REPRESSION- THE REGIME’S DEFENSE INSTRUMENT
Introduction
The first six months of 2000 indicated that the regime has not
only expended it arsenal of repressive measures, but moreover
radicalized some of them and heralded new ones. This report intends
to show that the authorities are ready to continue to fully enforce
their available repressive mechanism to the bitter end. In such a
milieu the Serbian opposition lost its bearings. It is clear that “a
harsh and consistent criticism of the regime,” which mostly found
expression in the opposition parties communiqués, cannot undermine
the Serbian regime.
The opposition did not know how to exploit an
undoubtedly low popularity rating of the regime and its leader in
the imminent post-NATO intervention period and the dissatisfaction
of citizens with the results of “victory over NATO”. After a few
months of confusion the regime embarked upon a decisive battle
against its political opponents, and also on an unstoppable campaign
of construction of railroad-railway easy-to-assemble-and-dismantle
and ‘morally superior’ bridges, 10,000 flats and similar feats. If
one forgets (and one tends to forget) that the funds for this
“intense campaign of reconstruction and restoration of the country”
were provided for through collection of 230 diverse taxes,
contributions, levies and compensations straight out the citizens’
pockets, one must admit that the regime is nonetheless scoring
important points through those actions.
On the other hand enforcement of repressive measures
against the media, opposition, university, judiciary, “Otpor” and
citizenry, defined as protection of the state (the authorities)
from “ the foreign mercenaries, killers and terrorists” did not
provoke an adequate response. If one overlooked mild or pro forma
reactions to the run-of-the mill and everyday repressive
measures, as fining and jamming of the media, and detentions and
trials for misdemeanor offenses, certain moves by the authorities
should have been anticipated by the opposition and it should have
responded to them in a more adequate manner.
The Požarevac incident and the ensuing developments
clearly indicated that the opposition could not deter or stop the
regime from taking a host of extra-constitutional and unlawful
actions and enactment of unlawful legislation. Moreover it became
amply manifest that the opposition could not or (did not want) to
resolve practical problems with which it was faced, for example
devise a way to get to Požarevac, nothwithstanding the blockade of
all the access roads. The failure to find an adequate solution
resulted in a senseless, energy-sapping rally in Belgrade which only
enervated citizens, tired of inefficient, similar rallies.
Unlawful seizure of the TV Studio B, through its “etatization”,
after two-day long roughing up of citizens and ten days of benign
and poorly attended “newscasting sessions” in front of the City
Assembly, left the regime almost unscathed.
Unlawful “Decision of Government of the Republic of
Serbia on Suspension of Administrative and Management Bodies in the
Municipal Transport Company ‘Beograd’,” tantamount to its changing
hands from the municipal to the republican management, apparently
did not seem to bother the city fathers, although it entailed a
major loss of revenues for the City of Belgrade.
The same holds true of the Assembly of Serbia decision
that the funds collected by levying the “Belgrade” 3% tax be
deposited in the accounts of the Republic of Serbia, and not in the
City of Belgrade accounts.
There were almost no responses by expert circles and
broad strata to the unlawful decision of the Republican Assembly on
the dismissal of 18 judges, seen as a retributive action for their
public criticism of stranglehold on the judiciary and judges.
Although there is no tradition of an independent judiciary in
Serbia, the regime started removing all the potentially seditious
judges, or those thought to be able to mount resistance to the final
action of “pacification of the judiciary,” announced in late 1999 by
Vojislav Šešelj, Vice President of the Serbian government.
Anti-Terrorism Bill tabled by the Federal government
contains provisions contrary both to the federal and republican
constitutions and provided the regime with an opportunity to legally
stage a showdown with all its opponents, in collusion with the
state-controlled judiciary.
The last in a series of deft moves of the authorities
was the passing of amendments to the FRY Constitution in an
illegitimate Federal assembly. The amendments, inter alia, envisage
that the FRY President and deputies in the Republican Assembly be
elected by direct vote and that the cabinet ministers be appointed
by the Federal Assembly. By this move the regime definitely embarked
upon de-construction of the constitutional-legal order in place and
laid the groundwork for the installation of the unitary state model,
thus denying the statehood of Montenegro. This in turn ultimately
laid bare the matrix of disintegration of the former SFRY. At the
same time latest amendments to the Federal Constitution represent a
model enabling Slobodan Milošević to stand again for office and
consequently stay in power.
Unfortunately the Serbian opposition provided no
response to those open forms of repression, barring the sharp
condemnations thereof, and bad half-moves.
The
reasons for such a poor response lie in the fact that the opposition
leaders are not willing to put at risk their ‘hard-won’ positions.
Hence they instead seem to make concerted efforts to maintain the
status quo. They have fulfilled most of their ambitions, and it
seems that the change of authorities, requiring personal sacrifices
and assumption of substantive responsibility is not one their
ambitions. In the past decade citizens at large were presented
repeatedly with occasions enabling them to familiarize with words
and deeds of the opposition parties and their leaders. That is
precisely why an average citizen has no longer faith in the
opposition’s intention to confront the regime head-on, notably in
the light of the fact that many leaders had been known for
collaborating with the regime, while the others have only begun to
do it. Consequently the citizenry, deeply engulfed in apathy and
resignation, having no faith in any leader, rejects any risk and
even civil disobedience.
The basic question which emerges in such a situation is
who shall be the one to stand up to the rapidly escalating
repression, who shall counter it. But there is still no adequate
response, and the offered solutions are: the existing opposition, a
new opposition, “Otpor”, some disgruntled professionals, an
anonymous citizen, etc.
This report evidences the forms of repression and gives
examples of responses to it.
1.
TERROR AGAINST THE MEDIA
The current media status best illustrates the
mechanism and objectives of repressive measures. Use of the
state-controlled media and propaganda in discrediting the political
opponents is not a new practice in the political scene of Serbia.
What is however new is the brutality, arrogance, hatred, unveiled
threats and open calls to a genuine lynch of the regime’s political
opponents. This new propaganda concept stems from an increasingly
paranoid mood of the establishment, and its stance that political
opponents are no longer only “fifth columnists, foreign mercenaries
and craven traitors,” but people who have in the meantime morphed
into “criminals, killers and terrorists.”
Statements of the ruling parties front men on the
independent media, the opposition and its followers and in general
on citizens with anti-regime or liberal leanings, usually herald
operationalization of new repressive measures. In this sense most
marked are statements made by Vojislav Šešelj (Vice President of the
Serbian government), Aleksandar Vučić (the Serbian Information
Minister), Goran Matić (the FRY Information Minister) and Ivan
Marković (the FRY Telecommunication Minister).
The assassination of Boško Perošević, president of
Vojvodina government, was a watershed prompting the announced
enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Law and escalation of repression
against the political opponents and the unlike-minded. Like no other
event, the aforementioned assassination instilled great fear in
members of the regime, as illustrated by the statement of Živorad
Smiljanić, President of the Vojvodina Assembly: “If terrorism is a
continuation of war, than this war is illogical. Why only our people
are killed!?” On the other hand a simultaneous statement of Vojislav
Šešelj contains most threats and in fact heralds an escalation of
repression: “Gloves are off! Here everything is crystal clear and
the one who brandishes the sword, perishes from that very sward.
Don’t fool yourself that we shall let you kill us like rabbits,
while we nurture you like plants in potts. Take heed of these
warnings! You work against your state. You are paid in US dollars to
destroy your state. You are traitors! You are the worst breed of
people. You are worse than criminals (...) we are hunting down
killers among those of you who are on the payroll of foreign
intelligence services. You are accomplices to murders (...). You are
murderers. You are murderers of your people and state. Potential
ones. All of you who work for the Americans. You from Danas,
your from B2-92, you from Glas javnosti, you from
Novosti, you from Blic” (Blic, 11 February 2000)
Aleksandar Vučić, the Serbian Information Minister,
assessed that the Republican Information Law succeeded in
regulating, and as much as it was possible, preventing the
broadcasting of “hostile psychological-propaganda services, as well
of slanders and lies.” In an interview to the Kragujevac private TV
“Kanal 9” Vučić accused the “Voice of America”, “BBC,” “Radio Free
Europe” and some other media of having transmitted programs in
Serbian language in order to prepare the people for the NATO
aggression and with this goal in mind pursued “a hysterical
anti-Serbian propaganda”. Vučić went on to stress: “We have foiled
your intention.” (Blic, 1 February 2000).
Statements made by the state offiicals tend to discredit
the independent media primarily by accusing them of being dependant
on the foreign donations, which in turn dictate their editorial
policies. For example Ivan Marković stated: “The media violence from
abroad develops through frenzied propaganda of instrumentalized
media. Under the direct control of the US, British, and French
intelligence services, the foreign media continue their
anti-Yugoslav campaign.” Marković also stressed that such a campaign
was helped by the print and other media in the country, which
continue their aggression against the truth and that the editorial
policies of such media consist of planting big lies and minor
deceits. “If I say that those media together with so-called
opposition parties work against our state it is no news for you,”
said Marković. (Borba 16 February 2000)
Similarly accusatory is the tone of the following
statement made by Aleksandar Vučić: “it suits them (the independent
media) to maintain that there is a stranglehold on them, for then
they have more reasons to knock at the Soros Open Society Fund doors
and stash its money into their pockets, for they get paid no less
than DM 20,000 for their actions against their own state and people,
who barely subsist. Those pro-US media which accuse us as a state
and our people, and are tasked with provoking a bloodshed, defend
the Albanian terrorists, but fail to mention the suppression of the
Serbian media in Kosovo and Metohija, and the barbarian conduct of
Kouchner and Davidson.“ (Svedok, 21 March 2000) “The last
year’s bombardment of the primary network of relays of the state
information system and the secondary network of repeaters by the
NATO aggressor was not an incident. The aggressors’ goal was to
ensure that their voices more easily access our people and influence
our public opinion.” He added that it was not surprising that the
range of signals of the propaganda-psychological services of the VOA
and Radio Free Europe and of those media funded by the US Congress
budget and some para-government organizations had been expanded, for
their objective was to debilitate the country in which they wanted
to operate.” (Politika, 25 March 2000)
The regime hampers the efforts of the independent media
to perform their professional duties, by, for example, banning them
from monitoring the work of the National Assembly and other state
bodies. This policy started with the Radical Party’s decision to ban
the “treacherous media” from attending the press conference and
meetings of this party. According to the assessment of the
presidential staff of the SRP, journalists working in such media
should disappear from the domestic political scene, for they are
“spies of the United States and of other Western countries, ”as
Vojisla Šešelj labeled them. (Politika, 18 February 2000)
Against the background of the media crackdown, a genuine
showdown with the West, is being played out, notably because of the
latter’s support of the independent media and the civil society in
general, whcih are both being vilified as “the NATO aggressor’s
collaborators” and the “the extended arm of a continuing NATO
aggression.” Thus Goran Matić assessed that “different means should
be used to put an end to abuses of the freedom of information in
Yugoslavia.” He added that the media war against our country has
been waged for several decades. “That war culminated in the past
decade. Some think that Yugoslavia won it, while the others
disagree...Had Yugoslavia lost that war, there would have been no
aggression in the first place. Then the aggressor would have
convinced our people to give up a part of their territory,“ stated
Matić and added that “the aggressor was helped by a handful of fifth
columnists... rallied around some bogus parties and media.” (...)
Matić went on to note that “the fifth column slandered the most
important symbols of our state, such as the army and the president.”
(Blic, 28 March 2000)
The following statement mad by Ivan Marković has almost
identical contents and an equally reviling tone: “As regards
quislings in our country, so-called opposition, the Serbian Renewal
Movement and Democratic Party are the NATO representative offices in
Yugoslavia. They are their allies, they back violence by traveling
abroad for talks and offering their services to those who had
bombarded our country and who today abduct our people in other
countries. Vuk Drašković is a synonym for treason; he wants to be
Milan Nedić, 56 years later...to become the head of the puppet
government in a part of our country given to him by the Americans.
Contrary to Drašković Milorad Dodik in Republika Srpska has already
been given powers of a proxy ruler by the occupiers” Even more
descriptive was the statement made by Dragan Tomić, President of the
Serbian Assembly: “the opposition rally (held on 15 May 2000) did
not have a democratic character, but the most blatantly fascist one.
The opposition leaders are scum who are despised by our people, for
they have betrayed our holiest interests. (Glas Javnosti 16
May 2000) Mirko Marjanović, President of the Serbian
Government also felt obliged to says something about the opposition:
“All what they have done and are still doing demonstrates that they
are traitors, mercenaries, killers and criminals and thence there is
no place for them in the unified front of defense, reconstruction
and development. “ (Glas javnosti, 16 May 2000)
Defamation of the oppostion is everyday practice of all
the leading state officials. Ivan Marković, Secretary of the
Associated Yugoslav Left Directorate, thus commented the 15 May
opposition rally: “Rally of terrorist leaders and their followers in
Belgrade...the Serbian Hashim Tachi is called Vuk Drašković. Vuk
Drašković incites his terrorist hordes to make an onslaught on the
Serbian people and state for whose citizenship he begged tearfully.
His loyalists yesterday once again reiterated their full allegiance
to the US fuhrers of neofascism. Drašković and the team from the
podium called on the uprising against Serbia, Yugoslavia and
Montenegro. That uprising was for NATO and his own pirate
compensations. Drašković and his pirates Đukanović, Đinđić and Dodik
are firing at what is Serbian and what is pro-Serbia and Yugoslavia,
for the benefit of those who had already fired at us from higher
caliber weapons.” (Glas javnosti, 17 May 2000)
In the general political turmoil some organizations
legitimized in the past as of the anti-fascist character, for
example the Alliance of Fighters of the National Liberation War
(SUBNOR) are adroitly instrumentalized. This organization is
particularly used in demonization of the opposition parties bent on
revival of the Chetnik movement. Of the afore-mentioned is
indicative the communiqué of the Belgrade SUBNOR regarding the 14
April opposition rally: “All those traitors should be criminally
prosecuted and punished since bombs planted in Vračar and Čačak,
assaults on the security forces and repeated calls to people to take
up arms are just a continuation of aggression and protesters must be
punished.” The same communiqué accuses the opposition of being “paid
traitors, servants of NATO, US fascism, imperialism and hegemonism”
and of “a continuing aggression against their own country on orders
of their bosses.” (Blic, 19 April 2000).
