Untitled

Humanitarian Law CenterWe take this decision as irregular and illegal, since it was made with numerousviolations of the criminal proceedings provisions and in absence ofa thorough analysis of the facts gathered in documents, which, naturally,led to the irregular application of the Criminal Code.Every relevant and competent court’s decision should be divested of arbitrariness,impressions, and assumptions. On the contrary, this decision isswarming with such elements. The decision is based on the defence counsel’sstance, which is irrational and partial, and yet understandable consideringthe defence counsel’s procedural role. However, the court has muchgreater responsibility when assessing the factual background and deliveringa competent decision.The Prokuplje District Court committed numerous violations of the proceedings.Before presenting all these violations, it is necessary to point tothe investigation’s stance when delivering address before the court. Namely,the investigative judge, without any relevant information, assessed thatit was impossible to carry out an exhumation of the corpses. Thus, the investigativejudge holds that there are no conditions for any further collectionof material evidence that certain suspension of investigation emerged,but he still proposed that defendants stay in detention. That contradictionof the legal facts is basically the foundation of the district court’s decision.The defence counsel’s thesis was that, according to the official documentation,the autopsy was not carried out, that it cannot be carried out, thatit is uncertain who the persons in question were, that there are no corpses,and there is no evidence that the defendants had committed the criminalacts they were charged with.The district court, for unknown reasons, basically accepts such allegations.The claim that there are no corpses could not be accepted as true because,at least, photo documentation in the case file proves this. The Prokuplje DistrictCourt Investigative Judge’s Investigation Report KRI. no. 21/99 madeon 30 March 1999 proves it as well. The forensic report from Priština datingfrom 30 June 1999 also proves it, since it claims that corpses were transferredon 30 March 1999 for autopsy, and that the following day somebodyordered that corpses should be buried without autopsy. The investigativejudge or trial panel did not try even once to find out who prevented that in-26