PODGORICA, 03.06.2026. – Pobjeda photojournalist Stevo Vasiljević has appealed the ruling of the Basic Court in Berane, which acquitted Danko Femić of charges that, during the unveiling of a monument to Chetnik commander and convicted war criminal Pavle Đurišić in Berane, he committed the criminal offence of coercion against Vasiljević and his colleague from Vijesti, Boris Pejović.
According to the appeal, filed with the Higher Court in Bijelo Polje by Vasiljević’s legal representative, attorney Dušan Lukšić, the challenge is based on substantial violations of criminal procedure, violations of the Criminal Code, and an incorrect and incomplete assessment of the facts.
The appeal argues that the court committed a serious breach of the Criminal Procedure Code by failing to conduct a “conscientious and comprehensive evaluation” of the evidence, instead deliberately and selectively disregarding key evidence in order to acquit the defendant at all costs.
The injured party also contends that the court reduced the criminal offence of coercion solely to the infliction of visible bodily injuries.
“Through this erroneous interpretation, the first-instance court is effectively sending the message that if the injured party is not physically beaten, it is permissible to seize their property, search through their belongings, issue orders and threats – and that such conduct does not constitute a criminal offence. The fact that defendant Femić forcibly snatched and took away the injured party’s expensive cameras from around his neck and from his hands, which he ultimately did not dispute, represents a direct use of physical force rather than a ‘conversation’. As such, all elements of the criminal offence were fulfilled the moment the equipment was taken away,” the appeal states.
According to the filing, the first-instance court based its reasoning on the legally unsustainable theory of “consent and a joint decision about what should be deleted,” portraying an obvious and undisputed act of violence as a “humane and courteous conversation.”
“To arrive at such an absurd conclusion, the court not only distorted the testimony of the injured parties, but also turned a blind eye to contradictions in the defendant’s defence, the statements of defence witnesses, and clear material evidence,” the appeal says.
The appeal further argues that the ruling ignores the fact that defendant Danko Femić, both in his statement before the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office and during the main hearing, provided testimony amounting to an admission of the criminal offence itself, while the court, according to the injured party, “completely disregarded this explicit admission of unlawful conduct and the use of force.”
“The court overlooks the cause-and-effect sequence of events: the alleged ‘courteous conversation’ began only after the defendant had established complete dominance over the injured parties through force, confiscated their primary work tools, and placed them in a position of dependence and justified fear. Any communication that takes place after someone has taken your property and memory cards cannot be considered a ‘free agreement’; it is coerced behaviour by an injured party concerned for their safety and property. The court tendentiously interprets Stevo Vasiljević’s statement that Femić was ‘the most reasonable person’ as evidence of a friendly exchange, while deliberately ignoring the fact that, within the context of an enraged crowd surrounding them, Femić was the only person with whom it was even remotely possible to negotiate the return of expensive equipment and, practically speaking, to get out unharmed,” the appeal states.
The filing also argues that the court accepted without reservation the testimony of defence witnesses, whose statements are described as “a textbook example of calculated, biased and coached testimony aimed at improving the defendant’s position.”
“The court uncritically accepted their claim that the incident occurred on ‘private property,’ despite the fact that the attack itself took place in a public space and that the injured parties were subsequently dragged into private premises. It also accepted the claim that defendant Femić was merely ‘maintaining order,’ without specifying what order was being maintained or from whom it needed protection if everything was supposedly proceeding normally. At the same time, the defence directly pointed to the absence of police officers, thereby introducing the dangerous precedent that private property suspends the application of Montenegro’s Criminal Code,” the appeal states.
It is further claimed that the court completely ignored the key testimony of Vijesti journalist Balša Rudović, who objectively witnessed the incident and confirmed that a group of citizens physically attacked Stevo Vasiljević, dragged him into a tent and struck him.
“The court dismissed this testimony on the banal and legally illiterate grounds that no visible injuries were recorded in the medical report, once again confusing the elements of the criminal offence of coercion with those of minor or serious bodily injury,” the appeal concludes.
T. Radulović