Protest in front of Terazi, Saturday, August 10. It seems that everything will go smoothly. After almost five hours from the beginning of the protest, part of the citizens go home; part remains at the railway stations Prokop and Novi Beograd. Among them are the activists of the informal group "SviĆe" Ivan Bjelic, Nikola Ristic and Jevđenije Julijan Dimitrijević. In the early hours of the morning, the police surrounded and then chased away the citizens blocking Prokop. The three activists were then detained and then sentenced to first-degree misdemeanor charges: Ivan Bijelić was sentenced to 40 days, Nikola Ristić and Jevđenija Julijan Dimitrijević to 30 days in prison each; they are charged with disturbing public order and peace by indecent, insolent and reckless behavior. At the time of writing this text, the Misdemeanor Court in Belgrade accepted the appeal against that verdict. "They informed us that the judgment was revoked, that the appeal was accepted, that the case will go to regular proceedings. I called the court, received a confirmation from them that this is so and that the decision will soon be published on their website", explained lawyer Marko Pantić.
Although this put an end to the possibility of the three young activists remaining in prison, many questions still hang in the air. How did everything go? Why were they really condemned? And what is the state saying by that?
HOLE AND ILLEGAL
Marko Pantić, one of the lawyers of the defendants, explains in an interview for "Vreme" that the three activists were convicted for violating Article 8, paragraph 1 in connection with paragraph 2 of the Law on Public Order and Peace. However, the verdict against the activists is, as he says, legal. was rather short and full of vagueness.
"In the verdict, only Bijelić's actions were specified, namely that he held a sandwich near the reporter from 'Informer', pushed the sandwich into her mouth and smeared it with the contents. That's why he was sentenced to 10 days more than the other two activists", says the lawyer.
Pantić emphasizes that the other two verdicts are made up of mere descriptions - how Ristić and Dimitrijević "approached the journalist, shouted and interfered with her work", but nowhere in the verdict was it stated how exactly the two activists did it.
"The judgment should have specified exactly what actions the activists used to obstruct the journalist. If, for example, they shouted at her, it is necessary that the judgment contains exactly what they said. After all, participants in almost every protest shout. By that analogy, anyone who shouts would be condemned. Also, not every disruption to work is necessarily a criminal offense," Pantić explains further.
The biggest illogicality is, as Pantić claims, that Jevđenije Dimitrijević was also among those detained.
"The only possible explanation why Dimitrijević was brought into the case is that it is necessary to detain at least three persons in order to use paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law on Public Order and Peace. This article foresees a stricter punishment, because if the offense is committed in a group of persons, a prison sentence is also possible", says the lawyer.
Another of the numerous irregularities in the judgment is that an article of the Law on Misdemeanors was used, which is applied only in exceptional circumstances, and when it is applied, it is necessary to provide an explanation for its application.
"The court applied Article 308 of the Law on Misdemeanors, which provides for the execution of the sentence before the verdict becomes final. The application of this article of the law became popular in 2019 after protesters broke into the building of Radio and Television of Serbia, when those convicted by the application of that article were sent to prison," notes Pantić.
He adds that this is an attempt to derogate from the right to appeal, because in regular proceedings an appeal prevents the execution of the judgment.
Pantić further explains that the judge Goran Milutinović, who passed the verdict, omitted to explain why the alleged behavior of the activists is treated as a serious offense.
"The judgment also states that there is a suspicion that the activists will repeat this offense or carry out the offense they are threatening. That doesn't make sense. If we were to interpret this phrase linguistically, this would only happen if the protest is organized again and if these activists again disturb the journalist in question. Nowhere is it specified exactly what they can repeat".
INTIMIDATION AS MANNER
Judge Milutinović's interpretation of the Law "on his own initiative", the descriptive nature of the judgment itself and the fact that the activists were detained for a misdemeanor that is not clearly defined anywhere, show that the goal is to suppress the rebellion. In other words, the intimidation of environmental activists and young people protesting all over Serbia due to lithium mining.
"Given that Bjelic and Ristic are known to the public for their actions, especially since December last year, I believe that it was an attempt to intimidate other young people. It was a message that something similar could happen to them, and that it would be best if they gave up the rebellion", Pantić believes.
A student of the Faculty of Law in Niš and activist Dimitrije Dimić, who himself participated in the protests against the "Jadar" project, shares a similar opinion.
"Detaining the activists is a horrible attempt at intimidation. "The judge condemned the environmental activists who protested and thus expressed their constitutional right," says Dimić.
COUP D'ESTABLISHMENT ACCUSATION
The government's tolerance for civil disobedience is decreasing. And it goes further. So much so that the Prime Minister of Serbia stated during his stay in Paris that the protest over the announcement of lithium mining was an attempt at a coup d'état, which, among other things, is supported by foreign services and Kosovo Prime Minister Aljbin Kurti.
Also, on the day when a mass protest was held in Terazije, the Prime Minister announced on social media that the demonstrators "showed for the umpteenth time that they really care about the environment and people's health".
The main target of Miloš Vučević's accusations was Mila Pajić, a student and activist from Novi Sad. At her expense, after she spoke at a protest in Novi Sad, he made a series of accusations, calling her a "human shield of the opposition" and a "Serb-hater".
Mila Pajić is known to the public for her activities in the informal student organization STAV, which participated in the blockade of the Rectorate building due to the election for the Student Parliament of the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad. That is why Vučević stated in his statement that "proven Serb haters are recruiting their attackers" and that they are doing it "in faculty amphitheatres", alluding to Professor Dink Gruhonjić.
Activist Mila Pajić tells "Vreme" that attempts at intimidation and unfounded accusations will not be an obstacle on her activist path. "It is inadmissible that the prime minister of a supposedly serious country is settling accounts with a student on social media. I believe that there are more serious things that he should deal with", she said.
However, the saga with the authorities and students does not end there. A day after the protest in Novi Sad, the police knocked on the door of Branislav Đorđević, an activist of the organization STAV.
"They came to my house first, which stressed my parents. "No one is comfortable when three inspectors come to their house - then after 10 minutes they came to my place at work, waited for a colleague to replace me - and took them to the police station," Djordjevic said in a statement to the media.
STUDENT DETENTION
Repression and severe punishment of youth rebellion is not new, even in recent months. Do you remember Dimitrije Radovanović, a student at the Faculty of Law? He was arrested on December 24 after an opposition protest due to allegations of election theft and the prosecution charged him with violent behavior during a protest by the opposition coalition "Serbia against violence" in front of the Belgrade Assembly.
Radovanović was detained while returning from the protest, and although he did not participate in the clash between citizens and the police, he was ordered to house arrest, which he served in a student dormitory in Belgrade.
Radovanović's defense attorneys filed an appeal against this decision in January, but the non-trial panel of the High Court rejected the appeal as unfounded. The panel, composed of judges Nikola Mikić, Marina Anđelković and Olivera Pajić, assessed that the judge for the preliminary proceedings correctly found that "the degree of danger that the defendant Dimitrije Radovanović will repeat a criminal offense of such intensity in a short period of time if he remains at liberty the measure of prohibition against leaving the apartment is necessary".
Finally, almost six months later, Radovanović's lawyer, Jovan Rajić, stated that the student was acquitted based on the indictment of the Higher Prosecutor's Office for committing the crime of "violent behavior". House arrest had long since ended.
