Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centertorney because he was the ex officio Defence Attorney for defendant SašaCvjetan.It could be learned, from the Prokuplje District Prison report dating from22 April 2005 regarding the fact whether or not the entrance of AttorneyDragutin Stanković into the prison building was registered on the day theinterrogation of defendant Cvjetan Saša took place, that in the Duty Registerfrom 24 May 1999 it was only noted that Investigative Judge MijatBajović interrogated defendants Cvjetan Saša and Dejan Demirović in theSupervisor’s office. The presence of other persons was not registered. Thereis no doubt that the aforementioned allegation from the Prokuplje DistrictPrison’s register is exclusively related to the moving of detainees, which isthe essential purpose of the register maintained by the District Prisons. It istrue that the entrance of Attorney Dragutin Stanković was not registered,but the entrance of Defence Attorney Živorad Šubaranović was not registeredeither and his presence during the interrogation of Dejan Demirović(conducted the same day as the interrogation of Cvjetan Saša) and hisstatement given in the status of appeal witness, are not challenged at all.The Court Reporter- dactylographer Radica Marinković’s entrance was notregistered either. She was typing the record from the interrogation of defendantCvjetan Saša and Defence Counsellors are quoting in their appealsher allegations given in the status of witness. Because of this, the ProkupljeDistrict Court’s register brings no doubt about the presence of defendantCvjetan Saša’s Attorney Dragutin Stanković during the interrogation beforethe Investigative Judge Mijat Bajović. On page 44, paragraphs 2 and3, and pages 45 and 46, paragraphs 1 and 2, the first instance court presentedin detail the statements given by the witnesses who testified aboutthe presence of Attorney Dragutin Stanković in the interrogation of CvjetanSaša and evaluated each one of them. It especially assessed the authenticityof the contradictory statements as well as the reasons because of whichit trusted Mijat Bajović’s statement, which the Supreme Court completelyaccepted, and overruled the opposite allegations from the appeal relatedto this part of the first instance verdict as unfounded.Besides the aforementioned, the records from the interrogation of the defendantbefore the Investigative Judge dating from 24 May 1999 and theinterrogation conducted in the Bijelo Polje District Prison, in view of the defendantbeing informed of rights during the procedure, were made in con-342