CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 12 4.5 In 2000 and 2001, the only independent authority to control the legality of the work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was the Internal Affairs Control Section. It investigated all cases in which force was used and carried out internal control on the basis of complaints of serious misconduct and /or reports of excessive use of force. This Section has been transformed in the meantime into the post of the General Inspector of the Public Security Department. 4.6 With regard to the complainant’s and other victims’ statement that they would be able to recognize the plainclothes policemen who hit them should they be given this opportunity, the State party submits that “while a witness statement constitutes evidence, identification is only one measure to establish its authenticity.” Since the Internal Affairs Control Section concluded that the Ministry of Internal Affairs officers acted in full compliance with the law, the Prosecutor could not request identity parade as it would have been superfluous. In any event, the injured party taking over the prosecution has the right to request action to determine identification during the proceedings. 4.7 The State party further submitted that the Court had difficulties in subpoenaing the injured parties, since the HLC failed to provide their proper addresses. As a result, the Court was able to subpoena the witnesses only on 7 May 2002 and so heard them almost a year after the prosecution was taken over by the injured party. The State party referred to the statement made by one of the “Antena’” inhabitants, before the investigating judge of the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade where he indicated, inter alia, that “these individuals did not have any insignia and wore civilian clothes and used only their arms and legs during the attack on the settlement’s residents.” He added that his son was pushed by a truncheon when the latter bowed to pick up his cell phone from the ground and that “the police officer did it to move him away from the melee, as my son risked to be hit, felled and run over.” Sergeant Major B., an officer of the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade testified in January 2002 that “the residents […] booed us and protested the demolition […].” In addition to Sergeant J.’s testimony of 10 April 2002 quoted by the complainant, 17 the State party referred to a part of his statement where he explained that several attempts have been made to serve demolition decisions on the settlement’s residents. On 8 June 2000, the residents “refused to move, the police tried to talk them into it but they would not listen.” He recalled that the plainclothes policemen who arrived at the scene used the truncheons on the most reluctant inhabitants who had lain down in front of the bulldozers to prevent the demolition, but did not remember who was using the truncheons and on whom. He further recalled that no one insulted, kicked or hit the Roma with the fists. The physical contact was limited to holding the inhabitants by the arm to drag them away from the area; one or two of them were ultimately arrested and taken into custody to the Bezanija Police Department. As for the Building Construction inspector’s testimony referred to by the complainant,18 the State party refers to a part of his statement where he mentioned that “[…] the police officer from the Bezanija Police Station that assisted us tried to solve the problem with the Roma peacefully and, really I cannot remember now if insults were exchanged between them.” 4.8 The State party concluded that the facts mentioned above prove that on the day in question the police tried to act in accordance with the standards governing the intervention against a large number of people and endeavoured to apply force discriminately. In particular, they tried to use a 17 18 See paragraph 2.7 above. See paragraph 2.10 above.