two centuries of the first court in serbia

J U D G E S ’ A S S O C I AT I O N O F S E R B I A

Belgrade, May 2004.

two centuriesof the first

court in serbia???? Posve}eno 200-godi{wici

osnivawa prvog suda u Vaqevu ????

T W O C E N T U R I E S O F T H E F I R S T C O U R T I N S E R B I A

T W O C E N T U R I E SO F T H E F I R S T C O U RT I N S E R B I A

Posve}eno 200-godi{wici osnivawa prvog suda u Vaqevu

Editor:

Judges’ Association of Serbia

For Editor:

Zoran Markovi}, president of Upravnog odbora

Priredila:

Sneàna Radi}

Urednik:

Qubica Pavlovi}

Graphic design:

Denis Viki}

No of copies:

2000

[tampawe biltena omogu}ila jeOrganizacija za evropsku bezbednost i saradwu (OEBS)

Organization for Security andCo-operation in Europe

Mission to Serbia and Montenegro

3

T W O C E N T U R I E S O F T H E F I R S T C O U R T I N S E R B I A

Ovaj broj biltena Dru{tva sudija Srbije po-sve}ujemo, sa velikim ponosom i po{tovawem, 200-godi{wici ustrojstva prvog srpskog suda uVaqevu, osnovanog 5. maja 1804. godine, na skup-{tini Vaqevske nahije na Reqinom poqu u Kr-{noj glavi. Ovo je bila i prva zakonodavna skup-{tina u oslobo|enoj Srbiji, pa je wen zna~aj timejo{ ve}i.

Sve tekstove u ovom izdawu je priredila gos-po|a Sneàna Radi}, vi{i arhivista u Me|uop-{tinskom istorijskom arhivu u Vaqevu, koriste-}i autenti~nu i neprocewivu literaturu i ar-hivsku gra|u, na ~emu joj srda~no zahvaqujemo.

Tako|e, zahvaqujemo i kolegi Ivanu Negi}u,predsedniku odeqewa u Vaqevu i predsedniku ta-mo{weg Trgovinskog suda, na inicijativi da Dru-{tvo sudija Srbije na ovaj na~in doprinese obele-àvawu ovog zna~ajnog jubileja na{e istorije isudstva.

DRU[TVO SUDIJA SRBIJE

4

^lanovi Vaqjevskog suda koji su u~estvovali u slu~aju „Bojovi}“, 1825. godina

In the Serbian feudal state, in theperiod between 12 and 15 centu-ry, the legal relations were regu-

lated by the norms of common law.By the beginning of 12 century,charts started appearing, as well asthe rulers’ orders, international agree-ments, and by the end of 13 century,the first laws. A few information

were saved on legislative work ofSerbian rulers before Tsar Dusan, inthe field of civil law. Those sourcesshow that legal life in Serbia of thosetimes was regulated by unwrittencommon law and the norms takenfrom the translated Byzantine codes,as well as monastery charts and inter-national agreements. From the judi-cial aspect, all decisions had individ-ual character, and were not generallysignificant for the whole state.

5

Tsar Dusan

„Progla{ewe Du{anovog zakonika“,slika Paje Jovanovi}a

A SHORT HISTORY OFJUDICIARY IN SERBIA

The rule of Tsar Dusan washegemony of Serbs in the Balkans.He acted very wisely in his conquestsand creation of a big Orthodox state.He appointed his men at the head ofadministration and church, but every-where left legal order behind him.Big conquests requested legislativeorder. During the first years of hisrule, he used to apply Byzantine legalcodes („Syntagm of the Monk MatijaVlastar“ and „Justinijan’s Code„). Atthe synod which took place on 21

May 1349 in Skopje, undertak-ing the role of a legislator, with thehelp of Patriarch Cir-Janicije, all thebishops, priors and monks fromSveta Gora, Emperor Stefan, theEmpress, King Uros and all theSerbian and Greek landowners,Dusan proclaimed the legal codeunder the name of „The Code of theFaithful Emperor Stefan“, betterknown as „Dusanov zakonik“ (TheCode of Tsar Dusan).

The Code of Tsar Dusan has 135Articles and mostly deals with thestate law, but it also regularizes someother questions, such as the courtprocedure. The Code has a numberof criminal law provisions and proce-dures in which discrimination of cer-tain classes exists and is legally pro-tected. The cruel Byzantine system of

bodily and death punishments wasimplemented almost totally. The cru-elty was alleviated „by the Emperor’smercy“. Amendments to the Codewere being added during the follow-ing five years, 66 articles altogether,so that the Code had, as generallyaccepted, 201 Articles. The ammend-ments were mainly reflecting thespirit of care for social equality, forequal status of all provinces beforethe court, etc. Taken as a whole, theCode and its contents do not relateonly to one particular set of prob-lems, but Dusan tried to regularize, ina unique way, all current problems.

The biggest contribution of theCode is the fact that it had pointedout that a written law is stronger thanthe will of one person, requests of theclasses, old fashioned practices andEmperor’s self-will. He inspiredmany rulers with their legislativework, as well as with opening univer-sities in Europe where law was read.

In the old Serbia, two basickinds of power functioned: churchand civil. State power was dividedinto legislative, judicial and adminis-trative. The most organized was thejudicial power, which was complete-ly independent. The principle of inde-pendence of judiciary was pro-claimed in Articles 171 and 172: „All

A S H O R T H I S T O R Y O F J U D I C I A R Y I N S E R B I A

6

the judges should judge according tothe Code, just as it is written in theCode, and not in fear of my emperor-ship“. The Code contained criminaldeeds and court procedure (petition,summons, representation, investiga-tion of the punishable offence, evi-dence and judgment). The judgmentwas the end of a court proceedingsand it was always „written“, becausethe judges had to keep records enter-ing the cases and judgments. Onecopy of the record was given to theparty which had won the case.

During wars, the military courtwas in function.

By conquering Serbian lands bythe Turks, the Ottoman system of ruleand legislation was introduced.Rights and obligations were regulat-ed by „Serijat“ law (Muslim law).The sultans were passing laws whichwere compatible with the Serijat law.Turkish criminal law was not bur-dened by the class affiliation, andthere was no difference between pun-ishing Muslims and non-Muslims.Nevertheless, when conducting courttrials for conquered people, there wasa lot of self-will; there is a well-known saying which illustrates this:„The quadi takes you to court, thequadi sentences you“.

The „Praviteljstvujusci“ Synod,founded in 1805, was executing,among other things, the judicialpower. On it second assembly, heldon 15 July 1805 in Bork, summonedupon Karadjordje’s initiative, the firstadvisors were established. From 25April 1806, the judicial power inSerbia was executed by military com-manders, up to 26 October 1807,when a court was founded in eachregion („nahija“), upon the Synod’sorder. Those courts consisted of threejudges, usually two peasants and onepriest. In principalities, the principalsused to act as judges, helped by apeasant, but only in minor disputes.Each magistrates’ court (in „nahija“)was in charge of the first degree casesand second degree appeals, includingprincipalities. Everybody could cometo a court and sue anybody, even thedukes, if they had wronged them. Theappeals against decisions of magis-trates’ court were decided by theSynod.*

By a new reorganization of po-wer, in January 1811, at the Assem-bly of Heads, the new „Praviteljstvu-jusci“ People’s Synod was founded,

7


* „The History of the States and Legislation ofYugoslav peoples“, Belgrade University, 4th edi-tion, „Naucna knjiga“, Belgrade, pages 205-208

comprising of six min isters (military,foreign and interior, education,finance and the great people’s court).In the country, magistrates werefounded, chosen by dukes in agree-ment with principals of their region,and those magistrates were com-prised of three judges and one notary.The magistrates were at the sametime continuously conducting admin-istrative and police duty. Out of advi-sors of the „Praviteljstvujusci“ Sy-nod, the People’s Court or the GreatCourt in Belgrade was formed, whichwas deciding appeals to magistrate’sdecisions, and which was chaired bythe minister of justice, as the great,people’s judge.

It can be said that the Synod,from its foundation up to the ruin ofthe First Uprising state, was conduct-ing the judicial, administrative andlegislative power and that it was acentral organ, but that it had neverbecome the chief agency of the stateand that the heads had never succeed-ed in limiting Karadjordje’s supremepower.

After the failure of the uprising,Serbian courts were failed too, andthe Turkish courts were once againestablished. During the period betwe-en 1815 and 1830, in the Belgradepashadom (domain of a Pasha) there

were both Turkish and Serbian stateagencies. According to the agreementbetween Principal Milos and Mara-shli Ali-pasha, Serbs were tried bythe Principles in their mutual dis-putes, but what they could not decideupon, was decided in the Nationaloffice in Belgrade. The Nationaloffice was consisted of 12 Principals,one from each region („nahija“). Inthe disputes with Turks, vizier’sassistants were judging, but the pres-ence of a Serbian Principal was obli-gatory The role of the National Officewas gradually declining and it finallydisappeared, at the same time whenthe Belgrade court was founded, in1817, together with special offices ofthe Principal. Three years upon con-


8

Knez Milo{

clusion of peace with the Turks, in1815, Principal Milos overtook thesupreme judicial power into hishands, in 1818, while the subordinatejudiciary in „nahije“ was left to themagistrates. The pashadom was di-vided into „nahije“, principalities andvillages. The „nahije“ had the charac-ter of administrative units, while the„nahije“ principals were appointedand dismissed by Milos. They werehis personal and executive agencies,in subordination to him, who con-ducted duties in the domain ofadministration and judiciary.

By a gradual independence inadministrative matters, conditionswere being made for foundation ofcourts. Beginning with 1820, specialSerbian „nahija“ courts were formed- the magistrates.