Statement made by Mira Marković, President of the
Directorate of the Associated Yugoslav Left, in the place called
Crna Trava, ranks undoubtedly among those most intolerant and at the
same time most senseless: “ There (referring to the opposition-run
municipalities) we see a combination of local thieves and bribed
informers who ridicule freedom, for that laughter serves them to
more easily swallow the bitter pill of treason... and they have gone
so far in their treason that they have reached the point of no
return.“ “The Yugoslav capital for the fourth year running is
increasingly reminiscent of those Eurasian settlements, which caught
in the time warp, are morphing into construction, moral and
spiritual garbage dumps.” She added that Belgrade was managed by
people “who in their childhood and youth did not receive elementary
breeding or were not inculcated hygienic habits.” In explaining the
reasons for their uneducated conduct Mira Marković said that: “the
space from which ‘soldiers for freedom’ withdrew was taken by
‘bribed cowards, personalities with shady biographies from the
aspect of the national interest, frustrated men and hormonally
disturbed women” (Blic, 27 April 2000)
The regime’s fear of “Otpor,” viewed as the most
dangerous enemy, is very palpable. The regime’s irritation with this
movement has outweighed the latter’s genuine power. For example
regarding the roughing-up of “Otpor”’s members in Požarevac, the
Serbian Socialist Party official Nikola Šainović, stated: “So-called
student organization Otpor is a fascist fallangue and an outlet of
the Serbian Renewal Movement, which has immediately sided with the
attacker, and not with the victims. The SSP shall not permit that
the political life in Serbia be contaminated by methods from the
Fascist eras, provocation and violence, and shall take all legal and
other measures to protect itself and its people.” (Glas javnosti,
5 May 2000)
Feelings of paranoia and fear are increasingly palpable
and even Slobodan Milošević, the FRY president, renounced his
untouchable position and contrary to the past practice ventured into
making immoderate statements. Thus, for example, on the occasion of
the Day of Victory over Fascism, 9 May, he made the following
statement: “The Nineties of the 20th century unfortunately resembled
the Thirties. One power was again bent on conquering the whole
world. The most developed nations are again bothered by the presence
of the poor and underdeveloped ones and the former try to cleanse
territories from excessive nations and people and thereafter use
them for the promotion of a precious life of a superior race. A
brutal system of retaliation against all those who mount resistance
is rearing its ugly head anew. Propaganda more efficient that the
one practiced by Goebbels, spy agencies moor powerful than Gestapo,
the Hague dirtier than Auschwitz. Once again the most powerful
weapon of the big occupiers are their minor servants in the country
he intends to conquer, those servants are his bloody ally among the
people whom they want to erase from the face of earth or at least
subjugate.. Once again those minor servants and their bloody allies
call their treason integration into the world process, an effort to
understand the spirit of the contemporary world, and sometimes they
explain their treason as a patriotic concern and patriotic moves,
which, they, the smart ones express and make in the interest of
people who stand no chance before the mightiest power. They maintain
that the hot-headed idealists, dreamers and revolutionaries, the
ones who from the standpoint of such a patriotism should be burnt in
gas chambers, extradited to the Hague, liquidated in the streets, in
front of their flats, in a restaurant, or by money the occupiers
have put at the disposal of their handful of smart allies, are
plunging the people into confrontaiton which can result only in a
defeat. (Glas javnosti 10 May 2000)
1.
Terror against the electronic media
Various repressive measures are used used against
the non-governmental media and free information. Vis a vis radio and
TV stations the policy of selective granting of frequencies is
pursued. Formal decisions on frequency-granting or non-granting of
operating licences are much-delayed which means that the owners of
private radio and TV stations are intentionally kept in a state of
uncertainty and even fear.
The nature of the criteria for frequencies-granting is best
illustrated by the piece of information ran by Blic of 18
March 2000: the Belgrade TV Studio B reported yesterday that “the
Vojvodina district committees of the Serbian Socialist Party have
suggested to the Main committee of the party which radio and TV
stations should be granted frequencies for program transmission.”
The Studio B footage showed photocopies of internal documents of
mainly Vojvodina district committees of the SSP containing their
opinion as to which media should be granted and which denied
operating licenses. Those opinions were sent last April by
committees of Southern Banat district, Western Bačka district, Srem
district, Northern Banat district, Southern Bačka district and
Central Banat district (...) In their letter to Ivica Dačić,
Socialists of the Srem district communicate: “We are of opinion that
frequencies should be granted to: the publishing and radio-diffusion
company Radio Sava from Sremska Mitrovica-the founder is our member,
Politika’s correspondent, Dragorad Dragičević.” Within the
framework of documentation in possession of Studio B there were ten
documents indicating which media were exempted from paying
compensation for use of frequencies.
Of 18 radio and 15 TV stations members of ANEM, which in
1998 applied for an interim frequencies-granting competition
organized by the Federal Telecommunications Ministry, only the then
Radio B 92 and TV Pančevo got operating licenses. Other radio and TV
stations are still awaiting relevant replies from the Ministry. But
despite the lack thereof, most radio and TV stations procured
equipment and began broadcasting their programs. Such an
intentionally unregulated situation enabled the Federal
Telecommunications Ministry to close down those stations, at will,
on grounds of their lack of regular licenses, to deprive them of the
right to broadcast programs, and seize their equipment and
transmitters. It is obvious that the aforementioned competition
served the same purpose as the Public Information Law. But the
former was intended for the electronic media, while the latter
targeted the print media.
In parallel with this obvious obstruction of work of the
electronic media, the ruling coalition uses also more subtle means.
For example the intentional jamming of TV stations signals results
in technically poor reception of program, which is tantamount to its
non-viewing. Added to that there are more than 500 radio and TV
stations in Serbia, of which two thirds are privately owned. This in
turn means that their market survival primarily depends on their
successful marketing policy. But owing to a selective, or rather,
guided approach some private media are blacklisted: large
state-owned or private companies are banned from advertising on
those media, which invariably means a large profit loss for them in
an increasingly pauperized advertising market. Having in mind the
fact that the most favored, pro-regime stations are most frequently
exempted from paying compensation for frequency use, whereby they
have the possibility to broadcast well-paid marketing support to the
selected firms, the non-regime media stand poor chances of survival
at such a market.
It is obvious that the regime, starting from February
1998, when the competition for frequency granting was announced, has
been systematically trying through various, both open and covert
pressures to put under its control all the electronic media. In this
sense we present some indicative examples:
At the insistence of the municipal administration of
Kuršumlija the Radio Television Serbia decided to deprive the
private TV Kuršumlija of the right to broadcast programs from a
Samokovo repeater. This television, since its launching, used to
broadcast both the RTS informative programs and footage of the
Serbian Assembly sessions. But then it faced a request to censor
some parts of sessions, in the way it was done by the RTS. At a
later date the ban on broadcasting relevant sessions was issued and
in the last phase, only the broadcasting of reports checked by the
municipal officials was approved. In a wish to make accessible to
his fellow-citizens as much information as possible, Slavko Savić,
owner of TV Kuršumlija, during the pre-election campaign opened the
doors of his studio to all those willing to participate in his
programs. Hence he hosted a number of the opposition leaders.
Likewise those affiliated with the ruling parties. “All of them
advocated free information, the media freedom. Today, when they are
in power they believe they have an exclusive right to speak and to
determine my invitees,” says Savić. “In this turmoil, the main
sticking point was the fact that TV Kuršumlija was the only
television in the South of Serbia which was a member of ANEM. First
I was banned from re-transmitting the VOA programs, and then I was
warned against re-transmission of TV Network and Video monthly (VIN),
and other ANEM productions. For a while, in line with my consistent
policy, I transmitted “Radical waves,” which the officials
greenlighted, but numerous viewers spurned, says Slavko Savić (Glas
javnosti, 9 January 2000)
During March 2000 the government set out on a new,
deliberate policy of repression against the electronic media.
Signal of Vršac local TV station Lav, member of ANEM,
was covered on 6 March 2000, by a political-propaganda program of
the Serbian Radical Party ‘Radical waves.’ According to the ANEM
reports, “Radical waves” were broadcast from a video recorder placed
in the central company “Cable-sat” in Vršac (Danas, 8 March
2000)
On 8 March 2000 five individuals, allegedly from the
Ministry of Telecommunications, raided the premises of Požarevac
Radio BUM 93. They seized the key broadcasting equipment on grounds
of the radio’s non-possession of frequency license and non-payment
of 30,000 dinars compensation for the use of frequencies (Blic,
9 March 2000)
On 9 March private TV Nemanja and Radio Tir were closed
down in Ćuprija. Federal telecommunications inspectors escorted by
10 policemen in uniforms raided the premises of independent TV
Nemanja, suspended the program and seized the equipment. (Blic,
10 March 2000)
On orders of the Federal Telecommunications Ministry,
and “in keeping with the Law on Links Systems, article 68, para. 1,
Article 69, para. 1 and Article 127 (according to Politika 17
March 2000) broadcasting by TV Pirot, owned by the Informative
Public Company “Sloboda” of Pirot was suspended. The relevant
ministry filed misdemeanor charges against TV Pirot with the
municipal misdemeanor court on grounds that “the TV station operated
without the required license.”
On 12 March twenty odd policemen knocked down the door
and barged into the premises in a multi-storey building in downtown
Požega. They seized a part of the broadcasting equipment of RTV
Požega and carried it out of the building. (according to Danas,
13 March 2000.)
“Inspectors of the Federal Telecommunications Ministry in
keeping with the Law on Links System, article 68, para. 1, article
69, para 1. and article 125, have removed the Kraljevo RT
transmitter, which broadcast TV program from Goč location. Founder
of RTV Kraljevo, Public Company ‘Ibarske Novine’ was not in
possession of required and legally prescribed operating license,
stated the Informative Service of the Federal Telecommunications
Ministry (Politika, 19 March 2000)
On 27 May 2000 the police raided TV Mladenovac premises
and ordered Žejko Matić, a technician on duty, to stop broadcasting
the program. “Policemen who spent only several minutes in TV
premises, interrogated Matić about his duties and location from
which the program was broadcast. When the program was discontinued
and TV station premises locked, the police took Matić to the police
station and put his name on record.“ (Glas javnosti 28 May
2000)
2.
Punishment of the print media
Repressive policy against the non-governmental print
media mainly consists of their regular punishing cum fining under
the Public Information Law. The past trend of draconian fines meted
out to the non-regime media continued in the first half of this year
too, as the following examples attest to it:
“According to Grujica Spasović, editor-in-chief of
Danas, company ‘Dan-graf’ was punished by a 150,000 dinars fine,
and the company’s director and responsible editor of daily, Dušan
Mitrović and Veljko Koprivica with a 60,000 dinars fine each for
“bringing into disrepute the rights and personality” of Đorđević
(director of TANJUG) in the text “ Funeral Mass without Patriarch.”
President of the Misdemeanor Chamber of the Leksovac
Court, judge Zoran Kočić, confirmed on 1 February a 600,000 dinars
fine meted out to the independent weekly Novine Vranjske and
a 200,000 dinars fine meted out to its editor Vukašin Obradović.
Vranjske was punished for having run the Helsinki Committee for
Human Rights in Serbia report, which, as assessed, quoted “lies
about General Nebojša Pavković’s visit to Veliki Trnovac (Večernje
novosti, 2 February 2000). It is indicative that on 14 February
unknown perpetrators burglared the office of the Associated Branch
Trade Unions ‘Nezavisnost,’ housing also editorial premises of the
paper, and stole a part of the equipment.
Senseless nature of the Public Information Law is best
depicted by the case of Kikindske novine, against which a
local Serbian Socialist Party strong man, Rajko Pović, filed charges
under that very law: “Since October 1999 the Kikinda-based weekly
Kikindske novine was seven times brought to court under the
Public Information Law, whereby it was sentenced to pay four times
exorbitant fines, totaling 880,000 dinars (...) Speaking about
enormous pressure which the local SSP brought to bear on this
municipal medium, Željko Bodrožić (editor-in-chief and responsible
editor) stated that the paper was acquitted of charges only once,
but as the Prosecutor won the case on appeal to a higher court in
Novi Sad, the paper was ultimately punished.” (Danas, 8
April 2000)
“Narodne novine” stood trial on 6 April on
grounds of two controversial sentences. The Military Post 3755 filed
charges against the paper for two allegedly abusive sentences
contained in its 29 February 2000 report on the Conference of the
District Committee of the Serbian Renewal Movement, that is on the
speech of the Committee’s president, Branislav Jovanović: “I want
the authorities to tell me which is the goal of this mobilization’
and (...) “ delivery of call-up papers has been stepped up.”
Military Post 3755 deemed that both sentences damaged the Yugoslav
Army’s reputation under article 69 of the Public Information Law.
Punishments meted out to the accused were the following: both
founder and publisher of Narodne novine were sentenced to pay
a 300,000 dinars fine each, while the fine meted out to the
editor-in-chief and responsible editor Miroslav Županjevac was
100,000 dinars. (Srpska reč, 13 April 2000)
Misdemeanor judge in Kikinda, Miroslav Periz, in weighing
the charges brought by Rajko Popović, responsible editor of the
paper RTS Komuna, against the editorial board of Kikindske novine,
found the latter guilty of running the communiqué of the
Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina, titled ‘Stop
Rajko Popović’ under the Public Information Law. Kikindske novine
were sentenced to pay a 200,000 dinars fine, Kikinda “Youth
Centre,” as a founder and publisher of the paper, was fined 100,000
dinars, while Duško Francuski and Željko Bodrožić, editor-in-chief
and responsible editor of Kikindske novine, were fined 50,000
dinars each. This is the seventh time that Rajko Popović has taken
to court the aforementioned paper, and the fifth fine meted out to
Kikindske novine under the Public Information Law. To date
Kikindske novine were fined a total of 1,080,000 dinars (Blic,
20 April 2000)
“Vice President of the Serbian government, President of
the Serbian Radical Party and professor of the Belgrade Law Faculty,
Vojislav Šešelj brought charges against company “Dan-graf’, the
publisher and founder of daily Danas, director Dušan Mitrović
and responsbile editor Veseljko Koprivica, under the Public
Information Law for running the text titled “Lilić Demands Urgent
Ouster of the SRP leader” published on 24 May. Those were the
seventh misdemeanor proceedings instituted against the paper, and
the third time that Vojislav Šešelj took the paper to the court.
Danas was fined five times, and the amount it had to pay to date
totaled 1,600,000 dinars (Blic, 26 May 2000). Daily Danas,
company ‘Dan-graf’ and responsible editor and director Veseljko
Koprivica and Dušan Mitrovic on 26 May were sentenced to pay a
570,000 dinars fine, by Mirela Stanojlović-Nikolić, the Belgrade
metropolitan misdemeanor judge.
