Eighteen months after that night in Kočani, a sentence was spoken in the Idrizovo courtroom that reduces the whole tragedy to a single question. Expert witness and professor Goran Markovski, answering questions from the defendants, said that under the Construction Law the inspector "could have and had to act to have the premises closed until the irregularities were cleared up".

Could have. Had to. Did not.

The paperwork said one thing, the building did another

Markovski explained to the court that the change of use, the reorganisation of the space, the alterations to the electrical, water and sewage installations and the unsuitable materials installed all directly affected the safety of the club. In his view, the competent bodies had to react to the unlawful works - and no such reaction came until 16 and 18 March 2025, when inspection records were drawn up for the first time. Which means: the first official document about the state of the building was written after the building had already burned.

Both records, compiled by authorised construction inspectors Nikolčo Bocev and Ljupčo Stamenkov, contain the same finding - the building permit issued for the premises was for a commercial light-industry facility. An initial check at the urban planning department of the Kočani municipality found no record that any decision on change of use and adaptation had ever been issued. In other words, the building where concerts were held was officially a factory.

The material that released cyanide

The expert team laid out for the court the chemistry of what happened. Markovski pointed out that the foam installed in the building released carbon monoxide and cyanide as it burned. That is not a technical detail for the case file - it is the reason people who were a few metres from the exit never reached it.

The defence team for the club's owner, Dejan Jovanović, cross-examined the experts about the materials. Expert Marjana Lazarevska replied that they were reading the regulations selectively, and that from the findings they could see the colour of the foam but not the composition of the polyurethane the team had established.

The parents asked the question the court has to answer

During a break in the hearing, Mita Taseva, a mother, said the defendants' own questions showed they knew the irregularities and the risks in the building in detail. "You cannot list every failure, danger and irregularity today and at the same time claim that for years you had no reason to react," she said, adding that the court must establish who knew, what they knew, since when, and why they said nothing.

If it is proven that the dangers were known and the authorities deliberately took no measures, then, according to Taseva, this is no longer an institutional failure but deliberate inaction with possible criminal implications. Dragi Stojanov, a father, put it more directly: had the inspector done his job, his child would be alive.

The proceedings are running, so is the clock

The case is being heard by judge Dijana Gruevska-Ilievska, with the prosecution represented by a team of 15 public prosecutors. Among the defendants are the building's owner Grozdan Milkovski and the municipal construction inspectors. The trial is in the evidentiary phase, with the construction experts under cross-examination.

Eighteen months on, the prosecution's claim sounds equally simple and equally heavy: there was a law, there was an inspector, there was an obligation, and nothing happened. Whether the court calls that a failure or a decision is the difference between an accident and accountability.