Court in Kragujevac hasbecome in 1823 the second degreecourt for all courts, with the name ofThe National Court, and from 1825,the National (Great) Court used towork under the names: „Sud obste-narodni Serbski“ and „Sud narodniSerbski“ (translation for both namesis: National Serbian Court). ThePrincipal was the highest, cassationauthority in all disputes, and some-times he was the judge himself. Oncourt organization in that period, Vuk

Karadzic says: „The first court for avillage is with the senior peasant…from the village it goes towards the„nahija“ magistrate, from the magis-trate toward the Great Court, fromthe Great Court to Milos, and what-ever he finds right, right shall it be.“This organization of judiciary was

complemented by decrees in 1827,1828, 1829 and 1833. Hatisherif from1830 was especially important, par-ticularly the provision No. 6, inwhich it says that the Turkish powerwill not interfere with the internaladministration of the country, „norwith the judges’ decisions“.

9


Sretenje's Constitution

The operation of courts and regu-lation of the legal system are closelyconnected with the most importantdocument of the state, the Constitution.

After the Miletin uprising,Milos could not any longer opposethe requests of the principals andpeople, and he was compelled to passthe constitution, the creator of whichwas Dimitrije Davidovic. The Con-stitution was passed at the Assemblyon Sretenje (religious festival) on15/3 February 1835 in Kragujevac.The State Serbian Synod was thehighest authority in Serbia, next tothe Principal, and was comprised of 6ministers and non-specific number ofstate advisors. One Ministry belon-ged to Judiciary. According to theConstitution, there were regionalcourts as first degree courts, and theGreat Court as the second degreecourt, while in the third and the finaldegree the State Council would passjudgments, and „establish one depart-ment as courtroom“. The courts wereindependent in passing judgmentsand obeyed the law. By provisions of11 chapter of the Constitution, certainrights of citizens were proclaimed.According to those provisions, citi-zens were equal before the law,nobody could be arrested against thelaw, the arrested people were to be

interrogated within 3 days from theday of arrest, and the punishment wasto be executed in accordance with thejudgment of the relevant court.

By establishment of the StateCouncil in 1835, which comprised ofthe Administrative and Judicialdepartments, the Judicial departmentexamined decisions of lower courts.An appeal was lodged against thejudgments of the Judicial departmentto the State Council, which wouldexamine it then on the general meet-ing of both departments, while cer-tain cases were examined the Prin-cipal himself.

By the „Law on the Duty ofMilitary Commanders, Civil Officesand the district principals“ dated 11November 1836, the military powerwas established, apart from the civilone, in the local administration. TheCivil Offices represented the civilpower, while the authority was that ofthe police, administration and judici-ary. Judicial power started being exe-cuted by the district principals withtwo chosen peasants, and the seconddegree body was the Civil Office, onthe regional level. Civil Offices start-ed being called magistrates again in1837.

Reorganization of the courtadministration was done in accor-


10

dance with the 1838 Constitution, theso-called, Turkish Constitution (22December 1838), when in the vil-lages the „settling“courts were estab-lished, in each of 18principalities there wasone first degree court,while in the capitalthere was the Court ofAppeal. The judges’rights were protectedby the provision thatno judge could be dis-missed without hisguilt being proven bycourt.

Under the pres-sure of the „defendersof the constitution“(opposition to Milos),Milos abdicated in Ju-ne 1839 and his under-age son Mihailo cameto the Principal’s throne. After theVucicev uprising, Principal Mihailoleft Serbia in September 1842, whilethe „defenders of the constitution“brought Aleksandar Karadjordjevicto the throne. The defenders of theconstitution fought principally formaintaining and expansion of consti-tutional liberties in economic rela-tions, especially for the free press and

trade. The general characteristic oftheir regime, which lasted from 1842to 1858, was a bureaucratic and

police administration. They thoughtthat the people were „absolutely inca-pable of solving public, state affairs“,while the police had authority to pun-ish people even by bodily harm. Thesupreme power belonged to the oli-garchy council, comprised of 17members, who were representativesof bureaucracy and the richest trades-men.

11


From the 1838 Constitution, inaccordance with Article 30, theDecree on Administration of DistrictCourts ensued, as well as of the Courtof Appeal, and the procedure wasproscribed for investigation and judg-ing. By the New Decree from 1846,the Supreme Court was established,as the highest and final degree.

When, in the 1851 within thePrincipal’s office the Judicial Depart-ment was founded, the Principalbecame the cassation power, but onlyto 1855, when the Cassation courtwas founded and its administrationestablished.

One of the most important lawspassed in this period was the SerbianCivil Law of 25 February 1844. Itwas a shortened translation, withminor changes and amendments, ofthe Austrian General Civil Code,which was founded on Roman law. Init, certain elements of Serbian com-mon law were incorporated, especial-ly in the part which regularized thelaw of inheritance and the relationswithin an extended family group. Asignificant provision is the inviolabil-ity of private property. Also, the lawconfirmed abolition of feudal rela-tions, which attributed to a fasterdevelopment of the country.

Permanent clashes between thePrincipal and the council brought tothe summoning of the St AndreiAssembly on 12 December 1858, atwhich it was decided that AleksandarKaradjordjevic is to be dethroned,and Milos Obrenovic be broughtback to throne again. After less thantwo years he died and MihailoObrenovic came to the throne. Uponadvice of great powers, ho did notpass a new constitution, but throughpassing a number of laws of constitu-tional character, changed the situa-tion in the country and concentratedthe power in his own hands.

From this period, the new Lawon Court Organization should be par-ticularly mentioned, which waspassed on 20 February 2004. Accor-ding to this law too, there were dis-trict courts (courts of the first de-gree), Court of Appeal (court of thesecond degree) and the CassationCourt.

Passing of the Law on LegalRepresentatives (28 February 1862)influenced a more efficient work ofcourts. According to this law, theright to represent before a court couldbe obtained from the Ministry ofJustice by those persons who had adegree in law and passed the barexam, while in the amendments to


12

this law from 1865 a „legal represen-tative did not have to have a universi-ty degree in law, it was enough if hepassed the bar exam“.

The following laws are specifi-cally underlined: Criminal Law forthe Principality of Serbia (29 March1860), Commercial Law (26 January1860; it is interesting that PrincipalMilos firstly founded the Com-mercial Court by the Establishment

of Commercial Court on 12December 1859, and only then theLaw was passed), Law on JudicialProcedure in Criminal Proceedings(10 April 1865).

After the murder of PrincipalMihailo on 29 May 1868, underageMilan Obrenovic, the grandson ofJevrem Obrenovic, was pronounced

Principal. The deputy’s office com-prising of three members wasformed. The first task was to changethe constitution, so that the develop-ment of capitalist social-economicalrelations in Serbia in the second halfof 19 century could be legally sup-ported. The Constitution was passedon 29 June 1868 at the Great NationalAssembly in Kragujevac. Accordingto this Constitution, the State Council

is no longer a legisla-tive body. The courtswere „independent inpassing judgments„,but the judges could betransferred. By this,the so-called,„Deputy’s OfficeConstitution“, certaincitizens’ right wereproclaimed: the rightto work, right to per-

sonal freedom, the rightto ownership, inviola-

bility of the place of residence, free-dom of speech, freedom of press, etc.The free gatherings and associationswere not envisaged by this law, but inthe cases of danger to the publicsecurity, depending on the govern-ment’s estimate, some proclaimedpersonal freedoms could have beentemporarily stopped.

13


Namesni~ki ustav iz 1869. godine

A number of laws which werecomplementing the Constitution we-re passed in the years to come. TheLaw on Ministerial Responsibility(21 October 1870) stood out with itscontents. By this law, a special statecourt was established for taking min-isters to court, the members of whichwere chosen by dice out of the mem-bers of Cassation and Court ofAppeal, and the Members of Par-liament. This court could have sen-tenced the ministers to be deprived ofposition, or to be pronounced inca-pable for official posts.

By changes and amendments ofthe Law on Judicial Procedure inCriminal Proceedings from 1865(passed in 1876), certain guaranteeswere offered to the citizens regardingtheir personal security and protectionfrom police self-will.

By the Law on Judges from 9February 1881, a permanence andnon-transferability of judges wasestablished, so that a judge could notlose his judicial post without thedecision by regular courts before hisold age pension, and at the same timehe could not have been transferredagainst his will. This was not applica-ble to the members of municipalcourts, because by changes andamendments of the Law on Muni-cipalities (passed in 1866), executed

in 1884, one of the most conservativechanges took place: members ofmunicipal courts could have been notonly financially punished by the stateauthorities, but also „removed fromduty, even relieved of their title“.Also, they had to keep the decision ofthe court „until execution“.

For 1888 Constitution it is saidthat it has been passed for the „sakeof Obrenovic Dynasty“. King Milanwanted for all the parties to partici-pate in creation of the new constitu-tion, so that the political agreementcould be achieved. By the Constitu-tion, not only the legislative powerwas expanded, but also the financialpower of the Parliament, a number ofconstitutional rights of citizens wasproclaimed (free gathering and asso-ciation, freedom of press), criminaland political responsibility of minis-ters were included, court’s independ-ence was proclaimed as well as thenon-transferability of judges, thefoundation of extraordinary courts orcourt-martials was forbidden as wellas the trial committees, bases of dis-trict and municipal self-managementwere established. 1888 Constitutionwas a liberal, bourgeois-democraticact. Supremacy of the legislativepower over administrative power wasestablished.


