CAT/C/29/D/161/2000
page 5
2.15 On 17 April 1995 the police brought in 20 individuals for questioning. On 18 April 1995,
a memorandum was drawn up by the Podgorica Police Department which quoted the statement
of Veselin Popovic as follows: “... I noticed flames in a hut which led me to conclude that the
crowd had started setting fire to huts so I found several pieces of foam rubber which I lit with a
lighter I had on me and threw them, alight, into two huts, one of which caught fire.”
2.16 On the basis of this testimony and the official police memorandum, the Podgorica Police
Department ordered, on 18 April 1995, that Veselin Popovic be remanded into custody, on the
grounds that there were reasons to believe that he had committed the criminal offence of causing
public danger in the sense of article 164 of the Montenegrin Criminal Code.
2.17 On 25 April 1995, and with respect to the incident at the origin of this complaint, the
Public Prosecutor instituted proceedings against one person only - Veselin Popovic.
2.18 Veselin Popovic was charged under article 164 of the Montenegrin Criminal Code. The
same indictment charged Dragisa Makocevic with illegally obtaining firearms in 1993 - an
offence unrelated to the incident at issue notwithstanding the evidence implicating him in the
destruction of the Roma Bozova Glavica settlement.
2.19 Throughout the investigation, the investigating magistrate of the Basic Court of
Danilovgrad heard a number of witnesses all of whom stated that they had been present as the
violence unfolded but were not able to identify a single perpetrator. On 22 June 1995, the
investigating magistrate of the Basic Court of Danilovgrad heard officer Miladin Dragas.
Contrary to the official memorandum he had personally drawn up on 16 April 1995, officer
Dragas now stated that he had not seen anyone throwing an inflammable device, nor could he
identify any of the individuals involved.
2.20 On 25 October 1995, the Basic Public Prosecutor in Podgorica requested that the
investigating magistrate of the Basic Court of Danilovgrad undertake additional investigation
into the facts of the case. Specifically, the prosecutor proposed that new witnesses be heard,
including officers from the Danilovgrad Police Department who had been entrusted with
protecting the Bozova Glavica Roma settlement. The investigating magistrate of the Basic Court
of Danilovgrad then heard the additional witnesses, all of whom stated that they had seen none of
the individuals who had caused the fire. The investigating magistrate took no further action.
2.21 Due to the “lack of evidence”, the Basic Public Prosecutor in Podgorica dropped all
charges against Veselin Popovic on 23 January 1996. On 8 February 1996, the investigating
magistrate of the Basic Court of Danilovgrad issued a decision to discontinue the investigation.
From February 1996 up to and including the date of filing of this complaint, the authorities took
no further steps to identify and/or punish those individuals responsible for the incident at issue “civilians” and police officers alike.
2.22 In violation of domestic legislation, the complainants were not served with the court
decision of 8 February 1996 to discontinue the investigation. They were thus prevented from
assuming the capacity of a private prosecutor and to continue with the prosecution of the case.