IN THE NAME OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BITOLA, in a panel consisted of Misko Stojkovski – Chairman and the judges-jurors Spiro Gjorgevski and Trajko Derivolski-members, with Ruzica Anevska as court clerk, deciding upon the legal charge of the Primary Public Prosecution of Bitola P.P. No.2/04 dated on 26 January 2004 against Jovan Vraniskovski from Bitola, on the criminal offence “Instigation of ethnic, racial and religious hatred, discord and intolerance” referred to in Article 319 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, on the main and public court proceeding held in the presence of the Advocate of the Prosecution, the Deputy Public Prosecutor Pavlina Jankulovska, the defendant and his defence attorney Vasil Gjeorgjiev from Bitola, on 1 July 2004 has reached the following:
V E R D I C T
The defendant JOVAN VRANISKOSKI, born of father Argir and mother Galena on 28 June 1966, in Bitola where he lives on 2/2/23 Kocanska St.., Macedonian, a citizen of the Republic of Macedonia (RM), literate, graduated at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and the Faculty of Theology, with a PhD in theology, single, served in the army in 1984 in Sarajevo, previously tried, there are no proceedings against him on another criminal offence
I S G U I L T Y
For the reasons that:
- In the period after 7 August 2003, after being stripped of power and dethroned from the position of a Metropolitan and Eparchial Bishop by virtue of the decision of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC), HSB No.249 dated on 9 June 2003, aware that he will provoke religious hatred, discord and intolerance among the believing people of the MOC, as well as between the believing people of the MOC and part of the believing people of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), desiring this, acted upon and agreed with the Decision of the SOC to be appointed as an Exarch of the Ohrid Archbishopric in Macedonia, after which he started to act as an Exarch of the Ohrid Archbishopric and present it as the only church in the RM denying the existence of the MOC, as well as to organize religious services in Macedonia, thus:
During the month of November 2003 by means of the religious calendar for 2004 published by the inexistent monastery of “Saint John Chrysostom”, located in a villa in the village Nizhepole, ownership of his parents, he presented untruths, scorn and slanders against the MOC, as follows :
“We deem the need of the believing people to recognize the truth such as it is and to have a truthful testimony to be great, because most unfortunately, the last few decades, as much as because of the atmosphere of communism and atheism that prevailed on the territory of the existing Ohrid Archbishopric, as because of the schism which reigned on these territories until last year, the people who by the long-lasting tradition is Orthodox, failed to be educated in the faith sufficiently ...
The greatest fault for the ignorance of the teachings of the Gospel of the people and the misconducts in the faith should be looked for in the topmost hierarchy of the so-called MOC. The Bishops of this schismatic organization, ever since the beginning of the schism in 1967 until the present days, prove to be incompetent for the service they received from God. They persistently put their own interest before the interest of the Church. They have always been and are still remaining to be the last fortress of communism...
The evidence for our writing are the last events in the church life in the Republic of Macedonia in which the people remained utterly passive, and we would even add that they allowed to be manipulated because, not knowing the essence of the faith, they let several of the so-called bishops, who are not recognized by anyone of in the world and base very decision on greed, to decide upon the future of their church. If the people were aware of the worth of the faith, they would never leave the fate of the Church in the hands of greedy and heretic people...
Most unfortunately in these regions of ours, the schism with the worldwide Orthodox Church, which started in 1967, prepared the terrain for many surrogates of the faith...
There is also the occurrence of the most recent heresy which is spread by the highest hierarchy of the schismatic organization that calls itself MOC, and this is the accepting of the schism as a normal state and defending the same with unecclesiastical methods...
The unrecognizing has only one reason, and that is the unworthiness of the bishops of the MOC to be recognized...
The May Assembly of the Bishops of the SOC, forbade the religious service and gave to the Court the Metropolitan of Polog and Kumanovo kyr Cyril. The same gave the schismatic bishops in the Republic of Macedonia a time limit until 1 September 2003 to return to the unity with the Orthodox Church. In the opposite case they will be given before a Church Court. Two new bishops have been appointed, the Archimandrite Joachim with the title Bishop of Velika and the Archimandrite Mark with the title Bishop of Dremvitza, assistants to His Eminence, the Metropolitan John (Jovan)...
Being aware that if they attack the shepherd they will disperse the flock, the schismatics naming themselves MOC, give everything they can to discredit the person of the Metropolitan John, who is the only canonical bishop on the territory of the RM...
They also know that if the state authorities let the Patriarch Paul (Pavle) and the bishops of the other Orthodox Churches enter the Republic of Macedonia, then the people will soon see that the things they said about the Bishop John were not true and were just a political trick...”, so that he would prove that the MOC is inexistent, and only the Ohrid Archbishopric, to which he is appointed as an Exarch by the Serbian Patriarch Paul, is recognized, as the usage of scornful claims that the Macedonian Orthodox Believers are and remain to be members of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric.
- During the month of November and the beginning of December 2003 in the Cathedral Church in Belgrade he participated in the ordination of Joachim into a Bishop of Velika and Administrator of the Eparchy of Polog and Kumanovo and Mark into a Bishop of Dremvitza, a vicar Bishop of the Metropolitan of Veles and Vardar Valley, who were previously recommended to the Patriarch so as to create an image of a parallel Synod of the MOC, which is recognized in the Constitution of the RM, thus dividing the Macedonian believing people and causing a religious hatred, discord and intolerance between them, as well as hatred with a part of the Serbian believing people who live in the Republic of Macedonia.
- On 11 January 2004 in Bitola, in his apartment on the 2/2/23 Kocanska St., ownership of his parents, declared by the defendant to be a sacral building – a Chapel to the Resurrection of Christ, he officiated at a religious service, first he co-officiated and took the Communion with Maxim Ristevski – abbot of the monastery “St Great-martyr Demetrius” in Skopje, also called Marko’s Monastery; with Kyrana Parlic – abbess of the Monastery “Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God” in Resen; with David Ninov – abbot; with Kimev Goran, called Mark of Dremvitza – Bishop of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric and the nuns Renata Mizimakovska, Crcoroska Anysia, Georgievska Verica, Nina Trajkovska, Taisa Krceva and Cvetkovska Blagica, inciting great religious hatred and intolerance with the citizens-believers of the MOC in Bitola and wider in the Republic of Macedonia, as well as bitterness with various associations of citizens and other organizations in the Republic.
Thereby he committed the criminal offence “Instigation of ethnic, racial and religious hatred, discord and intolerance” referred to in Article 319 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, and based on this Article as well as Articles 32, 33, 35 and 39 of the Penal Code, the Court
S E N T E N C E S H I M
To a sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year and six months which will also take into count the period that the defendant spent in prison beginning from 11 January 2004 until 30 January 2004.
He is obligated to pay the expense of the penal proceeding amounting to MKD 2,000.00, as a flat rate that is to be paid to the Court within 15 days since entering into effect of the verdict.
R a t i o n a l e
The Municipal Public Prosecution of Bitola brought a legal action P.I..No.2/04 dated on 26 January 2004 accusing him of a criminal offence actually and legally described in the indictment.
The Advocate of the Prosecution during the main trial, before giving the closing statement introduced amendments to the description of the indictment just as it is given in the wording of this verdict. In the closing statement the aforesaid declared that the actions which the defendant undertook in the critical moments contain the criminal offence with which he is charged. The defendant knew of the Religious Calendar and of the text written within it because he was the one who published it, and in that text as in the writings of that Calendar he pronounced an abundance of offensive words for the prelates of the MOC, calling them greedy, heretics, thus offending the Macedonian believing people. At his suggestion, the Serbian Patriarch Paul ordained the Bishops Mark and Joachim, and in that manner constructed a parallel Synod of the Ohrid Archbishopric with the Holy Synod of Bishops (HSB) of the MOC thus provoking a discord between the believing people of the MOC with the ones of his group. Moreover, the defendant performed a religious service in the apartment on the street Kocanska, which he had turned into sacral premises. In his religious service he denied the existence of the MOC and declared that the only recognized church was the Ohrid Archbishopric, to which the Prelate of the SOC appointed him as an Exarch. According to the Advocate of the Prosecution, the criminal offence he is being charged of bears its essential burden in the fact that what he undertook or did disregarding if those actions provoked religious hatred. Then again, religious hatred and discord did occur because this is what was concluded from the statements of the witnesses interrogated, especially from the ones of some that represented themselves as Chairmen of associations of citizens, and this hatred was also recognized in the survey of the witnesses who were accidental passers-by. This hatred went to such a degree that the citizens declared that if the state did not undertake an action, then they would and they would be the judges.