14

By the second putsch, on 9 May1894, King Aleksandar Obrenovicprohibited the 1888 Constitution, andbrought back the 1869 Constitution,justifying his action by saying thatduring his minority age, many lawswere passed against the provisions of1869 Constitution. All the lawswhich had been passed in accordancewith 1869 Constitution became validagain. When the government ofVladan Cordjevic fell, the Kingestablished a personal regime on 11October 1897. The ministers weresimple executors of King Aleksan-dar’s decisions and those of the for-mer king, Milan, in whose hands laidthe military administration. After thedeath of King Milan in 1901, Russia-ns requested Aleksandar to abandonthat „personal regime“ and pass anew constitution. He passed the so-called „Oktroisani“ Constitution on 6April 1901 (this was done in agree-ment with the party leaders who werefaithful to the King, without partici-pation of the Parliament, that is, therepresentatives of people). Accordingto this Constitution too, the inde-pendence of courts and non-transfer-ability of judges was guaranteed.

The atmosphere of general dis-satisfaction in the state compelledKing Aleksandar to, in order to pro-

tect his regime, dismiss the Senateand the Parliament in March 1903and elect presidents of all courts(apart from the Cassation Court). Aputsch ensued on 29 May 1903, inwhich the King, Aleksandar Obreno-vic, was murdered. On 2 June 1903,Petar Karadjordjevic was pro-nounced King. Immediately after-wards, on 5 June, the new constitu-tion was passed, which, as a matter offact, was the 1888 Constitution, withsome changes and amendments. Themost important changes related to thelimitation of kingly powers. By this,bourgeois aspirations were realizedand parliamentarism was introducedinto Serbia, according to the Westernmodel.

The judiciary was finally organ-ized through changes and amend-ments of the Law on Organization ofCourts dated 20 February 1865, andthe laws from 1890 and 1903, whenthe following courts were establishedin Serbia: municipal (in charge ofcivil proceedings of small value), dis-trict (one for each district), Court ofthe City of Belgrade, CommercialCourt in Belgrade and The Court ofAppeal and Cassation Court inBelgrade.

After the Balkan wars and theFirst World War, „Vidovdanski“

15


Constitution was passed on 28 June1921, when the foundations of amodern organization of judiciarywere laid. Article 109 of the Con-stitution proclaimed the independ-ence of judiciary: „The courts areindependent. In administering justicethey are not under any power, theyjudge according to laws“. Also, theestablishment of special courts wasprohibited, and permanence and non-transferability of judges was guaran-teed. It was envisaged that thereshould be only one Cassation Courtfor the whole Kingdom, with thehead-office in Zagreb, while therewere more courts of appeal and firstdegree courts. For election of judgesa „direction“ was provided for theCassation Court and Court of Appealand the Presidents of the first degreecourts.

The need for regularizing thejudicial power and its organization onthe territory of the whole Kingdom,conditioned passing of a law on 24November 1928, according to whichjudicial power was conductedthrough regular courts: district, com-mercial, courts of appeal and the cas-sation court. The courts were organ-ized on the territorial principle, withthe right of appeal to higher courts.From 1890, all district courts chan-

ged names into first degree courts,until 1928, when the old names werereturned and when the organizationof courts provided for „srez“ (a regi-onal unit), which had been previous-ly founded (1911), but they neverstarted functioning until 1931. By theLaw on Organization of RegularCourts from 1929, that had beenpassed immediately after the „6January Dictatorship„, regular courtscontinued working under the previ-ous law, but the possibility was pro-vided for establishment of specialcourts, which by number and impor-tance of its work used to overcomeregular courts (State Court forProtection of State, Military Court,Church Court, Chosen Court,Agrarian Court, Court for Disabled,Court of Workers’ Insurance,Municipal Courts, Local Courts,etc.). The function of the judiciary inthe final degree was conducted by theCassation Court, and regarding thecourt administration, the courts weresubject to Ministry of Justice. Theprinciple of the group judgment wasfollowed as a matter of principle.Only in local courts single judgespassed judgments, while in the dis-trict courts there were chambers ofthree judges.


16

17


The „Oktroisani“ Constitutionfrom 1931 kept the basic principlesof the 1921 Constitution, except thatit had established that a judge couldbe in service until the age of 70.Head-office of Cassation Court wasreturned to Belgrade.

There were two prosecutionoffices, independent from the judici-ary, as representatives of executivepower, which acted in criminal legalproceedings and taking care that thestate punished the executors of crim-inal deeds, whom the prosecutors’offices officially pursued.

From 1929 „banovine“ (region-al units) were introduced, whichexisted until the capitulation ofYugoslavia, on 18 April 1941. Insteadof 33 regional units, 9 „banovina“were formed. Valjevski district beca-me a part of the Drinska banovina,which included parts of Bosnia andHercegovina and Western parts ofSerbia.

Serbia was divided into 14 dis-tricts during occupation (1941-1944),while the Valjevski district had thesame local units. Some courts contin-ued with their work in accordancewith the old laws, passing at the sametime different decrees and other legal

acts (establishment of the Presidentof the Council of Commissioners andCommissioners within Ministries,and, at the same time, Commis-sioners of Justice - July 1941; Decreeof the Council on Removal of„nationally unreliable civil servants“from the public service - August1941, according to which each judgecould be removed; new systematiza-tion of court staff with the presidentand 12 judges - 1942; for applicationfor compensation of war damagelocal courts were appointed - 1942;foundation of the Court-martial, theCourt of the Serbian State Guards -1942; interruption of procedures incivil proceedings - 1942. Existenceand operation of courts of occupa-tional authorities lessen the authorityof all regular and extraordinarycourts, while the general characteris-tic was the irregularity in operation ofall courts.

Until people’s power was estab-lished, the justice was dealt by thepeople itself at public gatherings.That was the period of temporarycourts without special jurisdiction,and at the same time the militarycourts were functioning. By the endof 1944, the Great People’s Libera-tion Council of Serbia issued a direc-tion on foundation of people’s courts,and by the beginning of 1945 two

more directions ensued on organiza-tion of people’s courts.

Within commanding offices ofmilitary units and their territory, mil-itary courts were founded.

Judicial power on the territoryof federal Serbia was performed bythe people’s courts: municipal (city),„srez“ (regional unit) court, districtand the Supreme Court of the FederalSerbia. The judgments and final deci-sions were pronounced „In the nameof the People“.

The Presidency of the Tempora-ry National Parliament of the FederalSerbia passed a Law on Organizationof People’s Courts, on 26 August1945. According to this law, regularcourts were: „srez“ (regional unit)courts, district, supreme, courts of thefederal units, Supreme Court ofVojvodina and the Supreme Court ofFederal Serbia. Apart from the regu-lar courts, special courts could befounded. Municipal and regional co-urts were abolished. It was deter-mined that courts of „srez“ do crimi-nal and civil proceedings in the firstdegree, while the district courts sho-uld examine appeals lodged againstthe decisions of the „srez“ courts.

For organization of judiciary,the Constitution of Federal People’sRepublic of Yugoslavia, from 31January 1946, was important.

At the territory of the DistrictPeople’s Committee Valjevo, the fol-lowing courts were operable: DistrictCourt in Valjevo and „srez“ courts inValjevo, Valjevska Kamenica, Mioni-ca, Ub and Obrenovac. Regardingspecial courts, there was the DistrictAgrarian Court in Valjevo.

By the beginning of 1945, pub-lic prosecutor’s offices were estab-lished.

By the Republic Law of 17 Ja-nuary 1947, for judicial bodies of thePeople’s Republic of Serbia the dis-trict and „srez“ courts were estab-lished, and the highest judicial bodieswere: The Supreme Court of Serbiaand the Supreme Court of Vojvodina.

For commercially importantproceedings, the Law on CommercialCourts as Regular Courts was passedon 5 July 1954; district courts were incharge of several „srez“ (regionalunits) and cities, higher commercialcourts and the Supreme CommercialCourt. While reorganizing the com-mercial courts in 1974, the Com-mercial Court in Valjevo was found-ed for the territory of Podrinjsko-Ko-lubarski region.

By the Manual on Internal Ope-ration in „srez“ courts, district andcommercial court on the territory ofSerbia, dated 26 December 1959, incourts with a large number of court


18

chambers or single judges, judicialdepartments were formed.

By the 1963 Constitution, insti-tutional inspection was perfected anda further development of judicial sys-tem by foundation of the branch ofthe Supreme Court of Serbia inPristina and Novi Sad, but that start-ed the break-up of the unique judicialsystem in Serbia. That process wasrounded off in 1969, when theautonomous regions founded theirsupreme courts.

By a law of 11 June 1966 thename of „srez“ courts was changedinto municipal courts. Territorial ju-risdiction stayed the same. All regu-lar courts were within jurisdiction ofthe Republic Secretariat for Justiceand General Administration.

1974 Constitution introducedthe constitutional establishment ofself-managing courts and social self-management attorney, that is, the newmechanism of protection of constitu-tionality and legality. The legal con-sequence of this was that each singleact or measure on the side of an indi-vidual, state or other agencies, had tobe legally supported. The self-man-aging courts have been established ascourts of associated labour, arbitrage,courts of equity and election courts.Still there were courts of regular

jurisdiction (municipal, district, sup-reme court of the republic orautonomous region), and specialcourts (commercial and military).The independence of the court wasproclaimed - functional, institutionaland legal, but not the socio-politicalindependence. The latter resulting inthe provision of the 1974 Law onRegular Courts, which stated that acandidate for a judge had to be mo-rally and politically suitable.

After the disintegration of for-mer Yugoslavia and social and politi-cal changes that took place after that,the Republic of Serbia passed the1991 Constitution. The same year, on30 July, the National Assembly of theRepublic of Serbia passed the Law onCourts, by which the courts of gener-al jurisdiction were founded, as wellas the commercial court. This lawchanged the conditions and ways ofelection of judges, in accordancewith the Article 3, which states: „Thecourt Presidents, judges and jurors,are elected and dismissed by theNational Assembly“. For the firsttime after the Second World War, itwas proscribed that the judicial func-tion is permanent. The condition of„morally and politically suitable“was erased.

