Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtjat Bajović and Serb police officers, Milan Anastasijević and Radislav Janković,who participated in the investigation; then, statements given by Miško Keča,the Chief of the Department of Defence in Podujevo, and Srboljub Biserčić,the Podujevo Civil Protection HQ Commander; the examination of Enver Duriqi,Selatin Bogujevci, and Safet Bogujevci, whose children, wives, and motherswere killed or wounded; the testimony of Rexhep Kastrati; and finally, agreat deal of material evidence, such as projectiles, bullet cases, personal effectsof the killed people, photo documentation, investigation reports, autopsyreports, reports from the identification of bodies, exhumation reports, andinternational authorities reports from KFOR and the UN civil services.It is necessary to take into account, when considering the Supreme Court’s remarksthat, for the legal qualification and the elements of this crime it is necessaryto know how many people were killed, their names, place of execution,and the way they were executed. The first instance court determined thisclearly, with documentation, and precisely.4) As for the reasons for dismissing the verdict, which the Supreme Courtsaw in not evaluating Dragan Medić and Dragan Borojević’s statementsthat the court of the first instance accepted, we believe that the court properlyevaluated witness Goran Stoparić’s statement in comparison to thestatements given by the children, who survived the execution, Rexhep Kastrati’sstatement, defendant’s admission of guilt, statements given by otherwitnesses testifying about certain segments of the event, which took placein Podujevo on 28 March 1999 when this execution occurred, mainly statementsgiven by the SAJ Doctor Dragan Marković, investigation team, andSAJ officer Spasoje Vulević, myriad material evidence, and it draw a firmconclusion on accepting Stoparić’s statement as a valid piece of evidence.As for the comparison of witness Stoparić’s statement on one side andwitnesses Dragan Medić and Dragan Borojević’s statements on the other,their comparison is legally impossible because witness Stoparić presentedincriminating facts for witnesses Medić and Borojević and since Medić andBorojević are not obliged to make declarations regarding the facts that couldexpose them to criminal prosecution, evaluation of witnesses Medić andBorojević’s statements in view of Stoparić’s testimony is legally absurd.227