"If we analyze the events of the past months and if we take the broadest definition of the term 'coup', the matter is, in my opinion, clear. There is currently a coup d'état being carried out by the president of Serbia, undisguisedly taking over executive, legislative and judicial power. According to the definition, a 'coup d'état' is a change of power by unconstitutional means, carried out by a political faction, the army or a high-ranking government official. And what is happening here? The president has been controlling the entire executive branch for a long time, and now it is completely naked and unconstitutional. We no longer know not only who the ministers are, but also who the prime minister is. He changes them like toys. He publicly humiliates the prime minister, who has the greatest constitutional authority in domestic politics. A large number of managers in the police and army were replaced, i.e. those who tried to be professional. In the parliament, the members of the ruling coalition unquestioningly carry out his ideas and demands, while at the same time he threatens the holders of judicial positions that he will remove them if they are not 'good', i.e. if they do not do what he expects from them", he says at the beginning of the interview with "Vreme". Vida Petrović Skero, the former President of the Supreme Court of Serbia and a lawyer who points out the numerous anomalies of the judicial system in Serbia.
"VREME": Therefore, it is not students and citizens in rebellion who want to carry out a coup d'état through the so-called color revolution?
VIDA PETROVIĆ SKERO: If the government is changed on the street, if it is done by the citizens, then it is not called a "coup d'état" but a "revolution". I like to analyze things legally and conceptually, so I will say that this months-long protest cannot be called a revolution under any circumstances. The students, who they accuse of wanting a violent change of government, have been asking for nothing more for months than to determine responsibility for the tragedy in Novi Sad. Also, to disclose the documents related to the fall of the canopy. They demanded that the institutions do their work in accordance with the laws. Only later did they demand extraordinary elections, with every right. It became clear that the government does not want to fulfill the demands, but, on the contrary, is doing everything to prevent the establishment of responsibility for the tragedy. However, if citizens demand elections, it is not a revolution.
The regime media called the arrest and investigative actions against former ministers Vesić and Momirović a "prosecutorial coup".
Of course, there is no "prosecutorial coup". It is tragic that the implementation of the investigative procedure in accordance with the law, and in relation to those who are not accused but only suspects, is called a coup d'état. They say they are arresting ministers! First, they were not ministers when they were arrested, and even if they were, they are responsible for what they did. After the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime began to investigate possible corruption in the case of the falling canopy, since the corruption clearly affected the quality of the works, a fierce attack took place on the prosecutor, and then the department in the police that dealt with this case, the so-called A strike group. It was made up of experts trained by the state, and with the help of donations from foreign countries, to do their work expertly. From the evidence obtained, it was established relatively quickly that 160 million euros ended up in who knows whose accounts. Obviously, someone didn't want to follow the money trail any further.
There are voices that say that Aleksandar Vučić has been writing an indictment against himself for a long time, and especially in recent months, with all this we are talking about.
You could probably say that. Let us remind you that recently the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for a similar type of coup d'état. He tried to take over all the power, he controlled the police and the army, and the elections were rigged in Brazil. Bolsonaro's case also shows, and this is what comparative law teaches us, that the responsibility of high-ranking state officials can generally be determined only when they leave power. This is probably the reason for such a fierce reaction to the rebellion of the citizens, elections are not called and he wants to keep power at all costs.
Citizens are quite confused by the work of the courts and prosecutor's offices in the past ten months. On the one hand, some decisions cause fierce protests, but there are also encouraging developments, such as the indictment against Goran Vesić and others, then the work of TOK. Can you assess what is actually happening in the Serbian judiciary now?
It is obvious that a real war is being waged in the prosecutor's offices, which was best demonstrated by the case of the Novi Sad canopy. Let's remember that at one point part of the case, completely incomprehensible to lawyers in terms of jurisdiction, was taken over by the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, and that it was then directed to the TOK by the decision of the Supreme Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac. After that, Zagorka Dolovac and her associates are targeted by the government and its media. A lot is already known about all of this, and it is clear that the executive power interferes in the work of the prosecution completely undisguised.
But something else is less talked about, and it became visible in the case of the General Staff. There is also a conflict between the prosecution, specifically the TOK on one side, and the police on the other. TOK gave an order to detain six people, but only one was detained. The president of the state made a statement about this arrest very quickly, which he was absolutely not allowed to do. He informed the public that Goran Vasić, the director of the Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, who was the only one detained, did everything within his competence, although Vasić himself admitted that he exceeded his authority. The public learned that in the end, due to the failure of the police to act on the orders of the prosecutors, the prosecutor went to the police for an interview. All this speaks of a serious anomaly, because the police do not work, as they should by law, on the order of the prosecution, but on the order of the executive power. The police are obliged to act according to the prosecutor's orders and to submit reports on the execution of the prosecutor's orders exclusively to the prosecutor's office, and not to state officials, as they apparently do now. In fact, it can be said that the executive power, with the help of the police, is collapsing investigative procedures that do not suit it.