19


two centuriesof judiciaryin valjevo

21

T W O C E N T U R I E S O F J U D I C I A R Y I N V A L J E V O

Establishment of theCourt in Valjevo

Valjevo and Valjevo nahija werefreed from the Turkish rule on 6March 1804.

Immediately after the liberationof the Valjevo nahija, Prota MatejaNenadovic made a short law based onthe „Krmcija (Church Law Code)“and the „Justinijanov Code“. Thislaw had the function of maintainingthe order at the freed territory. UponKaradjordje’s request, „Ostruznicka“Assembly was summoned, at whichthe leaders of the uprising met andagreed on the further development ofthe uprising, and that courts shouldbe organized in free Serbia. Uponreturn from the „Ostruznicka“Assembly, and prior to his departurefor Belgrade, Valjevo Principal JakonNenadovic and Prota (Priest) MatejaNenadovic summoned the Assemblyof the Valjevo nahija at the Reljinofield near Krsna Glava, on 5 May1804. That was the first NationalAssembly in free Serbia, and at thesame time, the first legislativeassembly*. At that assembly the fol-lowing was agreed: 1. how many sol-

diers would go to Belgrade; 2. keep-ing the order and maintaining legali-ty in the nahija (for this purpose, theProta Mateja’s law was to be used); 3.at that assembly Prota Mateja readthe law and the assembly has unani-mously adopted it; 4. the court wasthen founded and the first judges ofthe Valjevo court (magistrates) wereelected.

The task of the court was to, asjudicial, administrative and executivepower, takes care of the maintenanceof order in the country. Some provi-sions on punishing the most severecriminals were introduced, and thatwas better known as the Law of ProtaMateja Nenadovic. In fact, that was acollection church laws taken overfrom Sava Nemanjic and local com-mon law, as well as the adoptedTurkish laws. The tradition was sostrong, that it was implementingsome court decisions by the merestrength of its morality. That firstSerbian law had 14 or 15 paragraphs,but not all of them have been saved.Prota Mateja has in his memoirsquoted only some of them. The mostserious criminal offences under thePriest’s law were: 1. murder, 2.abduction, 3. theft (most commoncriminal offence in Serbia of thattime), 4. desertion from the uprising


22

* Gavrilovic, Obrad, Valjevo Distric Court 1815-1865, SANU, Beograd, 1973, Book 72, page 2and onwards

army, 5. running away from theguard’s post, 6. falsely swearingbefore a court, 7. using weapons dur-ing a fight or a quarrel. For the firstoffence, Prota Mateja provided thefollowing: 1. „If somebody were tokill a man, he should be killed andput on the wheel„. For the otheroffences, corporal punishments wereprovided (whipping), fines, and ifsomebody would leave the guard’spost, he should be shot. The firstSerbian law contained provisionsfrom the civil and military-criminalcodes, which is justified, having inmind the conditions in which it wasmade.

At the assembly, peasants JovanRabas from the Rabas village andPetar Citak from Gornji Music wereelected judges, while the priest fromBrankovina, Mato Curdjevic, born inBlizonje and the only literate memberof this court, was elected notary. Forthe service of the court, at Klicevac,where today the Tower Nenadovica issituated, a cottage was made (the so-called „pletara“), and a prison next toit. Soon, the court was transferred toValjevo, where the head officeremained to be. This court was onlyabolished for a short time, from endSeptember 1813, when the Turkisharmy occupied Serbia again, to April

1815, when Valjevo was liberatedfrom the Turks.

It is not precisely known whenthe Law of Karadjorde was made(most probably in 1808), and whetherit was applied, but it deserved to get afew comments, because it represent-ed a totally new law in the newSerbian state. It not only discontin-ued the connection with the Serbianmiddle-ages law, which went all theback to Dusanov Code and further inthe past, it also disrupted any relationwith the church laws and codes ofthat time. It was divided into threegroups of provisions: a) provisionson criminal offences against the stateorganization (laws on insulting thestate and government, and laws onacts performed by haiduks (rebels),b) military-criminal and military-dis-ciplinary provisions (treason andespionage for the Turkish benefit,throwing away weapons, using toomuch ammunition), and other crimi-nal and civil legal provisions (mur-ders, infanticide, abductions, etc.).According to the Law of Karadjordje,the punishments were pronounced inaccordance with the seriousness ofthe offence, and were as follows:death by hanging, later death byshooting (upon execution, dependingon the offence, the executed could

23


have been put on wheel, as a terrify-ing example, and for cruel deeds, thepunishment could have been execut-ed by axe); 100 beatings, sometimes200, but with pauses; the womenwere beaten with „kamdzija“ (whip),and the men with a club (this punish-ment was executed in front of thecourt’s building, or at the marketplace); the „dead club“ punishmentwas done in the following fashion -the convicted person would run 24times between the rows of 500 peopleor 12 times between the rows of 300people; life in prison, which wasequal to death, because all connec-tions between the convict and the restof the world were severed; prison,public and domestic; banishment intoanother village, nahija or anothercountry; loss of civil rights, rank anddecorations; inspection, which hasbeen implemented to haiduks (rebels)and confiscation of the property forpolitical convicts, as well as the com-pensation for damage.

The Court of Valjevo had agreat contribution to the introducingof legality and establishment of orderin a new state. Due to extraordinary,uprising circumstances, it stoppedwith its work on 25 April 1806, whenthe judiciary was returned to the mil-itary commanders. Probably, it was

yet again founded in 1807, and bythe decision of the Synod, the courtwas reorganized on 1 January 1809,and has been working ever since.(Unfortunately, materials from thearchive covering this period was des-troyed during the ruin of Karadjor-djeva Serbia in 1813, and only twodocuments were kept dated 1807 and1808, while the oldest documentfrom that period is the „Evidence onDivision of Inheritance of JovicaLelicanin from 1807“).

The Valjevo Court, as one of theoldest and most respectable courts inSerbia, was in charge of a great terri-tory, first of all due to its geographi-cal situation, spiritual strength of thepopulation and leaders of the upris-ings. The territorial jurisdictionincluded the following regional units(„srez“): Kolubarski, Tamnavski,Podgorski, Posavski and Valjevski.

Valjevo Court -Organization and Functioning

According to the 1838 SerbianConstitution, the organization of thejudiciary was as follows: reconcilia-tion courts in each village, compris-ing of a president and two members,


24

and the district (first degree) courts ineach of 17 districts in Serbia.

This court was conducting itsactivity under different names:„Nahijski“ Court in Valjevo, TheCourt of the City of Valjevo, Magi-strate (until 1835), „Ispravnicestvo“(from 1835 to 1837), again Magi-strate (from 1837 to 1840), The Courtof the Valjevo Region (from January1840 to 1890). From 1890 to 1928, it

was called Valjevo First DegreeCourt, and then the District Court. Asall the courts of that time, it also had,

apart from the judicial, the adminis-trative-executive power. By passingthe „Sretenjski“ Constitution, andafter that the „Turkish“ Constitution,

as well as a number of laws anddecrees, the court was more and morerelieved of duties which were not inthe domain of judicial power.

In the times which were onlybeginning to take a legal shape, agreat help to the Valjevo Court wasprovided by the reconciliation courts.They were founded within eachmunicipality and used to deal withthe smaller disputes, which were themost numerous (up to 100 coins ofvalue, up to 15 strikes of the club,and up to three days in prison). Thestaff of the reconciliation courts,depending on the importance ofmunicipality, comprised of the presi-dent, several members, notary and apoliceman.

25


Potpis sudije i pe~atVaqevskog prvostepenog suda

na sudskoj odluci, 1925. godina

Zakletva praktikanta pristupawu u slu`bu Suda okruìja

vaqevskog, 1860. godina

„Srez“ Principals solved some-what more serious offences. TheValjevo Court had the rank of the firstdegree court, which examined deci-sions of the reconciliation courts, andlater on decisions of the municipaland regional courts, and examinedcases for which these courts were notin charge of, mostly civil and crimi-nal proceedings. The work of thecourt was organized through thejudges’ chambers, judges, investiga-tion courts and administrative staff.

During the rise of „haiducija“(acts done by haiduci, the rebels), inthe period of 1863-1866, 1885 and1894-1895, the Valjevo Court wasacting in accordance with the author-ity of the Law on court-martial.

Magistrate of Valjevo, as a cityand regional court, was founded on 1January 1809. The Synod appointed 4members of the court: RankoPetrovic, Milovan Tadic, RakaMiskovic and for the court secretary -Savo Curicic. Also, it discarded theprinciple of electability of judges andproscribed the rules of the court: theprinciple of unanimity of judges indecision-making; protocols of docu-ments, so that the document is to besigned by the oldest member of thecourt and the secretary; that the trialis to be conducted inside the court

building, instead outside, just like itused to be; that written orders of thecourt for the people were to beannounced at a particular time by adrummer, which introduced the prin-ciple of publicity of work.

According to its scope of work,Valjevo Court was, in the first half of19 century, a unique institution. Itsfield of work was not just judiciary,but also other fields: commerce,finance, people’s health and internaladministration. This included all thecourt’s duties, and also the otherduties which were necessary formaintenance of law and order. Fromthe regulations of the ValjevoMagistrate, we learn that it was for-bidden to enter the Court armed.