Although the defendant declared in his defence that he did not know of the leaflet “Anastasia”, the Chairperson of this association was the nun Renata Miziimakovska, one of his followers, it turned out that the texts thereof match the text of the Calendar. On the other hand the defence of the defendant that he had a Constitutional right to freedom of religious confession did not hold ground, because no one denied him the right to a religious confession other than his actions to organize and establish church parallel to the MOC and a parallel Holy Synod of Bishops. Therefore, it was suggested that the defendant is declared guilty and that he is convicted according to the Law.
The defence attorney of the defendant, the lawyer Vasil Gjeorgjiev from Bitola, in his closing statement, concluded that neither did the evidence presented at the main hearing nor did the video tape give any legal grounds for raising a charge for the criminal offence ascribed to the defendant. The text of Article 319 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code provides for instigating racial and religious hatred, discord and intolerance, yet when did anyone use force or when did anyone maltreat anyone else or jeopardize his/her security or mocked his/her religious feelings, symbols or objects, or otherwise caused such a hatred. This other way, according to the defence, on which the indictment was based should have stemmed from the function of the previously described actions. On the other hand, the charge was based on suppositions, and what mattered was whether the actions undertaken by the defendant at that critical period caused intolerance or discord. Bitola has always been multiethnic and all have respected each other’s rights, so it was impermissible that anyone should come to Bitola, gather a group of people, incite them and provoke their anger and then raise an indictment. This described the witness Todor Petrov, so instead of bringing legal action against him for these actions, this legal action was brought against the defendant. If he was doing something in his own apartment then he should have been charged with disturbing the public peace and order. All were allowed to do whatever they wanted in their own apartments as long as they did not disturb the others. In this context, according to the witnesses, tenants of that building, or from most of them, it did not turn out that they had anything against what the defendant did in his apartment. The tenants did not mind the religious rites that the defendant performed, but they did mind the crowd of people.
According to the defence attorney of the defendant, the essential issue was in the different opinions of certain layers whence the opposed opinions in the religious circles came out from, and from the same the Nis Agreement. According to the defence this Nis Agreement was a stimulus for a new way of thinking, a new perception for the new generation of Bishops in our MOC, having as a goal the stepping out from the self-isolation of the MOC and coming closer to or a recognition from the other sisterly churches. These young people of this new generation perceived things in the spirit of the European way of thinking, and this did not mean that the defendant was a Serbian bishop declaring himself to be a Bishop of the Macedonian people. According to the defence attorney of the defendant, three moments proved to be of importance for the indictment. First, for which he recons there is no evidence, is the Religious Calendar for which there is no evidence that it was published by the defendant, therefore he suggested to the Court to free him of this charge because it is unsubstantiated. As second are the ordinations of two new bishops and the presence of the defendant at that ordination. Here he declared that there were no consequences from the presence of the defendant in Belgrade nor were there proofs that he was present there at the ordination. In this part, the indictment was based on suppositions, and the Court cannot try on the basis of suppositions. The third is the holding of the religious rites in the apartment on Kocanska St., for which it was already established that none of the witnesses declared that s/he was bothered by the religious rites. Thus he asked the Court to evaluate all the evidence on the same level with defence of the defendant and to acquit him from the indictment.
The defendant, Jovan Vraniskovski, commenced his defence at the main hearing declaring that the political Court trials in the RM still endure and that the same damage the reputation of our country which just applied for membership at the EU. Some people maliciously talk hat the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric was a Serbian church, so this is the hear-say on which the indictment is based on. Furthermore, in his closing statement, the defendant related to some past proceedings at this Court, to the behaviour of the public prosecutor, what was done and what should have been done by the same, that someone usurped the temples in the RM etc.
Regarding the indictment and the criminal offence he is charged for, in his defence he declared that he did not publish the Religious Calendar, and that the Public prosecutor did not give any evidence to support such a claim. Regarding the ordination of the bishops Joachim and Mark he said that he did not have any contribution and that they were ordained by the Patriarch Paul, while regarding the religious rites in the apartment on Kocanska St., he declared that the religious service on 11 January 2004, was neither the first nor the last, and the religious service was not the problem, but the actual problem was the information that 70 % of the monks in Macedonia would join the Ohrid Archbishopric, so that was the reason why there was an intrusion into and a search of the apartment.
In the closing statement, the defendant declared that Todor Petrov had fascistic ideas, that the witnesses Dusanka and Milan testified about circumstances happening in a said building, but they lived about 5 km farther. The same could be ascribed to the witness Oliver, who was treated by the court as an expert. The witness Misko Gelevski acted in the name of a certain association, but such an association had not been founded. The same recons that there is no evidence that he did the criminal offence he is being charged of so he asked the Court to acquit him.
At the main hearing the Court heard the following witnesses: Boris Dimzov, Dusanka Gjorgjievska, Metodija Gjorgjievski, Oliver Ivanovski, Todor Petrov, Ferie Kerimova, Nada Vasilevska and Misko Gelevski. The Court introduced the written evidence by the means of reading as follows: Decision No.105 dated on 4 April 2003, No.32 dated on 17 February 2003, No.246 dated on 7 August 2002, No.246-1 dated on 7 August 2002, No.146-2 dated on 7 August 2002, No.76 dated on 8 March 2000, No.250 dated on 1 July 1998, No.242 dated on 24 June 1998, all by the HSB of the MOC; the text written by the Protopresbyter Oliver Ivanovski No.02 dated on 12 January 2004; the announcement of the Ohrid Archbishopric No.09 dated on 11 January 2004; a Confirmation of the Commission for the Religious Communities of the Government of the RM No.12-152/3 dated on 12 January 1998; a written address of the Holy Metropolis of Veles and Vardar Valley to Todor Petrov No.108 dated on 26.01.2002; a request for support of the Institutions of the System by the Committee for Protection from Anarchy dated on 12 January 2004; an Extract from the Criminal Records regarding the defendant; a Certificate for Temporary Confiscated Possessions by the Court of First Instance of Bitola dated on 12 January 2004, Decision KI No.1/4 dated on 12 January 2004; a Report sent by a group of tenants to the Sector for Internal Affairs in Bitola in handwriting dated on 11 January 2004; the Decision of the Court of Appeals in Bitola P.W.A. No.9/04 dated on 30 January 2004; and excerpt from the magazine “NIN” dated on 30 October 2003; excerpt from the magazine “Delo” dated on 7 November 2003; 23 April 2004; excerpt from the magazine “Akt” dated on 13 February 2004; an article from the daily newspaper “Dnevnik” dated on 10 February 2004; title being “We Have to Get Out of the Ghetto” and the interview with father David; a pamphlet-leaflet published by the Association of citizens Anastasia without a date of publication; a book with a title “For the Unity of the Church” published by a group of citizens that call themselves “A Citizens Initiative for Surpassing the Information Darkness Atypical for the Democratic Societies...” printed out in Skopje 2004.; a Religious Calendar for the year of 2004 published by the monastery “Saint John Chrysostom” with no marked pages. The Draft Agreement for Establishing Church Unity dated on 17 May 2002; a written text which according to the words of the defendant was part of the web page of the Macedonian World Congress dated on 12 January 2004 and 19 January 2004; a text with a title “A Survey Conducted on the Web Page of TV A1”; a text published in the magazine “Makedonsko Sonce” dated on January 2004 the pages 8,9 and 10; the Decision of the HSB of the MOC No.249 dated on 9 July 2003; a written address of the Archbishop of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci and Patriarch of Serbia, without a title to whom it had been sent, with No.372 dated on 17 May 2004; a written address of the HSB of the SOC No.2721/rec.1466 dated on 25 November 2003 with a title “Your Eminence” with regard to declaring invalid the decision of the schismatic synod of FYROM for defrocking of the defendant; a text published in the daily newspaper “Vreme” which has a handwritten date 5 May 2004 with a title “Orthodoxy, Islam and Democracy”; a Decision for appointing an authorized representative of the Association “Anastasia” from Bitola dated on 14 December 2002, a decision of this Court Reg. Zgf.77/02 dated on 17 December 2002; a written report No. reg. zgf.77/02 dated on 3 June 2004, the Verdict of this Court P. No.447/03 dated on 31 October 2003; a written address of the SMK dated on 14 June 2004. The Court also took into account a photograph of the co-officiating of the Metropolitan Jovan – the defendant with His Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch kyr kyr Bartholomew dated on 11 May 2003. Also the Court took into account three video tapes, one with a title “A Protest Meeting” held on 18 January 2004, another entitled “Religious Service Assigning” as well as of a survey taped by TV Orbis. The Court read the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the RM C.No.10/2004 dated on 12 May 2004.
