In the paper author deals with the criminal law aspect of the protection of the absolute prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and the manner and modalities of criminal law protection against ill-treatment and torture in the legislation of the Republic of Serbia, in general. The incrimination of ill-treatment and torture is envisaged within the group of criminal offenses against fundamental freedoms and rights of men and citizens and represents the ultima ratio form of state reaction to the violation and threatening of one of the most important civilization heritage. In addition to analyzing the characteristics of the criminal offense and the latest changes regarding the penalties for this offense, the topic of this paper is the nomotechniques - the legislative techniques characteristics that the legislator has chosen in formulating the legal description of this criminal offense. The author will try to answer to several groups of questions regarding the temporal dimension, the development of the legal description structure of this offense, the reasons for predicting two principally separate offenses within a single criminal offense, the extended notion of torture in relation to the relevant international documents. In conclusion, it is stated that the analyzed offense is in line with international standards and that any modifications, can be based pro futuro on differently recognized dominant protection object to which the violation and endangerment of this action are directed.
Author presents and analyzes the manner, content and models of the criminal law reaction to terrorism, in two member states of the European Union, Spain and Italy, which had direct negative experiences with terrorist attacks and developed anti-terrorism laws. Knowledge of terrorism as a category of criminal law, as one of the existing incriminations in national legal systems, with a comparative analysis and analysis of solutions from the national criminal justice systems of the elected countries, can be the basis for a later comparison with the solutions accepted in the national criminal legislation, through which could be given some suggestions regarding some of the de lege ferenda solutions. At the end of the paper, the author concludes that the criminal law provisions on terrorism of the selected legislation are aligned with the aquis communitaire, as well as characterized by expansionism and punitiveism, which in a free, democratic state must be limited and constantly reconsidered. ; U radu se daje prikaz i analiza korpusa krivičnopravnih odredaba o terorizmu u zakonodavstvu Španije i Italije, kao državama koje su imale neposrednih negativnih iskustava sa terorisičkim napadima. Cilj rada je da ukazivanjem na sličnosti i razlike u odabranom načinu i modelu krivičnopravne zaštite od terorizma bude ukazano na značaj harmonizovane reakcije na terorizam na nivou Evropske unije, koja je uspostavila zajednički krivičnopravni pojam terorizma i sličnih, sa njim povezanih, pojmova, sa krajnjim ciljem efikasnijeg suprotstavljanja ovom teškom obliku kriminaliteta. Kao zaključak autor iznosi konstataciju da su krivičnopravne odredbe o terorizmu odabranih zakonodavstva usklađene sa aquis communitaire, kao i da ih karakteriše ekspanzionizam i punitivizam, koji u demokratskoj, slobodnoj državi moraju biti ogranični i stalno preispitivani.
In compliance with the tendencies expressed in the most important regional documents and comparative criminal justice systems, in accordance with the 2012 Law on Amendments and Additions to the Criminal Code, the Republic of Serbia rejects the previously accepted approach to the treatment of terrorism as a criminal offense from Chapter XXVIII of the criminal offenses against constitutional order and security of Serbia and transfers it to Chapter XXXIV of the crimes against humanity and international law, leaving at the same time narrow, and in contemporary conditions unacceptable, approach to distinguishing between the criminal offense of terrorism aimed at a national state and international terrorism. The new approach to defining the criminal offenses of terrorism is characterized by three dominant features: the first, which deals with a single criminal justice offense of terrorism, regardless of its orientation against a national state, a foreign state or an international organization, the second, which formally takes away the character of a political criminal offense from the criminal offense of terrorism by changing the chapter in which it is systematized within a special part of the Criminal Code and, the third, which introduces even five new offenses in accordance with the solutions accepted in international documents and comparative law. The paper analyzes new criminal offenses from the subgroup of the criminal offenses of terrorism under Chapter XXXIV of the crimes against humanity and international law, which is the main task of the criminal law science in the field of special part of criminal law, as well as the assessment of the compatibility of the national corpus of criminal justice provisions with the relevant documents accepted at the level of the European Union, with an emphasis on the importance of harmonizing criminal justice solutions related to terrorism for its effective prevention and suppression. However, the focus is on the view that the criminal justice response in this area is justified and necessary, but only as ultimate ratio in the fight against terrorism, as one of the severe forms of crime. ; U skladu sa tendencijama izraženim u najvažnijim regionalnim dokumentima i komparativnim krivičnopravnim sistemima Republika Srbija, Zakonom o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakonika iz 2012. (ZID KZ iz 2012), odbacuje dotada prihvaćen pristup tretiranja terorizma kao krivičnog dela iz Glave XXVIII krivičnih dela protiv ustavnog uređenja i bezbednosti Srbije i prebacuje ga u Glavu XXXIV krivičnih dela protiv čovečnosti i međunarodnog prava, napuštajući istovremeno uzak i u savremenim uslovima neprihvatljiv pristup o razlikovanju krivičnog dela terorizma na terorizam usmeren ka domaćoj državi i međunarodni terorizam. Novi pristup definisanju krivičnih dela terorizma karakterišu dominantno tri osobine: prva koja se odnosi na predviđanje jedinstvenog krivičnopravnog pojma terorizma bez obzira na njegovu usmerenost protiv domaće države, strane države ili međunarodne organizacije, druga koja se odnosi na formalno oduzimanje krivičnom delu terorizma karaktera političkog krivičnog dela, promenom glave u kojoj je sistematizovano unutar posebnog dela KZ-a, i treća koja podrazumeva predviđanje čak pet novih krivičnih dela u skladu sa rešenjima prihvaćenim u međunarodnim dokumentima i u uporednom pravu. U radu se daje analiza novih krivičnih dela iz podgrupe krivičnih dela terorizma, u okviru Glave XXXIV krivičnih dela protiv čovečnosti i međunarodnog prava, koja predstavlja osnovni zadatak nauke krivičnog prava u oblasti posebnog dela krivičnog zakonodavstva kao i ocena o usklađenosti nacionalnog korpusa krivičnopravnih odredaba sa relevantnim dokumentima prihvaćenim na nivou Evropske unije, uz isticanje značaja koji harmonizacija krivičnopravnih rešenja u vezi sa terorizmom ima za njegovo efikasno sprečavanje i suzbijanje. Naglasak je na kraju ipak na stavu da je krivičnopravna reakcija u ovoj oblasti opravdana i nužna, ali samo kao ultima ratio u borbi protiv terorizma, kao jednog od teških oblika kriminaliteta.
