Contrary to the allegations that he was hiding from the law enforcement institutions, the Chief of the Fifth Department of the Interior Ministry, Goran Grujoski appeared on Wednesday before the Criminal Court, where in front of a judge as well as in front of the representatives of the Special Public Prosecutor's Office about 1 pm began his statement.
As it was already announced, Grujoski, although the Special Public Prosecutor's Office claimed he was not available, on Wednesday morning, after from the media he learned that there is a search for him, appeared in the Basic Court Skopje 1, in order to make a statement about the charges by the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office as a prime suspect in the case "Fortress".
Court immediately notified the Special Public Prosecutor's Office that the person sought is present in the court. Regarding the information, however, that the person G.G. was at the premises of the court on a hearing this morning, and the prosecutor was not timely informed, the Basic Court said that once the person appeared in court along with his defenders for his hearing, the Court notified the public prosecutor.
The Court and the Criminal Council on Wednesday also confirmed that it was not allowed by a judge to search the home of the chief in Skopje municipality of Kisela Voda.
"Criminal Council of the Department of Organized Crime and Corruption in the Basic Court Skopje 1 today at the meeting accepted the unacceptance of the preliminary procedure judge to issue a search warrant at the home of G.G., who is suspected in the"Fortress" case by special public prosecutor" the Basic Court Skopje 1 said.
In a statement, it was noted that the Criminal Council of the Court, after inspecting the records of the case, decided that the preliminary procedure judge properly acted giving disagreement because of the Special Public Prosecutor's Office has limited actual competence concerning the powers to investigate and prosecute crimes arising from the content of the unauthorized interception of communications, in the legally specified period.
From the request for issuing a search warrant, the statement said, they could not determine the time period for which, the content of the communication from the illegal interception of communications refers, and of which they claim a crime is arising.
The Council considers that the likelihood with the search to achieve certain results, must precede the reasonable doubt there had been a specific criminal offense arising from the illegal monitoring of communications, insofar as it cannot to make a search to find the reasonable doubt.
Regarding the comment by the special public prosecutor Katica Janeva, relating to the judicial practice that never by a judge of the preliminary procedure was rejected a request for issuing order, the Basic Court said that judges are independent in their action and the case law is not a source of the law .
"Each judge according to the law, the Constitution and international treaties ratified with a Law, in each particular case decides on the basis of their free judicial proceedings. The Court is astonished by the public comments expressed about a judicial precedent because of the non-issuance of court order which had rejected the proposal of Special Public Prosecutor's Office for a search warrant", the court stated.