With a complete, logical and analytical evaluation of the evidence, the Court determined the following factual situation:
The defendant is born in Bitola, he is 37 years old, he has graduated at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Skopje, and afterwards he graduated at the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade. In 1998, he entered the monastic order and was ordained into the rank of a deacon. During that same year he received the rank of a hieromonk, and soon afterwards into the rank of archimandrite. In this same 1998, the defendant was ordained into the rank of a bishop, and in the year 2000 he was appointed an administrator of the Diocese of Bregalnitza. In November 2000 he was removed from the position of an administrator of the Orthodox Diocese of Bregalnitza and he was appointed a Diocese Bishop of the Orthodox Diocese of the Vardar Valley. In this Diocese, he was promoted to the rank of metropolitan with the title Metropolitan of Vardar Valley.
Proceedings were instituted against the defendant as a Metropolitan of the Vardar Valley with which he was defrocked and returned to the rank of a layman, and on 9 July 2003 a decision was reached by the HSB No.249 with which he was released from duty and defrocked. The reason for defrocking was his behaviour as a Metropolitan of Vardar Valley Jovan against the interests of the MOC.
Even since his ordination and appointing as a Vicar Bishop of the Diocese of Prespa and Pelagonia, he started to greedily misuse his title, he created a foundation “Sv.vmc. Dimitri” (Saint Great-martyr Demetrius) in Bitola, through which he gathered means for his own usage. Later he founded a humanitarian organization “Voskresenie” (Resurrection) located in Bitola, and when gathering humanitarian aid of the foreign and domestic donors, he misused the name of the MOC. Later he started the renewal of the temple “Saint Panateleimon” in Veles, and with this, he started gathering donations, and was given EUR 57,000 by Mr. Trifun Kostovski.
All these facts were concluded by the Court from the Decision of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the MOC No. HSB 249 dated on 9 July 2003, thus this Court finds them to be indisputable.
There was an Ohrid Archbishopric as a church authority on the territory of Macedonia, which was abolished by the sultan of the Turkish Empire. After the abolition this region became part of the church jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate, and later this jurisdiction was given to the Serbian Orthodox Church, for a brief period to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and then again to the SOC. This SOC has no church interest in the independent Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia, but in an autonomous church, such as the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Macedonian church authorities have imposed this issue of an independent church, equal and of equal rights with all the orthodox churches since 1958. After the falling apart of the SFRY and the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian Orthodox Church was formed, and this deepened the chasm between the MOC and the SOC. The Court finds these facts to be undeniable, they are part of the Macedonian ecclesiastical history, and even the defendant does not deny the same, and he referred to the same at the main hearing-, except for the part of the influence of the SOC over the MOC.
After the commencement of the church proceedings, the defendant, anticipating the decision of the HSB of the MOC, started to undertake actions for causing a church schism. First, he tried to separate the Episcopate of the Vardar Valley from the MOC and to put it under the jurisdiction of the SOC. The Serbian Orthodox Church found the defendant to be a suitable instrument for causing a schism, a person that would promote their idea expressed in the Nis Draft Agreement dated on 17 May 2002, which was not accepted by the MOC, and which proclaimed that the MOC through establishing unity with the SOC would establish unity with the other orthodox churches. On 22 September 2002, before the defendant was defrocked and dethroned, he worked out to be appointed an Exarch of the Ohrid Archbishopric, the one which existed before the foundation of the MOC, and thus he created a parallel church to the MOC. Now, after the appointing of the Exarch of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric, he started acting as a prelate of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia called Ohrid Archbishopric, besides the MOC. After his appointment he started to act publicly, now, as he said, he became a public figure and he started to call the MOC a schismatic church, so he gathered a small group of clerics and abbots, likeminded people and as an Exarch of the Ohrid Archbishopric, which has its seat in Bitola in his parents’ apartment located on 2/2/23 Kocanska St. he started to openly attack and discredit the Macedonian Orthodox Church, and to present the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric as the only church in the RM. After his appointment to be an Exarch of this inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric, he started to perform religious services and rites, to celebrate the holy liturgy, in the apartment on 2/2/23 Kocanska St. In this apartment on 11 January 2004, there was a religious service – co-officiating and taking the Communion with his supporters Maxim Ristevski – abbot of the monastery “Saint Great-martyr Demetrius” in Skopje, with Kyrana Parlic – the abbess of the Monastery “Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God” in Resen, with David Ninov – abbot, with Kimev Goran, called Mark of Dremvitza – a Bishop of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric and the nuns Renata Mizimakovska, Crcoroska Anysia, Georgievska Verica, Nina Trajkovska, Taisa Krceva and Blagica Cvetkovska.
After the establishing of the Ohrid Archbishopric, according to the church canons in order for this Archbishopric to be able to function it is necessary for the same to have a Holy Synod of Bishops. This HSB could be constituted in an Archbishopric that has at least three bishops. For this purpose during the month of November and the beginning of December, at the request of the defendant the HSB of the SOC performed an ordination of the priests Joachim, appointing him to be a Bishop of Velika and administrator of the Diocese of Polog and Kumanovo, and of the priest Mark, appointing him to be a Bishop of Dremvitza, a vicar Bishop of the Metropolitan of Veles and Vardar Valley. The defendant suggested these two clerics to the Serbian Patriarch so that the same would be ordained into the rank of bishop, and because this was his suggestion, he participated in their ordination. This fulfilled the condition of three bishops to form a HSB which would function and reach valid decisions with the attendance of an additional number of bishops from the Serbian Orthodox Church.
For the fulfilment of his intent, during the month of November 2003, after the MOC defrocked him, the defendant published a calendar for the year of 2004, on which the inexistent monastery called “Saint John Chrysostom” located at the weekend cottage in the village Nizhepole is indicated as a publisher.