The city municipal judge Zorica Prokić punished daily
Glas javnosti and its director and editor-in-chief Slavoljub
Kačarević to pay a total fine of 280,000 dinars, under the Public
Information Law and on charges brought by Zoran Anđelković,
President of the so-called Interim Executive Council of Kosovo and
Metohija. Anđelković filed a libel suit against Glas javnosti
for a sentence contained in the text “Serbs Do Not Trust Yankees,”
which was in fact a quotation from Dr. Rada Trajković’s speech:
“People know now who betrayed Kosovo and Metohija and fled to find
refuge in the deep shade of Kopaonik apartments.” Legal counsel of “Glas
javnosti”, lawyer Aleksandar B. Petrović and director and
editor-in-chief Slavoljub Kačarević, stated at the hearing that the
name of Zoran Anđelković was not mentioned in the controversial
sentence and that Dr. Rada Trajković’s words were published in order
to timely and truthfully inform the public at large about different
positions of political protagonists-as the public Information Law
duty-binds all the media-, in line with the latter the text also ran
Anđelković’s words that “Rada Trajković was looking for
justification to continue her treason and the crimes committed
against her own people.” It was also stressed that the controversial
sentence expressed no value judgment or final opinion, hence it
could not be considered an untruth. The judge rejected the defense
arguments as “unfounded, as a person to which the facts refer need
not be directly named, but the contents of the statement, and under
circumstances described in the article lead us to logically conclude
that the statement made by Dr. Rada Trajković was related to
President of the Provincial Executive Council, Zoran Anđelković...as
attested to by the accused in their defense that they had only
published the statement made by Dr. Rada Trajković and thus made
public a comprehensive information.” Hence the magistrate ruled that
“people do not know who betrayed Kosovo and Metohija and fled to
find refuge in the deep shade of Kopaonik apartments,” which, as is
evident, logically stems from the reasoned opinion in writing. (Glas
javnosti 21 June 2000)
In the past two years both the Yugoslav and
international public opinion had many opportunities to ‘familiarize’
with the contents and principle of selective enforcement of the
Public Information Law. Logic lying behind the enactment of the Law
is clear and on this occasion we shall not dwell on it, as it was
sufficiently explicated in our 1999 Report on Escalation of
Repression. But on this occasion we shall instead dwell on total
results of such enforcement.
As a more resolute action demanding the repeal of the
Public Information Law did not materialize, the regime has many
reasons to be pleased with the effects of the Law, notably in the
light of the fact that in less than two years it cashed in more than
30 million dinars on the basis of this Law. Moreover the fact stands
that by the payment of all the fines the Public Information Law was
given a genuine legitimacy by those against whom it was directed.
Although it failed to eliminate the non-governmental media, it
succeeded in narrowing their range of topics, relevant for the
current political dynamics.
In the meantime the regime resorted to other, even more
drastic measures, with a view to protecting its interests,
tendentiously equalized with the state interests. Hence the regime’s
increasing enforcement of more “potent” measures, legal acts, for
example, detention, arrests, roughing-ups and sentencing of
citizens, that is, of the Act on Public Companies and most probable
enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Law. The case of Radio and TV studio
B is a most emblematic example of the media house which for years
has resisted different pressures, including the standing threat of
the Public Information Law under which it was punished seven times,
only to be brutally closed down in May 2000.
3.
Seizure of Studio B
In early Nineties, when the political pluralism in Serbia was in its
infancy, Studio B, as much as Radio B-92, exemplified an open,
independent and free electronic medium. Thanks to its high
professional standards, notably in the area of informative-political
programs, Independent television Studio B (NTV Studio B) outgrow the
framework of the local Belgrade television station, despite the then
obstruction by the administrative structures (seizure of equipment,
jamming of programs, difficulties in placing repeaters), NTV Studio
B during a very short span of time (four years) attracted several
million regular viewers Serbia-wide. Unfortunately professionalism
and independence of this TV stations, which in its golden years was
a share-holding society, first fell victim to the takeover of the
station by the City Assembly.
When the Serbian Renewal Movement (SRM) took over power
in Belgrade Studio B definitely lost its independence, and morphed
into an informative service of that party. But owing to the new
editorial policy and contents pursued during the SPO stint with the
SSP-SRP-YAL federal coalition government, this medium was punished
only twice (on 24 March 1999 and 8 December 1999) under the Public
Information Law, since the law’s 20 October 1998 enactment.
Objectively speaking it is not decent to state that the medium “was
punished only twice,” but the question nonetheless arises how come
that Studio B after a relatively ‘unhampered’ period of work,
suddenly, in only two months (from 24 February to 4 May 2000) five
times fell victim to the provisions of the Public Information Law,
its signal was jammed and finally on 18 May 2000 the republican
government took over that TV and radio station.
Some of the reasons thereof lie in the following facts:
the SRM left the federal government during the NATO intervention
over disagreement with the federal government positions, the SRM
used this station as a mouthpiece for expressing its dissatisfaction
with the course of investigation of the Ibar Highway accident in
which four of its members perished, and finally and most
importantly, on 10 January 2000 the SRM signed an agreement on joint
actions of the Serbian opposition. All the aforementioned prompted
the SRM to change its editorial policy, which in turn led to a
relative opening of Studio B and its ostensible return to recognized
principles of information, all of which obviously vexed the regime
very much.
The process of harassment of Studio B, culminating in
its takeover by the Serbian government, in fact began on 10 January
2000, when the opposition reached an agreement on joint actions:
“Intensified jamming of signal, even during the broadcasting of
films, sports and show&entertainment programs, is per se
inexplicable, but in any case not unexpected,“ said Dragan
Kojadinović, director and editor- in-chief of Studio B (Danas,
13 January 2000)
On 16 January unidentified perpetrators damaged TV
Studio B repeater at Kosmaj, and made it impossible for viewers in
the interior of Serbia to follow Studio B program. Dragan
Kojadinović said that “the bandits who did that ‘job,’ were experts,
for they knew that they had to remove the modulator in order to
prevent the reception of the tone and picture.” He stressed that the
Kosmaj relay was one of the five relays of that TV station. “Channel
40 was completely destroyed, which means that the whole Pomoravlje
area cannot see Studio B program.” (Glas javnosti, 17 January
2000)
The next step was physical harassment with a view to
jamming Studio B broadcasting. Unidentified perpetrators beat up in
early morning hours Studio B worker Mirko Slavković and security
worker of Belgrade Water Supply System Dragan Luković. As the
attackers destroyed a part of the broadcasting equipment the Radio
B2-92 program broadcast on wavelengths of the IIIrd program of
Studio B and TV program of Studio B broadcast on the 51st channel
had to be temporarily suspended (...) Blic was told by the
Studio B technical service that an expert was among the perpetrators
and also somebody who knew well where everything was. Dragan
Kojadinović, director and editor-in-chief of Studio B told us that
that the attack on the two workers of the Torlak repeater was
carried out by five men in police uniforms. Kojadinović added that
it would take several days to put the equipment in order (Blic,
7 March 2000)
Ivan Marković, the Federal Telecommunications Minister,
also joined in the anti-Studio B harangue by giving the following
statement to the First Program of Radio Belgrade:
1. Information broadcast by Studio B two days ago was as
usual unprofessional and tendentious. Added to that it vilified the
state bodies and by reiterating the untruths aimed at heightening
tensions...
2. Marković also stressed that yesterday’s SRM and
Studio B communiqué particularly irritated our citizens, for it was
directed against our national unity and heroes of the country’s
defense-the Yugoslav Army and the Ministry of the Interior of the
Republic of Serbia...
3. It is quite certain that voicing of untruths about
the work of the state bodies and everyday slanders and insults on
them must attract the attention of the Public Prosecutor, in line
with his official duty...
4. Since 12 August 1999, when the Federal government was
reconstructed as the Government of National Unity, the Federal
Telecommunications Ministry, did not enforced a single repressive
measure, from the province of its authorizations, against radio
diffusion and TV stations which had been observed to operate out of
sync with legal regulations. The Ministry had instead communicated
in writing to those radio and TV stations that those irregularities
should be removed and instructed them how to do that... Deadlines
were set for removal of those irregularities and to date not a
single TV station has been closed. (Borba, 18 January 2000)
In parallel with the signal jamming and the
smear-campaign against Studio B, under the Public Information Law, a
veritable campaign of bringing charges against that media house was
staged. For example, the police Major General Branko Đurić took
Studio B to court for allegedly “broadcasting a false information
which damaged his individual rights.” Đurić demanded that
misdemeanor proceeding be instituted against Studio B “as in its
program “Direktno,” broadcast on 26 February a misinformation was
planted that General Branko Đurić, nicknamed Buca, organized
liquidation of a driver of the truck” which caused the Ibar Highway
incident in which four SRM members were killed. It was also stated
in the aforementioned program that “Đurić was surely duty-bound to
supervise that the liquidation operation went smoothly, that is,
without imperiling the safety of the State Security Services.” (Danas,
6 March 2000). Studio B was found guilty and fined 450,000
dinars.
Ivan Marković, the Federal Telecommunications Minister,
on 6 March sent a memo to Studio B notifying the radio and TV
station of the fact that it had not been granted operating licenses
for 1922,5 MHz frequency, and consequently ordered it to stop
broadcasting on that wavelength. Ivan Marković also notified Studio
B that its outstanding debt for the interim use of radio-frequencies
and TV channels, on 29 February 2000, stood at 10,755,314.39 dinars,
and ordered Studio B to settle the said debt within 7 days (Politika,
7 March 2000.) On 14 March the Assembly of City of Belgrade
settled the quoted debt.
But the Serbian government continued its anti-Studio B
campaign which culminated in the takeover of this medium. It was
made public that there were legal grounds for the takeover, for JRDP
Studio B was the state-owned property. Hence the Serbian government
decided to re-establish control over it property by taking over
the founding rights from the Assembly of Belgrade. The government’s
decision was signed by Vice Presidents Milovan Bojić and Vojislav
Šešelj (Glas javnosti 18 May 2000). The Serbian
government justified its decision by the fact that Studio B
repeatedly called for the toppling of the constitutional order in
all its programs and said that the decision was also taken in line
with the request of the Serbian Information Ministry.
Studio B takeover was carried out in the night between
17 and 18 May 2000. “After 2 a.m. at the entrance of ‘Beograđanka’ a
large number of special policemen, with masks on their heads, and
with metal rods and even some heavy construction equipment in their
hands, appeared. They ran to the elevators and quickly rode up to
the floors on which editorial offices of Studo B, Radio Indeks and
Radio B-2 92 were. They were followed by policemen both in
plainclothes and uniforms, which took a handful of journalists and
technicians to the first floor and held them there until 7.30 a.m.
They searched us immediately, seized our cellular phones and without
physical coercion led us down the stairs to the first floor
premises. Masked special policemen appeared literally from- nowhere,
Danas was told by one ‘ambushed’ journalist who wanted to
remain anonymous. He also maintained that no vehicles which
ostensibly took the policemen to “Beograđanka”’s entrance, were
spotted.” (Danas, 18 May 2000)
The Assembly of Belgrade and its Public Enterprise Studio B took to
court the Republic of Serbia for ‘property trespassing’, as “the
accused without any legal grounds took over the premises and
trespassed the property of plaintiff, who until then peacefully used
those premises” (Glas javnosti, 18 May 2000)
The authorities publicly defended their decision by
saying it was taken as a measure within the framework of the
“struggle against criminality, terrorism, Studio B-staged public
incitement to revolt and attempts to provoke a civil war in Serbia.”
“Studio B and some other media in Serbia for quite some time now
have been as instruments in attempts to destroy our state and were
directly engaged by foreign factors bent on destabilizing Serbia and
the FRY in all the possible ways,“ reads the statement of the
Belgrade Committee of the Associated Yugoslav Left (Politika,
18 May 2000)
The police squashed citizens’ attempt to defend Sudio B
at the very outset of protests, by attacking a crowd gathered in
front of the city assembly on 17 May. Then dozens of protesters were
beaten up and many had to receive medical assistance in the Urgent
Center of the Clinical Center of Serbia. Citizens rallied again on
18 May. On that occasion more than 100 demonstrators sustained both
light and serious injuries in their downtown clash with the police
forces. The police used tear gas, shock bombs and according to
uncertified information, even rubber bullets. During the police
intervention about 40 people were arrested. The majority of them
were sentenced to 20 or 30 days’ imprisonment and taken to serve
their sentences to Padinska Skela and the Central Penitentiary in
Belgrade (according to Danas, 20-21 May 2000)
Such a quick etatization of Studio B had no legal
grounds under the Act on the Funds Owned by the Republic of Serbia,
although the government claimed otherwise. In Danas
commentary (30 May 2000) the following was stressed: “When the state
or other public-legal entity (for example city of Belgrade) invests
state-owned assets in a public company on the basis of the founder’s
equity, then the state-owned assets fall under the regime of
private-legal business operations, and a public-legal entity can
exercise its rights over those assets exclusively through founders’
rights (the right to take part in the management bodies, the right
to dividend, the right to the remainder of the liquidation or
bankruptcy mass.) The invested assets are managed exclusively by a
company’s management bodies and company’s founders are only vested
with the right to influence a decision-making process through their
representatives in management bodies. In Studio B case its founder
and the titular of the founding capital is the city of Belgrade, if
only on the basis of the right to management and use of that capital
delegated to it by the Republic. Hence the Republic could return to
its fold the state-owned property utilized by the city of Belgrade,
and which was invested as the founding capital of JRDP Studio B,
only on the basis of a contract, judicial decision or unilateral act
of the city of Belgrade. The unilateral take-over of founding rights
over Studio B from the city of Belgrade was not legally founded (Danas,
30 May 2000)
4.
Other pressures on the media
The spectrum of repressive measures taken by the
state is expanding every day. For example lists of “politically
incompatible” individuals banned from taking part in TV programs of
the state-run media were drawn up. Actors Petar Kralj, Milena Dravić,
Dragan Nikolić, Voja Brajović and Aleksandar Berček, as well as
singer Bora Đorđević, Đorđe Balašević etc., prominent show-business
personalities, are among the blacklisted. “All producers have been
tasked with erasing credits lists from the old programs and simply
signing them with - ‘Produced by the RTS’ (...) It is said that this
decision was taken by the top management, so that the General
Director of the RTS, would not come across any ‘undesirable’
name...and ‘undesirable’ names are practically all those who do not
hold managing positions in this medium (...) The first official
black list was signed by the RTS director Dragoljub Milanović in May
1998: “Further engagement of temporary collaborators named in the
list attached to this decree, is prohibited. This decree applies
also to all the future temporarily engaged collaborators involved in
the pay compensation lawsuits against the RTS...’” There were 92
names on the list. (Nin, 2 March 2000)
Repression was not only directed against independent
media, but also ‘aimed at’ disciplining those pro-regime media which
recently turned more flexible, primarily in order to boost their
circulation sales. The most salient example of the aforementioned is
daily Večernje Novosti, which on 2 March 2000, by decision of
the Federal government was attached to the Federal public
institution “Borba.” This move was preceded by the ruling of the
Higher Commercial Court in Belgrade, which annulled privatization
effected by Company “Novosti” Share-Holding Society. The Federal
government decision was justified in the following manner: “the
court determined that the state is the majority shareholder of this
company”. Dušan Čukić, member of the Main Committee of the Serbian
Socialist Party and RTS journalist was named director and
editor-in-chief of Večernje Novosti. He immediately set out
the guidelines of the new policy based on “the patriotic-minded
journalism serving a purpose of protection of the state interests.”
