Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtduring the interrogation in the Bijelo Polje District Prison when Defence Attorneywas also absent.The Supreme Court finds these appeals unfounded because the first instancecourt adduced evidence by examining witnesses Miroslav Nikolić,Aleksandar orević, Živorad Šubaranović, Radica Marinković, and MijatBajović in the retrial in order to remove all omissions noted in the SerbianSupreme Court’s decision by which the previous verdict was dismissed.It also obtained the report from the Prokuplje District Prison Administrationand the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Interior. Then it evaluated thesepieces of evidence and correctly concluded that there are no grounds forthe claim that the record from the interrogation of defendant Cvjetan Sašabefore Investigative Judge Mijat Bajović could not be used as evidence inthe course of the criminal proceedings.Investigative Judge Mijat Bajović confirmed the authenticity of the recordcontent, which he dictated in the presence of Attorney Dragutin Stanković.In view of this, he explained what kind of problems he met with in theharsh conditions, during the time of war, when he was trying to find anAttorney. He personally went to look for an Attorney and found DragutinStanković. They went together to the Prokuplje District Prison building andthis Attorney attended the interrogation of the defendant, as it was notedin the record from the interrogation and Secretariat of Interior Inspectorsdid not attend the interrogation. Judge Mijat Bajović’s statement coincidesin this part with the statements given by Inspectors Oparnica Milošand Duško Klikovac who claimed that after they made the criminal complaint,they left Prokuplje and they did not attend the interrogation of thedefendant and, therefore, the allegation from the appeal that defendant’sstatement before the Investigative Judge was extorted by violence used bythese Inspectors is unfounded.The Investigation Judge’s claim that Attorney Dragutin Stanković waspresent during the interrogation is also supported by the fact that AttorneyStanković signed the note of delivery the same day the interrogation tookplace proving that he received the investigation opening decision and detentionorder effective as of 24 May 1999. The signature on this note of deliveryis the same as the signature on the receipt for the fee paid to the At-341