In the Religious Calendar, which has no marked pages, he stated untrue claims, underestimations and slanders about the MOC, he mixed up the church life with the political life in the Republic of Macedonia, and he addressed the people of Macedonia who, according to him, are uneducated and ignorant. Thus, he stated in this religious calendar that there is a great need that the believing people recognize the truth such as it is and the testimony of truth, because, unfortunately, the last few decades, as because of the communist-atheist atmosphere dominant on the territory of today’s Ohrid Archbishopric, as well because of the schism raging on this territory, until last year, the people who by long-lasting tradition were orthodox, were unable to get educated in the faith... Further on he stated that the greatest fault for the ignorance of the Gospel of the people and the inertness in the faith certainly lies on the schismatic organization, who ever since 1967 until today has been irresponsible for the service they accepted from God. They persistently put their own interest before the interests of the church. They have always been, and remain to be the last fortress of communism... Further down he says that his writing has an evidence in the last events of the church life in the RM, in which the people became utterly passive, and it could also be said that they allowed to be manipulated, because being ignorant of the essence of the faith, they left the future of the church be determined by few of the so-called bishops unrecognized by anyone in the world, and everything they decided in the church, was inspired with greed. If the people were aware of the worth of the faith they would never leave the faith of the church in the hands of people greedy and heretic... In this calendar, the defendant states that unfortunately, in our regions, the schism with the Orthodox Church in the world, which started in 1967, prepared a terrain for many surrogates of the faith... Also, a new heresy appeared, spread by the highest Hierarchy of the schismatic organization that calls itself MOC, and that is the accepting of the schism as normal condition and the defending of the same with unecclesiastical methods... Further on he declared that the unrecognizing had only one reason, and that was the unworthiness of the bishops of the MOC to be recognized... The May Assembly of the Hierarchy of the SOC forbade the Metropolitan of Polog and Kumanovo kyr Cyril to perform religious service and gave the same to the Court, also giving the schismatic bishops in the RM a deadline until 1 September 2003 to return to the unity with the Orthodox Church. To the contrary they would be given to a Church Court. Two new bishops were appointed, the Archimandrite Joachim with the title of Velika, the Archimandrite Mark with the title of Dremvitza, helpers to his Eminence the Metropolitan Jovan... Moreover, he declared in the Calendar that the state authorities were also aware that if they allowed the Patriarch Pavle, and other bishops of the other orthodox churches to enter the Republic of Macedonia, then the people would soon see that all that was said about the Bishop Jovan was lie and a political trick...
Thus published Religious Calendar was distributed by the defendant among the citizens, therefore, along with the suggestion for ordination of the clerics Joachim and Mark to be bishops and with the religious ritual, first co-officiating and taking the Communion, he instigated hatred and discord with the citizens, as well as intolerance among the believing people of the MOC and part of believing people of the SOC, consequently causing reaction and unacceptance and revolt of the citizens. The citizens openly asked for an intervention of the state agencies, there were threats for attacking the defendant, which are a result of the discord and religious hatred that he instigated. Hence, on 18 January 2004, on the Eve of Theophany a large group of citizens from Bitola, who were at the temple “Saint Demetrius” in Bitola, after the religious service, being revolted went towards the home of the defendant located on the 2/2/23 Kocanska St. and there they held a protest meeting expressing their revolt for the actions of the defendant. As well a larger number of citizens, openly and in front of the cameras of the TV station “Orbis”, publicly expressed their opinion, their judgment and their request for an urgent and pressing action of the state agencies.
This factual state is resulting from the derived evidence and partially from the defence of the defendant.
The defendant completely denies the criminal offence which he is charged of, he denies the MOC and its existence, as well as the reputation and dignity of its leaders, and he proclaims the existence of the Ohrid Archbishopric as the only autonomous church recognized by all the orthodox churches in the world. In his defence he declared that the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric in the church in the RM, meaning that it is the only church for all the Orthodox Christians, and that the temples in the RM were usurped by the MOC, also that it was right to call the church in the RM Ohrid Archbishopric and not MOC because thus it would remain in ecclesial isolation. According to the defendant even since 1918, the church in the Vardar region of that day, which means the Ohrid Archbishopric, was in spiritual dominion of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
It is undeniable to the court that the Ohrid Archbishopric existed in Macedonia as an autonomous church even since 1767, and this is its status from 1958 to 1967, as is undeniable that in this period the Ohrid Archbishopric was in the dominion of the SOC. However it is also undeniable that after the falling apart of the SFRY, in he Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian people have a Macedonian Orthodox Church, as a descendant of the former Ohrid Archbishopric, just as the orthodox people of the neighbouring states. It is likewise undeniable to the court that the MOC is not recognized by the SOC and that because of this unrecognising, the MOC is not recognized by the other orthodox churches and the Constantinople Patriarchate. However, for a longer period this MOC is fighting for a status the same as the one of the other orthodox churches. The defendant denies the fight of the MOC for this status, he denies the independence of the MOC, and he proclaims the autonomy such as the Ohrid Archbishopric had under the patronage of the SOC.
These positions of his, and especially his actions were not accepted by the Macedonian people, with the exception of a small group of clerics, his followers and a small group of citizens who accepted his insistence to keep the Macedonian church under the ecclesial jurisdiction of the SOC.
This insistence during the critical period was conducted by the defendant through all possible means, available to him. So, he turned his parents’ apartment on 2/2-23 Kocanska St. in Bitola into a religious temple. He marked this temple as the seat of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric and for a longer period of time he held religious services there.
Regarding the religious services in the apartment, the defendant, during his defence at the main hearing declared that he held religious services and that he will continue to do so, and that the religious service held on 11 January 2004 was neither the fist nor the last. From this defence, one can see his persistence and determination in his strives to destroy the MOC. This is why, before he was dethroned and defrocked, anticipating the decision of the HSB of the MOC, he openly acceded the SOC, and herewith accepted to conduct their insistence to put the MOC under its jurisdiction.
With the Decision of the HSB No.249, on 9 July 2003, the defendant was stripped of power and dethroned of the position Metropolitan and Diocese Bishop of the MOC, and before the reaching of this decision, on 22 September 2002, he was appointed an Exarch of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric by the Prelate of the SOC, which is a fact determined by the defendant.
Being appointed an Exarch by a prelate of a foreign church, he undertook the actions described in the indictment. Hence, during the month of November 2003 he published a Religious Calendar for the year of 2004, which does not have marked pages, and the publication of which is ascribed to a certain monastery “Saint John Chrysostom”, which is in his parents’ weekend cottage in the village Nizhepole.
This calendar begins with excerpts from the holy Gospel, but in the further text, there are some untrue claims, disdains and slanders about the MOC, and in the same he presented himself as an Exarch, a Prelate, of the Macedonian church called Ohrid Archbishopric.
The defendant denies that he published this Religious Calendar although he does not deny his text was written and published in the same. He denies that the he published the Religious Calendar although some of his remarks were written in it, and during the critical period there was a program on “Kanal 5” where the Metropolitan of Strumitza Nahum and the Archimandrite Clement made comments on the writings in the calendar, so it was possible that they had written the Calendar. The Calendar was published by the monastery “Saint John Chrysostom”, located in his parents’ weekend cottage, so it is impossible that someone else had written or published that Calendar without the knowledge or approval of the defendant. This defence of the defendant, by the opinion of this Court is illogical, confusing, and partial, at times the defendant denies his doing, and at other times he accepts what had been done. In any case, the central figure in the text written in the Calendar is he; it describes his relations with the church, his treatment by the authorities and the rude attack on the MOC and its clerics, its leaders. This is the overall position of the defendant regarding the MOC during the entire penal proceedings, he rudely and insolently attacked this MOC, and so the text describes his relations from the beginning of the procedure for his defrocking, his treatment by the state authorities, the Court proceedings against him until the publication of the Calendar. Therefore it can be concluded that he conceived it, wrote the texts and printed it out, and with the help of his followers he distributed it among the citizens.
This is also the context of the leaflet “Anastasia”. This leaflet was also dedicated to the person of the defendant, regarding him as a person of great importance in our contemporary days, he was an Exarch of Ohrid, but he was denied his rights and persecuted as a person capable to influence the world history. In this leaflet the defendant is presented as a person whose deed can be identified with the possible acceding of the RM to the EU.
