Untitled

Humanitarian Law CenterIt is obvious that this description of the event - as presented by the defendantat the time of the first questioning in the preceding trial - could onlyhave been given by a person who was there and took part in the event.Additional descriptions of the event - the leaving of the courtyard by themembers of the Scorpions unit, line-up, the arrival and the behaviour ofthe members of SAJ who were the first to arrive to the crime scene - agreeswith the statements of the witnesses who were members of SAJ, so it is clearthat this part of the defence of the defendant is true as well as the remainingparts of the defence as recorded in the minutes dated 24 May 1999.Explaining his behaviour, the defendant stated that every order had to becarried out, and that Guljo was on the crime scene and that they had followedhis order. In his complaint about the decision concerning detentionand investigation, the defendant repeated his claims that he had followedorders. Claims like this speak in favour of his confession that he had takenpart in the shooting because his explanation of his behaviour was that hehad followed orders.At the time of the next questioning by the investigative judge the defendantdescribed the event in connection with the plaintiff Rexhep Kastratiand the members of his family and his appropriation of the pistol, but hedid change his defence concerning the killing of the civilians - women andchildren.Stating that he had come to the courtyard later on, when the civilians hadalready been killed, the defendant stated, among other things, that lateron, in Prolom Banja, he heard that it was Guljo who had ordered the civilianslined-up and killed. Toward the end of the minutes, the defendant statedthat he had not been threatened at the time he had given his statementto the investigative judge. A statement like this and the evidence presentedrefuted the defendant’s claims that he had been threatened by the inspectorsof the Ministry of the Interior who had questioned him and then, allegedly,attended the questioning before the investigative judge.Absence of any type of abuse of the defendant has also been determinedon the basis of the statements of witnesses Miloš Oparnica and Dušan Klikovacwho were heard like witnesses. Their statements, on the basis of whichit was determined that no illegal pressures had been used at the time and328