According to the verdict, "Dexter" was a leading figure in a Montenegrin mafia clan and was responsible for the trade of a total of 340 kilograms of cocaine, 50 kilograms of heroin, and five kilograms of cannabis in Vienna between early 2020 and summer 2021. He also organized smuggling trips for an additional 140 kilograms of cocaine and 35 kilograms of heroin.

The presiding judge referred to the defendant's extensive criminal record in the reasoning of the verdict. In Serbia, he had already been sentenced to 13 years in prison for aggravated murder, and in Vienna, he received eleven years for aggravated robbery. Given the "criminal personality," the "exorbitant amounts of narcotics," and the numerous drug-related deaths indirectly linked to his trade, a reduction in sentence was out of the question.

Trial Under Strictest Security Measures

The trial took place under the strictest security precautions. Dozens of police cars and motorcycles secured the area around the Palace of Justice to prevent possible escape attempts. Two police officers monitored the area with a drone from the terrace of the Justice Café. Inside the building, special units of Cobra, Wega, and the Special Operations Command (SEK) of the judicial guard were stationed with machine guns, full-face helmets, and protective gear. Access to the courtroom was hermetically sealed, and even defense attorneys and interpreters had to identify themselves multiple times.

In the courtroom, five SEK officers, two Wega police officers, and several constitutional protectors secured the trial. "Dexter" was escorted into the room by heavily armed forces in hand and foot cuffs. Additionally, he wore a belly belt, which was only removed during the trial. According to the police, up to 50 officers were assigned to the event, along with numerous judicial guards.

Dexter: "I Feel Like I Don't Deserve This"

"Dexter" had consistently maintained his innocence throughout the trial. Before the Higher Regional Court, he used his final statement to complain about the judiciary: "I request the high court to reduce the sentence. I did not have a fair trial." He then wanted to list how, in his opinion, the first court had violated his rights: "It was refused to hear requested witnesses." However, he could not continue as the presiding judge interrupted him, pointing out that the Supreme Court had dismissed all alleged procedural errors as unfounded. "Do you want to say anything else about the sentence?" the judge asked, to which "Dexter" replied: "I feel that the sentence is too high and that I do not deserve it."

Defense attorney Werner Tomanek also considered a life sentence inappropriate. Imposing the maximum penalty provided for in §28a paragraph 5 of the Narcotic Drugs Act (SMG) for general preventive reasons was inappropriate. With his client's imprisonment, "not a gram less" of narcotics had reached Vienna's streets, and their quality "had not deteriorated," said the lawyer. Therefore, a life sentence was "in any case far excessive, it has no general preventive effects whatsoever."

Supreme Court Declared Evaluation of Crypto Phones Permissible

"Dexter" was primarily tracked down through the evaluation of supposedly wiretap-proof crypto phones, which formed the basis of the evidence in the first instance and which the Supreme Court declared permissible. The criminal organization had used these devices to conduct their business, where even location tracking was not possible. They could not be used for calls, but images, videos, and audio messages could be sent. However, foreign law enforcement agencies managed to crack the criminals' communication and secure the content, which ran through servers in Canada and France. Subsequently, the chats were decrypted with the help of the FBI, leading to investigations against criminals in numerous European countries.

The chats concerning "Dexter" and his group of around 200 members were made available to Austrian law enforcement authorities via Europol. The Supreme Court saw no violation of the prohibition on the use of evidence in their evaluation. Justification: The underlying investigative measures were neither initiated by Austrian law enforcement agencies nor conducted with their involvement. Rather, the Austrian law enforcement agencies "provided already existing evidence," argued the Supreme Court. Additionally, there were "no indications that the defendant did not voluntarily use the mobile phones with the ANOM and SKY ECC technologies, that the content of the recorded communication was based on coercion initiated by authorities or any other (e.g., cunning) influence by state authorities on the defendant, that during the investigative measures by domestic or foreign authorities, the freedom of the defendant's decision-making or action was influenced, or that the defendant was incited by law enforcement agencies (or by third parties commissioned by them) to commit crimes."

(APARed)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.