For this leaflet, the defence of the defendant was that it was published by the Association “Anastasia”, when its Chairperson was Renata Mizimakovska, but when she became a nun she was not allowed to be a member of associations. In relation to this circumstance the court obtained written reports by the Registry department of this Court Reg.Zgf.77/2002 from 17 December 2002 and 3 June 2004, from which one can see that when it was founded, and still, the Chairperson of this Association is Renata Mizimakovska, although she became a nun. Therefore, it turns out that the defendant’s defence is based on blanket statements as it suits given evidence or a given question.
In the aforementioned calendar, the defendant declares that the need of the believing people to know the truth such as it is and the testimony of truth was great, because these people, due to the atmosphere of communism and atheism which reigned until last year, did not manage to recognize, did not manage to get educated in the faith... On the contrary, these people, for a longer period of time, for several centuries under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, had recognized their faith and had not fallen under many influences. Thus, this declaration of the defendant in the aforementioned calendar irritates the Macedonian believing man. This irritation digs deeper in the text of the Calendar, where the defendant states that the guilt for the alleged religious illiteracy lies on the MOC, its high Hierarchy, which he openly addresses as schismatic, that this hierarchy was a result of an atheist ideology, that the prelates of the MOC were heretics, whose heresy was a curse for the people, that the first curse was brought upon by the Bogomil heresy, and now the same is done by the schismatic bishops of the MOC and the MOC itself. According to the text of the calendar, the Macedonian Church is schismatic. To whom would this schism refer, to itself, or to a church of another state, or ultimately to the defendant. In this regard, in the calendar the defendant emphasizes the alleged schism between the MOC and the SOC. He yearns for the lost influence of the SOC over the church life in the RM. So, in the calendar he states that it was most unfortunate that the schism of 1967 occurred for it prepared the ground for some surrogates of the faith and that Macedonia became a cradle for the occultism, for the sorcerers and soothsayers, and the people remained utterly passive, ignorant of their faith, which they left to the decisions of several so-called bishops of the MOC who used the faith for their greed. A rude and insolent behaviour of the defendant towards the religious feelings of the Macedonian people. This is even more so because he calls the doctrine of the MOC to be a heresy.
Moreover, in the calendar being subject hereof, he came out that the MOC was not recognised due to the unworthiness of the bishops thereof, and that the only Metropolitan in the Republic of Macedonia was he, the Exarch John, and that the people had been assured that they had one recognised Church, the Ohrid Archbishopric, in spite the lies told about him. The defendant did not cite the aforesaid lies about him in the calendar, or whether another Church out of Macedonia may found a Church for another people on somebody else's territory according to the Cannons of the Church or finally, to appoint him to be the Head thereof.
In the calendar being subject hereof, the defendant had referred to some Council of the archpriests of the SOC when the Metropolitan of Polog and Kumanovo kyr Cyril had been taken to court, and the schismatic bishops in the Republic of Macedonia had been set a time limit until the 1st of September, 2003 to return in unity with the Orthodox Church. Two new bishops were also elected on the aforesaid Assembly, the Archimandrite Joachim to be the Bishop of Velika and the Archimandrite Marc to be the Bishop of Dremvitza, who were his assistants.
On the other hand, the defendant also stated that the schismatics calling themselves to be the MOC, made efforts to discredit him, as the only canonical bishop in the Republic of Macedonia, in the eyes of the Macedonian People, and that the Macedonian authorities were aware of that, and in case that they allowed the Serbian Patriarch and the other archpriests of the other Orthodox Churches to enter the Republic of Macedonia, the people of Macedonia would had understood quickly all the calumnies told about him.
The defendant is presented as a central figure in this religious calendar. Therein he had described proceedings instituted against him as well as cases formed against him. The defendant used the aforesaid religious calendar to discredit and disdain the MOC and the heads thereof, and on the other hand, he had presented himself as a martyr who seeks salvation for our people.
The defendant has distributed the calendar amongst the citizens through his followers, monks and nuns. At the beginning of 2004, the calendar was brought from door to door, offered from one individual to another, so it got into the hands of great number of believers. A big revolt had arisen amongst the citizens after the distribution of the calendar, and also suspicions towards the priests with regard to the issue whether they were members of the MOC or of the ordain of the defendant John Vraniskovski, aiming to point out that they did not accept them, but that they wanted to performed the religious rites with the priests of the MOC.
In the religious calendar being subject hereof, the defendant stated that the high clergy of the MOC spread the newest heresy causing schism with other Orthodox Churches from the world. The fact that the MOC was not recognised was a result from the aforesaid, for the last fossils of communism were contained in the bishops of the MOC, and he was the only recognised Orthodox Metropolitan in the Republic of Macedonia.
The defendant had not s7ucceeded to convince the people in the steps he undertook with such texts in the calendar, on the contrary, he caused hatred towards himself and his followers, hatred and intolerance towards individual clergymen, and citizens who had accepted his work. The aforesaid revolt and hatred was a product of the violated religious feelings of the citizens. The citizens reacted in various ways, and they had requested the state authorities to undertake appropriate steps against the defendant. So, on the 18th of January, 2004, in the Eve of the religious feast Epiphany, big number of citizens from Bitola protested in front of the house of the defendant situated on 2/2-23 Kocanska St. The discontent with regard to the defendant and his activities, as well as the feeling of insult of the religious feelings and the hatred of the people towards the followers of the defendant, and towards a part of citizens who are believers of the SOC had been expressed openly on that assembly. The hatred and the discord are obvious from the fact that the citizens decided to react openly and to confront openly the acts of the defendant, the establishment of the Ohrid Archbishopric in spite of existence of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, as well as the support by the SOC and by the Serbian minority in Macedonia for the ostensible Ohrid Archbishopric.
During the aforesaid period, at the beginning of December, 2003, the defendant had arranged the tonsure of the hieromonk Joachim into Bishop of Velika and Administrator of Polog and Kumanovo and of the hieromonk Marc into Bishop of Dremvitza, Vicar Bishop of Veles and Vardar Valley with the SOC and the Serbian Patriarch kyr Paul. Thus the defendant started the process of appointing of bishops for the dioceses in the Republic of Macedonia, aiming establishment of a parallel Holy Archpriests’ Synod of the ostensible Ohrid Archbishopric. Condition for establishment of a Holy Archpriests’ Synod is existence of at least three bishops, and the rest of the bishops shall be in a number necessary for bringing of valid decisions, and it was planned to be reached by Serbian bishops. The aforesaid fact is undisputable, and it resulted from the defence of the defendant. All the activities undertaken that way are known to our people and unacceptable according to the reactions thereof. These facts have been established by virtue of the video record of the poll with the citizens.
The culmination of unacceptance of the acts of the defendant, of the hatred of the faithful people towards his like-minded persons, as well as towards a part of the faithful people of the SOC who live on the Macedonian territory, resulted from maintaining of a religious service which was the first performing of religious service and taking Communion together with Maximus Ristevski, the prior of the monastery of St. Great Martyr Demetrius in Skopje, called the Mark’s Monastery, Kyrana Parlic, the prioress of the nunnery Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God near Resen, David Ninov, a prior, Kimev Goran, the so-called Marc of Dremvitza, Bishop of the ostensible Archbishopric and the nuns Renata, Anysia, Verica, Nina, Taisa and Blagica. The aforesaid religious service was performed on the 11th of January, 2004 in the apartment on 2/2-23 Kocanska St. in Bitola. The Police of the Sector of Internal Affairs in Bitola intervened due to that religious service. The defendant has not denied that the aforesaid religious service was performed on the aforesaid date, or that such religious services were also performed during the previous period. This fact results also from the video recording seen by the court. The aforesaid video recording witnesses that several clergymen were present on the aforesaid date in the aforesaid apartment, and that the Police intervened then, and that the defendant was demanded not to perform religious services in the apartment any more because such religious services bother the citizens being tenants of the building, and that the religious hatred and intolerance of the citizens towards him and his followers increased due to such religious services.