As previously mentioned the media suppression takes
different shapes. For example Military Post Niš 5374 terminated the
lease contract related to premises in Braće Taskovića 19 street,
housing the Niš private TV 5 station and demanded that the medium
move out at the latest by 25 April 2000. The lease termination
notice sent to TV5 staiton was signed by Colonel Svetomir Kovačević.
This move was justified in the following manner: “the Federal
Defense Ministry wants to convert this space into a housing block.”
By the way TV5 invested over DM 80,000 in refurbishing of those
premises.” (Glas javnosti, 14 March 2000)
One of the more drastic examples of the media
stranglehold is the case of Company ABC “Produkt” from Belgrade and
its affiliates “Glas” and ABC “Grafika”, which among other things,
publishes independent dailies and weeklies such as: Glas javnosti,
Blic, Nin, Vreme, etc. To lead this company to the brink of
bankruptcy or liquidation, and consequently place it under the state
patronage and stop its publishing of independent media, the ruling
coalition has been conducting a veritable campaign of the
judicial-police terror against the afore-said company. Ultimately
the regime’s efforts bore fruit, as after 36 midemanour fines ABC
“Grafika” had bankrupted. Under the Public Information Law
provisions that company was taken to the misdemeanor courts 50
times, and was fined 10 times. Its fines exceeded 6 million dinars.
Penalties meted out by the financial police totaled 10 million
dinars, while those delivered by the Belgrade Commercial Court
approximated 170 million dinars (Glas javnosti, 27 June 2000)
II
DETENTION
Although the regime is constantly devising new
methods for neutralizing its opponents, it also applies the proven
ones: harassment, detention of the opposition parties members,
members of “Otpor” and pro-opposition citizens. This year an even
larger number of citizens were arrested and taken to police
stations. In the past 6 months the Serbian police took every day to
so-called ‘informative interviews’ at least 10 citizens. Reasons for
detention and sometimes filing of misdemeanor charges with
magistrates were by and large the following: possession of and
distribution of the party material, public protests against the
ruling coalition, membership of an opposition party or “Otpor.”
Over hundred activists of different opposition political
groupings in Serbia (the League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina,
the Serbian Renewal Movement, and Democratic Party) in recent months
were arrested, or detained for informative interviews in police
stations The largest number of detainees (over one thousand) were
“Otpor” members. But most detainees were immediately released after
their names had been put on record; this holds particularly true of
“Otpor” members. This probably served an ulterior purpose, the one
of harassment or corruption of those young people.
Here are some examples of the police harassment and
detention:
Vladimir Šijačić, a member of the League of Social
Democrats of Vojvodina was released from custody in Subotica on 3
March, after the local judge ruled that there were no grounds for
instituting proceedings against him. Šijačić was detained in Novi
Sad on 1 March for distributing with other League members leaflets
to citizens and inciting them to public protests during the
inauguration of the Varadin bridge building site by Mirko Marjanović,
the Serbian Prime Minister. (Danas, 4-5 March 2000)
On 14 March in downtown Vranje the Vranje police
arrested and took to the police station Tanja Valič,
photo-journalist of daily Danas. She was subjected to a
two-hour long informative interview. According to Valič, inspectors
treated her decently and inquired about “the sights she was
photographing in the center of the town.” Valič told them that she
wanted to photograph the downtown area, but the Post Office security
team suspected her motives and reported her to the police.” (Danas,
15 March 2000)
President of the Municipal Committee of Democratic Party
in Zaječar, Vlastimir Bađević was released after several hours of
harassment in the police station. He was arrested in the center of
Zaječar during the action “Let’s talk about party ratings,”
organized by the Democratic Youth and the Alliance for Changes (Danas,
24 April 2000)
On charges of disturbance of public order and peace,
members of the Serbian Renewal Movement Despotovac Municipal
Committee-Dragiša Nikodijević, Marko Obradović, Dragan Radosavljević,
Zoran Tomić, Rade Miljojković, Radiša Milošević and Ivica
Vukadinović, member of the Christian Democrats Party of Serbia were
sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment (Blic, 12 May 2000)
On 25 May the Novi Sad police detained 25 members of the
League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina, who were waiting for the
release of Vesna Tomić, the party activist. Vice President of the
LSDV Bojan Kostreš stated that Tomić was taken to informative talk
yesterday morning and that the League members went to the police
station to try to ‘negotiate’ her release.
Five members of New Democracy from Jagodina were
released from custody on 14 May without any explanation as to why
they had been detained in the first place and whether misdemeanor
proceedings would be instituted against them. The ND members were
arrested after the ND-staged rally in Dragocvet against replacement
of the local communicates authorities elected at the 1996/1997 local
elections (Glas javnosti 16 May 2000)
Vladan Stanković, Democratic Party member was detained
on 23 May in Zaječar.
While distributing the party leaflets, President of the
Youth Club of the Serbian Renewal Movement of Stari Grad
Municipality, Đorđe Latić and the party’s members Jovana Radić and
Dušan Savković, were arrested at 18 p.m. on 22 May in Belgrade.
Vladimir Pavlov, an “Otpor activist was summoned to
15-minute long informative interview in the Novi Sad police station.
The Rumenci police team raided the house of Dejan
Erdeljan, an “Otpor” activist and President of Young Members of the
Democratic Party of Serbia and took him to the police station to
coerce him to sign an admission statement that he had been
distributing “Otpor”’s posters.
Miloš Satarić from Novi Sad was taken to the police
station to an informative interview and released after an hour.
On 22 May Marija Dragišić, member of the Executive
Committee of the City Committee of the Serbian Renewal Movement in
Novi Sad and the SRM members Živko Dragišić and Željko Kostić were
taken to the police station to informative interviews.
On 23 May Ivan Pepić (the SRM) and other seven members
of this party were detained and taken to the Niš police station for
informative interviews. All were released later, but Dragan Papić
was remanded in custody.
In the morning hours of 23 May activists of “Otpor” Igor
Nedeljković and Goran Drašković were taken to the Valjevo police
station for informative interviews. According to “Otpor,” inspectors
inquired if Milivoje Gutović, the murderer of Boško Perošević,
President of the Vojvodina provincial government, had any
accomplices in Valjevo and if he had visited the town.
In mid-May 2000 police forces in 35 towns of Serbia
detained over 230 “Otpor” activists, members of the opposition
parties, journalists and citizens. Some opposition and “Otpor”
members wee detained on several occasions. Vladimir Pavlov, “Otpor”
member from Novi Sad in eight days was taken three times to the
police station (Glas javnosti, 24 May 2000)
Sanja Bogićević and Elizabeta Novković, activists of the
Social Democratic Union were detained by the police on 27 May while
distributing the party’s informative bulletin Novosti at
Zeleni Venac market (Glas javnosti, 28 May 2000)
On 30 May Nebojša Ristić, editor of TV Soko was arrested
with a group of seven people, mostly “Otpor” members, while
distributing leaflets and membership application forms of the
movement in the center of Soko Banja, stated Vojislav Janković,
President of the Soko Banja committee of Democratic Party. Among the
arrestees there were: Strahinja Ćirić, journalist of Radio Soko
Banja, Predrag Stevanović, journalist of TV Soko, “Otpor” activists
and Democratic Pary members, Aleksandar Milojković, Ivica Naskovski,
Dragan Avramović, his wife Tanja and mother Radica.
The police detained 29 activists of the League of Social
Democrats of Vojvodina, including its Vice Presidents Bojan Kostreš
and Zoran Bošković, several deputies in the city assembly, and a
member of the Novi Sad government, Vladimir Kranjčević for
distributing the party leaflets during Slobodan Miloešvić’s visit to
Novi Sad on 30 May. After a two-hour detention in the metropolitan
police building where their fingerprints were taken and their names
put on file, the League members were released. The League’s message
in the controversial leaflet was: “Slobodan Milošević, step down!”
Miki Janošević, President of the Serbian Renewal
Movement in Bor, was arrested after the search of his house.
According to his wife, the three plainclothes policeman and several
policemen in uniforms from Bor and Boljevac, without even producing
a warrant, searched their house thoroughly. (Glas javnosti,
31 May 2000)
The Serbian Renewal Movement Municipal Committee in
Petrovac on Mlava stated that according to the policeman Dragan
Stokić, the SRM member Igor Cvetanović was taken to the police
station, handcuffed for hours to a radiator, and subsequently taken
to the misdemeanor judge who sentenced him to pay a 1,600 dinars
fine for harassing a girl. After the pronouncement of the sentence
Cvetanović went to the police station to pick up his stuff, but was
handcuffed anew for three hours there. The SRM also stated in its
communiqué that the policeman Stokić threatened also the SRM
Secreatary Jasna Ivanović that he would set her flat on fire. The
police also threatened the President of the Petrovac SRM Committee
Siniša Stevanović that they would temporarily seize his car to check
the license plate...“the process which could last up to a year.”
The Sremska Mitrovica Municipal Committee of Democratic
Party stated that the Sremska Mitrovica police forces detained three
members of this party on 14 June and released them after several
hours-long informative interview. The DP communiqué also stated that
during the poster-affixing action President of the Main Committee of
DP Aleksandar Prodanović, the Vice President of the Main Committee,
Aleksandar Gavrilović and a member of this committee Nikola Trninić
were detained (Glas javnosti, 15 June 2000)
III
POLITICAL-JUDICIAL CASES AND TRIALS
Besides detaining them, the regime continues to
pressure, intimidate and harrass the ‘incompatible’ by instituting
sometimes marathon and sometimes summary proceedings and trials
against them. Workers, lawyers, writers, the former State Security
Services members, and leaders and members of the opposition parties
alike, continue to bear the brunt of mostly trumped-up charges and
staged trials. As the circle of enemies seems to be expanding, so
the authorities seem to become increasingly fearful and nervous.
According to the available data only few leaders have been to date
exempted from similar misdemeanor proceedings or trials. Not a
single opposition leader has received a prison sentence and even if
it happened, that sentence was not enforced. That form of repression
shall probably be the regime’s ultimate measure in the protection of
its position.
Several examples amply illustrate the nature of
political trials in Serbia:
Ratomir Nikolić, worker of Company “Mesokombinat”
charged with disturbance of public order and peace was interrogated
before the Leskovac magistrate court. On 2 October 1999 he was
attacked at the Alliance for Changes rally by Srđan Stojković,
bodyguard of Živojin Stefanović, Head of the Jablanica District and
a member of the internal security services of the municipal
committee of the Serbian Socialist Party. On that day Stojković
persisted in his disruptive conduct, insulting the speakers at the
rally (...) Following a warning by Nikolić that he should stop
misbehaving, Stojković assaulted him (...) Nikolić wanted to give a
statement to the policemen on duty, but the officer in charge
refused his offer. This incident furthermore caused an unplanned
walk of protesters, which led to writing of a misdemeanor notice
against Siniša Perić, President of the Municipal Committee of
Democratic Darty. Ratomir Nikolić’s troubles started after his
speech at the meetingcalled by Ivan Novković on 5 July 1999. Namely
he was transferred to a new post, 78 km distant from his place of
residence. His wife faced similar problems. (Danas 25
February 2000)
On 24 February 2000 the Third Municipal Public
Prosecutor Office in Belgrade filed charges with the Third Municipal
Court against the New Democracy President, Dušan Mihajlović. He was
accused of “spreading false news.” The proceedings were instituted
because of Mihajlović’s statement given during the Studio B program
“We are to blame” broadcast on 22 February. But it was not indicated
which Mihajlović’s statement the Prosecutor Office found defamatory.
(Večernje novosti 25 February 2000)
Zoran Paunović, the Serbian Renewal Movement municipal
PM and spokesman in Kragujevac was detained on 29 February 2000 in
the afternoon hours and taken to the magistrate for interrogation,
on grounds of the police report written as early as on 26 May 1999.
The police demanded the severest sentence for him, since it argued
that Paunović during the war took part in an unregistered public
rally in a downtown area, where he “directed the protesters by
special hand gestures and even yelled: “Where are the people, why
they have not started the protest walk.” The police considered that
his conduct constituted a serious offense, for “it was committed
during a state of war” and “there was a reasonable doubt that the
accused would continue to commit such offenses.“ (Večernje
Novosti, 3 March 2000)
Vladimir Nikolić, former member of the State Security
Services, was sentenced on 3 March 2000 to one year and 10 months in
prison for devulging state secrets. He was remanded in custody.
