A fair trial requires that evidence must meet two conditions: first, its informational content must be credible; second, it must be obtained within legally prescribed frameworks. If the second condition is not met, the evidence is inadmissible and must be excluded from the proceedings, regardless of how valuable its informational content may be.
This is not, of course, a kind of personal “lament” about fair trials, but a widely accepted, fundamental requirement of nearly all modern criminal proceedings. It is also enshrined in our Criminal Procedure Code, which states in Article 16 that court decisions “cannot be based on evidence that, directly or indirectly, in itself or due to the manner in which it was obtained, is contrary to the Constitution, this Code, other laws, or generally accepted rules of international law and ratified international treaties, except in proceedings conducted for the purpose of obtaining such evidence.”
But just the other day, on May 13, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Higher Court in Novi Sad cast the greatest possible doubt on the value of that provision by filing an indictment proposal against a group of activists for, as stated, “reasonable suspicion that they committed the criminal offense of preparing an act against the constitutional order and security of Serbia,” and by extending their detention.
The recording of a secretly wiretapped conversation between the accused during preparations for participation in the large citizens’ protest on March 15 in Belgrade, along with footage of their “spectacular” arrests, received enormous publicity more than two months ago. It was broadcast on national television and accompanied by commentary supported by all pro-government tabloids, portraying the arrested individuals as dangerous terrorists.
Far less known are the facts that cast a completely different light on the matter. The defense attorneys for the accused presented these facts at a special press conference, but their analytical and competent criticisms of numerous procedural shortcomings received nowhere near the attention they deserve. This is an opportunity to recall at least some of them.
To begin with, there is the fact that the proceedings, likely because the smear campaign against the accused has already achieved its intended effect, are based on an extremely unusual criminal complaint initially filed by the police.
The suspects are alleged to have been preparing a serious criminal offense. It is therefore logical to expect — as the description of the offense itself suggests — that the criminal complaint would contain facts about the procurement of means to commit the crime (weapons, ammunition, explosives, poisons, equipment, etc.), the removal of obstacles to committing the crime, or the planning, organizing, or creating other conditions for its direct execution. Yet the complaint contains not a single word on any of this. Unless one counts an irresponsible and objectively unserious conversation about possibly entering certain public buildings during the protest as “planning and organizing” an attack on the constitutional order. However, the complaint does not cite anything specific from that conversation — no quotes from any of the accused — only “interpretations” of what each supposedly meant.
The aforementioned recording is the result of secret surveillance — a special investigative measure permitted under the Criminal Procedure Code, but only under strictly defined conditions. In this case, everything was done in clear violation of those conditions. According to the Code, such a measure may be ordered only by an investigative judge of the Higher Court in Novi Sad, and only at the request of the Higher Prosecutor in Novi Sad. In reality, it was ordered by the director of the Security Information Agency (BIA) and approved by the president of the Higher Court in Belgrade. So instead of a legally independent public prosecutor, the measure was initiated by the BIA director – a politician and member of the ruling party’s leadership – and approved by a judge who, under the Code, had no jurisdiction.
It is highly unusual for a recording to appear in the media even before being submitted to the competent judicial authorities, and even more unusual for the prosecutor to then declare everything about it a “secret.” It is also striking that the same prosecutor ignored a clear criminal offense under Article 143 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits providing such recordings to the media and prescribes a prison sentence of up to five years if committed by an official. All of this lends the entire proceeding an almost comical tone.
In fact, a tragicomic one. Because no matter how transparently and amateurishly the case against the group of Novi Sad activists was staged, and even if it ultimately proves legally untenable, it still results in their continued, indefinite detention. The fact that the authorities allow themselves to pursue a case in such a legally scandalous manner poses a serious threat not only to the accused but to the legal certainty of all citizens. The public must respond to this — starting with a firm demand that all of the accused be released from detention and allowed to defend themselves as free citizens against an indictment that is legally meaningless and unsustainable.
Translated by Marijana Simić
Peščanik.net, 17.05.2025.
- Biografija
- Latest Posts
Latest posts by Rodoljub Šabić (see all)
- Beograd na vodi u fazi metastaze - 16/06/2025
- Kosjerić u Ginisovoj knjizi rekorda? - 11/06/2025
- „Obojena revolucija“ i izbori - 02/06/2025
