Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centertion opening request that other evidence be presented, as well - obtainingof the Priština Forensic Institute official report on the type of wounds, instrumentwith which these wounds were inflicted, time when the woundswere inflicted, and time of death for 19 killed persons; examination of witnessesin order to determine personal information and reliable identificationof these persons, and if necessary, the exhumation and autopsy ofthese bodies.The investigative judge accepted the presentation of evidence in this order,but he did not present it. The defence counsel’s allegations were notinspected either, even though it was prescribed by the investigative judge’sdecision in order to assess their credibility. The only thing that was obtainedwas the Priština Forensic Institute’s report from 3 June 1999. This reportprovides information that on 30 March 1999, “the bodies of victimsof war from the territory of the Podujevo were transferred to this instituteand the following day the order was issued that the bodies should be buriedwithout autopsy”.The investigation cannot be considered completed only because the investigativejudge forwarded the documents to the public prosecutor for furtherprocedure without collecting evidence pursuant to Article 157 Paragraph2 of the CPC or based on his decision that evidence will not be presented.Considering that fact, the public prosecutor’s submission by whichhe returned the case file and requested that previously provided evidencebe presented, cannot be considered a proposal for the revision of the investigationand protest the presentation of this evidence.The first instance court states that objectively there were no possibilities forthe exhumation and autopsy to be carried out, and yet it did not take a singleaction in order to gather information and determine the burial locationin order to enable the autopsy that the public prosecutor proposed. Thefirst instance court stated in the disputable decision that the defendantscould not be suspected of being the perpetrators of this murder becausethe bodies were missing and it was not possible to carry out the autopsy.This observation cannot be accepted. The absence of this evidence onlymakes it difficult to determine the facts necessary for this decision, but it34