Although the sentence was delivered in open court, in compliance
with the decision of the judge Pavle Vukašinović, Nikolić’s wife,
his next of kin, friends and journalists were banned from attending
the judgement-rendering session in court. Nikolić was arrested on 1
October last year. In May last year he was dismissed from the State
Security Services and in a short period preceding his arrest he
worked as the Marketing Director of the Directorate for the Belgrade
Construction Land. Branka Nikolić (his wife) maintains that the
State Security members constantly harass her family. According to
her their flat was searched several times. (Blic, 4 March
2000)
Before the First Municipal Court in Belgrade legal
counsels of a group of opposition leaders on 13 March rebutted
defamation charges filed against their clients. Milovan Bojić, Vice
President of the Government of Serbia pressed private charges
against the said group after the 22 September 1999 Alliance for
Changes rally which organized a symbolic trial of Bojić for a
catastrophic state in the health system and found him guilty. Vice
President of the Serbian Government and the Associated Yugoslav Left
high official said that the staged trial damaged his high
professional reputation of a prominent medical expert and professor
and demanded a fine to the tune of 10 million dinars. He took to
court Zoran Đinđić, Milan St. Protić, Dragan Milovanović, Vladan
Batić, Goran Svilanović and Vuk Obradović, President of the Social
Democracy, then a member of the Alliance for Changes. The trial
started on 7 October 1999, but several hearings had been postponed
due to irregular summons or no-show of legal counsels of the
accused. (Danas, 14 March 2000)
On 24 March 2000 the Third Municipal Court in Belgrade
deferred a hearing of Ivana Primović, the Serbian Renewal Movement
lawyer, charged with the criminal offense of slander by the Third
Municipal Prosecutors’ Office. Primović allegedly damaged the
reputation of Major General Branko Đurić, Head of the Belgrade
police, by making some slanderous comments about him in a Studio B
program. The main hearing was postponed for 21 April as the
defendant stated that she was not giveneither the summons or the
indictment, and that she learnt about the start of the trial from
the newspapers. As Ivana Primović lawyers told journalists gathered
outside the courtroom (they were banned from attending the hearing),
the accused did not receive the summons, and during the preliminary
hearing the judge demanded that Primovć signed an empty peace of
paper, to be used as a proof that on the mail order return coupon
was her signature. Primović declined to do that. The accused was not
even shown the indictment. (Danas, 25-26 March 2000)
“Government of Serbia rejected the petition for amnesty
of Bogoljub Arsenijević Maki and Nebojša Ristić and recommended the
Serbian Assembly to follow suit. The amnesty petition was submitted
as early as on 17 January by two deputies of the Coalition
Vojvodina, while the Serbian government took the relevant decision
on 13 March. In the meantime Nebojša Ristić was released (...) Among
reasons for its rejection of the petition the Serbian government
cited the fact that authorization for amnesty was shared by the
federal state and the constituent republics. “Amnesty for criminal
offenses specified under federal laws is under the jurisdiction of
the federal state. The aforementioned petion is moreover so sketchy
that it was difficult to establish which criminal offenses were
committed,” explained the Serbian government. (Glas javnosti,
31 March 2000)
Trial of daily “Danas” charged with publishing the text
“Funeral Mass without Patriarch” began on 12 March 2000 in the First
Municipal Court in Belgrade. The plaintiffs, TANJUG News Agency and
Dušan Đorđević, its Acting Director, demanded non-material
compensation for the slanderous text which damaged the reputation
and interests of the TANJUG News Agency, as a legal person, and of
its Acting Director Dušan Đorđević. In the controversial text
allegedly “untruths were planted and the plaintiff’s reputation was
damaged,” for it stated “that TANJUG was exempted from bombardment
because of free of charge distribution of its services, even to
foreigners... with Đorđević even awarded with across- the- EU free
movement.” As a compensation for its ruined reputation TANJUG
demanded one million dinars, and Đorđević 500,000 dinars. Goran
Draganić, attorney of daily “Danas” stressed that TANJUG News Agency
as a legal person could not suffer psychological pain, hence it had
no right to demand compensation for the non-material damage. (Glas
javnosti, 13 April 2000)
“The Serbian Renewal Movement was sentenced to pay a
five million dinars fine on charges of Mirko Marjanović, the Serbian
Prime Minister and former director of company “Progres.” The trial
before the First Municipal Court in Belgrade began in 1994,” stated
the SRM communiqué. Marjanović sued the SRM for press releases
replete with accusations leveled at “Progres” for mismanagement and
business irregularities, which caused great psychological pain and
ruination of its reputation. The fine was meted out despite the
Supreme Court’s position that legal persons cannot feel
psychological pain. (Danas 14 April 2000)
“Zoran Živković, Mayor of Niš, charged with the criminal
offense of slander by the Municipal Public Prosecutor in Bor, will
stand trial on 8 May. Momčilo Dimitrijević, the Bor Prosecutor
accused Živković of insulting the judge of the Sokobanja Municipal
Court, Dragan Marjanović, at the 11 September 1999 rally in
Sokobanja. Judge Marjanović sentenced Nebojša Ristić,
editor-in-chief and responsible editor of TV “Soko” to one year in
prison, for having affixed a poster “Free Press-Made in Yugoslavia”
at the window of TV station’s premises, during a state of war in
Yugoslavia (Glas Javnosti, 22 April 2000)
“The Parole Commission of the Serbian Justice Ministry
assessed that thanks to his good conduct Nebojšar Ristić,
editor-in-chief and responsible editor of TV Soko Banja would be
released from jail 26 days earlier. The commission also concluded
that the convict, who had served more than half of his total
sentence (1 year term of imprisonment), ‘improved his conduct and
would behave properly, instead committing criminal offenses, once he
is given back his freedom.’ Nebojša’s good nature and behavior
obviously prevailed, and not numerous appeals sent to many
addresses, including the Presidential one. (Danas, 14 March
2000)
On 25 April there was the first hearing in the case
Zoran Gvozdenović against Slobodan Milošević (the Šabac-based
restaurant owner Zoran Gvozdenović- Rendža charged the FRY President
with making a slanderous speech). Judge Milenko Cvijović questioned
the plaintiff on the basis of Article 438 of the Act on Criminal
Proceedings. He asked him, inter alia, whether he knew personally
the accused and if the speech in question referred to him
personally. At the Serbian Socialist Party Congress on 17 February
President Milošević labeled all the opposition in Serbia as
janizars, domicile scum, and similar. Gvozdenović insisted that
those words damaged his honor and reputation and were tantamount to
slander of two thirds of population of Serbia. (Danas, 26
April 2000)
According to Goran Draganić, one of Filipović’s defense
counsels, the Criminal Chamber of the Kraljevo District Court ruled
on 10 May that Miroslav Filipović, Kraljevo correspondent of daily
“Danas” and France Press Agency be transferred to Niš and tried by
the Niš Military Court. Filipović was charged with the criminal
offense of espionage and spreading of false news, that is,
undermining the defense systems of the country, the offense which
entails a 3 to 15 years term of imprisonment. (Blic, 11 May
2000) On that very day Filipović was taken to the Niš military court
and remanded in custody. “I deny the charges, for anybody who wants
to engage in devulging state secrets would not surely publish such
information under the by-line,” said Filipović after being released
from jail. Filipović, correspondent of daily Danas and France
Press Agency said that he had not seen the indictment, but that on
the basis of questioning before the investigative judge he concluded
that he had been charged with espionage, because, as the reasoned
opinion in writing stated, “since October 1999 Filipović collected
important defense data and passed them on to a foreign organization
engaging in intelligence work.” Filipović added that in that sense
the British Institute for War and Peace was mentioned. “The second
count was spreading of false news and I assume that it was related
to information about the police and the army, for during my
interrogation inspectors inquired about sources which allegedly gave
me such information,” said Filipović. He was arrested on 8 May in
Kraljevo, and then detained for 30 days, in line with the Kraljevo
District Court ruling (Blic, 13 May 2000) On 18 May the Niš
Military Court prosecutor filed a motion for Filipović’s
interrogation, and the investigative judge of the Military Court,
after interrogation on 22 May, decided that criminal proceedings
should be instituted against Miroslav Filipović as it was reasonably
believed that he had committed a criminal offense of espionage under
the Criminal Code of the FRY, Article 128, and criminal offense of
spreading false news under the Serbian Penal Code, stated after the
hearing Goran Draganić, one of Filipović’s defense counsels.
According to Draganić after the hearing the judge also ruled that
Filipović be detained for 30 days. (Danas, 23 May 2000) On 15
June the Niš Military Court Chamber decided to extend Miroslav
Filipović’s detention, stated Colonel, Vukadin Milojević, President
of the Court. He also said that Filipović would be remanded in
custody until the end of the main hearing, in line with the military
prosecutor’s proposal. Earlier Filipović’s detention was extended
because of the possibility that he might influence the witnesses and
disturb public at large. Now his detention was extended again
because of his possible influence on witnesses, but also to prevent
him from escaping, said Milojević. (Glas javnosti 16 June
2000) On 26 July Filipović was sentenced by the Niš Military Court
to 7 years’ imprisonment (Danas, 27 July 2000)
Vice President of New Serbia and Mayor of Čačak Velimi
Ilić, charged with slander, was found guilty and in absentia
sentenced to 1 conditional year in prison. Ilić was sued by the
former head of the Čačak police Zoran Simović and his deputy Milan
Bukarica, because of his statement made three and a half years ago
that “during the presidential campaign, at the Čačak pre-election
rally, Zoran Lilić, the Socialist Party candidate, was surrounded by
the security team made up of local criminals” (Danas, 13-14
May 2000)
Veroljub Cvetković, president of the Zaječar District
Court Chamber, on 9 June sentenced Boban Miletić-Bapsi, author of
aphorisms, to five month’s imprisonment for ridiculing the FRY and
its President, Slobodan Milošević. On 18 December 1999, at the
promotion of his book “Serbia, mother, cry,” in the Knjaževac
Cultural Center, Miletić read several aphorisms, which in the
court’s opinion, ridiculed the FRY and its President Slobodan
Milošević. He was also sentenced to 5 months in prison for having
distributed to those in attendance 70 copies of his book after the
promotion ceremony. The court also ruled that 31 copies of his book
be seized. The prison sentence included 15 days that Miletić was
kept in detention. (Glas Javnosti 10 June 2000)
IV
TERROR AGAINST THE JUDICIARY
In the part of the “Report on Escalation of
Repression in Serbia” of November 1999, related to the judicial
bodies and pressures on the judiciary, it was anticipated that the
regime would start its final showdown with ‘seditious’ judges.
Association of Judges of Serbia, the only organized
(unregistered) branch association of judges in Serbia bore the brunt
of the regime’s repression campaign. The first step was the 21
December 1999 decision by the National Assembly of the Republic of
Serbia to dismiss judges, Slobodan Vučetić (judge of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia), Zoran Ivošević
(judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Serbia) and Boža
Prelević (judge of the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade), the three
founders and most prominent and active members of the Association of
Judges of Serbia, under Article 46, para. 4 related to Article 5.
Those dismissals were retributive actions against judges who openly
resisted the rule of non-law, growing repression and downscaling of
the judicial function to the mere enforcing of orders issued by the
ruling apparatus and also served a purpose of intimidation of
potentially seditious judges. In case of dismissals of Zoran
Ivošević and Boža Prelević the ruling coalition did not even try to
adhere to the prescribed procedure for judges dismissals.
In fact Article 48, para. 1 of the Act on Courts of Law
prescribes that the Supreme Court President institutes proceedings
for relieving judges of their duties. Paragraph 7 of the same
Article specifies that the Supreme Court conducts the proceedings to
determine if there are reasonable grounds for such a move and
notifies of its decision the National Assembly within 60 days from
the day when the motion for the aforementioned proceedings was put
forward. The manner of conducting the proceedings is spelled out in
the Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court of Serbia (adopted in
1995). The provision contained in Article 25 para. 1 of the Rules of
Procedure lays down that: “when collected information indicates
reasons for dismissal agaisnt the will of judges, the Supreme Court
President shall decide in favour of the proceedings, select the
reporting judge or collect necessary evidence through the president
of a relevant court, enable the judge whose dismissal is pending to
comment all facts and circumstances, and then make a report.”
Paragraph 3 specifies: “if the Supreme Court president determines
that there are reasonable grounds for dismissal of a judge, he will
convene a General session,“ and paragraphs 4 and 5 lay out that
“judges whose dismissal is pending will be notified of the date of
session, if the Supreme Court President or the General session
assess that it would be useful for the clarification of the matter,“
that is “if the General session determines that there are reasons
for relieving a judge of his duties, the Supreme Court President
shall notify of such a decision the National Assembly.”
The General session which was to deliberate dismissals
of judges Zoran Ivošević and Boža Prelević, and to which they were
to be invited, was never convened, nor those judges were provided
with any opportunity to say something about the circumstances
prompting the initiative for their dismissals. Although some judges
indicated flagrant breaches of the rules of procedure and
non-observance of the proceedings by the Supreme Court, the highest
court in the Republic of Serbia, the National Assembly quickly
decided that the judges be relieved of their duties. That decision
was moreover accompanied by the following comment of the Supreme
Court President: “Everything was as the law prescribed and the
procedure was fully observed.” As the law does not envisage judicial
protection in such cases, the statement made by the Supreme Court
President was the only and principal assessment of legality of this
move.
Those dismissals were the prelude to new dismissal
proceedings, the most scandalous being the one concerning Boško
Papović, the investigative judge of the Požarevac District Court.
This case clearly indicates the importance of regular and lawful
exercise of discharge of judicial duties in a society, notably in
the area od protection of human rights and freedoms, and also what
fate awaits those judges bent on discharging their duties
conscientiously and in line with the principles they swore to
uphold.
Proceedings for the dismissal of judge Boško Papović were
motivated by his treatment of the case of incident which had
happened on 2 May in Požarevac, in front of the café “Pasaž.” Judge
Papović was to conduct an investigation into the case of attempted
murder and assistance in attempted murder of brother Lazović
(bodyguards of M.Milošević, son of Slobodan Milošević), according to
the Požarevac police perpetrated by R. Luković, N. Sokolović and M.
Sokolović (“Otpor” members). How the judge proceeded with this
matter and the nature of his procedure is best illustrated in this
statement of his:
“Neither the testimonies of the accused and witnesses
nor a special report of the Požarevac police indicated evidence or
even reasonable doubt that R. Luković, N. Sokolović and M. Veljković
tried to commit that offense (...) On the basis of all facts and
statements I concluded that the criminal offense of attempted murder
had not been committed, hence there were no reasons to detain the
accused; consequently I ordered the Belgrade Correctional Facility
hospital and the Požarevac prison to release them (...) Then the
President of the Požarevac District Court sent me a request to
conduct an investigation against those persons on charges of
attempted murder, that is, assistance in attempted murder. Then I
asked Jovan Stanojević, the District Public Prosecutor, why he had
sent that request.. He told me that he acted on orders of the
Republican Public Prosecutor’s Office and that he was compelled to
obey them. (N.B. Jovan Stanojević, the District Public Prosecutor
handed in his resignation during those developments) (...) On Monday
night I again went through all the documents related to the case.
Even then I did no find a shred of evidence in support of charges
and I consequently turned down the request for investigation. I
demanded that the Extra-Debate Chamber of the Požarevac District
Court rule on this disagreement between me, as an investigative
judge and the District Public Prosecutor. President of that Chamber
and its two members decided that the investigation be conducted and
on Monday, after 24 hours, the accused were once again detained
(...) President of the Požarevac District Court then informed me
that Balša Govedarica, President of the Supreme Court of Serbia, my
distant cousin, instituted proceedings for my dismissal, acting in
line with the Supreme Court fax message stating that I be relieved
of my duties. Reasoned opinion in writing of the Supreme Court
decision, likewise the one of its president, stated that I did not
act in accordance with the law, which required an immediate arrest
of the accused, that I damaged the reputation of the District Court,
as a state body, and of its judges by challenging the decision of
its extra-debate chamber, and that I treated the whole case in an
unprofessional and slipshod manner. And how urgent this case was is
best illustrated by the fact that the Supreme Court even after seven
days failed to rule on the appeal of the accused against the
detention decision (Nedeljni telegraf, 24 May 2000)
But “purging” of the judiciary involved in this case
continued. Because of the Požarevac incident and the ensuing
developments the protest rally was to be staged in Požarevac on 9
May. Many citizens wanted to come to that rally to show that they
disagree with drastic violations of fundamental human rights and
freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, which currently serve a
purpose of protection of political and personal interests. However
the Serbian regime not only thinks that judges cannot exercise the
right to “freedom of conscience, thinking and public expression of
their way of thinking, the right guaranteed under the Constitution
of the Republic of Serbia, Article 45, but also sanctions that right
of theirs by relieving them of their duties.
President of the Požarevac Muncipal Court, Vukašin
Stanisavljević, told the expert staff meeting of this institution
that his deputy, investigative judge Đorđe Ranković, after being
relieved of his duties for having been seen at the 9 May ‘popular
merry-making,’ in a group of opposition protesters, as of 1 June was
transferred to the post of a libel judge. In fact Ranković is not a
member of any party. Considered one of the most promising jurists
among Požarevac-based dispensers of justice, with over 24 years of
judicial practice, Ranković to date trained the majority (75%) of
young and inexperienced judges working in the Požarevac municipal
court. After Stanisavljević’s move, on 15 May the Supreme Court
President instituted proceedings for dismissal of Đorđe Ranković,
investigative judge of the Požarevac municipal court.
