The case K.no.229/03 processed by the Basic Court in Veles for criminal charge – Violence, in accordance to Article 386 paragraph 2 and related to parafraph 1 from the CC against the defendants Ordanco Tasev and 19 others. The Court Council in 1+2 composition carries out the case. According to the seriousness of the case it can be confirmed that the council is justly composed. In addition, minors appear as victims in the case.

The case is complex and related to the act defined by Art. 386 from the CC – Violence – complex criminal charge by its nature. The case is related to the paragraph 2 from the same Article – a group act, an act of severe violence with large number of perpetrators, and an act that causes feeling of insecurity, disgust and fear by the general public.

The Court Council secured defence attorneys to the defendants on their choice. There were times that the counsels did not appear in the courtroom due to being overworked or rejected as a counsel on behalf of the defendant, where the court in official capacity immediately appointed another attorney. This means that the court respects fully the right to defence.

The Court Council also respects fully the right to introduce the defendant with the right to remain silent (no one insofar has used this right), the right to the use of language(s) , and other standards for guaranteeing the fair criminal procedure.

Until this report was prepared, eight evidence presentation hearings were held.

Regarding the presentation of the evidences, the court used the double approach: some of the witnesses stated their findings orally, while others' statements (given during the investigation procedure) were red. Some of the witnesses during the main hearing withdraw from their statements given during the investigating procedure by saying they were influenced as to what kind of statement to give. The defence also required using the right to confront during the main hearing process.

Expert testimonies are also conducted, especially regarding the body injuries.

Concerning large number of defendants, the trial is conducted in continuation and insofar several main hearing were already conducted presenting evidences on the case. The last trial held 31.03.2004 was postponed since the counsel has informed the court that the firstly accused is seriously sick and unable to participate in the trial. The court adjourned the main hearing for an indefinite time.

The process observers found out that the rights of the defendants for fair trial are respected, being given an access to the evidences, by accepting their suggestions for hearing witnesses, and providing confrontations, respecting the legal terms regarding timely information on the hearing dates and receiving the same in written. The court is also securing itself (and the procedure) in the way that after each concluded main hearing, there are minutes stating the date of the next hearing, informing all process parties in advance.

No request for exemption occurred during this case, for the President of the court or to the jurors. The general estimate is that there are no indications that would point to partial act or behaviour on behalf of the court representatives.

During the entire procedure the right for publicity is fully respected. We also need to mention that this case was monitored, commented, and explained in almost all-public media, which in turn created an atmosphere of continued pressure over the court.

Regarding the President of the Court and his personal behaviour, the observers noted that he smoked during the trial. This comment is very good having in mind the judges' behaviour during the main hearing.