Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centerof the defendant and had the court reporter not started rumours about hisalleged absence.The said minutes of the questioning of the defendant dated 24 May 1999before the investigative judge of the District Court in Prokuplje have beenmade in accordance with the provisions of the law on criminal procedurein force at the time. The minutes made by the investigative judge, in thepremises of the district prison in Bijelo Polje, have also been made in accordancewith the provisions of the same law. Namely, at the time the saidlaw was in force, the presence of a defence attorney at the time of the initialquestioning was indispensable only for the crimes punishable withdeath sentence. In view of the fact that defendant Saša Cvjetan, with theoriginal decision to carry out a crime scene investigation, was charged withthe crime of murder as described in Article 47, Paragraph 2, of the CriminalCode of the Republic of Serbia which, in accordance with the CriminalCode of the Republic of Serbia, was punishable by a death sentence, thepresence of a defence attorney was obligatory, which is why a defence attorneywas assigned to the defendant, namely attorney Dragutin Stanković.With subsequent changes in the Decision to initiate the investigation, defendantSaša Cvjetan was charged with a war crime against civilian populationas described in Article 142, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code of theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia, punishable by a death sentence. For thisreason, in accordance with the law on criminal procedure in force at thetime, the presence of a defence attorney at the questioning in connectionwith the crime that defendant Saša Cvjetan has been charged with andquestioned in the premises of the district prison in Bijelo Polje was not obligatory.These minutes, dated 18 July 2001, in view of the fact that they referto the same event which is the subject matter of the warrant requestinginvestigation, as far as personal data of the defendant are concerned,refer to the personal data provided by the defendant at the time of the initialquestioning by the same investigative judge. Because of that, the courtfound that both minutes had been made in accordance with the law andrefused the motion of the defence attorneys of the defendant for these minutesto be removed from the case files. This decision is one of the decisionsin the management of a main trial and it allows no separate complaint.As for the contents of the confession recorded in the minutes of the questioningof the defendant by the investigative judge of the district court in326