The trial for the Pulse nightclub fire in Kochani resumed Wednesday with the presentation of evidence on the inspection supervision of municipal inspectors.
At Wednesday’s hearing, the prosecutor continued with the presentation of material evidence relating to the inspection supervision of hospitality activities conducted by the Municipality of Kochani. The evidence set included reports on the work of the inspectors, authorizations of construction inspectors, as well as documentation for conducting joint inspection and field supervision.
The prosecution also submitted decisions on the employment of authorized construction inspectors, which they believe are relevant for determining the competencies and responsibilities in the period before the fire.
Defendant Shaban Saliu’s attorney Dimitar Dangov reacted that the defense has serious difficulties in following the evidence, because some of the documents were submitted on a USB device, which, as he said, is not fair and puts the defense at a disadvantage.
Dangov pointed out that there are 216 pieces of evidence for the State Security Service alone, and that he “does not know where to find them” in the electronic structure of the materials.
Continuing the presentation, prosecutor Darko Jakimovski stated that the communal inspections in the legal entities covered by the indictment show that, although there were remarks about the removal of urban equipment, subsequent reports repeatedly stated that they were not acted upon. The defense reacted to this, requesting that the prosecutor not indicate to the court what it should assess, since this is the exclusive competence of the trial council.
The defense additionally requested that evidence about the cafe not be presented, for which, according to the defense, there is no indictment. The prosecutor countered that the evidence was relevant, because the cafe is part of the same legal entity against which the proceedings are being conducted.
Attorney Petre Shilegov, during a break in Wednesday’s hearing, said that the evidentiary procedure only confirms the defense’s position that the scope of the indictment is too broad and that with such a construction, as he stressed, neither justice nor a fair verdict can be achieved.
Shilegov pointed out that in the last hearings, minutes for paying utility bills at a completely different location are being reviewed, which, according to him, are absolutely irrelevant to the causes and consequences of the fire. Shilegov recalled that at the beginning of the trial, the defense warned that with such a scope of the indictment and such a volume of evidence, the procedure would take too long and that such a trial would cost the state over EUR 100,000.