In order to confront the Serbiancourts to the Turkish ones, PrincipalMilos established the courts inKragujevac (1820), Pozarevac(1821), Sabac and Valjevo (1823). Inthe decision on appointment ofJovica Milutinovic for a judge, sentto Jevrem Obrenovic, it says: „In theValjevo Court there is to be PrincipalJovica Milutinovic and another prin-cipal from the Posavska principality.Principal Jovica is to be told to judgeeverybody fairly… Valjevo Court isto use the present notary of PrincipalJovica…“. Valjevo Court started with


26

its work with two members (princi-pals - judges), one notary and twopolicemen. Judicial experience ofJovica Milutinovic, for that time avery literate man, was welcome.

Until the Serbian Civil Codehad been passed, on 25 March 1844,the work of the court in Serbia wasbased on the common law, with thefollowing evidence in criminal pro-ceedings: oath, which the accusedgave in the church or at court (thishas tacitly been revoked in 1842, andby a decree in 1844), witnesses, oathsof peasants and confession.

It should be noted that therewere no professionally educatedjudges. In the year of passing theSerbian Civil Code, the structure ofthe presidents of district courts wasas follows: „three were illiterate, 10literate enough to sign their ownnames, three had a bit more than pri-mary-school knowledge, and onlyone lawyer“. In the second half of 19century, the education of judges wasimproved.

The court had the tax income(issuing of passports and certificates,that is, permissions to travel in thecountry; each court case was taxed;all this was, the so-called „secretarialincome“, etc), and the fines.

The numerous documents from

the Archive of the District Court inValjevo bear witness to the way theproceedings were going on, that is, tothe way the court solved and judgedin many civil and criminal proceed-ings.

Up to 6 April 1941, the FirstDegree Court in Valjevo, as the dis-trict court, was overburdened by civilcases especially, until April 1931,until the regional court in Valjevowas founded („Srez“ court).

Valjevo District Court was con-ducting the following duties in thefirst half of 19 century: investigatingcriminal cases and civil proceedingsand passing judgments on them;implementation of orders from thehighest state agencies; conduction ofinspection over the administrativepower and conduction of administra-tive duties (issuing passports or cer-tificates for travel). Also, it took careof the immigrants and the people’shealth, control and inspection of thetrade, handicrafts, civil engineering;it also organized the secret service to-wards Bosnia and Austria in the bor-der part of the region, it performedthe military duties, police duties(returning the runaway girls), etc.

From analysis of the court casesit could be seen what kind of criminaland civil offences there were. Regar-

27


ding criminal offences, the followingwere the most numerous: more andless serious bodily harm, theft, rob-bery, murder, and quite a few cases ofinfanticide. Regarding civil offences,the most numerous were the disputesbetween villages about village bor-ders, disputes between individualsdue to cutting of woods, disputesabout mills, marital disputes, etc.

Criminal proceedings

For the criminal offence of mur-der the court would organize aninvestigation, question the witnessesand then pass the sentence (deathsentence). For the other „kinds“ ofmurders, like, for instance, murder ofthe illegal child, the punishment wastime in prison; for manslaughter andattempts to murder, only bodily pun-ishment was envisaged. Criminaloffences included the thefts, burning,false witnessing, incest.

„Haiducija“ (acts of haiduks,the rebels) was treated as a criminaloffence, because it presented theresistance to the Principal’s abso-lutism, and this was the way the court„dealt“ with the political opponents.

Civil proceedings

In the saved documents datingfrom the first years of establishmentof the Valjevo Court, we learn thatthe court examined decisions in thedomain of civil law - on inheritanceor property, purchase of property andnot fulfilling sales agreement obliga-tions, overtaking the property, usurp-ing, marital relations and „sinorenje“disputes (border disputes).

In the time of Milos, Serbia wasa vassal province of the Turkish state.Principal Milos was wise and heknew how to rule. During his firstrule, civil property cases started. Hecancelled all „spahiluci“ (rentedland), and introduced the principle:„The land belongs to the ones whowork on it“. These proceedings werelong/lasting, so Milos himself used tosolve them. He was always on theside of the peasant. The private prop-erty was inviolable, and everythingwithout the title deed holder was„people’s“. The land/property ownerwas each Serb who inherited the landfrom his ancestors or who has takenup a piece of land by putting up afence or cutting wood, and thenbought that land, got it as a present orworked on it for a long time withoutbeing disturbed by the owner. In the


28

Archives of the Valjevo Court mostof the cases relate to regularizingproperty (inheritance, division, pur-chase, gift). Also, according to thedocuments, we learn that one part ofthe Turkish land went to the hands ofthe leaders from Valjevo. So JakovNenadovic bought mills and houseswhich used to belong to the Turks.There were quite a few cases whichdealt with „sinorenje“ (border dis-putes) between individuals and vil-lages and municipalities. Milos usedto criticize his clerks, and so he sent avery striking letter to the leader of thePosavski Principality, Pavle Danilo-vic (1832), because he went to courtwith peasants over „two, three inchesof land“, which he ended by the fol-lowing words: „That very same peo-ple feed us, maintain us all, withoutthem we can’t do a thing, and withthose people we are what we are“.

From the disputes of Valjevopeasants, it could be seen that theywere liberal and that they were notafraid of anybody when it came totheir interests. In these disputes, dur-ing the time of Milos rule, the courtclerk was taking tax of 20 coins forhimself, while in other disputes therewere no taxes.

During the first years of theexistence of the court, the following

evidence was used in civil proceed-ings: belief, oath and witnesses, andafter 1819, the written certificates.Written judgments were very rare atthat time.

By adoption of the Serbian CivilCode in 1844, new relations developin the field of civil law.

The characteristic of family laware the following: Orthodox peoplehad to be married before a priest,with the two witnesses. The husbandwas the head of the family and he hadthe obligation to take care of wife andchildren, while the wife and childrenhad the obligation to „execute hisorders“. The reasons for divorcewere: adultery, when husband con-ducts a crime and gets sentenced totime in prison, if one of spousesleaves the marriage or if the husbandchanges Orthodox for another reli-gion. This law forbade for the illegalpaternity to be proven, but there wasan exception in the case when thewoman had been raped or abducted.

According to the law on inheri-tance, the heirs were male childrenand their male descendants, whilefemale children got alimony andhome, unless they were the only chil-dren. According to the law, the testa-tor had the freedom to make equalboth male and female children, as

29


well as other relatives. The law pro-vided that the wife should inherit theproperty of her husband only if hehad no male relatives up to the 6thdegree on the mother’s side, and ifthere were such relatives, the widowwould get the „enjoyment of hus-band’s property“.

In the Valjevo District Court,civil cases, within the domain of obli-gation law, were prevailing. The his-tory of proving the guilt in civilcases, especially in the second half of19 century, when there were manycases before this court, was veryinteresting. By the Law on JudicialProcedure from 1881, the word„debt“ was changed into the word„claim“, and then it was introducedthat the claim bigger than 200 dinarscould not be claimed if based on wit-nesses statements. In this way, by thereform of the presentation of evi-dence in a civil proceedings, it wasnot possible to base claims only onwitness statements. By the previousLaw on Judicial Procedure from1851, a reliable proof was statementsof two witnesses; from 1860 an indi-rect principle of free judicial estimateof the witnesses’ statements (the term„reliable witnessing of two witness-es“ was used). The whole problemwas with the illiterate people who

had to sign. By studying the archivesof the District Court in Valjevo, wesee that the judicial practice veryoften disregarded application of thisprinciple.

Due to the public scandalcaused by the „cheats“ from Ub, thechange of witnessing was broughtabout in 1865, and the principle ofprohibition of witnesses was intro-duced.

„The Ub Belt“ andthe Reform ofPresentation of Evidence

Legally guaranteed evidence

value of the two witnesses’ state-

ments caused the legal relations in

Serbia of that time to worsen. It was

made possible that the few represen-

tatives of the freshly formed bour-

geois class abused illiterate peasants,

who were the majority in the country.

Village snobs and certain village rich

men abused witnesses’ evidence

statements. This is best illustrated by

the court trial known under the name

of „The Ub Belt“, whose main char-

acters were brothers Curdjevic,

Milutin and Svetozar, tradesmen

from Ub. They „made“ false obliga-

tions, which put illiterate peasants in


30

Tamnava into debt, and, at the same

time, they stimulate other people to

perform such illegal actions. Having

in mind that the brothers belonged to

the liberals, the police couldn’t wait

to brand them as thieves. They were

represented by a lawyer from Valje-

vo, also a liberal, Ljubomir Radova-

novic. The proceedings were started

before the Court of the Valjevo

region in May 1865, conducted by

the President Uros Romanovic. The

judges were: M.S. Aksentijevic, and

C. Stefanovic, who had a „reserved

opinion“*. At the end of the proceed-

ings, the lawyer, as the representative

of the accused, was sentenced for 5

offences to 11 years in prison by the

judgment of the District Court in

Valjevo, dated 6 June 1866, and he

was acquitted regarding other accusa-

tions due to lack of proof. In May

1867, the cour tof Appeal sentenced

him to 7 years in prison due to two

false identification documents and

two insults to the police. The Cas-

sation Court confirmed this sentence

by the end of May of the same year.

„The Ub Belt“ and similar cases

led to the reform of the presentation

of evidence in civil proceedings,

which, in a way, has caused political

changes. So „The Ub Belt“ had, as an

indirect political consequence, the

murder of Principal Mihailo in 1868.

It was known that, after the sen-

tence was pronounced, brother of

Ljubomir Radovanovic, Pavle, went

to Belgrarde to ask for pardon for his

brother. Principal Mihailo promised

Pavle that he would pardon Ljubomir

when the sentence became enforca-

ble. When that happened, Pavle once

again went to Principal Mihailo, but

he said that he would pardon

Ljubomir only after he had served a

half of the sentence. Aggravated by

this decision, Pavle decided, with his

other brothers, to get revenge on the

Principal. They conspired and after

two years, they fulfilled their pledge.

