On the attack of the Public Prosecutor's Office for organized crime, in a case that deals with high corruption associated with by the fall of the canopy, two ministers, Goran Vesić and Tomislav Momirović, met at the beginning of this month. The harsh reaction of the regime to the arrest (Momirović was in custody, Vesić was stuck in the hospital, and now everyone is under house arrest) and the initiation of proceedings in general - clearly indicated that Vučić does not have things under control, at least not completely, at least when it comes to the judiciary. However, for more attentive observers, this was also visible in earlier months: during Vesić's first imprisonment and illness in November last year, and especially in the "prosecutor's game" regarding jurisdiction over the tragedy in Novi Sad.
Let us remind you that three people participated in the "game". prosecutor's office: the Novi Sad Higher Public Prosecutor's Office, the Special Department for Combating Corruption of the Belgrade Higher Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime (TOK). After the Novi Sad prosecutor's office, according to the logic of the matter, initiated proceedings based on the place of jurisdiction, the Belgrade Higher Public Prosecutor's Office under the leadership of Nebojša Stefanović suddenly joined the story. Allegedly, the goal of this involvement was to conduct the investigation in such a way that none of the officials lost even a hair on their head. He was prevented from doing so by the team of Zagorka Dolovac, who took the object from Stefanović and awarded it to TOK. It was in March, allegedly Vučić was quite nervous about it...
We talk about all this, about the state of the judiciary, with the well-known Belgrade lawyer Nenad Tasić, who was a defense attorney in numerous cases before the special court.
"WEATHER" Is it from the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad?, that is, the beginning of mass civil protests, there were changes in power and relationships within judicial bodies, did this structure shake up a lot, how it looks to people who observe things from the side?
NEDAN TASIC: It is not disputed that the civil insurrection either encouraged or provoked some of the holders of judicial offices to publicly and more vigorously fight for the rule of law and the rule of law. The changes that are visible were not only due to the fall of the canopy, but also due to internal conflicts and career ambitions of key officials in the prosecutor's office, as well as in the court.
It has long been clear that there is a problem in the functioning of the public prosecutor's office, not only as a state body but also as a procedural participant in criminal proceedings. This means that there are problems in the public prosecutor's organization, and on the other hand, problems related to the competences and functioning of criminal prosecution.
So I think that the fall of the canopy is not the cause of these problems, but only the moment in which they surfaced. The key weakness in the functioning of the criminal justice system is the public prosecution. Political control over that body is intolerable and directly hinders the functioning of this important institution. The zero point of corruption, not only in the prosecutor's office, is the moment of election, that is, the appointment of public prosecutors and judges. The possibility of anyone being elected without political support, regardless of their qualities, is excluded. Also, the possibility of anyone with political support not being elected, regardless of the fact that they do not meet the professional and moral requirements, is excluded. Competence has become irrelevant.
No, the arrests of high-ranking officials indicate that part of the prosecution structure is resisting, at least that's what it looks like, political instrumentalization. Those events had two dominant interpretations in the public. Some said it was a criminal prosecution "twelve", which includes former ministers Vesić and Momirović, by order of the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime - proof that the institutions of the system have finally begun to function, and others claim that it's all just that "theatrical play" on behalf of the executive branch. Where do you think the truth lies??
It is not about any show for the public, but about an internal conflict in the public prosecutor's office that has consequences for specific cases. The political authorities prevent criminal prosecution for the canopy. Not only did they deny the facts regarding the reconstruction, but after the proceedings were initiated they tried to divert it and protect themselves and their people involved. The government does it quite rudely and clumsily, not paying attention to the fact that this activity is visible and that it is clear to everyone what they are doing. Personal conflicts between prosecutors are used to sabotage proceedings in a way that is unknown in our legal practice.
To be clear, the government is dismayed because the special prosecutor for organized crime Mladen Nenadić initiated criminal proceedings against the ministers. All of these procedures are evidence-based and, for now, conducted legally. The authorities are undermining these proceedings through the courts and through the obedient prosecutor Nenad Stefanović, who gets involved in proceedings for which he is not competent and thereby runs for the position of special prosecutor, who, by the way, is attacked by the media without any basis, given that, as I said, he is doing everything according to the law, for now.
The apprehension and detention was preceded by an interesting incident "prosecutorial game" jurisdiction when it comes to the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad. What is she telling us??
The fight over jurisdiction began long before the canopy fell, but it didn't bother anyone then. For example, the head of the Belgrade prosecutor's office, Stefanović, declared himself to be in charge and launched an investigation into the events in Banjska. He is neither physically nor physically responsible for this act. He continued with this practice when it comes to the fall of the canopy. He took out one factual segment from the total corpus of events and treats it in a way that is contradictory to the position of the prosecution in charge of handling the canopy case. In both cases, he breaks the law in favor of the government and acts illegally in the interest of the government. Simply, it acts as a "cleaner".
When it comes to house arrest - above all, for Momirović and Vesić - as the most criticized court decision, after the decision to overturn the indictment in Novi Sad, it should be said that the main problem here is the independence of the court and the institution of the president of the court. All court presidents in Serbia are party trustees of the ruling party. They are the channel through which the executive power liquidates the independence of judges in decision-making. The presidents of the key and most important courts were appointed directly by the political authorities, although it is known that at the time of their election they were not even among the top ten best candidates. They have a great influence on the selection of judges, as well as on which of the judges will decide which case.
