Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centerwrote down serial numbers of each rifle...” This could represent a decisivefact, especially when related to the ballistic expert’s report and findings,which claim that all bullet cases found at the scene came from the sametype of weapon, AK 47 automatic rifle known as Kalašnjikov. This reportalso alleges that the cases analysed by the ballistics experts, were fired fromthree different Kalašnjikov rifles made in the country, which could lead usto the possible number of people who were shooting at the scene fromthese rifles. The first instance court also failed to even try and determinewhether the defendant was issued with a rifle with certain serial numberand that he returned the same rifle, and if that was correct, then to demandthis rifle from the Serbian Ministry of Interior in order to have it analysedby the ballistic experts and determined whether or not the bulletsfound at the scene were fired from the rifle the defendant was issued withand by this act verify the defendant’s defence. The first instance court willdo this in the retrial.In paragraph 2 on page 24 of the verdict, the court found the following,“Based on the autopsy records, it was determined that 11 bodies were autopsied.”However, not once in the verdict did the court claim what was the reasonfor taking this fact as proved. This court’s claim is vague because it is uncertainwhich 11 bodies it referred to and, which is essential, it did not give thecontent of the autopsy records and we do not know the cause of death ineach individual case and what lead to this cause of death; we do not knowwhich were the injuries on each individual body, the precise description oftheir location, and the instruments the injuries were inflicted with.In line with Article 337 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the trialpanel can decide to read the statement given by the co-defendant, if it issomehow difficult for him to appear before the court because of some otherimportant reasons. Since Demirović was examined as defendant in thiscriminal trial and since he is in Canada at the moment, it is not clear whythe first instance court failed to read this defendant’s statement.By these grave violations of the criminal procedure, the court incompletelyand falsely determined the factual background and this also happened be-216