The Court has heard several witnesses on the main hearing. The witness Oliver Ivanovski, a proto-priest of the Church of St. Demetrius in Bitola, stated that the calendar being subject hereof was distributed from door to door in Bitola, which was not a practise of the MOC. Many citizens were confused and led to suspicion by the aforesaid calendar, and the name Ohrid Archbishopric used by the defendant was the name of the Archbishopric being constitutional part of the MOC, but that name was then usurped by the defendant having the only goal to provoke dividing and separation of the believers. The aforesaid witness stated that the defendant succeeded to provoke discord and intolerance with his acts.
The witness Dimzov Boris stated that he was amazed by the appearances of the defendant in the media. He was also amazed by the undertakings of the defendant in the Veles Diocese, and he was revolted the most by the fact that the Serbian Church had appointed Bishops in Macedonia, and the defendant to be the Exarch of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The aforesaid also stated that the defendant had instigated hatred between the citizens, pointing out the session of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia when the Declaration on the MOC had been passed. A MP of Serbian ethnic origin had left the aforesaid session demonstratively after adopting of the cited Declaration, causing revolt and hatred towards that part of the Macedonian population by that act.
At the main proceeding, this witness remarked that the defendant was dressed in church garments although he was defrocked by the MOC and that he had also filed charges against the defendant for his actions, so if the proceeding were based on his charge, he would have suggested witnesses who would have expressed their feelings, and they would have expressed their emotions regarding the actions undertaken by the defendant.
At the main hearing the witness Todor Petrov, visibly infuriated, first demanded the Court to decide on the wearing of church garments, church cassock /anteri/ by the defendant and the rest of his affiliates present in the courtroom. In his statement, this witness stated that he was the Chairman of the World All-Macedonian Congress and that he knew the defendant from the time of his ordination in 1997. According to this witness, the World All-Macedonian Congress had the task to protect and affirm the Macedonian identity, so they followed the statements and actions of the defendant during the critical period. According to this witness, the defendant, being a Serbian Exarch, promoted twisted theses abut the MOC, that the same was schismatic. However if one analyzed the circumstances it would have turned out that the SOC was the one who was making a schism by the means of the defendant. With his remarks that the MOC and its prelates were schismatics, fascists, racists etc., especially in the published Religious Calendar for the year of 2004, he offended the religious feelings of hatred, discord, he presented himself falsely, he usurped a property of the MOC and he illegally started to build a sacral building.
This witness, in his statement regarding the rally from 18 January 2004, stated that on this day, after the holy liturgy held in the temple of “Saint great-martyr Demetrius” in Bitola, a group of believers, about 250, because of the revolt they felt they marched from this church to the apartment of the defendant, located on the 2/2-23 “Kocanska” St. With this rally, they wished to express their irritation with the offence of their religious feelings and the schism caused by the defendant.
The witnesses Dusanka Gjorgievska and Metodija Gjorgievski inhabit the same apartment building on “Kocanska” St. in which the apartment of the defendant was located and in which he held the religious rites. In their statements, these witnesses said that they were revolted by these religious rites, because the defendant was establishing another church before their eyes, that is, that he made a church out of his parent’s apartment. Also, the witness Olga Sotirovska stated that she was irritated by the fact that the defendant did not recognize the MOC, the church that ordained him, and that he accepted to be an Exarch of another church.
The witness Misko Gelevski was going to be chairman of an association, which was to be registered, named “Board for Protection from Anarchy”. This witness gave his statement for this association, and not as his own position, and he highlighted that it had 7000 members. In this statement he said that the defendant had no right to perform religious rites in the Republic of Macedonia, because these rights were taken away from him by the MOC. He wasn’t permitted to propagate the religious works of another church, in this case the Serbian church, which appointed him as the Exarch thereof in Macedonia. At the main proceeding, this witness stated that the politicians created the conflict with the Albanians and that now the defendant wants to create a conflict with the Serbians and the Greeks. This is why the board asked the institutions of the system to stop this sort of actions that instigate hatred among the citizens. They called the board not being able to understand what was happening, and at the same time, they threatened the defendant to shave of his beard, to undress his cassock, etc. At the main hearing, this witness stated that the defendant established a parallel church in Macedonia when there already was the MOC. This increased the revolt among the members. Further on, this witness revealed that his association undertook other activities which were considered illegal, and as an example he introduced the reaction on the occasion of the decision of the Minister of Education, when he wanted to create illegally a class that would study in Albanian for Albanian students in the Bitola High School “Josip Broz Tito”. Regarding the revolt of the members, this witness mentioned that he could give to the Court a list of people who asked of the association to undertake concrete measures for protection, aiming at preventing anarchy.
The Court also heard the witnesses Ferie Kerimova and Nada Vasilevska. The witness Ferie stated that she lived in the same building and that the actions of the defendant did not irritate her and did not bother her, while the witness Nada Vasilevska, at the main proceeding stated that everything that the defendant did in his apartment was nice and there was nothing bad in it, so it did not bother her, and she went to the religious services held by the defendant. These two witnesses were suggested by the defendant, and one of them is not of Christian denomination, so the Court found this statement logical and expected, that is a different position regarding the actions undertaken by the defendant.
During the criminal proceeding, the Court received many letters, announcement, texts written in the daily and weekly newspapers, written addresses by citizens, written reports, and at the main hearing dated on 20 April 2004 a book with a title “For the Unity of the Church” published by some citizens’ initiative.
The written Announcement No. 9 dated on 11 January 2004, published by the inexistent Office of the Ohrid Archbishopric is an address to the public in order to announce that the male monastery “Saint great-martyr Demetrius” from Skopje, known as Marko’s Monastery with the abbot Maxim Ristevski, together with his brotherhood, and the convents “Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God” from Resen, with the abbess Kyrana Parlic and the “Holy Prophet Elijah” from Skopje with the custodian Taisa Krceva, clerics devoted to the defendant, acceded to a liturgical and canonical unity with the inexistent Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric. From this announcement, one can see that the defendant penetrated deeply into the church life in the Republic of Macedonia, the Church organization, and managed to attract followers who participated in the religious service on 2/2-23 “Kocanska” St.. These monasteries belong to the Church and are sacred buildings in possession of the MOC, and they are not independent or property of the people who served there.
This written Report No.108 dated on 22 June 2002 sent by the defendant to the witness Todor Petrov shows that, even as a Metropolitan of Vardar Valley, on 21 June 2002, he put this Diocese in a liturgical and canonical unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church without the consent of the HSB of the MOC. So he acted independently and separately as if he was entitled to undertake such steps, that is to transfer a Diocese under the jurisdiction of a Church of another state.
The defendant, in the weekly magazine “NIN”, on 1 August 2003, gave an interview and expressed his viewpoint of the events in the church life of the Republic of Macedonia. The text “The Church as a Circus” started with the words: It is very difficult to come to the most interesting person of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the bishop who, by the will of the Serbian spiritual leader, now leads the newly-founded Ohrid Archbishopric. So the Ohrid Archbishopric was founded by the will of the Serbian prelate, and thus it reveals the insistence and the desire to influence that Church and that prelate on the Macedonian territory.
