CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 19 evidence as to whether the uniformed policemen who were present undertook any actions in order to protect the Roma from the assault of these “civilians”. Neither did it produce any evidence about measures it took to identify these “civilians” and to provide their names to the complainant. 9.5 The complainant concludes that the burden rests on the State party to prove either under which circumstances the complainant was injured by policemen (in accordance with the original version of the events) or how these “civilians” managed to penetrate into the settlement undetected and assault the Roma inhabitants, as the State party currently suggests. The complainant stresses that the police operation launched on that day was mounted following careful preparation and planning, i.e. it was not a “spontaneous” police operation. Therefore, the police authorities had ample time to prepare themselves and take all the necessary measures in order to minimize any kind of threat to the Roma. 9.6 For the complainant reiterates, the State party failed to advance new arguments regarding the adequacy of the investigation launched into his allegations of ill-treatment and recalls that this “is not an obligation of result, but of means”. Any investigation should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those held responsible. In the present case, the Prosecutor based his decision not to open the investigation into the HLC’s criminal offence report on the report received from the Secretariat of Internal Affairs of Belgrade, Internal Affairs Control Section, dated 9 November 2000.32 The State party continues to withhold this report from him and the Committee.33 The complainant further notes that the State party itself questions the validity of this report by supporting three mutually exclusive versions of the events that took place on 8 June 2000.34 9.7 The complainant further submits, inter alia, that the State party’s authorities have failed to establish how many uniformed (not to mention plainclothes) policemen and from what departments were present on 8 June 2000; to investigate whether any of its agencies uses a vehicle with the license plate number that had been provided by the complainant and other witnesses; and to request a copy of the registry of the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade.35 He adds that starting from 25 December 2001, there was concrete evidence36 that policemen from yet another police agency, in addition to the Bezanija Police Department, had been involved in the demolition of the “Antena” settlement and that the Prosecutor should have been aware that the information provided by the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade in its letter of 6 February 2003 was inaccurate.37 Nevertheless, the complainant’s case was closed pursuant to article 257 of the CPC. The complainant argues that the fact that all his requests to supplement the investigation were granted by the investigating judge amounts to a concession of the inadequacy of the investigation measures taken until then. 32 See paragraphs 4.2 and 4.6 above. See paragraph 5.7 above. 34 See paragraphs 4.2 and 8.2 above. 35 See paragraph 2.17 above. 36 See paragraph 2.7 above. 37 See paragraphs 2.15 and 2.17 above. 33