Although terrorism is a highly harmful social phenomenon which is the subject of a number of social sciences, it is interesting how much its political character influenced at the absence of its universally accepted definition. Legal, political and ideological differences between the creators of certain administrative definition of terrorism, represented a problem in finding a unified position of the international community on the constituent characteristics of the general criminal offence of terrorism, which would make it impossible to avoid the existence of the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes, going to a country where it is not, or the second a narrower way relevant. Build effective legal mechanisms for the prevention and punishment of terrorist activities in the framework of international organizations, therefore, predominantly characterized by a sectoral approach to defining terrorism, which does not define the concept of terrorism, but individual terrorist acts defined as punishable, thus avoiding the creation of a single definition. ; Iako terorizam predstavlja visoko štetnu društvenu pojavu koja je predmet istraživanja brojnih društvenih nauka, interesantno je koliko je njegov politički karakter uticao na izostanak njegove univerzalno prihvaćene definicije. Pravne, političke i ideološke razlike između tvoraca pojedinih administrativnih definicija terorizma, predstavljale su problem u iznalaženju jedinstvenog stava međunarodne zajednice o konstitutivnim obeležjima opšteg krivičnog dela terorizma, čije bi postojanje onemogućilo izbegavanje krivičnog gonjenja učinilaca ovih krivičnih dela, odlaskom u zemlju u kojoj ono nije inkriminisano ili je inkriminisano na drugi, uži način. Izgradnju delotvornih pravnih mehanizama za sprečavanje i kažnjavanje terorističkih aktivnosti u okviru međunarodnih organizacija, stoga, dominantno karakteriše sektorski pristup definisanju terorizma, koji ne određuje pojam terorizma, već pojedine terorističke akte određuje kao kažnjive, izbegavajući na taj način stvaranje jedinstvene definicije. Ipak, u nekim regionalnim dokumentima (prioritetno na evropskom nivou) na terorizam se gleda kao na jedinstvenu krivičnopravnu kategoriju, bez obzira na to prema kome je upravljen i koja je država izvršenja, a koja država u kojoj se učiniocu sudi.
The development of approaches to the use of criminal repression, in the context of substantive criminal, law for many years, was a question a lot of controversy, both in defining the crime of terrorism, and with setting the boundaries of criminal repression in this area. Terrorism, which essentially has the potential to undermine democracy and the rule of law by encouraging autoriternih tendency of authorities to fight this negative social - pathological phenomena, imposing views of the minority to the majority, without limits in achieving their goals, more than any other part of the world has hit Europe, which through its mechanisms, including the European court of Human rights and its practice, has developed specific counter-measures aimed at ensuring the libertarian political and cultural values of Europe. The rulings and case law related to combating terrorism have been set certain principles relating to the establishment of a balance between the effective response of the state and protection of human rights. Terrorism attacks the basics of democracy and the rule of law, a state against these attacks need to defend themselves while balancing the need to respect human rights and the response to terrorism. ; Razvoj pristupa u korišćenju krivičnopravne represije u okviru materijalnog krivičnog prava, dugi niz godina, bilo je pitanje puno kontroverzi, kako u vezi sa definisanjem samog krivičnog dela terorizma, tako i sa postavljanjem granica krivičnopravne represije u ovoj oblasti. Terorizam koji u svojoj suštini poseduje potencijal da podrije demokratiju i vladavinu prava pospešivanjem autoritarnih tendencija vlasti u borbi protiv ove negativne socijalno - patološke pojave, nametanjem stavova manjine većini, bez granica u ostvarivanju svojih ciljeva, više nego bilo koji drugi deo sveta pogodio je Evropu, koja je kroz svoje mehanizme uključujući Evropski sud za ljudska prava i njegovu praksu razvila određene kontraterorističke mere namenjene obezbeđivanju slobodarskih političkih i kulturnih vrednosti Evrope. U presudama i praksi Suda u vezi sa suprotstavljanjem terorizmu postavljeni su određeni načelni principi, koji se odnose na uspostavljanje ravnoteže između efikasne reakcije države i zaštite ljudskih prava. Terorizam napada osnove demokratije i vladavine zakona, a države protiv ovih napada moraju da se brane uz balansiranje potrebe poštovanja ljudskih prava i odgovora na terorizam.
