Prosecutor Romina Vlahović, in her closing arguments before the Basic Court in Podgorica yesterday, requested a year and a half prison sentence for Zoran Bećirović, his son Luka, and Mladen Mijatović, accussed for the assault on Pobjeda journalist Ana Raičković and members of her family on November 10 last year in front of the fast food restaurant “Gurman” in Podgorica.
According to Pobjeda, she requested a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for the accused Ljubiša Dukić, due to the fact that he is a repeat offender.
However, Raičković and her legal representative, attorney Miloš Vuksanović, asked the court to acquit Dukić, stating that he behaved “like a true man and prevented a worse outcome than what actually happened.”
On the other hand, attorney Vuksanović called for a conviction against the Bećirovićs and Mijatović, without specifying the length of the sentence, but emphasized that individuals with power and influence in society should be punished more severely to fulfill the purpose of penalizing.
Defense attorneys Danilo Mićović and Marta Šćepanović argued that all defendants should be acquitted, claiming that the contradictory, inconsistent, and untruthful statements from the injured party’s witnesses could not serve as a basis for a lawful verdict in this criminal matter.
Judge Ilija Radulović scheduled the verdict for April 24.
Dukić’s Role
Prosecutor Vlahović maintained the revised factual description and legal qualification of the charges, stating that the material and personal evidence presented proved that the accused committed the crimes for which they were charged.
She reminded the court that the accused—Zoran and Luka Bećirović, Mijatović, and Dukić—denied the charges, claiming they didn’t know that Raičković was a journalist and didn’t physically assault her, her son Uroš Gagović, or her fiancé Tomo Arapović. Vlahović described this defense as illogical, contradictory, deliberately crafted to evade criminal responsibility, and inconsistent with the material evidence.
Attorney Vuksanović argued that both he and Raičković believe that Dukić’s role was not as portrayed in the indictment and that he did not commit the crime he is charged with.
“We do not wish to add or take away anything from anyone. Despite the injured party’s statements, what’s important for clarifying this legal matter is that had it not been for Ljubo Dukić and the testimony of the injured parties, the consequences of this event would likely have been much more severe. The part of the video where the accused are seen attacking Ana Raičković next to a car is reminiscent of the infamous beating of Mijo Martinović, where not only he but his car and everything else in the vicinity suffered. We do not have the right to drop charges against Dukić, but this is our opinion of his role, which was humane and commendable. In fact, Dukić acted like a real man,” Vuksanović explained.
He said he did not believe the statements of the other accused, nor their narrative that they approached Raičković “in a manner typical of how men address women.”
“Fortunately, there is a video that Ana Raičković recorded once the situation escalated—about ten minutes after the conflict started—which captures the continuation of the brutal insults she endured that night,” Vuksanović said.
Witness Testimonies
Commenting on the witness testimonies, Vuksanović said they could fall under a form of criminal liability.
“Not because they lied, but because they concealed what they saw. And we proved that by presenting a video showing witness Milivoje Purić, who didn’t want to appear in court—I don’t know whether out of fear or because he didn’t receive a summons. I believe he should have been heard, although I think the case can be resolved without his testimony.”
He added that it’s telling that Purić appears in the video and clearly sees what is happening outside the venue, yet in his statement to the prosecutor, he claimed he wasn’t there, that he wasn’t outside, and that he saw nothing.
“It seems that other witnesses behaved similarly,” Vuksanović noted.
He concluded that while the prosecution wasn’t harmed by this behavior, the court was deprived of valuable information necessary to assess the credibility of the defense—except in Dukić’s case.
He also stressed that, had Raičković not recorded the video that evening, the court would have lacked crucial evidence of the insults she endured.
“That’s why witness testimony in this case should be taken with caution and cross-referenced with video footage. Without it, everything might have remained unclear—particularly the actions and words of Bećirović towards a respectable lady, despite how he and the others tried to portray her in court.”
Vuksanović reminded the court of testimonies from staff at the restaurant who said Raičković was a model guest and had only come that night to order food.
“She wasn’t able to do that simply because she had likely written something that didn’t sit well with Bećirović. That’s undisputed—she was attacked because she’s a journalist. Maybe not while performing her duties at that exact moment, but certainly because of what she had written,” said Vuksanović.