What are the other mechanisms of political pressure on the judiciary today? How much pressure is exerted directly, how much through the heads of courts and prosecutor's offices?
Direct pressure on judges has rarely been recorded recently. It is possible that this happens in prosecutor's offices to a greater extent. I know of such cases, but I cannot determine whether it is a common occurrence or happens sporadically. The mechanism of pressure through the heads of the authorities is known, but this is also done less often recently. Now the main pressure is exerted through the media, which are an extended arm of the government. This is most often done by the president, who determines on national television who is not guilty, who is guilty and why, which court decision is good and which is not, which prosecutor's act is valid and which is invalid... And he threatens those judges and prosecutors who do not act as "our" needs dictate. Whose "ours", in whose name is he speaking? On behalf of your party? He certainly does not speak as the president, who should represent all citizens. The other day we were faced with the fact that the military parade was organized only for "ours". Which are "ours"? It would be easy to determine if we walked around and saw which buses brought the attendees. And the residents of that part of the city, even parents with children, could not get to the sidewalk to see their army. The police prevented them from doing so because they are not "ours".
All in all, what Vučić is doing is a great and illegal pressure on the work of the court and the prosecution, an attempt to completely break these institutions. And we must not allow that. Citizens must also react, and if they were lucky, the media would also oppose it. But we see that the majority of the media, those that are under the control of the government, not only do not oppose it, but wholeheartedly participate in the pressure.
The government openly threatens the dismissal of judges and prosecutors. How realistic is that pressure?
First, there are a large number of people, both in education and other public services, who are employed under a fixed-term employment contract. The government keeps those people in a checkmate position. If they do not behave in accordance with the demands and needs of "ours", then their contract is not extended, and they have no way to protect themselves in court. In the judiciary, many young people are waiting for elections and are aware that if they express their opinion, if they speak out, they will never be elected. The same is true with advancement. We had a demonstrative exercise before: the High Council of the Judiciary elected judges who were according to someone's will, and according to the judge's assessment - not according to the prescribed selection criteria. 130 of them submitted an appeal to the Constitutional Court - 110 of them were rejected, and the rest were mostly rejected. Such actions directly affect the future work of judges, who will not be elected if they are not "cooperative".
When you already mentioned it, it seems that the Constitutional Court is particularly active or dormant as needed.
In particular, thanks to the Constitutional Court, we still do not know whether we have legal power. Namely, he has not yet decided on the appeals that were filed two years ago, concerning whether the previous parliamentary elections were legal. I was shocked when I heard a professor of constitutional law, a judge of the Constitutional Court, who said that he is in charge of that case, but they don't allow him to refer it. By delaying the Constitutional Court, the appeal to the international courts is prolonged, and it shows that it does not work independently.
When the line is drawn, can it be said that those who follow the law still have a majority in the judiciary? And do they have the strength to resist the pressures?
I believe they are the majority, but the problem is that many do not want to express their opinion publicly. I have spoken many times about when holders of judicial positions have both the right and the obligation to react publicly. Judges express their position with their judgments and their explanations, supported by legal norms. Admittedly, we also have judgments and other decisions in which you do not have any explanation, and this is especially noticeable in the processes that are conducted against students and citizens who are in rebellion. But we also have very good, well-reasoned judgments, which are leading the way for the standardization of good court practice.
Holders of judicial functions must also speak publicly when laws are passed, especially those that concern the functioning of the judicial system. The latest proposal for amendments to the Criminal Code was adopted, and judges and prosecutors would have to react to it. I believe that they should react even to the populist law that will bring about the legalization of illegally built buildings, because it is not in the public interest, it discriminates against those citizens who respected the laws during construction or with great difficulty legalized their buildings at great expense.
It is especially important that they react in situations where democratic principles are grossly violated, when the rule of law is threatened. It is unbelievable to me to hear that some judges say that they will not react because it is "interference in politics". No, it's not meddling in politics, it's an obligation. The job of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law, to be independent, and the prosecution to be independent. This is the only way we can preserve the state, democracy and the rights of citizens. If the judiciary is silent on this, it means that it has surrendered its authority to another.
Many judges and prosecutors have taken heart in recent months and are publicly speaking out against the executive power's pressure on the judiciary. To what extent has the change in social atmosphere affected it?
Certainly there has been a change, that is nice, but it must be the rule and not the exception. It's also nice because the holders of judicial positions have become emboldened in a system where the usual narrative of government officials of other branches of government is to threaten to settle accounts with every prosecutor and judge who does not perform as expected. However, the big problem is that they don't have access to the vast majority of media. No television with a national frequency allowed any judge and prosecutor who points to political pressures on the judiciary to address the citizens.
