Senjak: beating claims, prosecutors forward files
Several suspects in the murder of Aleksandar Nesovic say police beat them during arrest, and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office has forwarded the records to the competent basic prosecutor.
- Several suspects in the Aleksandar Nesovic murder case say police beat them during arrest.
- The restaurant owner named Marko Kricak, head of the Criminal Police Directorate, as the person who assaulted him.
- The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade has forwarded the interview records to the competent basic prosecutor on suspicion of torture and ill-treatment.
Several suspects in the Belgrade murder case of Aleksandar Nesovic have stated that police beat them during arrest, and the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade has forwarded the records of their interviews to the competent basic prosecutor on suspicion of torture and ill-treatment. These are claims the suspects made before prosecutors, and they will now be examined in a separate process.
Among those who made such claims is the owner of a restaurant, who named Marko Kricak, head of the Criminal Police Directorate, as the person who assaulted him. He and one waiter showed visible injuries, bruises and injuries to their feet.
What is known about the case?
The beating claims were made during interviews in the case relating to the murder of Aleksandar Nesovic. The prosecutor’s office did not assess the credibility of those claims, but forwarded the matter to the lower prosecutor for review. That step means the suspects’ claims will not be dealt with within the murder investigation, but in a separate process led by the basic prosecutor’s office.
What exists for now as a physical trace are the injuries the restaurant owner and the waiter displayed, bruises and injuries to their feet. These are bodily injuries that will, to the extent the review requires, be subject to expert assessment.
What comes next?
The basic prosecutor’s office now has the task of establishing whether there are grounds for suspicion of torture and ill-treatment, and whether specific individuals are responsible. The review involves examining the records, medical documentation of the injuries and the circumstances under which the arrest took place. Until that review is completed, the statements remain claims yet to be tested, while the naming of the head of the criminal police as a participant in the incident becomes part of the file the lower prosecutor must consider.
The case raises a question that goes beyond a single matter: where is the line between legitimate police conduct during arrest and treatment the law recognises as ill-treatment. The answer now depends on what the review establishes.
Does the state treat such claims with the same seriousness as the crimes it investigates?