Out-of-court cases

The civil law included the out-of-court cases. Regarding this kind ofcases, the District Court in Valjevocertified wills, performed division ofcooperative property, protected theinterests of underage children with-out parents and the people, conducted„adoptions“ or disowning of sons.

31


* The same, Gavrilovic, Obrad, n.d. 364-370

Judges of Valjevo Court

(„List of Official GovernmentalOffices and Clerks in Serbia, estab-lished in December 1840“)

The most important members ofthe Valjevo Court in the first half of19 century were: The Prota MatejaNenadovic, founder of the FirstValjevo Court, the first Serbian legis-lator and the first Serbian diplomat;Jovica Milutinovic, Jovan SimicBobovac, Gaja Dabic, Jevrem Nena-dovic, Bosko Tadic, Milovan Tadic,Mica Jancic, Petar Jokic, and the oth-ers. Apart from the respect everybodyhad for them not only in their region,but in the whole Serbia, PrincipalMilos very often used to „humiliate“his officials. That’s what he did withthe Priest Nenadovic, with JovanSimic Bobovac, and even Jevrem Ne-nadovic, whom he had transferredfrom the position of the President ofthe District Court in Valjevo to theposition of the member of the DistrictCourt in Loznica. With all duerespect of the abovenamed for thePrincipal, the liberal spirit of Valjevopeople held during the Milos’s abso-lutistic rule. It was strongest by theend of Milos’s rule. For example, thestrongest resistance was seen by theend of 1838 in Tamnava, when the

Valjevo and Tamnava people refusedto accept for their Principal the son-in-law of the Principal Milos,Aksentije Sreckovic.

The History of the ValjevoCourt after the SecondWorld War

During occupation and theSecond World War, in Valjevo and onthe whole territory of the region, thejudiciary functioned within the limitsof the situation. Basic impedimentswere lack of space and professionalstaff, and quite a few legal regula-tions were inapplicable. All publicbuildings, including court buildingswere occupied by the Germans.

Immediately after liberation ofValjevo, the Military court of theValjevo military region started tofunction, upon Decree on MilitaryCourts, dated 24 May 1944. Ac-cording to this Decree, military andcivil judiciary formed a whole andunique system. The jurisdiction ofmilitary courts was to judge criminaloffences performed by the militarypersonnel, as well as all the offencesperformed by the war criminals andpeople’s enemies. The historicalarchive in Valjevo is one of the rarewhich has saved decisions and judg-


32

ments of the Military Court. In thosesaved decisions, in 1944 and 1945 (8judgments), it can be seen that thejudicial procedure was followed,which was particularly regularized bythe Article 28 of the abovementionedDecree. All the judgments began with„In the name of the people“ and theycontain the names of members of thechamber: the President, judges, theSecretary, the military prosecutor andthe defense lawyers. The judgment isto be passed upon the completion ofthe „verbal investigation„; it is fol-lowed by the guilt, sentence, and insome cases the explanation. The sen-tence would become valid on the dayof confirmation by a higher court, inthis case, the Higher Military Court.

On all decisions from 1944,Milijan Jeremic was signed as themilitary investigator. The composi-tion of the Military Court of theValjevo military district (these nameswere taken from the judgments) wasas follows:1944. - the president wasBranko Pavlovic, judges were BosaRatkovic, second lieutenant, andRadomir Dudic, the political com-missioner; secretary Dragoljub Traj-kovic and and the military investiga-tor Milijan Jeremic. In 1945, thePresident of the Court is MilijanJeremic, and during one peirod Dra-

goljub Trajkovic; judges were Slo-bodan Jevtic, Radmila Golubovic, Zi-vorad Cosic; secretariies Zivka Ko-vacevic or Srboljub Rasulic and themilitary prosecutor, Sava Kapisoda.

Although civil state agencieswere constituted, in this case the peo-ple’s courts, from the saved docu-mentation we learn that the MilitaryCourt of the Valjevo military regionoperated until the mid 1945.

In Valjevo, in 1946 the MilitaryCourt of 4th Division of the 1stYugoslav Army was also in function,which has, as the second degreecourt, passed judgments according tothe Law on Criminal Offences again-st the People and the State.

Judicial people’s power at theterritory of Serbia was executed bythe people’s courts. On the territoryof the Valjevo region there were sixcourts - one district in Valjevo andfive „srez“ (regional unit) courtsbased in Valjevo, Valjevska Kame-nica, Mionica, Ub and Obrenovac.

The District People’s Court inValjevo was constituted on 15January 1945*, and Radomir Lazicwas elected President; he was the for-mer judge of the „srez“ court in

33


* Radic, Snezana, „Confiscation of Property inthe Valjevo Region 1944-1946“, MIAV, Valjevo,2002, pages 27-31

Valjevo. The other members were:judges Miodrag Andjelkovic, Drago-ljub Trajkovic, Svetozar Paunovic, allof them former judges of the DistrictCourt, and Milic Milosev; jurors:Budimir Milivojevic, tailor, MilenkoGolubovic, smith, Ratka Paunovic,teacher in the Civil School, all ofthem from Valjevo; Aca Vezilic,farmer from Tulare and Milos Obre-novic from Ravanj.

In February of the same year the„srez“ people’s courts started operat-ing. According to Article 31 of theDirections on Organization of Peo-ple’s Courts for the Federal Serbiadated 9 February 1945, the JusticeOffice (poverenistvo) determined thenumber of judges and jurors for peo-ple’s courts in the Valjevo region:District People’s Court in Valjevo -10 judges and 120 jurors; „Srez“People’s Court in Valjevo - 6 judgesand 100 jurors; „Srez“ people’s Courtin Kamenica - 3 judges and 60 jurors;„Srez“ people’s Court in Mionica - 4judges and 80 jurors; „Srez“ People’sCourt in Ub - three judges and 60jurors and the „Srez“ People’s Courtin Obrenovac - three judges and 60jurors.* Also, it has been ordered that

municipal people’s court be formed,the jurisdiction of which wouldinclude the examination of civil mat-ters. In the same month, the Ministryof Justice of Serbia got informationon employed staff in the courts ofValjevo region. There were 45employees, 14 of whom had finishedLaw School (University). At electionof judges, the most important charac-teristic was the reference written bythe professional service of thePeople’s Defence Valjevo, whichwould describe the behaviour of thesaid person and the member ofhis/her immediate family during theperiod from capitulation to liberation.

When beginning their duty, thejudges had to pass an oath: „I (nameand surname), swear by my honourand the honour of my people that Iwill faithfully serve my people, that Iwill keep and defend the democraticinheritance of the liberation people’swar implemented in the people’s rule,and that I will judge impartially„.

After only two months from theconstitution of courts, certain electedjudges were dismissed, after whichthe Ministry of Justice complainedwith the Presidency of the NationalAssembly of Serbia, and informedthe People’s Defence in Valjevo. Thiscommunication dated June 1945 stat-


34

* MIAV, fund: The District People's Council inValjevo - Valjevo (1944-1947), The Presidency ofthe People's Defence, 1945, reg. No. 3

ed that by this act the functioning ofthe legal system had been violated aswell as the reputation of the judges,which was an important prerequisiteof the legal security. It further saidthat, „having in mind that the peo-ple’s judiciary in the form of theinstitutions of people’s power…established by people„, it was anobligation of people’s courts to com-pletely execute their function andreport back to people, but „they haveto pass their judgments freely andindependently… even from the peo-ple itself… although it is in the nameof the people that the justice is beingadministered„. They especiallyshould be independent from influ-ence, immediate or indirect of theelective body which appointed anddismissed them.

The work, type and jurisdictionof courts were officially regulated bythe Law on Organization of People’sCourts dated September 1945.* Bythis law, all regulation on organiza-tion of courts stopped being valid,„Organization of the courts based onthis law is to be implemented until 1

January 1946„. District and „srez“courts had jurisdiction of decidingcases in the first degree, „the criminaland civil matters for judging in cham-bers„, and they were comprised ofthe president, necessary number ofjudges and jurors. The number ofjudges and jurors was determined bythe Minister of Justice. The revisedversion of this text, with changes andamendments, was published on 25June 1946. Instead of „presuditelj„,another word for juror appeared(sudija-porotnik), for which positionany citizen could have been elected,unless relieved of any political orcivil rights.

The Buildings of the Court

The Valjevo District Court

changed premises several times since

its foundation. In his well-known

book, „The Travel around Serbia„,

Joakim Vujic noted that Valjevo had

that year 150 Serbian, about 30

Turkish homes and about 100 stores.

According to Joakim Vujic’s words,

next to the residence of Jevrem

Obrenovic in Valjevo (built in,

approximately, 1820) on the right

bank of Kolubara, there was a church

made of wood. Away from that

35


* Law on Organization of People's Courts,Official Gazette of Democratic FederalYugoslavia, No. 67/45; revised text of the Law onOrganization of People's Courts, Official Gazetteof Federative National Republic of Yugoslavia,No 51/46.

church, there was the Magistrates

Court of the Valjevo region. There

was no description of the building of

the Magistrates Court. In it, there

were two Principals and one notary,

who were solving cases within their

region, apart from criminal offences,

for which the Great Court in

Kragujevac was in charge. At the

other bank of Kolubara river, left,

there was a Turkish mosque, next to

which there was the home of the

Turkish vizier’s assistant, in which

the Turks were taken to court.

