Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtlated to this key circumstances contradictory to certain extent and this representsa grave violation of Article 368 Para 1 Item 11 of the Criminal ProcedureCode because it is unclear and uncertain whether of not the firstinstance court determined this circumstance in the procedure conducted.The circumstance in question is whether or not the ex officio defence attorneyattended the interrogation of the defendant on 24 May 1999 when thedefendant admitted the commission of this criminal act.In the retrial, the first instance court will eliminate the aforementioned violationsof the proceedings and it will examine witnesses Mijat Bajović,Radica Marinković, and Aleksandar orević directly in the main hearing.These are the witnesses whose statements were read without the defence’sconsent. In order to determine these circumstances, the court is obliged toexamine Miroslav Nikolić. Besides this, the court should demand that theProkuplje District Court Administration provides information on whetherattorney Dragutin Stanković’s arrival to the Prison on 24 May 1999 was registered,as well as the arrival of Judge Mijat Bajović and court reporter RadicaMarinković. This should be done in order to determine regularly andcompletely whether or not attorney Dragutin Stanković was present duringthe interrogation of defendant Saša Cvjetan in the investigation on 24 May1999 as his ex officio defence attorney.Besides this, the first instance court violated the provisions of the criminalproceedings from Article 368 Para 1 Item 11 of the Criminal ProcedureCode because in the Statement of Reasons it did not provide reasons forrelevant facts.Pursuant to Article 361 Para 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is necessaryto present clearly and completely in the Statement of Reasons whichare the facts and why they are considered proved or not proved, with aspecial evaluation of the contradictory evidence’s authenticity and the reasonsthe court considered when determining the existence of the criminalact and the criminal liability, and what were the reasons for the court notto approve some of the parties’ proposals, for what reasons it decided notto examine directly a witness or a court expert whose statement was readwithout the consent of the parties (Article 337 Para 2).213