"Puls" trial: defence witnesses stand up for the police, parents ask why the concert ever started

The trial of the 13 police officers from Kočani and Štip continued at the Basic Criminal Court in Skopje. They are charged with failing to act according to the action plan on the night of the fire at the "Puls" nightclub and with failing to prevent the use of pyrotechnics. This time, defence witnesses took the stand - two firefighters. The defence's goal was clear: to show that the officers did not stand around with their arms folded that night.

Blagojcho Paunov, a firefighter-rescuer with the Kočani Territorial Fire Unit, said they received the alert at 2:35 a.m. and reached the building in about five minutes. He described mixed teams of firefighters, police officers, security staff and civilians pulling people out together, and said he called on police officer Dragan Petrushev, known as Kazak, one of the defendants, to gather as many colleagues as possible for the rescue. According to the witnesses, the police had earlier cleared the street and made room for the fire engines. The fire, Paunov said, was only brought under control at around 4 a.m. and fully put out at around 5 a.m.

That is the defence's version. In cross-examination, prosecutor Spasenka Andonova simply reminded the court that most of the rescuing was done by civilians, who didn't even have a police coat. Before these witnesses, the court had already heard numerous testimonies that police officers refused to help that night, saying "We're not trained for this."

A hydrant for decoration

The heaviest sentence of the hearing came not from the prosecution, but from the defence's own witnesses. The hydrant box in "Puls" held a hose, but no valve. When they opened it, they realised it was useless. The hydrant, as the testimony put it, "was there just for decoration."

That is not a detail about one police officer - it is a detail about the whole system. A venue where the hydrant is decor, where sparkler fountains are lit, and which nonetheless operates and hosts a concert. Who inspected it? And how many other halls across the country right now have a box with a hose and no valve?

The parents are not asking for a verdict in advance

After the hearing, the parents of the victims responded with the question at the heart of the entire case: what should the police have done that night? In their view, the nightclub had no legal paperwork either to operate or to hold a concert, so the event should have been stopped before it even began.

They stress that they are not asking for guilt to be decided in advance, but for the truth to come out of the evidence, and they called on the defence not to drag out the proceedings with irrelevant questions. "No uniform or office may stand in the way of establishing responsibility," the parents said.

The trial continues with new witnesses. The defence will try to show that the officers helped once the flames broke out. But the indictment is not about what they did after midnight - it is about what they failed to do before. That is the distinction the court has to guard.