:	2022
Number of pages:	VIII f., 67 str.
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-81876
UDC:	343(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	116285699
Publication date in DKUM:	22.07.2022
Views:	1001
Downloads:	91
Metadata:
Categories:	FVV
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:	CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Link:	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:	The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:	13.06.2022

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Guilty and innocent – analysis of court proceeding in the case of M. N.
Abstract:	The presented criminal case against Dr. M.N. is undoubtedly one of the most high-profile cases in Slovenia to date. The director of one of Ljubljana’s institutes was murdered during the Christmas holiday season. The defendant was prosecuted by the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Slovenia, even though there was only one accused person involved in the case. During the Court of First Instance proceedings, the court was to determine if Dr. M.N. was guilty or innocent. The Court of First Instance delivered a judgement of conviction. Both the defendant and his defence claimed, in the course of the criminal proceedings, that the wrong person was being prosecuted and that the actual perpetrator was yet to be found. The Higher Court of Ljubljana affirmed the judgement of conviction, but the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia then reversed the judgements delivered by the First and Second Instance Courts and referred the case back for retrial. Concurrently with the decision made by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, a two-year period of limitation began. During the second first instance trial, the court found the defendant not guilty of perpetrating the alleged criminal act and even implied, in its judgement, a murder of the aggrieved party by third persons. Statements made by the President of the Chamber provoked heated debates in the media as well as a sharp response from the Ministry of Justice. The Higher Court subsequently vacated the judgement of acquittal and acceded to the Prosecutor’s Office proposal to disqualify the President of the Chamber, which initiated a third first instance trial. During this trial also, the court delivered the judgement of acquittal just prior to the end of the period of limitation for the criminal case against Dr. M.N. The Prosecutor’s Office and the aggrieved party’s legal representative appealed against the decision of the Court of First Instance, but the Higher Court of Ljubljana issued the decision that the criminal prosecution of the defendant fell under the statute of limitation. The analysis of Dr. M.N.’s criminal case indicated multiple acts of violation of the defendant’s rights during the court proceedings, and on the other hand, efforts made by the State Prosecutor’s Office to see that justice is served after all, especially when considering the decision made by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia.

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back