A Year After North Macedonia Nightclub Tragedy, Convictions Remain Far Off

Over half of the defendants, 35 in total, are on trial in the first and most extensive case, which seeks to establish direct responsibility for the tragedy. This trial started in November, and hearings have continued for a fourth consecutive month. The 35 are accused of participating in, or turning a blind eye to, years of systemic failings and corruption related to the work of the Pulse nightclub, which led to the disaster. The other 23 defendants are police officers. Prosecutors have filed three separate indictments against them, two of which are at the beginning stage. The anniversary of the tragedy comes amid an investigation into 11 more people, including inspectors from the Public Revenue Office, three of whom are already indicted in other cases being heard before the Criminal Court. The Kocani prosecution said it is still collecting evidence and will question the suspects once the investigation is complete. Legal developments in the cases so far are the following. Harrowing testimonies, silent defendants The main courtroom in Idrizovo prison near Skopje which is hosting the high-profile trial. Photo: BIRN. The big courtroom in the Idrizovo prison near Skopje, which hosts the high-profile trial, fell into silence when, in the first testimonies in the case, parents who lost children in the fire recounted the fatal night. Their statements seemed to bring back the tragedy in the courtroom. “It is very hard seeing your child dead,” recalled Gabriela Naunova, mother of Nadica Naunova, remembering the scene at the hospital when she realised her daughter had died in the fire. Marija Petrushova spoke shockingly about having to turn over dead bodies in order to find her son, Andrej. “He looked so alive, so I could not believe he was dead,” she said, explaining that that her son had not suffered any burns; he had suffocated in the smoke. Survivors described horrifying scenes. “Blackened faces, peeled skin,” recalled Kristian Panov, who had been working as a bartender at “Pulse” that night. “Our eyes were burning, we couldn’t see anything, we were moving our feet forward centimetre by centimetre,” recalled Martin Kitanov, who had been trapped in the stampede of people trying to escape during the rapid spread of the fire and smoke. In a trembling voice, he said his entire group of friends had died. The indictment for the nightclub fire calls it a predictable tragedy. It summarizes that it was only a matter of time before 13 years of systemic failings, inaction and corruption related to the work of the nightclub, a venue flawed with many key safety omissions, would catch up, resulting in disaster. The indictment treats all the accused as co-perpetrators, as if they had acted with shared intent, even though their actions or inactions occurred over different periods of time during the existence of the nightclub. All the accused, including state officials, are charged with the same offence: “serious crimes against public safety”. In other words, they are all accused of being directly accountable for the deaths of the victims. Alongside eyewitnesses, the court also heard from the accountant who worked with the security agency that operated at the club, the PR representative of the band DNK that was performing that night and the seller of the pyrotechnics used at the concert. Tensions frequently erupted in the courtroom when parents reacted vociferously to some testimonies and to objections raised by defence lawyers. Judge Diana Gruevska-Ilievska has tried to maintain order by warning them of penalties, although at times she has tolerated the parents’ emotive reactions. These confrontations have also spilled outside the courtroom, when parents encountered some of the defendants and their lawyers. The defendants themselves have largely remained silent, except for their opening statements in which they all pleaded not guilty. They have been since then speaking mainly through their lawyers. This strategy aligns with objections raised during the review of the indictments, when defence lawyers essentially contested the entre basis of the trial, insisting that people who were holding official positions ten years before the nightclub fire could not be held legally accountable for the tragedy and put on trial so long afterwards. Early evidence focuses on safety failures The main trial defendant, the nightclub’s owner, Dejan Jovanov. Photo: BIRN. So far, hearings have mainly focused on safety failures at the nightclub and the fire itself. The testimonies have not directly addressed the former ministers and other officials accused of institutional responsibility. Four key causes of the fatal fire have emerged from the testimonies: a flammable ceiling made of spongey material that burns easily and produces thick smoke, a blocked back door, which could have aided speedier evacuation, a lack of firefighting equipment and protocols, and the use of illegal pyrotechnics. “There were only two fire extinguishers, the hydrant was empty, no hose, no nozzles,” recalled protection and rescue inspector Darko Stojkov who conducted the post-blaze inspection. He said the back door of the nightclub was narrow and had no handle, was locked with a padlock and was additionally “sealed with styrofoam”. “There were iron bars on one of the toilets, and the windows were broken,” he added. Witnesses said swift evacuation was impossible because of a double-leaf swing door at the exit, which impeded people’s movements. Staff had received no training in dealing with fires, the court heard. The building, during its functioning as a nightclub, had undergone interior renovation and alterations. Terraces that had previously existed were removed and the stage for performances was replaced. One witness said the ceiling had been lowered after the renovations. Furniture, including tables, had been placed in the middle of the nightclub, making movement more difficult for guests. The court also heard that there were no checks on the number of guests present, nor controls to prevent minors from entering, supporting the claims in the indictment. Trials of police officers The first court hearing for three police officers accused of filing misdemeanour reports against the club with incorrect data. Photo: BIRN. Three additional indictments charge 23 police officers with bearing different kinds of responsibility for the disaster. One concerns 13 police officers who were carrying out inspections of hospitality venues on the night of the fire but who had failed to check whether all the required inspections had been carried out at the club, or whether standard operational procedures had been followed. They are accused of failing to take measures to protect those present and of failing to prevent the use of pyrotechnic equipment on the stage, which had not been reported to the Kocani police. The trial of these police officers begins on April 1. They face severe sentences if convicted. A second case against three other police officers is already under way. These officers are accused of filing misdemeanour reports between October 2023 and February 2024 for allowing minors into the venue, but of entering incorrect data in those reports, so the perpetrator company went unpunished. These misdemeanour proceedings are still pending before the Kocani court. The third indictment includes nine police officers accused of failing to fulfill their official duties when approving the nightclub’s licence. Although the venue lacked sufficient parking spaces and there had been complaints about disturbances, they had approved the request. This allowed the Economy Ministry to issue a licence for the club, the indictment says. They are charged with abuse of office and authority, which enabled the nightclub to operate. The first hearing in this case is scheduled for March 25.