BALKAN

COURT IN NIKŠIĆ REJECTS APPEALS: Aco Đukanović remains in custody, there is a “real risk of flight”!

by Serbian Times5. March 2026.5. March 2026.

The Criminal Panel of the Basic Court in Nikšić has rejected the appeals of Aco Đukanović’s lawyers and confirmed the decision to place him in custody on suspicion of illegal possession and carrying of weapons and explosive materials.

The panel dismissed as unfounded the appeals filed by Đukanović’s defense against the decision of the investigating judge, which had ordered his detention.

Đukanović was placed in custody due to a well-founded suspicion that he committed the criminal offense of illegal possession and carrying of weapons and explosive materials. According to the court’s decision, the detention was ordered based on the risk of flight.

The court determined that there is a reasonable suspicion that Đukanović committed the offense, which, as stated, is supported by evidence collected during the search of his home in the Rastoci settlement near Nikšić.

The reasoning of the decision notes that the circumstances of the case indicate a real risk of flight if the defendant were allowed to defend himself while free.

The court took into account that Đukanović has previously spent extended periods abroad, including stays longer than three months, and that he possesses significant financial resources.

“Records indicate that the defendant’s last stay abroad lasted 103 consecutive days, which exceeds three months. Such a duration cannot be considered a short-term trip but indicates the ability to organize life outside the country for an extended period, as well as a certain level of personal and social contacts abroad. In this context, the frequency and duration of these stays represent an objective indicator of the defendant’s mobility and international connections. Therefore, the panel finds that the defendant’s financial means, considered together with his prior patterns of travel and stays abroad, are not hypothetical or abstract but a concrete factor affecting the assessment of the risk that he may be unavailable to the court if released,” the court panel explained.

The court also determined that the purpose of ensuring the defendant’s presence in proceedings cannot be achieved through milder measures, such as confiscation of a passport or other supervision measures.

For these reasons, the panel decided to reject the defense appeals and confirm the detention order. No appeal is allowed against this decision.