For all of the above, Serbia has zakon, but there are also those who interpret it, implement it, take as much as they need and mostly apply what suits them. Are they then the so-called "Mrdić's laws", which despite all the criticism came into force, are so important or is the story about them just so the newspapers have something to write about while the life and affairs of the friends of the current regime go on smoothly?
The interlocutors of "Vremen" are not optimistic when it comes to the application of any law because, according to them, abuse in the judiciary is deeply rooted.
photo: fonet / milica vucković...
GENERAL STAFF: I TO YOU, YOU TO ME
In the first part of the film Kum there is an iconic scene at the beginning, when Don Corleone says to the undertaker: "One day, and that day may never come, I will call you to return the favor". In the context of that reply, lawyer Vladimir Tupanjac states for "Vreme" that in Serbia it is not overly important what is written in the law - even if it was Mrdić's - if you have many people who owe you services that you have entrusted as a minister or some other official in power.
"I will place you in a lucrative position, you will receive a large salary, you will also have other privileges such as a company car, a driver, travel abroad, the possibility to mess with public procurements, and one day when I call you, you will do everything I ask without question and without unnecessary questions", says Tupanjac.
In the most recent case, which was indirectly the cause of Mrdić's changes, Minister Nikola Selaković is accused of having committed the criminal offense of abuse of official position. In order for the court to be able to convict someone for that criminal act, according to the lawyer, the public prosecutor must prove that he or she obtained some kind of benefit for himself or another, or caused another person some kind of damage or seriously violated the rights. It follows from the indictment that the prosecutor will try to prove at the trial how the damage to the cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia occurred, while the defense claims that there is no damage. Tupanjac believes that for the umpteenth time the government has baited the public in the form of stories about the immunity of Minister Selaković or whether the judge had or did not have to address the Government for the possible establishment of immunity.
"An old Latin saying reads: Iura novit curia (the court knows the law). If the judge has broken the law, there is a second-instance court that will decide on appeals. In the shadow of the polemic about the interpretation of the legal nature of immunity, another very important detail remained. Namely, as we learn from the media, the court invited the State Attorney's Office to participate in the proceedings. However, the State Attorney's Office informed the court that they will not participate in the proceedings, since they believe that no harm has occurred to Serbia", the lawyer says and adds that it is again a matter of different interpretations of the public prosecutor on the one hand and the state attorney on the other side according to the "two lawyers, three opinions" system.
"But who is at the head of the State Attorney's Office?" continues Tupanjac. "The law says that the State Attorney, on the proposal of the Minister of Justice, is appointed by the Government for a period of five years and can be reappointed. On the official website of the State Attorney's Office, it is stated that Olivera Stanimirović has held that position since September 11, 2015. So, we are talking about a public official who was appointed on the proposal of the defendant Selaković, who was the Minister of Justice at the time. Is this the only potential conflict of interest in this case? It seems not," says Tupanjac.
He points out that he does not have a birth or marriage certificate, but that it should be checked whether it is a coincidence that Professor Vojislav Stanimirović - the head of the department where Nikola Selaković was an assistant while he worked at the Faculty of Law - has the same last name as the head of the State Attorney's Office.
It is also worth looking at what is the first "state job" of Uglješa Mrdić, the proposer of changes and additions to a set of judicial laws that make the work of the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime, which charges Selaković, more difficult. In Mrdić's biography, it is written that after student excursions into journalism (in media such as "Pečat" where he reached the deputy Aleksandar Vulin), already in 2012. with the change of government, he became a media adviser to the Minister of Justice - Nikola Selaković.
"Besides the service-for-service system, there is another important thing. The government, from time to time, sacrifices less valuable figures. The most important and valuable ones remain untouchable. This is also shown by the proceedings against Selaković. Even the suddenly awakened JTOK does not investigate the main ones. They do not act on the stories of investigative journalists, they do not use correspondence from the Sky application," says the "Vremena" interlocutor.
When it comes to the procedure itself, Tupanjac says "that in our country the public is often guided by the slogan 'let him be tried fairly, then let's hang him'". In reality, the cases are much more complicated, so, as he estimates, it will be really difficult to prove what exactly is the damage that Minister Selaković caused, even if what he is accused of is proven.
PROCEEDING UNTIL POINTLESSNESS
Data on the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad was manipulated from the beginning, so much so that today few people are clear about what really happened in that process. The indictment was filed, then expanded, then divided into two prosecution offices - Belgrade and Novi Sad, returned for revision - it doesn't matter in which order. The point came on January 30, 2026, when the custody of former ministers Goran Vesić and Tomislav Momirović was terminated since the indictment was not confirmed, so the court acted ex officio.
Previously, all the others were released one by one, and the accusation itself is for omissions in work. Vesić was accused of damaging the budget, Momirović of abuse of office. The task force that monitored the money flows was disbanded, and no one from supervision, contractors and investors was even mentioned. After all, the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, only a few months after the fall of the canopy, began to repeat in the media that the profession and not corruption was to blame for the tragedy. So, negligence. A year later, he would mention more and more often that there was something terribly strange about the whole case and repeat the claims of the father of one of the victims that it was a terrorist attack, planned to overthrow the state.
