The court explained why Marjanovic was detained

He was released from the district jail and his lawyer spoke.

The court of appeal upheld the appeals of Marjanovic's lawyer and quashed the decision of the High Court whose prorogation was extended on June 26, Mirjana Piljić, spokesman for Tanjug [19659008BythisdecisionMarjanovicwasimmediatelyreleasedwhichwasonSeptember15thlastyear

"Contrary to the finding of the trial court, the Court of Appeal finds that there is no reason to extend the detention of the accused Marjanović, but considers that the circumstances in which the previous detention revealed grounds for detention are not of such intensity that it is necessary to keep the defendant in detention by the legal basis on which he was appointed (disturbance of the public), "said Piljić.

Following the completion of the investigation, a new Belgrade prosecutor's office filed a new indictment against Zoran Marjanovic, accusing him of the brutal murder of his wife Jelena Nasipa in Borca on April 2, 2016.

And with the new indictment, which has not yet been confirmed, Marjanovic is charged with the same criminal offense – a severe murder for which a sentence of 10 to 40 years in prison was imprisoned.

In the detailed explanation of this decision, the Court of Appeal stated that, according to its appreciation of the legal basis of the detention of Marjanovic, it was necessary to separate the judicial remedy from the detention – Public disturbances likely to compromise the smooth running of criminal proceedings, which refers to the public interest in this particular case, mentioned by the court of first instance in the development of the impugned decision.

"Thus, the circumstance that this case has aroused great public attention since the body of the deceased Jelena Marijanovic was found, and finding the Court of Appeal is not questionable At all events, however, the court of first instance attributes to the above-mentioned circumstance an erroneous meaning when it comes to public disturbances that could jeopardize the smooth running of criminal proceedings, "the Court said.

According to him, intimidation or public attention to the case does not amount to disturbing the public, since the public interest can not compromise the good criminal proceedings or the public interest in the case, which certainly exists in the present case the legal basis for the subsequent detention of the accused in detention.

"Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the circumstances, or the public interest in a particular case can not be identified with a public disorder, since the nature of these two circumstances is different and they themselves have different consequences. " . According to him, in this case, no circumstance indicates that because of the commission of the offense or the seriousness of the consequences of the disturbance of the public, it may compromise the conduct without obstruction and fairness of this criminal proceeding based on the appeals of the defendants' counsel.

In the context of this interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of Appeal also took into account the fact that the crime had been committed on April 2, 2016 and that the criminal offense had been extended for a period of 27 months.

"The period of the commission of the crime certainly indicates that the intensity of the public disturbances that may in any case increase may not be the same as during the previous period, or that intensity of motives indicating the existence of that legal basis that he had in the previous period, "says the decision.

He adds that" when she made this decision, the court of D & # 39; Appeal took into account that the whole procedure would be closed as soon as there would be more reasons justifying the detention, and that the incarceration of the defendant this is not necessary since there is no circumstance indicating that the disruption of the public due to the mode of execution or the gravity of the consequences of the offense is likely to jeopardize the proper conduct of the penal procedure. "

The murder of Jelena Marjanovic is the most frequent case of black chronic media in Serbia for almost two years.

Her husband was arrested on September 15, 2017, nearly a year and a half after the murder.

He was arrested before, but after being interrogated in the police and polygraph, he was released for lack of evidence.

At a hearing before the Attorney General's Office in Belgrade, Marjanovic denied killing his wife and repeated all that he had said at police hearings.

Before the arrest, he spoke of murder several times in various media, and he also participated in a television program