The “signs of the injury reactions (inhalation of blood and […] bruises around the wounds and torn tissues)” indicated that N.N. was alive at the moment when he incurred the injuries. 2.12 By letter of 28 August 1996, the complainant’s lawyer requested the Belgrade Public Prosecutor’s Office to order another forensic expertise, to be conducted by the Institute of Forensic Medicine of either the Belgrade Military Hospital or the Faculty of Medicine of Novi Sad, and, for that purpose, to exhume the body of N.N. at the expense of the complainants to address the doubts expressed by Dr. Z.S. In addition, he requested clarification of the following questions: (a) The time and place of death; (b) whether the contusions of the brain and the wound on the lower forehead of the deceased could have been the consequence of injuries inflicted by blows before the fall; (c) whether the small quantity of blood found in the chest cavity indicated that N.N. was already dead at the time of the fall, given that a living person discharges about 70 millilitres of blood from the left auricle into the aorta with every heartbeat (totalling about 4.9 litres per minute); (d) how it could be explained that the autopsy report did not establish any circular fractures of the bones of the base of the cranium after a fall from a height of 20 to 30 metres; and (e) which parts of the body would usually be damaged after a fall from this height, based on the weight of the body, its free movement during, as well as the velocity of the fall. 2.9 On 13 and 24 January 1995, the complainants challenged inconsistencies in the medical findings of the expert commission, as well as in the autopsy report, and requested the Belgrade District Court to order another forensic expertise from a different institution at their expense. 2.10 On 27 June 1995, the complainants sought the intervention of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic, who, by reference to the forensic expertise of the expert commission, affirmed the position of the deputy public prosecutor. Similarly, the Deputy Federal Public Prosecutor, by letter of 8 January 1996, advised the complainants that there were no grounds for him to intervene. 2.11 At the complainants’ request, Dr. Z.S., a pathologist from the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Belgrade Military Hospital, evaluated the autopsy report of 19 April 1994 and the expert commission’s forensic findings of 22 November 1994. In a letter of 21 March 1996, he informed the complainants that, although the described injuries could be the result of the fall of the body of the deceased from a considerable height, it could not be excluded that some of the injuries had been inflicted prior to the fall. He criticized (a) that the autopsy had been carried out six days after the death of N.N.; (b) that the reports did not describe any decomposition changes of the body; (c) that the autopsy report stated that the brain membranes and brain tissue of the deceased were intact, while at the same time noting the presence of brain tissue on the front side of his sweatshirt; (d) the contradiction between the size of the rupture of the aorta (3 cm x 1 cm) and the relatively small quantity of blood found in the chest cavity (800 ccm); (e) the expert commission’s finding that the first contact of the deceased’s body with the ground was with his feet, resulting in transverse fractures of the lower leg bones instead of diagonal fractures, which would usually result from a similar fall; (f) the unclear description by the expert commission of the mechanism of injuries, i.e., “that the first contact of the body was with the feet which caused feet and lower leg fractures, which was followed by bending and twisting (extension and rotation) of the thorax”, given that extension means stretching of the body rather than bending; and (g) that the autopsy report diagnosed decollement, i.e., the separation of the skin of subcutaneous tissue from the muscle membrane, on the external side of the left thigh, although such an injury was usually “inflicted by a strong blow with a brandished blunt weapon”, i.e., “the blow of the body on the ground”, which was unlikely to occur after a fall on the feet and a fracture of both lower leg bones. 2.13 On 2 October 1996, the complainants’ lawyer requested the Belgrade Public Prosecutor’s Office that several potential witnesses be interviewed either by the Serbian Ministry of the Interior or by the Secretariat for Internal Affairs of Novi Sad: (a) The complainants, to find out whether M.K., when delivering the tragic news of their son’s death, said: “Aunt Ljilja, they have killed Nikolica—they have killed Dumpling!”; (b) R.J. and Z.T., colleagues of the mother, who were present when M.K. told the mother that her son had died; (c) M.K., to establish whether she saw N.N. tying the cables to the radiator; whether he had been sleeping and, if so, whether he was already dressed when the police arrived at the door; how it was possible that she did not see N.N. jump out of the window, if she was in the same room; or, alternatively, how she could claim that there was no contact between N.N. and the policemen, if she was in another room; (d) neighbours in building N° 2, Pariske Komune Street, in particular D.N., the tenant of the flat above apartment N° 82, and S.L., who removed the biological traces in front of the building, to ask him what exactly he removed and whether he did this before or after the end of the in situ investigation; (e) several friends of the deceased, to find out whether N.N. had a fight with M.K. prior to 19 April 1994 and whether M.K. had threatened that she would “fix him”; (f) officials of the Belgrade Central Prison, to elucidate whether N.N. had escaped from prison, but was subsequently released on probation by decision of 23 July 1993 of the deputy public prosecutor; and (g) A.N., the sister of 94