CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 8 2.16 On 25 March 2003, HLC sent a letter of concern to the Minister of Internal Affairs, complaining about the lack of cooperation of the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade in the investigation and asking the Minister to disclose the names of the plainclothes policemen who provided assistance during the incident of 8 June 2000 at the “Antena” settlement in New Belgrade. 2.17 On 8 April 2003, the Court interviewed policemen G., who stated that he was not present at the destruction of “Antena” settlement and had no direct knowledge of the incident of 8 June 2000. He confirmed that, as a rule, assistance in such situations was provided by the uniformed rather than by plainclothes policemen but, in emergencies, policemen in plainclothes could be dispatched. He further stated that the names of the policemen assigned to different tasks were kept in a registry in the police department. Should the Court require such information, it would receive a report based on the information contained in the registry. 2.18 By letter dated 6 May 2003, 10 the victims’ representative was again informed that the investigation has been terminated by the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade and that he could lodge an indictment within 15 days to proceed with the criminal prosecution in the case. However, once again, the perpetrators were not identified by name. On 27 May 2003, the representative requested the Court not to finalize the investigation in the case until the Ministry of Internal Affairs had sent its response to HLC’s request that it provide the names of the plainclothes policemen involved in the incident. On 3 June 2003, HLC sent a reminder to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. On 20 June 2003, an adviser to the Minister of Interior informed HLC that the criminal investigation conducted by the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade was not able to confirm the participation of plainclothes policemen in the incident of 8 June 2000. The letter concluded that, upon the request of the Court, the Secretariat of Belgrade11 should present all required information regarding the conduct of the policemen. 2.19 On 20 December 2003, the victims’ representative was notified for the fourth time that the Court had concluded the investigation in the case and was invited to lodge the indictment within 15 days. As before, the names of the perpetrators were not identified, thus making it impossible for the victims to formally take over the prosecution of the case. 2.20 Pursuant to domestic law, the complainant had two different procedures for seeking compensation: (1) criminal proceedings, under Article 201 of the CPC, which should have been instituted on the basis of his criminal complaint, or (2) a civil action for damages under Articles 154 and 200 of the Serbian Law on Obligations. Since the prosecutor failed to identify the perpetrators and no formal criminal proceedings were instituted by Fourth Municipal Public Prosecutor of Belgrade, the first avenue remained closed. Concerning the second avenue, the complainant did not file a civil action for compensation given that it is standard practice of the Serbian courts to suspend civil cases for damages arising out of criminal offences until prior completion of the respective criminal proceedings. 2.21 Had the complainant decided to sue for damages immediately following the incident, he would have faced another procedural impediment. Articles 186 and 106 of the CPC require that 10 11 The letter was received by the victims’ representative on 12 May 2003. Police Headquarters in Belgrade.