The mentioned technique of procrastination also gives results in this case, because public pressure from the demand to reveal those responsible for the tragedy moved to the political level.
photo: Fonet / Aleksandar BardaIS THERE JUSTICE IN THE PALACE OF JUSTICE: Protest due to the arrest of students
BOYS OR CRIMINALS
If there is talk of circumventing the law with pardons, once again it has been shown that it is all in the words. As a rule, the President sets the tone for each procedure. If Aleksandar Vučić uses the word "boys", "young guys", it's like when he talks about his Cobras who protect him - with sympathy. Or if someone likes movie analogies, they know that they are Good guys bad, but the viewer is on the side of De Niro or Ray Liotta. And if he uses the word "girl" for a 26-year-old person, then "the girl got scared and hit the gas" and there is no need for the court to ruin her life.
In contrast to them, those who put up posters or write graffiti against the government are "blockaders", "criminals", "traitors" and "scum".
When a group of thugs from the Serbian Progressive Party broke a student's jaw with a baseball bat in Novi Sad, the regime media reported that the jaw was "dislocated". And as if that was not enough, as if it should be crushed to pieces, they emphasized that the "boys" were only defending their party property so that the students would not damage it with stickers. How does the president choose who will be pardoned, and who will sulk and prolong the process?
For example, a few days ago, the trial of Marko Pavlović, accused of the attempted murder of student Sonja Ponjavić during a traffic block in Rooseveltova Street on January 16 last year, was postponed. This time due to the inability of the president of the court panel to attend, for which she cited health reasons. How was Pavlović accused of attempted murder, and Milica Stojanović, who hit and seriously injured a student with a car, was pardoned by the decision of the President of the country, Aleksandar Vučić? What's the difference?
We also have the example of Radojko Stanić, who was tried for trampling members of the Philharmonic Orchestra, and was sentenced to three years in prison in the first instance, for committing a serious crime against general security. YUKOM program director Milena Vasić believes that the pardon procedure was most grossly abused in the case of July 2025, when pardoned persons were responsible for the attack on students in Novi Sad, as well as the girl who hit a student with a car during one of the protests.
"In this case, the pardon was a political and not a legal act. The President of the Republic directly incited attacks on students with his public statements, and then relieved those responsible of criminal prosecution. It was a message for citizens but also for judicial authorities. Such pardons conveyed to us the message that the law does not apply equally to everyone and that not everyone is equal before the law. Thus, the rights of the injured persons were violated twice. The first time was the right to physical and mental integrity when they were attacked, and the second the way and the right to a fair trial when the President of the Republic directly prevented the procedure from being carried out and the responsibility to be established", says Milena Vasić for "Vreme".
He explains that by law, pardons from criminal prosecution are initiated by the Minister of Justice, whose decision-making method the public can only guess at, but it can be seen that there is an established pattern for those who support the ruling party to avoid criminal responsibility.
THE WORSE THE BETTER
What happens in cases of obvious excessive police violence against citizens? Was there really a need for the police to defend Novi Sad, Valjevo, Belgrade by beating students, citizens, sometimes even minors to the point of blood? Were tying up, being dragged into the basement of the government, cursing, threats and intimidation necessary?
Will even one policeman ever answer for his bestial behavior? According to the experience of retired inspector Predrag Simonović, there is not much hope that the Internal Control will act and do anything against members of the MUP.
"Everyone is equal before the law, but some are certainly more equal. The president kept his word and pardoned the 'innocent', those who broke the jaw of a girl in Novi Sad, for example. Currently, the court is conducting proceedings against the policeman who took their picture. He is being prosecuted, but not against those who beat people," says Simonović.
According to the law, the Internal Control Sector (SUK) should act on its own initiative, at the request of the prosecution or on the basis of information from citizens, and even preventively, but it does not do so.
"All those who proved themselves in suppressing protests have progressed and are currently in key positions in the MUP. The Internal Control Service should be asked what procedures have been initiated. Disciplinary officers should be asked if they have initiated disciplinary procedures and why they haven't when they expire a year after the event. The period of inalienability will last until there is a change," says Simonović.
He reminds that the impunity of policemen is not from yesterday.
"An excellent example is when the Internal Control Service filed a criminal complaint against the former deputy of the SBPOK and later the assistant head of the UKP for abuse of official position, and then the chief prosecutor of the VJT in Belgrade issued a mandatory instruction to acquit him. No disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated. He made progress despite being legally convicted of mobbing," says Simonović.
He also cited the example of former Novi Sad police chief Milorad Šušnjić, who was convicted for abuse of office for four years, and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. When Simonović asked for information about any case, he received answers from the MUP either that there was no information or that everything was in the pre-investigation phase. Double standards are shown in the fact that several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Katarina Petrović, a police officer from Valjevo, because the authorities were affected, and he himself went through disciplinary proceedings because he inappropriately spoke out about some decisions of his superiors.
In the end - will the prosecution and the courts be even more subordinated to the executive power? If the amendments and additions to the set of judicial laws brought something good, it is that they reminded the citizens that a lot of things can be slipped through the amendments in the laws passed in the Parliament, and even more so through the amendments that now only MPs, but not journalists, get. Amendments are also the only thing that is not published on the site.
