CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 11 according to the case file available with the Fourth Municipal Public Prosecutor and an interview with the Deputy Case prosecutor, HLC’s complaint was received on 15 August 2000. On 18 August 2000, the Prosecutor requested the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade to provide information “on persons who assisted the Department of Civil Engineering and Communal Housing Affairs of New Belgrade in the demolition, on whether force was used, including which type and manner and for what reasons it was used, whether residents resisted the implementation of the decision of the Department”. 4.2 On 9 November 2000, the Prosecutor received a report from the Secretariat of Internal Affairs of Belgrade, Internal Affairs Control Section. On 23 November 2000, the Prosecutor requested the Secretariat to return to him the original complaint, which was forwarded by the former on 13 February 2001. According to the report, on 7 June 2000, officers of the Bezanija Police Department visited the settlement and noted that the inhabitants were packing up slowly, dismantling their dwellings and looking for a new place to live. Accordingly, there was no police intervention against the inhabitants on that date. On 8 June 2000, the municipal administration authorities “demolished illegally built dwellings […] which took place without disturbance of public peace and order. The police provided assistance, […] but the assistance consisted of physical presence, short of taking any measure or form of intervention, either before or after the demolition of the dwellings”. 4.3 On 19 February 2001, the Prosecutor decided to reject the complaint under article 153, paragraph 4, in connection with paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). According to article 45, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, of the CPL that was in force at that time, the Prosecutor was empowered to take the necessary measures to uncover criminal offences and to identify alleged perpetrators. Article 46, paragraph 2, sub paragraph 1, of the CPC that subsequently entered into force makes the Prosecutor responsible for pre-trial procedure. The State party concludes that under the CPL, the Prosecutor had very limited powers in the pre-trial procedure and had to rely on the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to the Ministry’s report, there were no illegal activities in the case in question and taking into account the procedure for obtaining the evidence under the CPL, the Prosecutor correctly found that there was no reasonable doubt that a criminal offence under article 66 of the CPL, or any other offence prosecuted ex officio had been committed. 4.4 On 19 April 2001, the above decision with a remedy in the sense of article 60, paragraph 2, of the CPL was forwarded to the HLC. In this regard, the State party submits that the CPL and the CPC clearly distinguish between the complainant and the injured party. Only the injured party has the right, in the sense of article 60, paragraph 2, of the CPL and article 61, paragraph 2, of the CPC to take over criminal prosecution if the Prosecutor rejects the complaint. In this situation, the injured party has the right of the Prosecutor and not that of a private complainant. Since the HLC filed the complaint without submitting the full powers of attorney of the injured party represented in this case, the Prosecutor could not inform the HLC of the rejection of the complaint. Moreover, the injured party, the complainant, could not be informed either, since after the settlement’s demolition, his address was no longer valid and no alternative address was provided. It was only after the HLC submitted the full powers on 13 April 2001 that the Prosecutor informed the organization, within the shortest possible time, of the rejection of the complaint and rendered detailed advice on the remedy.