Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable DoubtAttorney ore Mamula’s allegations that the first instance court overruledthe Defence Council’s proposals for the interrogation of another five “Scorpions”members and other four witnesses- guards in the Prokuplje DistrictCourt and by this it made the “basic violation of the right to defence”,which represents a serious violation of the criminal procedure provisionsprescribed under Article 368 Para 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code.By overruling one party’s proposal to adduce some evidence, the courtis not making a serious violation of the criminal procedure provisions becausenone of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, includingthe provisions under Article 17 Para 1 and Article 18 Para 1 of the CriminalProcedure Code, which contain the principle of material truth in determiningfacts, does not oblige the court to adduce every evidence proposed nordoes it limit the court in the free evaluation of evidence adduced, whichhas a purpose in determining entire and real truth. Because of this, possiblemistake that the court might have made in the evaluation of evidencecan be the basis for a possible appeal because of the falsely and incompletelydetermined factual background, but not because of the violationof the criminal procedure provisions or because of the violation of defendant’sright to defence as it was incorrectly underlined in the appeal.In this particular case, the first instance Court correctly assessed that thefactual background was sufficiently clarified with the evidence adducedand the interrogation of additional witnesses, besides a great number ofthe already examined witnesses, regarding the same circumstances, wouldonly lead towards the unnecessary prolongation of the criminal proceedings.The Court was obliged to explain its decision to overrule the DefenceCouncil’s proposal, which it did on page 49 and defendant’s DefenceCounsellor Ilija Radulović is quoting these reasons on pages 52 and 53 ofthe appeal. The Supreme Court finds it unnecessary to repeat these reasonsin this verdict, which it entirely accepts otherwise.The first instance Court determined correctly, based on the proper evaluationof defence and evidence presented during the proceedings, thatdefendant Cvjetan Saša, in the time, place, and manner specified in thetext of the appealed verdict violated the principles of International Law inTimes of War, treated Albanian civilians inhumanly, participated in the violationof children’s physical integrity and murder of women and children,345