CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 5 the public prosecutor can request the necessary information and/or take the necessary steps in order to identify the individual(s) at issue. According to article 239, paragraph 1, of the CPC, the prosecutor may exercise this authority through the law enforcement agencies or with the assistance of the investigating judge. If the public prosecutor finds, based on the totality of evidence, that there is reasonable doubt that a certain person has committed a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio, he requests the investigating judge to institute a formal judicial investigation in accordance with articles 241 and 242 of the CPC. On the other hand, if the public prosecutor decides that there is no basis for the institution of a formal judicial investigation, he must inform the complainant/victim of this decision, who can then exercise his/her prerogative to take over the prosecution of the case on his/her own behalf – that is, in the capacity of a “private prosecutor” as provided by article 61, paragraphs 1 and 2, and article 235, paragraph 1, of the CPC. 2.5 On 10 April 2001, in the absence of a reply from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, HLC sent a request for information concerning the investigation to the Fourth Municipal Public Prosecutor. In a letter dated 19 April 2001 and received on 16 May 2001, HLC was informed that the complaint had been rejected, as there was no reasonable doubt that any criminal acts subject to official prosecution had been committed. No information was provided about the steps taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the complaint. The victim’s representative was advised, in accordance with article 60, paragraph 2,4 of the CPC, to take over the prosecution of the case before the Municipal Court of Belgrade within eight days. To that end, the victim’s representative was invited to submit either a proposal to the investigating judge to conduct the investigation against an unidentified perpetrator or a personal indictment against the officials for the crimes proscribed by articles 54 and 66 of the Serbian Criminal Code. The Deputy Public Prosecutor listed the names of four members of the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade who provided assistance to the Department of Civil Engineering and Communal Housing Affairs in carrying out the eviction and demolition: Sergeant Major B., Staff Sergeants A. and N., and Master Sergeant J.. However, the letter did not mention the names of the plainclothes policemen who participated in the eviction, thus preventing the complainant from formally taking over the prosecution of the case. 2.6 On 23 May 2001, HLC filed a request before the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade to reopen the investigation into the matter. To help identify the perpetrators, HLC requested the Court to hear, in addition to the Roma witnesses, the policemen named in the Deputy Public Prosecutor’s letter of 19 April 2001, as well as the representatives of the Department of Civil Engineering and Communal Housing Affairs who had been present on 8 June 2000. 2.7 Between 25 December 2001 and 10 April 2002, the four uniformed policemen were heard by the investigating judge, making contradictory statements regarding the police’s participation in the demolition of the “Antena” settlement. Master Sergeant J. stated that due to the number of the settlement’s inhabitants and their reluctance to vacate the settlement, the group of policemen called for additional assistance and soon a vehicle with five or six colleagues in plainclothes 4 As of 29 March 2002, when a new Criminal Procedure Code entered into force, the number of the article in the new Code is 61, paragraph 1. The substance of the provision remained the same.