killing him instantly. The officers moved the body and, with a blunt
instrument, broke both thighbones. It was only then that they called an
ambulance and the on-duty police investigation team, which included a
forensic technician.
2.2 The policemen told the investigators that Milan Ristic had committed
suicide by jumping from the roof of a nearby building and that they had an
eyewitness to that effect (Dragan Markovic). The medical doctor who came
with the ambulance pronounced Milan Ristic dead. The ambulance then left,
leaving the body to be collected by a mortuary van. The author claims that
after the departure of the ambulance the policemen struck the deceased on
the chin, causing injury to his face.
2.3 The author provides a copy of the autopsy report, which concluded that
the death was violent and caused by an injury to the brain as a result of a fall
on a hard surface. The fall also explained the fractures described in the
report. The author also provides a copy of the report by the doctor who came
with the ambulance. That report says: "By exterior examination I found
weak bleeding from the injury behind the left ear. Through the trousers
above the right knee an open fracture of thighbone could be seen with small
blood signs; around the wound there were no traces of blood."
2.4 The author contends that the medical reports do not fully tally with each
other. The ambulance doctor explicitly states that he noticed no injuries on
the face while the autopsy report lists a laceration and bruise on the chin. He
challenges the reports, noting that it is hardly possible that a person could
fall from a height of 14.65 metres without suffering any injury to the face,
heels, pelvis, spine or internal organs and without internal haemorrhaging,
leaving only bruises on the left elbow and behind the left ear. Moreover, he
notes that there was no blood on the ground.
2.5 At the request of the parents, two forensic experts examined the autopsy
report and found it superficial and contradictory, especially in the part
referring to the cause of death. According to their report, the autopsy was
not performed in accordance with the principles of forensic and medical
science and practice and the conclusion is not in agreement with the
findings. They proposed the exhumation of the remains and another autopsy
by a forensic expert. The author further states that on 16 May 1995 they
spoke with the pathologist who had performed the autopsy and visited the
alleged scene of the incident. They noted that the autopsy report and the
scene had nothing in common, which suggested that the body had been
moved. In a written statement dated 18 July 1995 addressed to the Public
Attorney's Office, the pathologist agreed that the remains should be
exhumed for forensic examination and pointed out that, as he was not a