Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtpresent at the questioning of the defendant, as stated in the minutes dated24 May 1999.The data from the statement of investigative judge Mijat Bajović are contradictedby the statement of the court reporter, Radica Marinković. Fromthe very beginning, this witness has claimed that the defence attorney,Dragutin Marinković, had not attended the questioning of defendant SašaCvjetan. In addition to this categorical statement, the witness was definitein her claim that the questioning had been attended by two inspectors ofthe Secretariat of the Interior. Except for the defendant’s defence, the onlyone the statement of this witness agrees with completely, the other detailsof her statement were not corroborated by the then warden of the DistrictCourt in Prokuplje, witness Aleksandar orević, nor the then DistrictPublic Prosecutor in Prokuplje - witness Miroslav Nikolić. The witness wasequally adamant in her claim that she did not forward the decision to initiatean investigation to defence attorney of defendant Saša Cvjetan because,in her words, he didn’t even have a defence attorney. As it is obvious thatthe witness has forgotten the existence of the warrant wherein she herselfhad entered the name of the receiver - attorney Dragutin Stanković, andthe name of the warrant to be delivered, when she was presented with thesaid warrant at the main trial, the witness gave a false, extremely illogicalexplanation saying that it was possible for an attorney to receive the decisiona couple of days later, but enter an earlier date as if they had receivedthe warrant earlier - the date of the questioning the defendant. A claim likethis would mean that the attorneys were anti-dating the documents thusshortening or subtracting their own deadlines for filing a complaint, whichis difficult to believe particularly when it is a question of deciding on custody,as in this case, when the deadline is only three days long. Except for theobvious intention to help the defendant by attempting to make the minuteswhere the defendant had confessed the crime unusable as evidence,there is no other logical explanation of this claim. For this reason, the courtcould not trust her statement.Witness Miroslav Nikolić - the district public prosecutor - learned about thedetails of the questioning of defendant Saša Cvjetan from witness RadicaMarinković. Miroslav Nikolić had not been present at the investigation ofthe crime scene, nor had he attended the questioning of the defendants,which was his duty.323