How do you assess that TOK initiated the procedure related to "high corruption" in which high government officials are involved, which until now was a strictly forbidden fruit? Some legal experts believe that TOK was encouraged by the fact that it received part of the prosecution material from European institutions, that is, the European Prosecutor's Office. TOK announces that its Strike Group continues to work and that there will be more arrests.
I would say that here, by the nature of things, it is impossible to prosecute "small fish", because huge money is involved, and the top government has publicly declared itself as the main participant in this business. The question arises - is it even possible to prosecute anyone for such things without it being ministers, directors of public companies or high-ranking party officials, considering that the law obviously does not apply to the government.
And how much influence international institutions and organizations have or can have on the judiciary of Serbia? Are there mechanisms by which they can offer prosecutors and judges some kind of protection from the political pressures of the authorities??
Unfortunately, international institutions cannot help much, because they do not ask about the elections of public prosecutors and presidents of courts, and this is where the key problem lies. They helped finance projects and participated in passing laws, but their influence declined after the radicals came to power. It is wrong that we constantly ask for help from outside and wait for someone else to do what we can do ourselves. This is best seen now.
Media close to the government have been around for months, government officials, and even Aleksandar Vučić himself, they call out, they insult, and even openly threaten the holders of judicial offices. How do you explain it and how does the judiciary react to these calls?
I see it in years, not months. This is how the government reacts whenever it is dissatisfied with court decisions, and this is nothing new. Insulting judges and prosecutors has been going on for at least ten years and comes directly from the top of political power. So that manner is typically radical. So there is nothing new there.
Some lawyers claim that the judiciary is increasingly resistant to political pressure, and that many judges and prosecutors were greatly revolted by the pardons that the president carried out in the last two months, including the abolition of four "brave" young men who beat a female student with baseball bats... They believe that this is an unprecedented interference of politics in the domain of court proceedings. What do you think about these abolitions??
Abolitions and pardons are the exclusive prerogative of the president. However, it would be interesting to see if there was any procedure before that, if the opinion of any state authority was obtained, if anyone ever inspected the files. Probably not, because the institutions only bother the president, given that law by definition limits power. A grotesque character is the prosecutor Miodrag Marković (deputy chief prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade who, as the acting prosecutor in the case, publicly called on Vučić to acquit the person who ran over the female student with a car - ed.) - that level of sleaze and sycophancy is unheard of. I hope that the future government will not "take it over as a cooperative".
These days, the gruesome case of student Nikolina Sinđelić is current. She testified about the police brutality and sexual abuse she experienced in the Serbian Government building from members of the Security Unit., more precisely, the head of this unit, Marko Kričko. Then she became a victim of the so-called. revenge porn. Her private, intimate photos were published in the regime media. How do you comment on this case?, whether the prosecution had to react?
The prosecutor had to initiate criminal proceedings against that famous Krichko, who had become accustomed to the role of Legija, with the fact that, as far as I know, Legija did not beat or mistreat women and girls, nor did he threaten them with rape. The competent prosecutor, whoever he may be, risks criminal liability for inaction, that is, for failing to fulfill his legal obligation to prosecute the perpetrator of the crime. We hope that, after the change of government, all these cases will at least be seriously prosecuted and that those responsible will not be allowed to "run to meet the winner".
What should be the reaction of the judiciary to the police repression of young people in Serbia, to the countless videos of violence that are circulating on social networks and that caused a reaction from the foreign public as well, major world media?
I think there is a trap in this question, because it is assumed that the criminal justice system can function without any cooperation between the prosecution and the police. Regardless of the fact that the prosecutor is the "master of the proceedings" according to the CPC, police officers remain loyal to their hierarchy and listen exclusively to their superiors — that means the Minister of Police, who is at the top of the chain of command. The prosecutor is second to them and they carry out his orders only if they do not conflict with the orders of their superiors.
Let's be clear: Ivica Dacic will have to answer for the actions of the police — from the sound cannon to Nikolina Sinđelić — and he will not be able to get away with it, regardless of his already famous political elasticity. Of course, he will not be prosecuted by various "Markovics", but by prosecutors who will apply the law to both police officers and ministers.
How could the position of Zagorka Dolovac be evaluated all these years? Are she and her team someone who can push the fight against high corruption and resist political pressures? Does he even have the strength and intention to do so?? Are those who say that it is now important to support the Supreme Public Prosecutor and TOK right??
She should be supported as a lesser evil, even though her responsibility for the state of the prosecutor's office is immeasurable. She entered into these actions against the government the moment she realized that Stefanović was threatening her and that he was trying to sit in her chair. Although she is a symbol of incompetence, indolence and bureaucratic burying of problems, Dolovac is a hillbilly Lavra compared to the Stefanovićs who attack her and Nenadić's position.
At the end, is there any hope for Serbia's judiciary? That is, does the judiciary have the strength to help Serbia get out of the impasse in which it found itself? Does the judiciary need it? "Saber", as some say?
At this moment, I see hope in the prosecution for organized crime, as well as in all those prosecutors and judges who supported the student protests, but we are still far from breaking the deadlock. Without an independent prosecution and an independent judiciary, the judiciary will not come out of the abyss.
The judiciary survived the "Saber" - the reform from 2010, and it is this "Saber" that is one of the deep causes of fear, loss of independence and pathological attachment to political power that the judiciary is strangling today. Therefore, we do not need a new "Saber", but we need to remove the party presidents of the courts and the head of the prosecution, through the application of constitutional instruments, and especially through the consistent application of the criminal law.
