I have not committed any criminal offence, and I do not feel guilty. I don’t believe a case can be made correctly on the basis of a telephone conversation between “some two people”, stated the Mayor of Bitola, Vladimir Taleski who is a prime suspect in the ‘Transporter’ case after a public session at the Court of Appeals, regarding his house arrest.
He arrived at the public hearing in a police vehicle “Skoda – Jeti”, accompanied by two police officers, and without handcuffs.
“We have not committed a criminal offense and I feel absolutely superior because the truth is on our side. I am convinced that the people in the Court of Appeals will see the truth and will decide on the right measure. I believe all this is beginning to gain some resolution. I am sure that the citizens will see that the situation is a set-up. I repeat, I don’t think you can make a case against someone from a telephone conversation made by two people talking about a third (Zoran Stavreski and Gordana Jankuloska talking about Vladimir Taleski), and then the third person to be charged with a criminal offense”, said Taleski.
The Mayor, when asked by journalists confirmed that he had signed official documents while under house arrest.
“Unfortunately, my co-workers were very pleasantly surprised because the SPO came once again to check whether the Mayor is signing documents. Of course, I sign documents from work and apart from the house arrest, I have not been banned in anything else”,said Taleski.
Taleski’s lawyer, Nikola Dodevski, in the explanation of the appeal before the three-member council of the Court of Appeals, pointed out that the extension of the detention was made on the basis of a proposal by the SPO which had not been presented to the defense, which is a violation of the law, the Convention for the Protection of Human rights and the principle of equality in the arms of parties concerned in the procedure. He pointed out that in the proposal, the SPO did not put any evidence forward and no investigative actions were taken, which a measure like house arrest should be based on.
“The proposal is based on allegations of abstract danger of an escape, abstract danger of reoffending and influencing witnesses. The proposal states that evidence needs to be provided, but it does not state what evidence. And what happens in those 60 days while Taleski is under house arrest? Nothing! The man is sitting in custody for 60 days and the SPO has not taken any action. This case is a typical example of inequality in treatment and the Court should not allow this Prosecutor’s Office to act like the ‘super’ prosecution”, said Taleski’s lawyer, Nikola Dodevski.
He had notes and had calculated the date from when Taleski’s detention began and noted that five days have not been covered or recorded by the law, while Taleski was in custody.
The prosecutor from the SPO, Trajče Pelivanov, in his brief speech, said that the proposal is from the determination of the house arrest and all parts in which it is extended this measure.
“ I propose to the court to reject the appeal from the defense and confirm the ruling for house arrest”, said Pelivanov.
He added that the SPO not only for this case but for other investigative procedures and preliminary procedures treat all equally as the other institutions.
Taleski’s house arrest expires in two days, on August 20.
