CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 7 2.11 On 12 September 2002, the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade informed the HLC8 that the investigation had been concluded and that, according to the provisions of Article 259, paragraph 3, of the CPC, the victims’ representative could lodge an indictment in the case 9 within 15 days or otherwise it would be deemed that they have waived the prosecution. 2.12 On 2 October 2002, the complainant’s and the other victims’ representative filed a new request to supplement the investigation with the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade, in accordance with the procedure established by article 259, paragraph 1, of the CPC. The motion stated that, in breach of article 255 of the CPC, the investigating judge did not provide the parties with the names of the plainclothes policemen and therefore, they were unable to formally take over the prosecution of the case. It was proposed, inter alia, that the court conduct a new hearing of Master Sergeant J. and that it resend a request to the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade to provide information on the identity of the plainclothes policeman involved in the incident. 2.13 On 6 November 2002, in response to this request, the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade sent an inquiry to the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade regarding the names of the Department’s officers who provided assistance to the Municipality of New Belgrade and to the Bezanija Police Department but indicated by mistake an erroneous date for the incident, that is, 8 June 2002. As a result, the Department of Internal Affairs replied on 20 November 2002 that it had not provided any assistance to the abovementioned bodies on the said date. On 22 November 2002, a second similar request was sent to the Department of Internal Affairs by the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade. This time, the letter did not mention the date of the incident but required the names of the plainclothes policemen who had assisted the policemen from the Bezanija Police Department during the destruction of the “Antena” settlement. On 4 December 2002, Master Sergeant J. replied that he did not know the names of the plainclothes policemen who intervened during the destruction of the “Antena” settlement but he did not deny that such intervention occurred. Also, on 13 November 2002, Master Sergeant J. was re-interviewed by the Court. He repeated his previous statement adding that “[...] if necessary, I could try to find out precisely which police officers were present and inform the court about it”. 2.14 On 26 December 2002, the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade informed the victims’ representative that the investigation has been concluded and recalled that, according to the provisions of Article 259, paragraph 3, of the CPC, the victims’ representative could lodge an indictment in the case within 15 days. Otherwise it would be deemed that they had waived the prosecution. 2.15 On 10 January 2003, the victims’ representative notified the Court that the involvement of the plainclothes policemen in the physical abuse of Roma on 8 June 2000 was clearly supported by the victims’ statements, as well as by the witnesses P. and Master Sergeant J. and requested the Court to continue its investigation until the perpetrators had been identified. On 6 February 2003, the Department of Internal Affairs of New Belgrade, in response to a third request from the Court dated 30 January 2003, sent a letter providing the names of two officers G. and A., who had provided assistance during the incident of 8 June 2000. 8 9 The Court’s letter was received on 18 September 2002. See paragraph 2.5 above.