In the article “For Ten Centuries the Politics against Macedonia is Repeating”, published by Bogdan P. Blazevski in the newspaper “Delo” from 7 November 2003 it is stated that the Greeks had no right, and the least did the Serbians, over the Ohrid Archbishopric, because, even in the beginning of the 18 century they separated from the same with their Saint Sabbas. In this text, it is also declared that the Macedonians had the right to a Church just as all the Orthodox people. The Orthodox Church is ethnical and national so, in this sense, we shouldn’t be worried by the unrecognizing of the so-called sisterly churches, because these were neither sisterly nor brotherly. In the article under title “Without the Support of the God’s Congregation, their Synod is a Fiction”, and the author, the Archimandrite Daniel presented the condition of the more distant history of the Ohrid Archbishopric and the schism caused by the defendant. In the writing “Schismatics” published in the newspaper “Delo” on 16 January 2004, where the author Bratislav Taskovski presented that the people knew well that the emperor’s to the emperor, and the God’s to God. The state should clearly express that there was no danger that there should be created a parallel church in Macedonia regardless of the fact that it called itself Ohrid Archbishopric. Further in this text, the author stated that this was plotted by “a friendly conviction and some sort of higher interests”. Starting from the fact that the entire 20th century was a capital exemplar of the role of the Serbian state and the Serbian Church in the breaking of the Macedonians. There was never some more serious detour from the equilibrium that the Serbian state policy is equal to the policy of the HSB of the MOC.
Of all these texts, and of all the other anonymously delivered to the Court, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, that the attempt to cause a schism in the MOC succeeded, this schism exists between the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric with the defendant as its Exarch, and the MOC. Precisely this division instigated religious hatred, discord and intolerance with the Macedonian believing people towards the actions of the defendant and towards his followers or those who supported him in the justification of his positions and actions for acceding to the unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church and the unrecognizing of the MOC as an Independent Macedonian Church.
In the published book “For the Unity of the Church”, which was given to the Court, to the Chairperson of the Panel and to the Judges Jurors by the followers of the defendant at the main hearing dated on 20 April 2004, it is written that the publisher of the same is a certain citizens’ initiative with the names of people who allegedly assembled it and published it. This book contains texts dating from 1970, from before 30 years, decision of the HSB of the MOC dating from 1990 for prohibiting the performing of religious services to the Metropolitan of Polog and Kumanovo, for defrocking of the Metropolitan of the Diocese of Prespa and Bitola, and some letter by the Russian Patriarch or the Serbian Patriarch.
This book begins with some sort of a Protocol No.1 dated on 23 December 2003, which calls to the Nis Draft Agreement dated on May 2002, unaccepted by the MOC and the Macedonian people. In this Nis Draft Agreement the inexistent Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric is given wide autonomy, and there is no mentioning of the independence of the MOC. In this Draft Agreement, the MOC is not mentioned as independent, however the Ohrid Archbishopric, which as an orthodox church in the Republic of Macedonia would have a wide church independence, but this would only refer to its internal life, and the prelate would represent the same before the SOC.
In this book, the first text under title “Theological and Historical Aspects of the Schism of the Church in the Republic of Macedonia and the Overcoming thereof” was written by the defendant, and later follow texts regarding the actions of the defendant about the unrecognizing of the MOC as an independent church of the Macedonian people.
During the main hearing, the Court received a Ruling from the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia U. No.10/2004 which rejects the initiative for starting a procedure for assessment of the constitutionality of Articles 5 and 8 of the Law on Religious Communities and Religious Groups initiated by Mark Kimev, the priest who was ordained by the Serbian Patriarch kyr kyr Paul into Bishop of Dremvitza, a vicar of the Metropolitan of Veles and Vardar Valley. With the decision upon the subject, the Constitutional Court clearly states that pursuant to Article 5 of the Law, a foreign citizen can, at a request of a religious community, that is a religious group, perform religious services and religious rites after a previous approval from the agency authorized to decide upon issues of the religious communities and religious groups. Such a permit for performing religious rituals was not provided before the Court in this penal proceeding, nor does such a permit exist. Further in this decision, the Constitutional Court clearly states that Article 8 of the Law of the Religious Communities and Religious Groups does not create inequality in the realizing of the freedom of confession and that with this regulation, actually the citizens are protected from their being manipulated through their division to believers of a same confession being divided into several communities which leads to a schism in the church. In this case, the believers with the same religious conviction, and who did not belong to the same religious community, can join into a religious group and to perform the religious services and religious rites, or into religious communities. In this case the defendant founded a parallel church to the MOC; he founded the Ohrid Archbishopric of which he is the prelate being positioned to be an Exarch of another church, and not a religious group.
From this factual situation it turns out that in the actions at the critical periods, the defendant undertook the distinguishing features of the criminal offence “Instigating ethnic, racial and religious hatred, discord and intolerance” referred to in Article 319 pg.1 of the Penal Code.
This criminal offence, besides the described actions, is committed in another way, when with the same he instigates religious hatred, discord or intolerance.
The accused was a cleric, a Metropolitan, member of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the MOC, who was removed from his post because of the irregularities in his work by the HSB of the MOC, the one who positioned him to be a Metropolitan was relieved of duty, dethroned and returned to the rank of the common believers. Even since the starting of the procedure for relieving of duty, and before the reaching of this decision, the defendant, in order to cause a schism, and later to destroy the Holy Synod of Bishops, acceded to the Serbian Orthodox Church, which for a very long time has had aspirations towards the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. He convinced the Serbian Patriarch to appoint him to be an Exarch of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric. After his appointing to be an Exarch he convinced the SOC to ordain two other clerics into the rank of Bishops, Joachim bearing the title of Velika and Mark bearing the title of Dremvitza. With their ordination he created the possibility to create an HSB of this inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric parallel to the HSB of the MOC. With this the defendant put himself in the service of a church of another state, and thus he managed to attract a small group of clerics, monks and nuns who deserted their church and tramped on their oaths, as well as part of the Macedonian people, and part of the people of Serbian ethnicity who live on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. After this he started his works for unrecognizing of the MOC as a church of the Macedonian people and favouring of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric as the only Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia. He started performing the religious services in his parents’ apartment, and later at his parents’ weekend cabin located in the village Nizhepole which he called a monastery, and to which he gave the name “Saint John Chrysostom”. With these actions he instigated religious hatred among the Macedonian population, among the citizens towards his followers; he caused discord and intolerance with the Macedonian population.
In the name of this monastery he published the Religious Calendar for the year of 2004 in which he attacked the MOC and its leaders in a rude and vulgar manner, and he called the Macedonian people illiterate, religiously uneducated, and thus he offended the religious feelings of the citizens, he instigated religious hatred among the Macedonian population, among the citizens of Macedonia against his followers, he instigated discord and intolerance with the Macedonian population as well as between the Macedonian population and the Serbian population that lives in the Republic of Macedonia. With these actions he caused the insecurity and revolt of the citizens who felt hurt because of the tramping on the sacredness of the Macedonian Orthodox Church.
As an Exarch appointed by the prelate of the Serbian Orthodox Church he convinced the prelate and that church to ordain two other bishops, Macedonians, in order to separate and divide the Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia. Also, with the holding of the religious rites, especially the one on 11 January 2004, caused a great intolerance and gave the reason for a protest rally, and there was also an intervention by the police.
These actions and the criminal offence he is charged for were undertaken and implemented by the defendant with premeditation. He was aware that he was undertaking actions for destroying the Macedonian Orthodox Church, and he was also aware of the consequences, but he still agreed to face the Law. These actions were planned and prepared for a longer period of time, he prepared the same even as a Metropolitan of the Diocese of Veles, and so that is why he put this Diocese under the jurisdiction of the SOC without receiving the approval of the HSB of the MOC. He pertained an active communication with the prelates of the SOC, he communicated with them and made arrangements for gradual and systematic actions towards the accomplishing of his goal, and this was the destruction of the MOC and the establishment of the Ohrid Archbishopric with the return of the influence of the SOC over the same. Part of this communication and arrangements with the SOC resulted in the ordination of two Macedonian Metropolitans precisely by this SOC for the territory of the Republic of Macedonia: These undertaken actions include both the will and the intellect; he consciously and willingly undertook the actions which are the legal essence of the criminal act he is burdened with; he knew of this criminal act, he had the image of the same in his mind. In this context, at the main proceeding he expressed that the Holy Gospel to which he served and before which he made his vows was the gospel of love and peace, so he considers his actions to be undertaken in this spirit. During the penal proceeding he expressed many such phrases, however if the actions he undertook were to preserve love and peace, why did he decide to accede a foreign Church of a foreign state and to constitute another parallel Church when there already was the MOC. With his actions, he penetrated deeper into the emotions of the citizens. This can especially be concluded from the religious calendar for 2004, on the last page of which he even wrote the addresses of the inexistent Ohrid Archbishopric, which was allegedly temporarily situated on 2-2/23 Kocanska” St. in Bitola, then the Monastery of “Saint John Chrysostom” which was being built on the mountain Pelister, and immediately after that the organization “Voskresenie” for which he stated that, after the ordination of the Chairperson thereof, the nun could no longer be that. He started this Calendar with the words: We deemed the need of the pious people to recognize the faith to be great; but from the actions he undertook it stems out that there is an even greater need that the pious people learn about those who destroy his faith.
