ZAGREB, Dec 15 (Hina) - Croatian Supreme Court president Marijan Ramuscak on Friday dismissed claims in an article in the latest issue of the Globus weekly saying the same members of the Supreme Court Trial Chamber, who in 1997
acquitted Antun Gudelj in the case of the July 1991 murder of the Osijek police superintendent Josip Reihl-Kir and two other persons, have adopted the decision on quashing the acquittal ruling. The article, headlined "Scandal at Supreme Court", reads that judges with the Supreme Court's Penal Department Katica Jelic, Senka Klaric-Baranovic and Ana Garacic - who in May 1997 applied the Amnesty Law and annulled a verdict by the Osijek County Court sentencing Gudelj to 20 years in prison, "ten days ago voted for the quashing of the decision on Gudelj's release with an easy mind." Claims made in the article are false because the decision on the request for the protection of lawfulnes
ZAGREB, Dec 15 (Hina) - Croatian Supreme Court president Marijan
Ramuscak on Friday dismissed claims in an article in the latest
issue of the Globus weekly saying the same members of the Supreme
Court Trial Chamber, who in 1997 acquitted Antun Gudelj in the case
of the July 1991 murder of the Osijek police superintendent Josip
Reihl-Kir and two other persons, have adopted the decision on
quashing the acquittal ruling.
The article, headlined "Scandal at Supreme Court", reads that
judges with the Supreme Court's Penal Department Katica Jelic,
Senka Klaric-Baranovic and Ana Garacic - who in May 1997 applied the
Amnesty Law and annulled a verdict by the Osijek County Court
sentencing Gudelj to 20 years in prison, "ten days ago voted for the
quashing of the decision on Gudelj's release with an easy mind."
Claims made in the article are false because the decision on the
request for the protection of lawfulness was not made only by judges
who participated in the adoption of the contested ruling but by all
judges with the Penal Department, Ramuscak says.
Citing the Law on Courts, Ramuscak reminds that decisions about the
extraordinary legal remedy - request for the protection of
lawfulness - against decisions by the Supreme Court Council are
made by a session of the Supreme Court Penal Department which
includes all judges of that department.
The Criminal Procedure Act, which was applied in this case, does not
envisage the exemption of judges who participated in the adoption
of the contested decision, Ramuscak said.
(hina) rml