Similar was the case of Miroslav Todorović, senior judge
of the District Court in Belgrade.
Miroslav Todorović was handed a decision on proceedings
for his dismissal signed by Balša Govedarica, President of the
Supreme Court of Serbia and decision on his suspension from duty
(despite impending proceedings) signed by Bogoje Marjanović,
President of the District Court in Belgrade.
The reasoned opinion in writing of the President of the
Supreme Court attached to the aforementioned decision stated that
judge Todorović “ignored legal authorizations” of the president of
the District Court in Belgrade by refusing to take on the duties of
a member of the second-instance criminal chamber”, that “he
subordinated his judicial duties to his political goals” and that
“he acted in public as a member of presidency of so-called “Otpor”
organization”, although he knew that this organization was not
registered with the relevant state body and that it was engaged in
political activities aiming at replacement of the state authorities
by extra-constitutional means.“ (Glas javnosti 15 June 2000)
As judges could not issue a communiqué condemning
such developments, for the Association of Judges ceased to exist, 13
judges form different courts on 17 June wrote an open letter
expressing their resentment of and concern over the regime’s moves.
Here are the most important excerpts from this letter:
“It is dangerous when every public comment of a judge is
characterized as his struggle to attain his political goals. Who
considers dangerous and incompatible judges fighting for goals of
non-political nature, those related to human rights which are much
older than any state, and which the state cannot take away from
anybody, as it has not conferred them in the first place, and why
are some judges considered dangerous and incompatible?”
“Why the top judicial authorities do not react to
frequent statements of high officials who in their speeches
publicly, and beforehand convict persons being tried for criminal
offenses before the Serbian courts, disclose details which during
the preliminary investigations should not be publicly divulged.
Legal principle that no person is guilty until proven guilty is a
civilized achievement which in the aforementioned cases is obviously
disregarded, because some politicians have obviously taken on the
role of court.” Letter was signed by: Leposava Karamarković, judge
of the Supreme Court of Serbia, Jelisaveta Vasilić-judge of the
Higher Commercial Court in Belgrade, Vida Petrović-Škero, Radmila
Dragičević-Dičić, Ivan Bajazit, Dušan Slijepčević, Neda Antonić,
Goran Čavlina, Ravijojla Kastratović-judges of the District Court in
Belgrade, Gordana Mihajlović, Mirjana Pavlović, Sanja Lekić and
Vlasta Janković-judges of the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade (Glas
javnosti 17 June 2000)
Less than a month after the publishing of this
letter, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia at the
session held on 12 July, decided that the following judges be
relieved of their judicial duties: Miroslav Todorović, judge of the
District Court in Belgrade, all 13 judges-signatories of the letter,
Boško Papović, judge of the Požarevac District Court, Đorđe
Ranković, judge of the Požarevac Municipal Court, Jovan Stanojević,
Public Prosecutor of the Požarevac District Court and Đuro
Pilipović, president of the Novi Sad Municipal Court.
The reasoned opinion in writing of the proposal for
dismissal of judge Todorović read: “as a member of presidency of
so-called “Otpor” organization, he gave public commens, although
aware that the organization was not registered with the authorized
state bodies and that it engaged in activities aiming at the
replacement of the state bodies by extra-constitutional means.” The
decision on the dismissal of 13 judge- signatories of the
aforementioned letter states: “the group opted for taking an illegal
and partisan course of action within the judiciary, that is the one
already taken by judges facing the proceedings.” Judge Đorđe
Ranković was relieved of his duty because he took part in the
opposition-staged rally in Požarevac and after the rally, conducted
investigation into the arson incident in the Serbian Renewal
Movement premises. Judge Boško Papović was relieved of his judicial
duties on grounds of “having repeatedly challenged in the public
information media the legality of the decision of the Požarevac
District Court that public prosecutor’s motion for investigation and
detention of the accused be accepted.” Jovan Stanojević was relieved
of his duty for “engaging in private entrepreneurship and in other
profit-making business.”
In taking note of such moves of the authorities, one can
state that the legal state does not function even in institutions
which primary task should be the legal protection of citizens of
Serbia. Moreover such moves indicate that naked political interests
have prevailed over the legal ones. By dismissal of honest,
conscientious, expert and experienced judges and replacing them with
young, inexperienced, but politically compatible judges, the regime
brings to a close the purge of the judiciary commenced last year.
Added to that such moves of the ruling oligarchy contain the
following message to the holders of judicial functions and citizens
likewise: the regime shall violate or ignore any principle and
freedom proclaimed by the constitution if it suits its interests.
That is why provisions of Article 95 and 96 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Serbia guaranteeing that “courts of law shall
protect freedoms and rights of citizens, rights and interests of
legal bodies established under the law and provide for
constitutionality and legality”, that is, that “courts of law are
independent in their work and they rule in accordance with the
Constitution, laws and other general acts,” represent only a dead
letter, likewise an increasingly threatened number of freedoms and
individual and civil rights proclaimed by the Constitution.
V
UNIVERSITY
Contrary to the Public Information Act, it seems
that the goals because of which the University Act had been enacted
were completely attained. Under the cover of the University Act the
plan of political, moral and cultural destruction of the Serbian
high school education was successfully implemented. In two years of
the Act’s enforcement, the Serbian high schools, and notably the
elite Belgrade university, lost over 200 professors and assistants,
of whom two thirds were young people with M.Sc. and PhD titles. This
brain-drain helped achieve two basic goals: firstly, any public
criticism both on global, social plane and on a more, narrow,
university one was neutralized, and secondly, not only the autonomy
of university was lost, but also its future.
Unfortunately one should not overlook the contribution
of university proper to such a state of affairs. Barring brave
attempts by parts of Philosophical, Law, Philology and Electrical
Engineering faculties in Belgrade and some professors to counter the
repression, reactions of the rest of the faculties and professors
were not adequate. Without the backing of important institutions,
for example the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Serbian
Orthodox Church, and a genuine support of the opposition, the
university autonomy stood no chance to survive in the face of a
brutal repression campaign launched by the state bureaucracy and
political oligarchy. University, without finding a genuine response
to such stranglehold, yielded to the regime’s pressure and gradually
accepted imposed restrictions. Finally it was faced with a
disastrous situation: its autonomy was totally abolished and it was
no longer in the position to influence in any way government’s
choice of rectors, deans or other high education professionals. In
the aforementioned period the Serbian government named five new
rectors and 67 deans, 17 of them at the Belgrade University.
Swamped with people whose professional expertise and
moral qualities do not meet the standards of their functions and
titles, the university is faced with or has led itself into a
situation in which politics totally prevail over education, lectures
and students. Education was tasked with producing experts for
different fields, but they were also taught the basics of ethics and
moral as prerequisites for professional exercise of their
profession. In this sense disastrous effects of the University Act
are best seen in the example of the Belgrade Law Faculty. From that
faculty more than a dozen most perspective and qualified professors
and assistants were removed in different ways, but on orders of the
newly-appointed dean, Oliver Antić. They were replaced by greenhorns
of dubious expertise. The most scandalous development was the recent
naming of Vojsilav Šešelj one of the professors of the faculty.
Students of this faculty should in the neart future apply their
non-gained knowledge about law and moral apply as judges, lawyers,
prosecutors or defense counsels. But with the knowledge they
received from such professors in the foreseeable future they are
only most likely to find jobs in the judiciary and not face
unpopular measures during their career. Having in mind the manner of
selection of judges and prosecutors, it is very likely that
‘incompatible persons’ shall not be among their ranks.
On the other hand most marked resistance at universities
was mounted by students bent on resolutely defending their academic
freedoms. Frequent student demonstrations, rallies and other forms
of protests, sometimes backed by some professors, were regularly
punished or hampered by the university authorities, with assistance
of the police and private firms providing security teams. New
“security forces” of faculties (notably at the Electrical
Engineering, Architectural and Civil Engineering faculties)
primarily engaged in the protection of those faculties from their
professors and students.
The security team of the Belgrade Electrical Engineering
Faculty literally carried out of the faculty its full-time, but
blacklisted professor Milan S. Savić, BETA agency was told on 25 May
2000 by the professor of the same faculty, Slavoljub Marjanović, who
on Friday was banned from entering the faculty. A group of eight
professors of the Electrical Engineering faculty, including such
prominent names, as Milan S. Savić, Jovan Nehman, and former dean
Borivoje Lazić, was also banned from entering the faculty. “Savić
begged them to let thim take some documents from his cabinet, but as
he did not want to leave his cabinet, the security team literally
carried him out of it,” said Marjanović.
A group of thirty odd masked attackers raided on 23 May
2000 the Architectural Faculty in Belgrade and assaulted students
gathered in the building. Attackers wore green surgical masks on
their faces and were armed with wooden rods. They beat up students
indiscriminately. When the majority of students managed to get out
of the building, the attackers locked the faculty’s doors and
screams could be heard from inside the building. Within minutes
three white cars appeared in front of the faculty, and several
people in black clothes and without masks alighted form them and
entered the faculty building. (Danas, 24 May 2000)
Rectors and deans got a memo (dated 24 May) from Jevrem
Janjić, the High School Education Minister, ordering them to
proclaim the end of the school-year by 26 May. The text stated that
the decision was taken in line with “the current needs”and that by
26 May students had to get signatures necessary for their admission
to exams and endorsement of semesters, as after that date they would
not be allowed to do it. The text furthermore stated that only
students having exams and on date of those exams would be admitted
to the faculty. On the basis of the aforesaid memo all gatherings
and manifestations in faculty premises were banned, that is allowed
only if the dean consented to them. (Glas javnosti 26 May
2000)
Association of Professors and Researchers of Yugoslavia
and the University Committee for Defense of Democracy demanded that
Jagoš Purić, the Belgrade Dean, resigned because of students’
roughing up: “After the last in a series of beatings at the
Architectural Faculty, we warn you, Jagoš Purić, as your colleagues,
that you have trampled upon all norms of humanity and sensible
conduct. You as a rector are responsible for everything that is
happening at the University, so it does not really matter if you had
given orders, paid the attackers, or only tacitly agreed to their
misdeed,“ read the letter. “Our people do not pay you to beat up
their children. Have you tried to talk to students, to see what they
want, and what they do not accept any more? (Blic, 26 May
2000)
VI
OTPOR
Despite the failure of students’ protests and
rallies (1991/92, 1993, 1996/97) which mostly ended with the misuse
of power, energy and true impetus of students, that experience
served to help organize a new students’ movement, by at least
indicating which moves should be avoided this time around. Most
previous students’ rallies and protests lost impetus, and
accordingly importance, because of few characteristic errors:
firstly, students’ demonstrations emerged and later disappeared when
the same thing happened to the original, short-term goal which
generated them; secondly, every protest spawned a new student
leader, who later, on grounds of his popularity was recruited by a
political party, whereby the distinction between political parties
and students’ movements was erased; and thirdly, during students’
protests always emerged a new faction within the student movement,
which in turn led to internal strife and splits, resulting in
formation of new sub-groups, and subsequent weakening of this
movement and its impact.
In observing actons taken to date by the student
movement “Otpor” one must note that its organizers seemed to have
learnt the lesson from the past experience. Saturated with
manipulations, failure and inconsistency of the opposition, burdened
with internal strife and mutual deceits, and the opposition leaders
whose only ambition seems to be to take over power, students took a
completely different course of action, by creating an independent,
autochthonous movement.
The student movement “Otpor,” set up in mid-October 1998
at the Belgrade University by fifteen students, evolved in a large
movement, boasting currently about 25,000 active members in 121
localities in Serbia and about 1 million followers. Some estimates
indicate that “Otpor” could well mobilize double its current active
membership.
Words of a rare “Otpor” member known to the public at
large, best illustrate the reasons behind the creation of the
movement, its set-up and goals:
“A child from Zvezdara municipality, as Ivan Marović,
likes to think of himself, a member of the generation which did not
have an opportunity to ‘delight’ in the advantages of the previous
country, but instead lived from his early childhood in the
Abomination. He promoted his ideas and those of his generation
during the 1996/1997 Students’ Protests, when the core ‘staff’ of
Otpor was created: it was to be a non-elitist, a non-leader
organization, bent on staying away from the drawing- room party
politics, intrepid, provocation-minded and advocate of non-violent
methods (...) all this for their own sake and the future of their
children. Marović took off the army coat of his grandfather and
donned the black T shirt with a painted fist, which became a symbol
of the massive popular movement. As one of its principal spokesman,
Ivan Marović keeps repeating that the basic quality and quantity of
this organization lies in the slogan: “As the repression grows, so
does “Otpor.” (Danas, 16 May 2000)
The ruling coalition disliked intensely the fact that
citizens embraced the faith, ideals and courage exemplified by this
movement, which overshadowed the enshrined principle of the Serbian
politics that almost all parties had to engage in carpet-begging and
selfish politicking. While the authorities successfully neutralized
the opposition parties and its leaders through blackmail, bribes and
deal making, a new and massive ‘headless’ movement proved to be a
formidable enemy. The regime first lauched a hate speech campaign
against “Otpor” and then gradually began to translate into practice
its threats.
1.
Verbal showdown with Otpor
All repressive measures taken against the movement
indicate the degree of the regime’s irritation with this student
organization., This in turn also indicates that the movement has
energy, not so much of political as of existential nature. Added to
that “Otpor” managed to demystify all symbols of the left-wing
parties and moreover ridicule them and turn into a sheer absurdity.
That is why the Associated Yugoslav Left was specially engaged in
discrediting of Otpor. At the meeting of the students’ left-wing
organization, the AYL body, it was stated that the “political
situation at the Serbian universities is very grave due to the
opposition strivings to use students for provoking the chaos in the
country. Those activities are guided and paid by foreign countries
and the focal point of those activities is “Otpor” (...) It is
perfectly clear that this organization, which has been set up to
implement the concept devised abroad, intends to grow into a
political party, and there are serious indications that it plans to
unite with certain terrorist organizations in a later phase” (Borba,
13 January 2000)
The University Left-Wing Committee accused ”Otpor” of
“collaborating with the opposition, and intending to overthrow the
authorities, instead of dealing with the students’ issues.”
Secretary General of the ULWC, Aleksandra Joksimović, stated that
the “scenario of Otpor’s activities was written abroad” and that
“its goal is to overthrow the system and instrumentalize students.”
