Untitled

Humanitarian Law CenterIt is interesting to note that this witness does not remember anything wellin connection with this criminal proceedings except that the court reporter,Radica, spoke to him that defendant Saša Cvjetan did not have an attorney.Thus he does not remember whether or not, nor when he did changethe decision to carry out an investigation so that defendants Saša Cvjetanand Dejan Demirović were charged with a war crime against civilian populationas described in Article 143, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code of theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia. Although this is a very serious case, witha large number of killed persons and of the type not really seen every dayin the District Prosecution Office in Prokuplje, it is extremely unconvincingand tendentious of this witness to claim that the court reporter had toldhim that defendant Saša Cvjetan did not have a defence attorney, that thisconversation had taken place on the same day and at a strictly determinedhour, while this witness cannot remember any other circumstances or activitiesconnected with the event which is the subject matter of the indictment- not even his own activities.Witness Aleksandar orević, the then warden of the District Prison inProkuplje, did not attend the questioning of the defendant. Still, he assumesthe right to conclude that defence attorney Dragutin Stanković wasnot present at the time defendant Saša Cvjetan was questioned. However,the witness has arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of the hypothesesthat change from one trial to another. Thus, at the time of the initial questioningat the District Court in Prokuplje, the conclusion that the defenceattorney had not been present was based upon the fact that that defenceattorney had not come to the office of the prison warden after the questioning.When, during the presentation of the evidence, it became certainthat after the questioning of defendant Saša Cvjetan nobody had gone tofetch coffee, but the investigative judge, Mijat Bajović, had continued thequestioning of the other defendant - Dejan Demirović, then the same witness,orević, stated that he had, from time to time, looked into the roomwhere the questioning took place through a window and saw that the defenceattorney was not present. Bearing in mind yet another fact, namely,that that room had neither been well lit, nor had it been possible, lookingthrough the window, to see the whole room, then it becomes obvious thatthe prison warden, even if he had come and had looked through the window,he could not have seen all the people present in the room. Becauseof that, on the basis of such an unreliable fact, it was impossible to draw a324