Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centerer, went to the premises of the municipal prison to hear defendant SašaCvjetan. It was this attorney who was present at the questioning of the defendant,as recorded in the minutes of the questioning, while the inspectorsof the Secretariat of the Interior were not present at the questioning. Thecourt accepted, in full, the statement of investigative judge Mijat Bajović.His statements agree with the contents of the data entered into the minutesof the questioning of the defendant dated 24 May 1999, and agree, also,with the statements of witnesses Miloš Oparnica and Duško Klikovac, inspectorsof the Ministry of the Interior, who categorically stated that, afterfiling the criminal indictment they had left Prokuplje and were not presentat the questioning of the defendant by the investigative judge.The veracity of the statement given by the investigative judge concerningthe presence of defence attorney Dragutin Stanković at the questioning ofdefendant Saša Cvjetan is corroborated by the fact that this lawyer, on theday the defendant was questioned, had signed the receipt of the warranton the delivery of the decision to initiate investigation and remand the defendantto custody as of 24 May 1999. The data referring to the name of thewarrant to be delivered and the name of the person the warrant is deliveredto - the attorney Dragutin Stanković, were entered by the court reporter,Radica Marinković, as she herself had said in her statement. The date of thereceipt and the signature were entered by attorney Dragutin Stanković. Thesame signature can be found on the bill of expenses submitted to the courtby this attorney and paid to him by the court for his court-assigned activitiesas defence attorney of defendant Saša Cvjetan. The decision on detentionand initiation of investigation referring to defendant Saša Cvjetan anddefendant Dejan Demirović was delivered, on the same day, to attorneyŽivorad Šubaranović and the Administration of the District Prison in Prokuplje.In view of the fact that, at that time, the state of emergency had beendeclared and that, in the words of witness Šubaranović, attorneys in Prokupljeusually did not go to court because of the bombardment, and that ithad been pure chance that investigative judge Mijat Bajović had foundhim, it is obvious that there existed just one opportunity when it was possibleto deliver the decision to attorney Stanković, namely, immediately afterthe questioning of the defendant in the premises of the District Prisonin Prokuplje. Finally, the expenses for the court-assigned defence of attorneyStanković were paid and all this - delivery of the decision and the paymentof the expenses could not have occurred had the attorney not been322