Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtconclusion concerning the presence of the defence attorney at the questioningof defendant Saša Cvjetan. The statement of witness orević is uncertainas this witness made fundamental changes in his statements givenat the first and second questioning at the main trial so that his conclusions,as indirect evidence, could not be trusted.Witness Živorad Šubaranović came to the premises of the district prisonin order to question defendant Dejan Demirović as his court-assigned defenceattorney. As it has been definitely determined that the investigativejudge, Mijat Bajović, had first questioned Saša Cvjetan and only then DejanDemirović, the court could accept the claim of witness Šubaranović that hehad not seen attorney Dragutin Stanković who had left the premises of thedistrict prison following the questioning of Saša Cvjetan. However, witnessŠubaranović refuted the claims of the court reporter, Radica Marinković,about the manner judge Bajović had questioned the defendant. He pointedout that the judge had carried out a detailed questioning and had evenasked for additional explanations about the things that were not clear beforeentering their words into the minutes. This witness, contrary to whatthe court reporter Radica Marinković had claimed, did not go to the warden’soffice to have a cup of coffee after the questioning.Because of that, only those persons whose presence at the questioningof defendant Saša Cvjetan has been incontrovertibly determined couldpresent their opinions concerning the issue whether the defence attorneyhad been present at the questioning of defendant Saša Cvjetan or not - andthey are the judge, the court reporter and the defendant. The truth of thestatement of the court reporter has been suspect as it agreed only with thedefence of the defendant who is interested in the claim that the defence attorneyhad not been present, so that the minutes, where he had confessedthe crime, would be removed from the case files and thus could not be presentedas evidence. The statement of judge Mijat Bajović has been corroboratedby written documentation about the questioning of the defendantwhere the presence of the defence attorney had been recorded. Besides,the delivery warrant signed by the court-assigned defence attorney, lawyerDragan Stanković and his bill of expenses. All this clearly points to the evidenceof the presence of the court-assigned defence attorney whose presencecould not have been suspected had he not died after the questioning325