The Court pronounced the defendant guilty and sentenced him to a year and six months of prison. When this sentence was pronounced, the Court took into consideration the circumstances under which the defendant performed the criminal offence.
Some of the extenuating circumstances include his behaviour, that is his presence at the main hearing, which proves that besides the fact that it was beyond this Court’s jurisdiction to try him, he accepted the same and he regularly attended all the main hearings. Nevertheless, the Court did not find other extenuating circumstances. However, it is deemed that the impeding circumstances are the facts that he was a Metropolitan, member of the HSB of the MOC, and being such he could communicate with the HSB of the SOC and their Prelate. He used this office for accomplishing his idea. Another impeding circumstance is his persistence; he has resolved to finish what he started, to carry out the Serbian church idea of hegemony over the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, to ruin the MOC, the only religious community of the Macedonian people. In this context, another impeding circumstance is the fact that he does not have a guilty conscience nor does he feel regret for what he had done, and this proves that he exhibits a great amount of criminal behaviour, known to the Macedonian history through other individuals who tried to ruin either the faith or the state. In his actions he included his closest family; he used his father’s property, the apartment on “Kocanska” St., as well as the weekend cottage located in the village Nizhepole. On another hand he has been tried for the criminal act “Autocracy” when he was pronounced a one year long sustained sentence for actions in the Temple of “Saint Demetrius” in Bitola, actions undertaken when he was defrocked and dethroned and when he impaired his relations with the MOC.
The defendant bases his defence on the fact that in many states there are several synods of bishops, so it would not matter if there were a second synod of bishops in the Republic of Macedonia. On the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, according to the Constitution of the state, there is one Macedonian Orthodox Church with one HSB, and the defendant is not the one to decide if there will be several synods of bishops, so this defence was unacceptable by the Court. The Court also rejected the defendant’s defence that he did not publish the Religious Calendar for the year of 2004, that is, that some other people published it although it contained his texts and photographs. This is for the reason that on the abovementioned calendar and the text written in it, besides the text of the Holy Gospel and the calendar, everything else, all the texts and photographs are completely dedicated to the defendant, to the inexistent monastery “Saint John Chrysostom” and the actions and acts undertaken by him or directed towards him. In the abovementioned Religious Calendar there are only photographs of him and his meetings. So, after the first text there is a photograph of him with the title Exarch of Ohrid kyr kyr Jovan, the one he received from the Patriarch Paul, and then there is a photograph with a certain Bishop Athanasios (Jevtic) and with the two new Bishops ordained by the Serbian Patriarch, then there is a photograph of him with the Greek patriarchs at the fair in the town Karditza-Greece, then a photograph of him with the Bishop of Backa Irenaeus, who was his beloved teacher and brother, then one with the nuns of Serbia and Greece at the ordination of the nun Olympiada. Then there is a photograph with the Metropolitan of Ftiotide Nicholas in the monastery Damasta in Greece, and just after that there is photograph with the Metropolitan of Branicevo Ignatius and with the Metropolitan Nicolas of Bosnia. So, with this given situation and with all the texts and with the composition of the photographs it is not possible that the defendant was not the one who composed the Calendar and did not order the printing of the same, thus the Court did not accept his defence that he did not publish the Calendar and that there was a possibility that someone else published it. It has not been accepted because it is illogical and contradictory to the evidence and the actions he undertook during the critical period. He decided to build a monastery contrary to the will of the Macedonian people, having no fear of the consequences, but he fears the publication of the calendar and denies that it was published with his knowledge, aid and blessing or a demand.
The Court rejected his defence that he had no contribution to the ordination of the Bishops Joachim and Mark. Here we ask the question, if the Serbian Patriarch Paul knew about these two clerics how did he think of ordaining into Bishops precisely these two if they were not suggested by the defendant. On the other hand, since the defendant was present at the ordination, why was he the one invited as a guest, just as one invites a guest to a wedding.
The defence of the attorney of the defendant that the evidence from the video material does not give legal grounds for submitting a charge because the description of Article 319 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code referred to different actions which were not undertaken by the defendant was also not accepted. Regarding this, the charge was based on suppositions, so what the attorney deems as important is whether intolerance and discord were caused at the critical period. The charge against the defendant has been filed precisely because of instigating religious hatred, discord and intolerance, and the evidence presented prove that the intolerance and discord are obvious. During the critical period there was a protest rally by the citizens of Bitola, and from the survey done by TV Orbis it is obvious that the citizens are revolted by the actions undertaken by he defendant, and the witnesses interrogated gave facts regarding the intolerance between him and his followers; the MP of Serbian ethnic origin left the Parliament when the Declaration was adopted; that even the Association for Protection from Anarchy expressed their revolt somewhat more cruelly, declaring that if the state did nothing then the members of this association would undertake some distasteful and unacceptable actions against the defendant. It is not possible that there is no revolt and hatred, as well as discord and intolerance when during the religious rites the citizens wondered which order the priest who performs the rite belongs to, is it a religious feast to celebrate or to baptize water. This is why the Court did not accept this defence of the attorney of the defendant.
Also the defence of the attorney of the defendant that everyone can do whatever he/she pleases in his/her own apartment was not accepted. It is true, but it cannot be done what that wanting and doing is directed against the most sacred to the Orthodox believers, when the religious emotions of the citizens are harmed or when it creates hatred or discord and intolerance, as is in the case of the defendant. This attorney, in his defence, referred to the Nis Draft Agreement that it was allegedly a new way of thinking of the new generation of Bishops in our MOC. This Nis Agreement was not accepted by our MOC and this is why it remained only a draft, and as for the new way of thinking of the new generation of Bishops it was not up to the highest agency of the Church organization to decide upon. This attorney deems that there were insufficient evidence that the defendant committed the criminal offence he is charged of, especially because the defendant did not publish the Religious Calendar. This defence was not supported and the Court rejected it because, as it was already mentioned, the Religious Calendar is a depiction of the idea of the defendant and the text written in it expresses his activities and actions undertaken, as well as his desecration of the name of the MOC. Another defence of the attorney of the defendant does not hold grounds and that is that there were no consequences from the ordination of the two new Bishops and the presence of the defendant at the same, and there were no evidence that he was present at the ordination. The defendant himself said that he was there as a guest invited by the Patriarch Paul, and the attorney had forgotten this. On the other hand, according to the attorney, the rites that he held in his father’s apartment bothered no one. However, if this was so why was there a protest rally and why did the tenants react.
The Court charges the defendant with the expenses of the penal proceedings with the amount of MKD 2,000 at the flat rate that is decided to be paid within 15 days from entering into effect of the verdict pursuant to Article 88 paragraph 2 of the Law on Penal Proceedings.
Court Clerk : Ruzica Anevska
Chairman of the Panel : Judge Misko Stojkovski
LEGAL PRECEPT: An appeal against this verdict may be filed within 15 days after receipt thereof through this Court to the Court of Appeals in Bitola.
DNA: MPPO Bitola, the defendant and the attorney.