By the way, I have to say that the independent media should also monitor the judiciary better, although I know that they work in difficult conditions. We miss important things. Several well-reasoned decisions were made regarding the temporary measure to return to work teachers and professors who were fired for supporting students, but the media did not cover it. By the court's decision, Dr. Vladimir Dugalić, who spoke about the functioning of the state, was reinstated to the position of head of the Belgrade Clinical Center, which is why he was dismissed. The fact is that courts generally make decisions that are in line with the law, but there are decisions that are completely contrary to the law. It is very important that the judges themselves started talking about it. Fear of public speaking has not become a disease of the entire judiciary.
One of the regime's propaganda mantras is that actually students and citizens put pressure on the judiciary when they gather in front of courts and prosecutors' offices and protest. How does that sound to you?
Let's give an example: student Bogdan Jovičić has been in custody for forty days, where he is on hunger strike and is in a difficult health situation. Why? Because, as we saw, he hit the window of the premises of the Serbian Progressive Party with a bow, and we don't know if he even broke it. They brought him to his father's funeral with handcuffs on his feet, and that's not how they treat even the highest-ranking criminals. On the other hand, the president pardons those who chased students through the streets with batons and caused serious injuries to one student. And at the same time, he declares them "heroes". It also abolishes the girl who drove her car into the students and also caused serious injuries to one female student.
After that, six young people have been in detention for more than six months, and six of them are in exile, because of the recorded conversation. And those with hoods and masks who smashed the Novi Sad City Hall or attacked the Novi Sad Faculty of Philosophy were neither identified nor arrested, let alone prosecuted. But that's why the students happened to be there, even those who were far from the scene. In such situations, when it is clear that it is a question of dramatically different standards and discrimination, citizens have every right to protest in front of the buildings of judicial authorities. As we have seen, they are not attacking anyone, but the police are attacking them, using pepper spray and tear gas. Therefore, I could not accept the claim that it is political pressure on the court.
Did the abolition of the four thugs and the "driver" cause a great revolt in the judiciary, as some claim?
Yes. Not only are they revolted, but a group of judges has initiated a procedure to determine the responsibility of the prosecutor who led the case against the girl who drove her car into a group of students. Remember that prosecutor said the president was perfectly right to pardon her. So why did he press charges against her? This resembles the behavior of the former prime minister, Miloš Vucevic, who resigned because of the violence of four young men, and now repeats what the president said - that they are "heroes". Let's not forget that these "heroes" also had a criminal past, some because of violent behavior, some because of dealings with narcotics. We have to ask ourselves if these actions show that the work of the judiciary is being ignored.
You mentioned the events in Novi Sad two weeks ago, when the police used excessive force. That event looks like some kind of turning point in state violence, and the prosecution does not react?
I believe that this event is indeed a kind of turning point. And it is not excessive use of force, but torture. And it is not the first time that it is implemented. Let's remember that a man died in the police as a result of torture, that a young man was tortured in a prison... In Novi Sad, people in strange uniforms, without markings, with hoods, attacked people who were standing still. At the same time, they used both legal and probably illegal pyrotechnics. By abolishing it, the president sent a message that any kind of violence against students and other citizens is allowed, even desirable, and that no one will be held accountable for it. We watched them beat old people, attack journalists, physically abuse people lying on the ground. At the same time, the president tells foreign media and diplomats that freedom of assembly is allowed in Serbia. What kind of freedom of assembly, when peaceful people are tortured?
What is the goal? For people to be afraid and think about whether they will go to the next peaceful rally, because they don't know if they will return home in one piece. Will people fear every policeman? That is what we want to achieve. This is how an obedient people is made, nurtured, created and modeled.
If there is a change of government, the new government, the judiciary, the police will have a hard time dealing with this period. Does our judiciary have the capacity to deal with the crime we encounter at every step?
After the October 5th changes, we made numerous mistakes. It must not happen again. Proceedings must be initiated, responsibility must be determined and all those who, through action or inaction, have led to the current situation must be sanctioned. All those who passively observed, and did not dare, one man's attempt to usurp the entire power by unconstitutional means will have to answer for their inaction. Do we have the capacity? I believe that yes, that is, that it can be achieved.
There will be many who, like this prosecutor who shouted: well done, president - and who will try to be the strictest after the change of government. We must not count on such persons. On those who are not ethical and who turn the turkey for work hours. Judges and prosecutors should not only be professional, but above all ethical. They must find the link between law and justice. It will have to be done efficiently, the processes must not be delayed. Otherwise, those with pupae will return to their positions.
This October, "Vreme" celebrates and honors - as much as 35 percent discount for our 35th birthday! Valid for semi-annual and annual subscriptions. Subscribe now!
