Expert in the Iva Mihaylova Crash Case: The Collision Occurred Because Another Vehicle Entered Iva's Lane

The court in Kocani has begun hearing evidence from expert witness Vinko Gajica, who has so far prepared more than 6,000 expert reports on road traffic accidents in the Republic of North Macedonia. Gajica prepared his report on the basis of all the evidence gathered during the on-site inspection, the official accident report and the photographic record of the crash scene.

• BNT Exclusive: Iva Mihaylova: When I identified myself as Bulgarian, that's when the harassment began

Gajica was categorical that the accident occurred as a result of a “Renault” car entering the lane of the “Volkswagen” driven by Iva Mihaylova. The point of impact is established by the traces left by broken glass and fluids, as well as the way the cars continued to move by inertia after the collision and their final positions.

An analysis of the evidence and the traces left at the scene clearly indicates that the two cars collided in the lane in which Iva's vehicle was travelling, precisely where fragments of broken glass were found. These traces were not recorded in the sketch attached to the official accident report; they were only photographed.

The distance between the two vehicles after they came to a stop was also not recorded.

Vinko Gajica, expert witness: “The methodology I used to reach this conclusion forms part of the established analytical procedures applied in the EU and the United States. It is also fully consistent with all computer models. This is a typical head-on, off-centre collision between two vehicles. This means that the vehicles do not remain at the point of impact but undergo subsequent rotation.”

During his testimony, it also emerged that the Renault, when unladen, is 400kg heavier than the Volkswagen. The heavier vehicle rotated by more than 50 degrees following the collision, while the lighter car deviated by only eight degrees and came to a stop close to the right-hand edge of its own lane.

“There is a tyre mark left by the Renault passenger car which begins in the right-hand lane, crosses into the left-hand lane and continues along it. This also proves that the Renault entered the left-hand lane,” the expert witness continued.

This is also confirmed by the fact that the right headlight of the “Renault” and the front license plate of the “Volkswagen” fell precisely in the left lane.

Vinko Gajica also pointed out that there was no explanation for why the traces had been marked with chalk. This practice was used in the distant past but is no longer followed, as marking traces with chalk can be misleading and lead to one mark being mistaken for another.

At the start of the latest hearing in the case against Iva Mihaylova in Kochani, the court was informed that a 30-day detention order had been issued against her after she left the territory of the Republic of North Macedonia.

Initially, the court was not informed that she had requested to participate in the proceedings via video link. During the hearing, however, the court announced that a request from Iva Mihaylova had been received at 11.45am. The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to examine the documents. When proceedings resumed, the court rejected Mihaylova's request, ruling that it was unfounded.

The prosecutor requested an additional medical expert assessment of her health. The assessment is to be based on medical documents submitted over recent months, as well as posts she has published on social media.

Mihaylova's lawyer, Nikolay Dimitrov, said that she had been admitted to hospital in Bulgaria once again.

Nikolay Dimitrov, Iva Mihaylova's lawyer: “What is happening with my client at the moment is that, following a 12-day stay at Pirogov Hospital and a week of rehabilitation, her treating doctors have decided that she needs to be admitted to hospital again. She is currently at the District Hospital, where her treatment is continuing. She has spinal injuries, and her treating doctors have decided to seek the opinions of their colleagues before determining precisely what procedure should be carried out on Iva.”

The prosecutor objected to Iva Mihaylova's request to participate in the proceedings remotely via video link.

Igorcho Krastov argued that the prosecution was seeking Mihaylova. He said the defendant could appear in person in the courtroom and take part in the trial, as she had done at the previous hearing.

According to the prosecutor, there was no dispute that Mihaylova had failed to comply with the bail conditions imposed on her and had deliberately and knowingly fled, thereby choosing to have the case heard in her absence.

The court ruled that Iva Mihaylova's request should be rejected as unfounded.