(Danas, 15-16 January 2000)
Vladan Đurković, member of the ULWC said that “Otpor”’s
activities were evolving into sheer terror. “They manipulate the
children, as once Shiptari did (...) And they dare talk about
betrayal of Kosovo, while emulating the Shiptars’ model (...) They
obviously have no ideas, but they have money, for they had robbed
half the world (he was obviously referring to ‘the creators of
enslavement of Yugoslavia’) and that money sufficed to convince
“Otpor”’s activists to become the mailed fist of those who had
defended by bombs human rights and democracy in Serbia, “said
Đurković (Politika, 16 February 2000)
“So-called student organization “Otpor,” based on the
principle of terrorist striking groups is an extended arm of the
NATO aggressors and its fascist structure and represents a
continuation of the Dimitrije Ljotić-led fascist organization
“Zbor,” active on the eve of the WW2,” stressed M.Sc. Aleksandar
Rastović, member of the Main Committee of the Serbian Socialist
Party in an interview to the First Program of Radio Belgrade.
“Failed students, drug addicts, moral scum, united in organization
“Otpor,” under direct command of the Serbian Renewal Movement became
an enemy of Yugoslavia, and thanks to the substantial financial
support of its Western protectors they are attempting to destroy
their country and to achieve what NATO murderers failed to achieve:
to carve up and abolish Yugoslavia.”
“The Youth Council of Belgrade (the pro-regime
organization, which took over Radio B-92, is publicly qualified as a
“bogus” one) resolutely stands up to any abuse of the young for
political purposes,” stated Vladan Zagrađanin, President of the
Council. He also said that so-called “Otpor” was financed by the
NATO attaches, Đinđić and so-called Alliance for Changes, by funds
obtained through criminal activities and shameful corruption in
municipalities and towns ruled by their political mentors. He
accused “Otpor” of dealing with forgeries and deceits aimed at
undermining the work of the Student Center, whereby the former
wanted to attribute all the negative consequences thereof to
allegedly inefficient and incapable state authorities. The Belgrade
Youth Council “demands that the state bodies perform their duties
and cut off all drug and money-supplying channels used for shady
deals aimed at destroying our state.” (Politika, 20 February
2000)
Member of the University Left-Wing Committee Vladimir
Đurković stated that members of so-called organization “Otpor” were
trying to defend themselves from the fact that their symbol, ideas
and activities, were reminiscent of those of skinheads, and that
they were inspired by the brutal terror of the fascist ideology. He
said that “Otpor”’s front men at their congress admitted getting
money from abroad and their role of foreign mercenaries (Politika,
23 February 2000)
2.
Physical-Legal Showdown with “Otpor”
Number of members and activists of “Otpor” taken to
police stations, and facing trials, in a lesser number of cases,
best illustrates the regime’s position on “Otpor” and simultaneously
its fear of this organization.
Kruševac- The Kruševac police patrol detained in early
morning hours of 18 January five activists of “Otpor” for affixing “Otpor”’s
posters and took them to the police station for informative
interviews. They were kept for about an hour in the police station,
their propaganda material was seized and they were warned against
affixing the posters. Srđan Milivojević, one of the detained
activists, stated that the police treated them decently. (Blic,
19 January 2000)
Kruševac- Srđan Milivojević, coordinator of “Otpor” and
four other activists of this organization were detained for
informative interviews on 19 January. Inspectors searched
Milivojević’s house and seized all propaganda material. He was later
released, likewise the other four activists of “Otpor.” They told
“Blic” that inspectors wanted to know who kept writing graffiti on
buildings (Blic, 20 January 2000)
Kragujevac- Police broke up contributions-collecting
action of “Otpor.” Namely six out of seven stands at which
contributions for newspaper “Nezavisna svetlost” were being
collected had to be dismantled, because, according to the Head of
Kragujevac police, “‘Otpor’ had no authorization to organize any
humanitarian action,” on which grounds the police intervened. (Blic,
3 February 2000)
Beograd- Secondary school members of “Otpor” organized
on 11 February action “Wake up” in the Sixth, Fourth and
Architectonic secondary schools. In the Sixth secondary shool its
director shouted so much at them that activists were compelled to
leave the professors’ room. In the Fourteenth Secondary school,
while they were exiting the professors’ room an elderly man
approached them and started pulling their jackets. They wrenched
themselves away from the man and ran towards the school exit, where
a group of young men in black jackets attacked them, pulled them
down on the ground and started kicking them. (Glas javnosti, 12
February 2000)
Beograd- Branko Ilić, Miloš Milenković, and Nikola
Andrić, activists of “Otpor” were arrested on 14 February around
22.15 h while writing a graffiti “Resistance to Sloba” in the
vicinity of the central orthodox church. They were taken to “Stari
grad” police station. According to Vukašin Petrović, an activist,
Branko Ilić was beaten up. Petrović also stated that although ten
activists were involved in the action, the police were ordered to
detain only three of them. (Blic, 15 February 2000)
Kragujevac- On 15 February the police prevented “Otpor”’s
activists to organize action “I carry all my things with me.”
Following a brief discussion with “Otpor”’s activists the police
inspector told them that their action was banned. Head of Kragujevac
Police recently informed “Otpor” activists that all their future
actions in the city would be banned (Danas, 16 February 2000)
Beograd- During the preparations for the “Otpor”
congress, the regime stepped up its repression. In the past three
days the police detained across Serbia over 23 poster-affixing
activists. According to Ivan Marović, it was a sign that “the regime
was getting increasingly nervous” on the eve of the congress” (Danas,
17 February 2000)
Novi Sad- On 15 February the police in Subotica detained
18 poster-affixing activists of “Otpor.” In the police station they
were physically harassed and released around 3 h in the morning. Two
activists, Aleksandar Pešić and Dejan Petković, were detained
yesterday around 14.45 p.m. while affixing posters. According to
“Otpor” they were taken in an unknown direction. (Blic, 17
February 2000)
Beograd- a group of attackers on 19 February beat up a
group of “Otpor” poster-affixing activists in Belgrade. According to
“Otpor” communiqué attackers’ heads were shaved. The attack happened
at the corner of Ivana Milutinovića and Maršala Tolbuhina streets,
while activists were preparing to affix the poster “Otpor-for I love
Serbia” over the Yugoslav Associated Left Poster. (Blic, 20
February 2000)
Bačka Palanka- Stanko Lazendić and Milan Đilas were
taken to the Bačka Palanka police station on 20 February.
Informative Service of “Otpor” informed that the two were detained
on no grounds and stressed that “the National Movement ‘Otpor’” saw
that incident as yet another form of repression against
free-thinking people and implementation of the conclusions of the
last Socialist Party of Serbia Congress.” Detainee Lazić stated that
he and his group on Saturday affixed “Otpor”’s posters in Bačka
Palanka and were detained a day later because of that action He
added that they were interviewed for 2 hours, while their flats were
searched. (Danas, 21 February 2000)
Požarevac- the Požarevac Branch of “Otpor” communicated
that in the late night hours between 20 and 21 February the police
removed over a hundred affixed posters of that organizatuion.
Citizens of Požarevac informed the activists that posters were
removed by two persons in plainclothes and two in police uniforms
and that the removed posters ended up in a police van. (Blic,
22 February 2000)
Beograd- On 21 February the poster-affixing activists of
the Associated Yugoslav Left were detained in the vicinity of the
railway station. The police mistakenly took them for “Otpor”
activists because they too had painted fists on their T shirts. The
police in fact failed to pay attention to the wording and contents
of posters,” told “Danas” Vukašin Petrović, member of “Otpor.”
“Those 5 or six “Otpor” activists were detained for about an hour.”
(Danas, 23 February 2000)
Zrenjanin-During the action “Opening of Otpor street” in
the centre of Zrenjanin 10 activists of this organization were
arrested. All ten of them and a Zrenjanin municipal PM were taken to
the police station to be interviewed. The police seized their
loudspeakers, a cassette-player, bread and salt, propaganda material
and ordered the gathered crowd to disperse. “Recently, including the
last intervention, the police detained and interrogated 37 “Otpor”
activists. (Glas javnosti, 25 February 2000)
Niš- ”Otpor” activist Vladimir Mladenović was hurt
yesterday during the action “Investigation of traitors”. An
unidentified elderly passer-by hit Mladenović with his stick and
pierced his arm. (Glas Javnosti, 27 February 2000).
Novi Sad- After being remanded in custody for over 8,000
hours 181 activists of the Bečej-based “Otpor” branch, now Boris
Negelija (18), Strahinja Ivošević (22) and Daniela Bankova (18) from
Bačkovo Petrovo Selo face preliminary investigation. At the request
of the public prosecutor, the investigative judge, Siniša Simin,
instituted proceedings under the Penal Code of the Republic Serbia,
Article 176, para. 1, on grounds that the accused tried to “destruct
social and private property.“ ”They charged me with something that I
have not done; I have not affixed posters. I distributed calendars
and other propaganda material -said Boris Negelija. They came to my
house on 27 January, took me to the police station, and interrogated
me for 3 hours. They behaved decently during the interrogation. (Danas,
1 March 2000)
Beograd- Miloš Došen, “Otpor” activist, was beaten up by
a group of guys in black leather jackets while he was removing
posters “Counter Otpor.” Nikola Radaković, another activist, was
beaten up, on the same spot, two weeks earlier. The following day
Radaković’s father was beaten up by a gang in black when he tried to
remove posters “Counter Otpor.” (Blic, 1 March 2000)
Beograd- On 4 March two policemen beat up a secondary
school member of “Otpor.” Four policemen stopped him and his friends
at the bus station close to school “Dositej Obradović” and searched
them. “One of them tore up my pocket, took out a wallet and pulled
out “Otpor”’s small calendar, “said the boy. He added that the
policeman cursed him, slapped him and threw him on the ground. One
of the boys from his group was beaten up too, after which the
policimen let them go.” (Danas, 6 March 2000)
Kragujevac- Unidentified burglers stole all the equipment
and membership -related documentation from Kragujevac premises of
“Otpor; they also stole a computer and printer and about 700 filled
up membership applications (Danas, 13 March 2000)
Novi Sad- Four “Otpor” activists from Novi Sad were
detained on 12 March in the vicinity of Ruma, after the police found
“Otpor”’s propaganda material in their car. (Danas, 13 March
2000)
Pirot- On 11 March the local police tried to break up
the “Otpor”-staged action “Uproot.” The policemen checked the IDs of
activists and threatened them with detention. (Danas, 13
March 2000)
Kragujevac- Yesterday about 15:30 p.m. the police tried
not only to prevent the “Otpor”-staged action, but also to arrest
its activists engaged in affixing the “Otpor” posters in the
downtown area. (Danas, 13 March 2000)
Beograd- On the day when the action “Otpor (resistance)
to Repression” was staged 54 activists of “Otpor” were arrested in
120 Serbian cities. Tamara Popović, an activist, told the 28 March
press conference, that a total number of “Otpor” detainees rose to
256. “We did not get scared, we have more activists than they have
cells in their jails.” (Glas javnosti 29 March 2000)
Zrenjanin- “Otpor” staged an action in Zrenjanin
intended to punish the local media RTV “Santos,” Cable TV
“Zrenjanin”, TV Luna, Radio Zrenjanin and RTS correspondents’ bureau
for “biased and unilateral information.” Fines ranged from 350,000
dinars (RTV “Santos”) to 750,000 dinars (RTS). “”We told them to pay
the fines into the accounts of the socially most vulnerable denizens
(...) we handed the fines personally. One of directors insulted and
threw out our activists yelling all along that he would call the
police to “rough us up properly.” But we managed to avoid all the
provocations,” read the statement of the Student Movement “Otpor” in
Zrenjanin (Glas javnosti 3 May 2000)
Kruševac- “Otpor” activists and the Club of Young
Members of the Serbian Renewal Movement organized a joint aciton
titled “Do not allow that the names of your children appear in
tomorrow’s newspapers.” Activist of “Otpor” Mladen Tripković read
out names of all 56 citizens of Kruševac, members of the Yugoslav
Army and the Serbian police who had died in the NATO aggression, and
asked the question “which ideals and whose interests caused those
deaths?” During the action those in attendance were told about the
incident in Požarevac. Devulging of this information lured out
several hundred people to gather at the “Fontana” square. We were
joined by NGO representatives and those of Independent Trade Union
of Retirees, told “Glas” Srđan Milivojević from Kruševac.” (Glas
javnosti, 4 May 2000)
Beograd- On 3 May “Otpor” activists, fearing possible
police raids, organized duty shifts in the Belgrade premises of the
movement. During the night they were visited by leaders of several
opposition parties. Duty shifts were organized because of the
statement given by Ivan Marković, the Information Secretary of the
Associated Yugoslav Left, who sharply criticized “Otpor” in response
to the scuffle between “Otpor”s activists and workers of company
“Madona” in Požarevac. In its yesterday’s communique “Otpor”
levelled accusations at Marković for openly calling for “ the lynch
of all those who think differrently” and “thus hinted at a possible
raid“ of the Belgrade premises of the movement. (Danas, 5 May
2000)
Šabac- “During the action “We are looking for Radojko
Luković”, 13 “Otpor” activists were arrested and taken to
informative inteviews,” reads the “Otpor” communiqué. “During the
informative interview from 15 to 16.30 h Sergej Limbocki and Darko
Pavlović were threatened by policemen; the first one was told that
his glasses would be smashed into his eyes, while the second was
threatened with a special treatment. Threats stopped when the legal
counsel of detainees arrived. Other detainees were: Nikola Topić,
Zoran Dimitrijević, Srđan Stanojević, Miloš Janković, Miloš
Cvetković, Vladimir Todorović, Senad Dautović, Željko Terzić, Đorđe
Stefanović, Ljuban Nikolić and Goran Radivojević,” stated “Otpor”. (Glas
javnosti, 9 May 2000)
Batočina- Before the municipal misdemeanour judge in
Batočina the first hearing of Vladan Vuković, local “Otpor” member,
was held on 8 May. Vuković was dissmised from his job in the
Republican Directorate for Roads on grounds of his “Otpor”
membership in early 2000. He was accused by the Batočina police of
spraying graffiti at the Batočina bus station in the late night
hours beetween 24 and 25 April this year. In a misdemanour report
the police stated that “he was disturbing citizens and destroying
the city buildings.” Vuković was taken to the police station and
compelled to sign the aforementioned statement. (Danas, 9 May
2000)
Šabac- On 8 May Šabac police detained 13 “Otpor”
activists and took them to the police station for informative
interviews. They allegedly intended to affix posters with the image
of Radojko Luković, an “Otpor” activist. All of them were released
after an hour-long interrogation, and 831 posters and a flag were
seized from them. After this action in Kraljevo the police detained
Vladimir Milovanović and Vladan Slavković and interviewed them for
about an hour. (Blic, 9 May 2000)
Velika Plana- Trial of 5 “Otpor” members from Velika
Plana before the municipal court was postponed. Thy were charged
with “destroying the city” under the Misdemanour Act, Article 176.
