almanac on security sector oversight in the Western Balkans

3.3.1. Judicial oversight of use of force by state security
institutions
Serbia
Use of force by security institutions is an issue predominantly reviewed by courts reactively
when processing allegations of abuse of authority in criminal, civil or constitutional
settings. Incidents involving excessive force, notably during arrests (mostly
involving police), generally being criminally prosecuted. 138 There are occasional obstructions
of investigations into misconduct 139 and instances of institutional protection
of members facing allegations. There also have been reports of judicial officials
covering up police crimes. 140 This raises the issue of scope of misconduct that is actually
being reviewed by courts. Cases involving such incidents are being processed slowly,
in some instances resulting in a statutory ban on criminal prosecution due to a lapse
of statutes of limitation 141 . A related negative practice is state security officials facing
charges do not get suspended during investigation. 142
One issue still causing concern is the fact that prolonged detention without charge
is widespread in Serbia. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) observed in 2007 that persons
in Serbia were being kept in detention for lengthy periods of time, which contributed
to serious overcrowding of correctional facilities. Furthermore, courts also seem to
be inclined toward extending detention even in situations where, according to European
standards, 143 it would no longer be warranted. Courts, therefore, seem to be
exposing individuals to potential mistreatment. Due to absence of statistics on cases of
138 For example, only in 2009 police officers committed seventy-four violent crimes, including one
murder and one case of aiding and abetting the commission of aggravated murder. The number of such
incidents, however, is decreasing according to the Ministry of Interior http://www.mup.gov.rs/cms_cir/
sadrzaj.nsf/informator.h.
139 In 2006, MoI Inspector general complained of obstruction of investigation on excessive use of force
by members of the Gendarmerie against fans during a basketball tournament, http://bgcentar.org.rs/
images/stories/Datoteke/ljudska%20prava%20u%20srbiji%202006.pdf>.
140 In 2006, an investigative judge from Smederevska Palanka was charged for falsifying a report in
relation to injuries sustained by an accused that was beaten up by police officers during investigation.
She was present at the station when the beating took place but reported that injuries were the result
of a fall. (Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, 2006, Human Rights in Serbia, p. 211).
141 The latest high profile incident involving a murder of a 23 year old boy by an officer of a police
Intervention Unit which took place in March 2009 is still pending before the court after a first instance
conviction rendered in 2010 was quashed by the Appellate Court and remanded for retrial namely due
to the fact that the first instance court did not fully established the facts of the case before reaching
a judgment. It is likely that the case will not be finished by the end of 2011 (http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/
Hronika/235498/Raicevic-ponovo-negira-krivicu-za-ubistvo-Zarica).
142 The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) noted this practice as a “concern” in its Concluding observations
on Serbia’s Initial Report on the implementation of the UN Convention Against Torture (UN-
CAT, 2009, Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 19 of the convention: Concluding
observations of the Committee against Torture, paragraph 10); Suspension from work is under
relevant provisions of the Law on Police a possibility but not obligatory (Art. 165 of the Law on Police).
143 The European Court of Human Rights in its case law has stated that each decision on extension of
detention cannot be based on the same set of facts and evidence as the previous one without showing
that circumstances at the moment when extension of detention is being requested still justify imposition
of detention (See, for example, ECtHR, Labita v Italy, Application No. 26772/95, Judgment of 6
April 2000, paras 152-154; W v. Switzerland, Application No. 14379/88, Judgment 26 January 1993, and
Mansur v. Turkey, Application No. 16026/90, Judgment 8 June 1995, paragraph 55).
191
Almanac on Security Sector Oversight in the Western Balkans