Upon Principal Milos’s order in

the 1830s, the building of straight

streets took place in Valjevo at the

left Kolubara bank. Not everything

went according to the plan of Prin-

cipal Milos, because that was a very

expensive project for the young bur-

geois classin Valjevo. There were no

reliable information as to how the

problem was solved. It is known that,

instead of moving, the city was

expanding. The left bank of the

Kolubara river was inhabited by

those whose financial status allowed

it: tradesmen, clerks or new people

who came on business to Valjevo. All

the land was bought from the Turks

who were leaving town. So, in 1842,

the Prota Mateja Nenadovic and his

second cousin moved, together with

the President of the Court, Jevrem

Nenadovic. Apart from private hous-

es, the building of state administra-

tion buildings was started.

From the „List of state property

in the Valjevo region in 1852“, we

learn about „the building of the

District Court in Valjevo“*. The

building in which the District Court

used to be was built for the purposes

of the Chief’s Office, which was

moved in 1851, since the administra-

tive office bought him another build-

ing in 1851. The building in which

the District Court was situated was

on the same land where it is today. It

was made of stone and covered with

tiles. On the upper floor, there were 7

rooms and a hall, and in the ground

floor there were two rooms, base-

ment and two small rooms connected

with a hall, and those rooms, togeth-

er with the basement, served as

prison. „Everything was average“.

Apart from this, there were two

stores and one small house covered

with tiles, consisting of one kitchen

and one room. That room was used

for the „women’s prison, and it was

in a quite poor condition“. In the

yard, there was a well built in stone.


36

* Dr Perunicic, Branko, The City of Valjevo andits Administrative Territory 1815-1915, HistoryArchive Valjevo, Valjevo, 1973, pages 682-683

The whole piece of land was fenced,

from the street on one side, that is, on

the Western side - from the land of

Jefrem B. Tadic from Valjevo, all the

way to the land of Nikola Rakic from

MIonica, to the East and the same

Rakic; on the South it went down to

the land of Rakic, Atanasije Danilo-

vic and Jefrem Gavrilovic; on the

East it went to Gavrilovici and

through a street to Milivoje Tomic.

In May 1902, the Ministry of

Civil Engineering placed an adver-

tisement in The Belgrade paper, in

which all interested parties were

informed that on 27 May there will

37


The building of Court in Valjevo

be held an auction for constructing

buildings in Valjevo for the district

head’s office and the first degree

court, as well as the accompanying

buildings. The total was 377, 573.89

dinars. It was necessary to give

deposit before the auction, in the

amount of 19,000 dinars in cash or

state bonds, and the rest of the money

of up to 15% of the calculated sum

will be kept when paying in certain

installments. The plans, the total and

the conditions were exposed „for the

opponents to see“ in the finance

department of the Ministry of Civil

Engineering. In the advert it said that

the additional offers, once the auction

is over, will not be considered. On 24

August/6 September 1902, the foun-

dations of the current buildings of the

District Court and Municipal Court,

that is, the buildings for the District

Head’s Office and the First Degree

Court, were consecrated.* They are in

the centre of the city, at the right side

of Karadjordjeva Street, from the

corner of the Vojvode Misica Street

and Karadjordjeva Street, almost to

the Vuka Karadzica Street. They

were finished in 1906, and are a com-

plex of administrative buildings, built

upon project of the Architect Jovan

Ilkic.

The building of the District

Court* has a basement, ground floor

and the upper floor. Since it is situat-

ed at the corner of two streets, its cen-

tral part is prominent. That part of the

building is especially decorated by

the main entrance and the balcony

above it, two pillars at the sides, a

number of big windows and two

standing figures at the top. The finish

of the central part has the quadruple

roof, covered with sheet metal. From

the entrance, one comes into the

building through a monumental stair-

way, leading to the first floor. The

stairway is especially decorated, and,

apart from its function, it is also

esthetic. The following decorative

elements were applied: horizontal

wreaths, pilasters, numerous big win-

dows, as well as the elements which

were characteristic for academic

style. Although the building of the

District Court in Valjevo was one of

the most beautiful of this kind in

Serbia, it has not kept its authenticity.

As a matter of fact, in 1957, at the


38

* Rankovic, Zdravko, Valjevo Region in IXCentury, IP Kolubara, Valjevo, 2003, pages 18,37-38

* VALJEVAC, The Great People's Calendar for1994 Year; Stamenic, Dragan: "ImportantBuildings in Valjevo", Book 2, Agency"Valjevac", Valjevo, 1994, pages 365-367

façade in the Vojvode Misica Street, a

big Western gate, which was leading

into the yard, was walled up.

The Building of the Municipal

Court is situated in Karadjordjeva

Street and is a part of the composition

with the building of the District

Court. It was made by the same

author, and in the same style. It was

built with the hard material, and has

the ground floor and the upper floor.

In the middle of the street façade in

the ground floor the entrance is espe-

cially prominent. In the middle of the

object, there is a stairway leading

from the entrance. The façade has

decorative elements, like the District

Court building. Unfortunately, the

former entirety was marred by addi-

tional construction of the Insurance

Fund „Dunav“, which has no connec-

tion with the existing buildings style-

wise.

In 1985, these objects were pro-

nounced cultural monuments.

With smaller changes and the

purposes of certain objects, the main

buildings remained unchanged.

Jovan Ilkic (1857-1917) - an

architect, used in his work the styles

based on baroque and classicism -

elements of pure academic architec-

ture. His projects marked the archi-

tectural work in Serbia by the begin-

ning of 20 century. His main works

were: the building of the National

Assembly, Hotel „Moskva“ in Bel-

grade, court buildings in Kragujevac,

Vranje, Pirot and other places.

39


40

- The collection of the ValjevoDistrict Court contains 372 booksand 6320 cases of files for the period1807-1944. It is one of the best pre-served collections in Serbia andbelongs to the cultural heritage cate-gory of extraordinary value for theperiod up to 1918, and from 1919 to1944 to the category of great value.Two documents have been preservedfrom 1807 and 1808, and 20 docu-ments for the period 1823-1827. Inthe latter years the number ofarchived items has increased and insome years there are over 1000 doc-uments. The Collection is locatedand kept in the Valjevo Inter-munic-ipal Historical Archive.

* * *

- First collected items (22)represent receipts („svidateljstva„),judgments, orders, reports, verdicts(attempted murder, infanticide, adul-tery, unnatural lechery).

* * *

- According to the list from1834, Valjevo had 140 households

and 893 inhabitants, 530 male and363 female. Valjevo at that time wasone of the 18 settlements of theKnezevina Srbija, divided in towns.At the same time, those were region-al, that is district centers. Serbia atthat time had about 70.000 people,out of which only 7% lived in townsand 93% in villages. In 1861,Valjevo had 2150 inhabitants (1385male and 972 female).

* * *

- The power of the leaders ofthe uprising immediately took theform of their

getting rich, on which the Priest(Mateja Nenadovic) wrote in his„Short Notes“: „Children, the cir-cumstances change the way we act,better something than nothing“.Nevertheless, before the passing ofthe Criminal Law in 1844, the prac-tice of seizing the land, grabbing theland which had not been cleared, andabuse of the right to purchaseTurkish property, was an exception.The more important thing was the

INTERESTING POINTS FROMJUDICIAL HISTORY ANDARCHIVE COLLECTION

fact that Milos had adopted the prin-ciple that the land belonged to theones who worked on it, which madethe peasant free and the sole owner.By this principle, Milos eradicatedfeudalism in Serbia.

* * *

- Judges, when they appearedbefore the court as litigators in theirprivate matters, were often veryaggressive and rude to their oppo-nents and plaintiffs, and sometimeseven openly threatened them. Afamous case was between JovicaMilutinovic (first judge of the Va-ljevo Court, and subsequently itspresident) and Prota Mateja Nena-dovic, in the matter of division of theriver Gradac for their mills. In thehearing, Jovica Milutinovic wascontinuously insulting and openlythreatening Prota Mateja, that theCourt ordered him to apologize. Theapology was made in front of theGreat Court in Kragujevac, with awarning that any act of violence (byJovica Milosavljevic) would beseverely punished. Perhaps that wasthe reason why Knez Milos suspend-ed Jovica Milosavljevic on Nov-ember 20, 1838, who was afterwardreinstated as a judge.

* * *

- An excerpt from Regula-tions of the Peoples’ Council for the

Court of Valjevo Region of January1, 1809, according to article 6, pre-scribed corporal punishment (mini-mum 25, maximum 50 lashes,strokes) and punishment by depriva-tion of liberty (arrest, prison) butwith beneficial treatment of leadersand traders who were exemptedfrom the first two corporal punish-ments. „Peasants, buljubase (mili-tary comanders) and traders“ shallbe punished for the first „mistake“by imprisonment of 24 or 48 hourswith „bread and water“ only, and forsecond offence by 25 or 50 coins;only when they commit offence forthe third time, the court will orderlashing.

* * *

- Slavno Isprevnicetstvo ofthe Valjevo District received onAugust 18, 1837 an order from theSovjet president from Kragujevac,was received, which among otherthings, sent them two prisoners con-victed of murder. Instead of the sen-tence, they were ordered to „burythose who died of plague and to carefor the sick“. The guards were strict-ly ordered to prevent them fromescape. In 1837, the plague wasrecorded in Brezde and Osecinica,although it was often in the Valjevoregion. Captains were ordered tocreate quarantines, to guard villageswhere the outbreak was spotted, to

41


send reports on the number of deador cured, to ban gatherings and sea-sonal field work and to announcewhen the epidemic was over.