Terrorism, as a socio-pathological notion in society, generates a high degree of social danger, which makes the material legitimacy of predictions the same notion as a category of criminal law. The process of criminalization of terrorist activity depends directly on the degree of development of solutions in the definition of this phenomenon in the field of political science, since in addition to the objective character of this phenomenon, embodied in the destruction of and damage to life, body and the destruction of property of high value, it is also characterized by a subjective element, which implies political orientation of the listed behaviors. The political goal, which it in itself possesses, makes the differentia specifica of such conduct, establishes a relationship of dependency between politicology definitions of terrorism, which determine what and in what circumstances is considered a political purpose, and criminal definitions that define the elements of the offense in the national legal systems. This paper provides an overview and analysis of some political and criminal definitions, focusing on the type and character of their relationship, which is embodied in the accessoriness of criminal law definitions of terrorism in relation to the ones offered by political science. The paper also analyzes the reasons that underlie this relationship and the implementation of some issues related to the definition of terrorism as a category of criminal law. ; Terorizam, kao sociopatološki pojam u društvu, proizvodi visok stepen društvene opasnosti koja čini materijalnu legitimaciju zakonodavčevog predviđanja istog kao kategorije krivičnog prava. Proces inkriminisanja terorističkih aktivnosti u direktnoj je zavisnosti od stepena razvoja rešenja na planu definisanja ove pojave u oblasti političkih nauka, jer se osim objektivnog karaktera ove pojave, oličene u uništenju i oštećenju života, tela, razaranju imovine velike vrednosti, ona karakteriše i subjektivnim elementom, koji podrazumeva političku usmerenost nabrojanih ponašanja. Politički cilj koji poseduje i koji čini differentia specifica ovog ponašanja uspostavlja odnos zavisnosti između politikoloških definicija terorizma, koje će odrediti šta se i u kojim uslovima smatra političkim ciljem, i krivičnopravnih definicija, koje određuju elemente bića krivičnog dela u nacionalnim pravnim sistemima. U radu se daje prikaz i analiza politikoloških i krivičnopravnih definicija, uz apostrofiranje vrste i karaktera njihovog odnosa, koji je oličen u akcesornosti krivičnopravnih u odnosu na politikološka određenja terorizma, uz istovremeno iznošenje razloga koji stoje u osnovi ovakvog odnosa i izdvajanje nekih problemskih pitanja u vezi sa definisanjem terorizma kao kategorije krivičnog prava.
From the adoption of the Criminal Code in 2006 until the latest amendments of 2019, the Serbian criminal legislation treated recidivism as an optional aggravating circumstance, which had its specific legal status in comparison with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. According to the new legal solution, instead of being optional, recidivism has become a mandatory aggravating circumstance. Together with clearly specified condi-tions for harsher penalties this narrows down the possibility of free judicial decision-making when meting out punishment. The paper answers several questions: whether harsher penalties for recidivists are only the result of con-tinuous tightening of repression at a normative level, whether and to what ex-tent the criminal-law framework has been improved, and whether returning to some solutions, which were not normally applied in court practice, can be marked as approriate to achieve the desired degree of crime prevention. Final critical conculusion is that the new legal solution on recidivism appears regres-sive, given that the court is strictly bound by the law through oblitatory condi-tions regarding prior and persistent offending, which is in compliance with the general trend of tightening repression at the normative level and reducing the role of the court to the level of administrative application of the norm.
From the adoption of the Criminal Code in 2006 until the latest amendments of 2019, the Serbian criminal legislation treated recidivism as an optional aggravating circumstance, which had its specific legal status in comparison with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. According to the new legal solution, instead of being optional, recidivism has become a mandatory aggravating circumstance. Together with clearly specified conditions for harsher penalties this narrows down the possibility of free judicial decision-making when meting out punishment. The paper answers several questions: whether harsher penalties for recidivists are only the result of continuous tightening of repression at a normative level, whether and to what extent the criminal-law framework has been improved, and whether returning to some solutions, which were not normally applied in court practice, can be marked as appropriate to achieve the desired degree of crime prevention. Final critical conclusion is that the new legal solution on recidivism appears regressive, given that the court is strictly bound by the law through oblitatory conditions regarding prior and persistent offending, which is in compliance with the general trend of tightening repression at the normative level and reducing the role of the court to the level of administrative application of the norm.
