Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtdoes not make it impossible for the facts to be determined with the help ofother direct and indirect evidence, as proposed by the public prosecutor.The reasons for the first instance court to state in the disputable decisionthat the listed persons were killed in the exchange of fire with terroristsand that it could not be claimed with certainty without the autopsy of thebodies that these persons were killed from firearms, is not based on theevidence in the documents, first of all from the defence counsel’s allegations.After the investigation opening decision enters into effect, it can be closedpursuant to Article 171 Paragraph 1 Item 4 of the CPC only if the evidencewas presented and reasonable doubt that the act was committed and thatthe defendant was the perpetrator was refuted.In this case, the first instance court neglected the fact that the investigationwas not closed because not a single piece of proposed evidence was presented,and neither was evidence necessary for the inspection of the defence’sallegations and evidence accepted by the investigative judge. Thecourt falsely assessed that there was not enough evidence proving that thedefendants committed the crimes they were charged with and it cancelledthe procedure, referring to Article 171 Paragraph 1 Item 4 of the CPC.It was underlined that there was no information proving that the investigationopening decision (Ki. 20/99 from 24 May 1999) was delivered tothe defendants and their counsellors, and it was not ruled on the defendantCvjetan’s appeals, so it could not be certainly inspected, whether theinvestigation decision entered into effect, and that is important for rulingin this case.If the investigation opening decision did not enter into effect, the investigationcould not be closed pursuant to Article 171 Paragraph 1 Item 4 of theCPC like the first instance court did. Upon appeal, the only thing that couldbe discussed was the foundation of the investigation opening request.Considering the aforementioned, the first instance decision was made withgrave violations of the criminal procedure pursuant to Article 364 Paragraph1 Item 11 of the CPC and the factual background was falsely and in-35