* * *

- In May 1850, Prota MatejaNenadovic filed a complaint - letterto Knez Aleksandar Karadjordjevicabout court’s decision regarding adebt. In his complaint he refers to hisprior work, when he was a judgefrom 1840 with jurisdiction fromKolubara to Drina rivers, and how hewas young and „independent andwithout restrictions“ in the decisionmaking. He also referred to the workof younger judges where he says:My Lord, I know very well what ismine and I do not want what belongsto any other, and I shall defendwhat’s mine if your Highness andjust courts help me. My Lord, it isdifficult to me to endure attacksfrom my foes, and to withstand rep-rimands for my behavior from somestate officials, who, let me say, yes-terday received their diplomas fromyou and today behave as they pos-sess diplomatic philosophy, but infact don’t know a..thing. He fin-ished the letter with the words…Forgive me, my Lord, for this letterand trouble, but I carry a great bur-den and load, and great need changesthe law.

- In January 1860, the Com-mercial Court sent a note to theCourt of Valjevo district on initiationof bankruptcy proceedings againstthe „over-debted local master JovanPavlovic“. It was announced andpublicly informed that anyone, withdocuments and proofs, holding theaforementioned Jovan in debt, toapproach the court in order to claimtheir rights.

* * *

- The court of the Valjevo dis-trict addressed the Ministry ofJustice on 21

March 1860 to get 336 coinsfrom the people’s safe deposit, in


42

order to purchase 12 shackles. As amatter of fact, the local office (inValjevo) arrested 9 people who hadperformed different thefts, but theydid not have enough „shackles forthese thieves to be put on“. A posi-tive response was re-ceived as soon as 24March.

* * *

The prisonershad adequate medicalcare. The medicineswere obtained in theKlaudije Prikelma-ier’s pharmacy. In1892 medicines weredistributed in thevalue of 85,45 dinars.The prisoners mostlysuffered from: dentalpain, mange, sorethroat, ear infection,temperature, differentswellings, mental dis-orders… For thesediseases, the follow-ing drugs were pre-scribed: quinine, chlo-roform, hypermangan,Vaseline, antifebricet,antipirin, borax, lanoline, bicarbon-ate of soda, calibronate, sodium sali-cylic acid, valium. The bills wereinspected by the Ministry of Interioron 3 February 1893.

* * *

At the request of the tradesmenfor the Commercial Court to befounded and a Commercial Code tobe passed, constitutionalists in theMinistry of Finance formed a com-

mittee which had the task to draft theCommercial Code. That was notdone, most probably because theconstitutionalist government did notwant to impose any limitations on

43


Odluka kneza Milo{a Obrenovi}a o osnivawutrgova~kog suda, 1859. godina

the tradesmen and to legally regular-ize the trade. After the fall of thegovernment, and after Milos came tothe throne again, he founded theCommercial Court on 12 December1859, and by the beginning of thefollowing year, precisely on 26January 1860, he passed theCommercial Code. That Code wasmostly done according to the princi-ples of the French CommercialCode, and it contained the regula-tions on tradesmen, tradesmen’sbooks, tradesmen associations, onintermediaries and the whole Bill ofExchange Law. In the August nextyear, the tradesmen requested amen-dments to that law, their dissatisfac-tion being caused by the fact thatthey could not realize their claims inpractice.

* * *

By analysis of the court casesof the District Court in Valjevo for1893, the types of criminal proceed-ings can be seen: 20 murders, 2 mur-der attempts, 11 arsons, 35 cutting ofwoods, 40 thefts, 50 fights, 11insults to the King and the govern-ment.

* * *

SCHEMATISM (taken fromthe State Calendar of the Kingdomof Serbs, Croats and Slovenians for1924)

* * *

In Valjevo, on 10 May 1937, atrial was held for the group of bur-glars led by Milan VukosavljevicBonfilo from Valjevo, who wereaccused for the „Sugar Affair„. Theindictment included 39 persons,among whom there were severalhonorable tradesmen from Valjevo.The first accused was sentenced to 7years in prison.

* * *

Radomir Lazic, graduatedlawyer, the first post-war presidentof the District Court in 1945, wasborn in 1904 in Stapar (near Uzice).His recommendation read as fol-lows: „During occupation, he con-ducted himself properly. He did notcooperate with the occupiers, norwith the people’s traitors. During theoccupation, he stuck to the nationalliberation defense line. He is faithfulto the current regime, and as suchwas chosen for the member of thePeople’s Defense, and during foun-dation of the District People’s Court,he was chosen for the president ofthat court, which position he hasbeen occupying up to the presentmoment.


44

45


Prepisi sudskih dokumenata

Vaqevo, 25. avgusta 1849. godine

Dostava lekarskog uverewa Okru`nog fizikusa za uhap{ene raditelesne kazne Okru`nom na~elstvu u Vaqevu.

Lekarsko svidateqstvoBlagoje Solgi} moè po mojoj vizitaci(j)i i telesnu kazn

izdràti; Milutin pak sara~ zato {to je prosut ne moè se takvojkazni podvrgnuti.S N = o 30.-------------25=go Avgusta 1849.u Vaqevu

Dr. Ma{inSpoqa: KN = o D. 4827

------S.

Gospodine!Premda je drugo svidateqstvo za Milutina sara~a izdati nisam

mogao, moète mu opet 10 batina slobodno otcepiti dati, koi pomom mneniju nikakav kvar pri~initi ne}e.

25/8 1849. u VaqevuDr. Ma{in

D. 4827Spoqa: N = o --------

S. 4160Kr. ~. 81

(Napomena: Po izve{taju Na~elstva okruga vaqevskog N = o 5788 od 12. septembra1849. god. izvr{ena je telesna kazna nad Blagojem Solgi}em i Milutinom Gavrilovi}em.)

Valjevo, 1966 and 1667

- Breakdown of cases in the Valjevo Municipal Court in 1966 and 1967 (4. April1968). The Court had 10 judges in 1968.


46

U Izve{taju o kretawu kriminala za 9 meseci u 1967.godini, sa posebnimosvrtom na kriminal u privredi (razmatran je na sednici Saveta zaop{te, pravosudne i unutra{we poslove SO Vaqevo, 30. oktobra 1967.)pi{e da su naj~e{}e kra|e, utaje, zloupotrebe slu`benog poloàja, nesa-vesno poslovawe i dr. ali pi{e i da ima vi{e kriminala nego {to je ot-kriveno – citat: „Interesantno je napomenuti da se mnogi izvr{ioci ovevrste krivi~nih dela i posle otkrivawa nekako „izvuku“ bilo u toku iz-vi|aja ili pred Sudom, na glavnom pretresu… Ima slu~ajeva da ~lanoviradnih organizacija, organi unutra{we kontrole, pa i neka rukovode}alica ~esto puta idu „na ruku“ izvr{ioca krivi~nog dela, zata{kavaju}iwihove protivpravne radwe…“

47

Izvori i literatura:

MIAV, fond: Okru`ni sud Vaqevo – Vaqevo (1804-1944), 1807-1944.

MIAV, fond: Okru`ni narodni odbor Vaqevo – Vaqevo (1944-1947),Predsedni{tvo i Odsek narodne imovine za godine 1944-1947.

MIAV, fond: SO Vaqevo – Vaqevo (1944-), 1944-1977.

MIAV, Zbirke: poklona, otkupa i Varia

MIAV, Li~ni fond: Prota Mateja Nenadovi} (1777-1854), 1823-1858

Dr Branko Peruni~i}, Grad Vaqevo i wegovo upravno podru~je 1815-1915,Istorijski arhiv Vaqevo, Vaqevo, 1973.

Obrad Gavrilovi}, Vaqevski okru`ni sud 1815-1865, SANU, Beograd, 1973,kwiga 72

Jerotije Vuji}, „Vaqevski sud 1804-1827“;

Obrad Gavrilovi}, „Vaqevska nahija 1816-1837“, „Glasnik„ br. 1, MIAV,Vaqevo, 1966.

Obrad Gavrilovi}, „Vaqevski okru`ni sud od 26. februara 1836. god. do 25.avgusta 1949. godine“;

Qubodrag A. Popovi}, „[ematizam Suda i Na~elstva okruga vaqevskog od1842. do 1851. god.“, „Glasnik“ br. 2/3, MIAV, Vaqevo, 1967.

Istorija dràva i prava jugoslovenskih naroda, Univerzitet u Beogradu,~etvrto izdawe, Nau~na kwiga, Beograd, 1974.

Sto pedeset godina od primene Srpskog gra|anskog zakonika, po dokumenti-ma Vaqevskog okru`nog suda – Katalog izlo`be, Velibor Vidi}, Istorijski arhivVaqevo i Dru{tvo pravnika Vaqevo, Vaqevo, 1995.

Slikarstvo, arhitektura, fotografija, skulptura – izbor tekstova emito-vanih u emisijama Radio Vaqevo, Kultura u pro{losti vaqevskog kraja, NRU„Napred“ i Radio Vaqevo, Vaqevo, 1979, kwiga druga

Sto pedeset godina od primene Srpskog gra|anskog zakonika po dokumentimaVaqevskog okru`nog suda, Katalog izlo`be, MIAV i Dru{tvo pravnika Vaqevo,Vaqevo, 1995.

Sneàna Radi}, Konfiskacija imovine u Vaqevskom okrugu 1944-1946,MIAV, Vaqevo, 2002.

Dràvni kalendar Kraqevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca za godinu 1924,Beograd, 1924.

VAQEVAC, Veliki narodni kalendar za prostu 1994. godinu, Kwiga druga,Agencija „Vaqevac“, Vaqevo, 1994.

Zdravko Rankovi}, Vaqevski kraj u XIX veku, IP „Kolubara, Vaqevo, 2003.

Grupa autora, Pravo, pravda i pravosu|e Podriwa, Okru`ni sud u [apcu,[abac, 2000.

Documents

two centuries of the first court in serbia