Not the First Incident Involving Bećirović
He pointed out that this was not the first time Zoran Bećirović had been involved in such an incident and that other criminal proceedings had stemmed from his confrontations with journalists.
Referring to a psychiatric report, he mentioned a noted affective state in Luka Bećirović, which he believed was self-induced with a low level of blood alcohol.
“I don’t know why it was necessary to conduct psychiatric evaluations on the others. It’s unclear how the affective state resulting from Mijatović being struck transferred to Ana Raičković, her car, and her physical and mental well-being. I consider the psychiatric finding irrelevant for determining guilt or for mitigating circumstances.”
Regarding the sentence, Vuksanović didn’t specify a term but suggested it should be harsher than typical violence cases.
“If wealthier and more powerful individuals are given higher financial penalties, then they should also receive harsher prison sentences—especially in cases like this one involving individuals with clear status and influence,” said Vuksanović, proposing that all the accused except Dukić be found guilty.
Raičković supported his stance, after which defense attorney Danilo Mićović said he wouldn’t comment on why Raičković made a gesture of leniency toward Dukić in agreement with her lawyer.
“Nonetheless, I’m obliged to thank her and to remind everyone that from the beginning we saw no reasonable grounds to suspect Dukić committed the alleged crime,” Mićović said.
In his closing statement, Mićović accused Raičković of illegally filming his clients the night of the attack and denied that anyone physically assaulted, dragged, or pulled her hair.
He repeated that Mijatović was actually the victim of violence that night—perpetrated by Raičković’s son, Uroš Gagović.
“The aim here is to absolve Gagović of any criminal responsibility,” Mićović claimed, also denying that Raičković suffered injuries.
Mićović stated that Gagović was the only one who committed violence that night, supposedly incited by Raičković and aided by Arapović.
“Gagović arrived at ‘Gurman’ armed with a telescopic baton, which is visible in the video evidence,” he said.
He argued that the events were unfortunate circumstances and unrelated to Raičković’s profession.
Defense lawyer Marta Šćepanović stated that the prosecution “planted” the indictment before the court.
“First of all, the prosecution submits indictments—it does not plant them… Remarks suggesting that someone dictates how I act—I will not tolerate,” Judge Radulović interrupted.
Defendant Zoran Bećirović said he would deliver his defense “even though already convicted outside the courtroom,” claiming he was doing so “to warn future generations.”
He accused Raičković of breaking the law from her first appearance before the prosecutor.
“She said it’s possible Mijatović broke her windshield with a gun… Someone told her Mijatović had a gun, but she wouldn’t say who,” Bećirović claimed before being interrupted by the judge.
“This trial is not about Ana. Stick to the charges against you,” Radulović responded.
Defense attorney Mićović reacted strongly:
“Zoran, you can talk until tomorrow,” he told Bećirović.
“The Criminal Procedure Code does not allow final statements to continue until tomorrow,” the judge replied.
Defendants Mijatović, Luka Bećirović, and Dukić maintained their final defense statements.
Bećirović on Journalism
Zoran Bećirović claimed Raičković provoked them.
“It’s true I told her to ‘scram’ to get her away from me,” he said.
He also declared himself “a member of the media” and explained what he believed to be the core principles of journalism.
“A journalist must deal in truth and be independent… The question is whether Raičković is a journalist at all, and whether she is fit for the profession given her background,” Bećirović said.
He added that someone who lacks sufficient education can’t be a journalist.
“We learned during the trial that Ana is a retail technician. Compared to her, her colleagues at Voli contribute more to society. Raičković is using this incident for self-promotion,” he said.
He claimed to be a competitor to Montenegrin media.
“I am a competitor to media in Montenegro, especially the outlet Raičković works for. She doesn’t respect Montenegrin laws—how can she respect the principles of journalism? I, a law graduate, and my son, a mining engineer, are witnesses to the brutal attack on Mladen Mijatović, orchestrated by retail technician Ana Raičković and her boxer son Uroš Gagović,” Bećirović concluded.
Source: Pobjeda