Their legal counsels stated that the three under-age and two adult
secondary school pupils were reported by a Velika Plana municipal
inspector, who failed to write down the date, place and time of
incident. Under-age Miloš Jevtić, Marko Nikolić and Branislav
Veljković, as well as adults, Slaviša Nikolić, and Nenad
Radosavljević, wrote “Otpor” symbols and affixed posters across the
city, and the evidence incriminating them was seized (propaganda
material, brushes, paints). (Glas javnosti, 13 May 2000)
Kragujevac- On 14 May the two policemen detained at the
bus station “Otpor” activists Milena Rančić (17), Đorđe Antonijević
(19) and Marko Lazović (17) for smuggling. Commercial crimes
inspector, Milenko Lazović, told them they were detained for not
having a receipt for the goods, that is, 20,000 match boxes with
“Otpor” symbols which Rančić had brought from Belgrade; they were
told to bring the receipt in order to have those match boxes
restituted to them. (Glas javnosti, 15 May 2000)
Čačak- On 14 May “Otpor” activists organized the acition
“The AYL-Era Park”, in a big city park close to the building of the
municipal committee of the Associated Yugoslav Left (AYL). They
wanted to symbolically show to denizens of Čačak what kind of life
they had in the present-day Serbia: no money, embezzled savings
accounts, long lines before shops selling oil and sugar, and
possibility to buy gasolene in canisters from the street peddlers.
According to organizers before the action the police, whose station
is also in the vicinity of the city park, detained three “Otpor”
members, checked their IDs, and released them (Glas javnosti,
15 May 2000)
Brus- On 14 May local “Otpor” activists organized their
first-ever action called “Get to Know ‘Otpor’” Together with their
colleagues from Kruševac and Aleksandrovac, the Brus-based “Otpor”
activists handed to citizens propaganda material indicating the
goals of this movement. “We stopped a bus full of policemen, greeted
them and gave them leaflets, and they greeted us back,” said one
“Otpor” activist (Blic, 15 May 2000)
Mladenovac-Čačak- Ivan Marović told Blic that on
14 May the four activists of “Otpor” from Mladenovac, Violeta
Jovanović, Neda and Divna Đorđević and Nebojša Vasilić, were
detained while distributing bulletin “Serbia’s resitance fighers
(Otporaši)”. They were released after 14 p.m. According to Marović
the four “Otpor” activists were detianed in Čačak on no grounds
whatsoever. (Blic, 15 May 2000)
Aleksandrovac- The Aleksandovac police patrol on 15 May
detained “Otpor” activists, Saša Pršić from Gornji Stupanj and Rade
Radosavljević from Šljivovo. During a 70 min.-long interview the
police interrogated them about organizers of the last week’s protest
rally in downtown Aleksandrovac. Several hundred-strong rally was
organized in protest over the transfer of medical doctor Čedomir
Petković, President of the main committee of Democratic Party from
Gornji Stupanj health centre to Stalać health centre, 50 km distant
from Aleksandrovac. “The transfer was a punishment for his
participation in the Aleksandrovac rally of the Župa District
associated opposition held ten days earlier,” stated “Otpor” (Blic,
16 May 2000)
Vrbas- Local police detained the three “Otpor” members
and interrogated them for 6 hours. During their detention, 500
posters and other propaganda material of the movement, as well as
the entire circulation of the last issue of “Ausajder” newspaper,
published by the Democratic Youth of Vrbas, were seized. One of the
inspectors most frequently asked question was: “Do you know the
murderer of Boško Perošević?” (Blic, 16 May 2000)
Novi Sad- Local police stated on 15 May that in the
course of its investigation of assessination of Boško Perošević,
President of the Provincial Executive Council of Vojvodina, its
members detained 20 persons from areas of Novi Sad, Bačka Palanka,
Vrbas and Srbobran, reasonably beleived to have connections with
this crime. All arrestees were members of “Otpor.” Propaganda
material and other “Otpor”-related objects were seized from them.
The Novi Sad police also stated that the collection of other
evidence and forensic work are under way (Politika Ekspres,
17 May 2000). “Otpor” members M. Gagić and S. Lazendić denied
charges of being accomplices in the murder of Vojvodina’s Prime
Minister and a high official of the Serbian Socialist Party, Boško
Perošević, and stressed that on 14 April 2000 they were in Republika
Srpska. “We were not accomplices in assasination of Perošević, as on
14 April we were visiting Stanko’s family in Republika Srpska for
Easter and Đurđevdan holidays,” told Gagić the Banja Lluka press
conference (...) Gagić also pointed out that neither he nor Lazetić
have ever seen “a man who killed Perošević” and that they “were in a
state of shock when they heard of Perošević’s murder.” He also
stressed that “‘Otpor’ does not use violent methods.” (Blic,
20 May 2000)
Novi Sad- After a 13 hour-long interrogation in the
police station and before a magistrate, on 19 May Vladimir Pavlov,
an activist of “Otpor” was released. The crisis headquarters
organized a rally before the city police station at 20.00 h. When
Pavlov informed by cell phone that he was in the magistrate’s office
and expected to be soon relased, several thousand citizens, led by
Mayor Dr. Stevan Vrbaški, President of the Executive Commitee, Dr.
Predrag Filipov, Vice Presidents of Novi Sad Assembly, Bora
Novaković and Miroslav Mrnuštika, President of RDSV Mile Isakov and
members of the city government and opposition parties
representatives headed for the aforesaid building to greet
Pavlov...many Novi Sad denizens carrying “Otpor” and the oppostion
parties flags went to the building housing the magistrate’s office
and waited for Pavlov. Arrested members of “Otpor” and the
opposition parties, members of the Alliance for Changes, were
thoroughly “processed” in the police station: they were photographed
in the postures with nubmers of their files, their fingerprints were
taken and their flats searched, said Predrag M. Savić, President of
the Municipal Committee of the Civic Alliance of Serbia and
Coordinator of the Alliance for Changes in Valjevo. (Blic 20
May 2000)
Beograd- Over 50 policemen yesterday prevented “Otpor”
from staging a protest rally in front of the Faculty of Philosophy.
At 12 h, when the protest was about to start, the policemen in
plainclothes turned up at the venue and collectively started
checking the students’ IDs. After that “action” they left, while 500
students at “Otpor”’s invitation entered the Philosophical faculty
amphitheatre.
On 19 May 2000 several “Otpor” activists were detained.
Ivan Marović, one of the most active and prominent members of
“Otpor,” after several hours of detention was released on that day.
(Glas javnosti, 20 May 2000)
Three Soko Banja activists of “Otpor” were ‘interviewed’
for about an hour by the local police. (Glas javnosti, 20 May
2000)
The Kragujevac police first detained and then released
“Otpor” members Darko Milenković and Predrag Stanković (Glas
javnosti, 20 May 2000)
Fourteen-year old Vojislav Laković was taken to
informative interview in Vrnjačka Banja. The same thing happened to
Vladimir Stanković in Zaječar (Glas javnosti, 20 May 2000)
The Aleksandrovac police arrested in the past 48 hours
five activists of “Otpor” and after several hours of interrogation,
relased four of them. Ljubodrag Živadinović was remanded in custody.
Names of detainees were put on file, their flats were searched and
“Otpor” propaganda material found in them was seized. The policemen,
who looked for firearms, did not find any in flats of “Otpor”
members. (Glas javnosti, 20 May 2000)
Subotica- Eight “Otpor” activists arrested on 18 May,
during the session of the city parliament, after lengthy
interrogation, were remanded in custody until yesterday afternoon,
due to the visit of the Republican Prime Minsiter, Mirko Marjanović,
to Subotica. “All activists of “Otpor” are OK. The only incident was
related to Vice President of the Municipal Committee of Democratic
Party and member of its Main Committee, Oliver Dulić, who was beaten
up in the police station while, inquiring about his arrested brother
Igor, member of “Otpor.” (Danas, 20-21 May 2000)
Beograd- While trying to find refugee in the City
Assemby, Marta Manojlović was roughed up by several policemen. She
sustained serious head injuries. “They ran towards us, and started
hitting us while we were scrambling up the stairs. Two steps away
from the Assembly’s entrance, a policeman hit me hard with a baton
on my back. I fell on the ground, but they continued to beat me with
batons on my head, back and legs, and kick me with their heavy
shoes.” Dragana Manojlović, denizen of Belgrade, yesterday appealed
to all parents to “wake up” and “protect the only thing they
have-their children.” Her daughter, 17-year old Marta, activist of
secondary school movement “Otpor”, was roughed up on 18 May, at the
Belgrade rally staged in protest over take-over of Studio B.
Šabac- On the eve of the 19 May Šabac rally, two
policemen detained NV, a pupil of the third year of the Agricultural
school, because he wore the “Otpor” T shirt.
On their
way to the police station the policemen searched his satchel, every
notebook and book. In the police station his fingeprints were taken
and he was photographed for his newly-opened dossier. Among other
things he was asked about the origins of hsi “Otpor” badge and who
he was hired to kill. On no grounds he was kept in custody for over
60 minutes, although he was told that he was not arrested and that
he did not need a lawyer. (Blic, 21 May 2000)
Smederevo- Vladimir Gošić was detained on Sunday, for
allegedly, as the police report stated, distrurbing public peace and
order by wearing a black short-sleeved T-shirt with the message
“Resistance till victory”... Darko Kalenić, a municipal magistrate,
gave an eight-days deadline to the two defense counsels to bring
witnesses ready to confirm that Vladimir Gišić did not disturb
citizens “by propagating ideas of unregistered political
organization and did not threaten public peace and order.” (Danas,
23 May 2000)
Beograd- Popular movement “Otpor”, the Students
Federation, the Students Union and “Generation 21” on 22 May
succeeded in holding a rally at the Faculty of Philology, despite
efforts of the faculty security teams and some unidentified guys to
disperse students and ban the rally. 30 unidentified guys attacked
Miloš Milošević durign the rally. They hit him several times in the
faculty’s corridor, seized his camera and an attache bag with his
ID, passport and money. Unidentified attackers then ran towards the
Serbian Socialist Party seat. (Blic, 23 May 2000)
On 26 May the following persions were detained: Vladimir
Ješić “Otpor” member from Novi Sad, who was hit by a policeman
during the 25 May protest, filed charges agaisnt an unidentified
policeman “for overstepping his official duty.” 15 “Otpor” members
and the opposition activists were detained in Sremska Mitrovica for
distributing leaflets. All of them, but Vladimir Jeremić, were
released. During the sports manifestation “Death to fascism, and
resistance to terror” in Valjevo, Igor Nedeljković, “Otpor” member
and Predrag M. Savić, member of the Civic Alliance of Serbia, were
arrested. On 25 May Milena Plavšić, an “Otpor” activist and a
Kragujevac secondary school pupil was arrested. (Glas javnosti,
27 May 2000)
Niš- Vladislav Janaćković and Marko Daković, activists
of “Otpor” were detained. (Blic 28 May 2000)
Kruševac- Mother and daughter, Danica and Ljubica
Kvrgović, members of Democratic Party were detained and taken to
informative interviews. Inspectors specially inquired whether they
were members of “Otpor.” They were released after their fingerprints
and photographs were taken and their dossiers opened. (Blic,
28 May 2000)
Igor Popović, Ilija Malešević, and Vladimir Malbašić
were detained in Ruma (Blic, 28 May 2000)
Three under-age activists of “Otpor”, D.P., L.M. and
T.N. and Robert Maletenski were detained in Subotica on 27 May. (Blic,
28 May 2000)
Branko Ilić, “Otpor” activist thus commented, the latest
wave of anti-”Otpor” repression: “In the past two months about 700
activists of “Otpor” were detained. Although our lives were
threatened, the oppostion did not raise a finger to help us. Now we
are under threat of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which in fact reads “Act
against “Otpor,” and opposition is once again passive. Hence the
only thing we can do is to appeal to people, interested in
succeeding Slboodan Milošević, to start translating into practice
their ideas, instead of holding innumerable meetings.”
After being remanded in custody for 12 hours,
actitivists of the popular movement “Otpor” on 28 May were released
from the Požarevac police station. The police told them they were
detained because they had copies of Banjaluka weekly Reporter
with them. (Blic, 29 May 2000)
Kraljevo- Local police detained, and after informative
interviews released three “Otpor” activists. Nenad Košanin, Mihajlo
Matović and 14-year old M.K. were detained during the action
“Illegal construction- a foundation stone for old people’s home,” a
parody of officially announced construction of 100,000 flats by the
year 2010 (Glas javnosti, 16 June 2000)
Kruševac- On 10 June the local police arrested 9
activists of “Otpor” and a passer-by at “Kod krsta” square.
Activists organized that signature-collecting action in order to
effect the registration of this Popular movement. Detainees were
released after a two-hour long informative interview in the police.
A female passer-by who had been detained together with “Otpor”
activists, was the former worker of the special-purpose plant of
“Crvena Zastava”, Zlata Nišlić, well-known in Šumadija for her
anti-regime speeches during the protests of the special-purpose
plant workers.
Batočina- Vladan Vučković, “Otpor” activist from
Batočina, recently fired from the Republican Directorate for Roads,
was detained yesterday and interrogated in the police station.
According to Vučković, the head of police station inquired about the
structure of “Otpor” organization, its (non)registration status in
Batočina and elsewhere, identity of authors of graffiti written
across the town, number of “Otpor” members in Batočina and their
background. “The conversation which lasted about twenty minutes, was
conducted in a decent manner. However I have warned the police
commander that unless a corresponding warrant is presented the next
time, I shall decline to come to the informative interview,” said
Vučković (Danas, 11 June 2000)
3.
Attemps to legalize “Otpor”
Council of “Otpor,” a branch of the Popular
Movement, was set up on 24 May as a body with over 60 members,
mostly professors of the Belgrade University who had rebelled
against the University Act. “The Council was established so that
both students and professors could devise a joint strategy in cases
of physical violence, repression against the truth and calls for
lynch,” said Milja Jovanović, an “Otpor” member, who took part in
the founding assembly of the Council. In attendance were: Vesna
Pešić, academician Milan Kurepa, professors Jovica Trkulja,
Srbijanka Turajlić, Žarko Trebješanin, Ljubomir Madžar, Bora
Kuzmanović, Čedomir Čupić, Dragor Hiber and other prominent
personalities...Members of “Otpor” Council are people who come from
many different walks of life: the former governor of the National
bank, Dragoslav Avramović, singer Đorđe Balašević, actor Sergej
Trifunović, journalist Zoran Ostojić. “Otpor” decided that the
Council would have an advisory role in the crisis situation and in
drawing up of its declarations (Blic 24 May 2000)
Council for Democratic Changes collectively joined the
Popular movement “Otpor.” “For us cooperation with people from
diaspora, who are the principal donors of “Otpor”, is very
important,” said Vukašin Petrović and added that “the regime’s
claims that they were financed by the foreign governments and their
secret services were sheer nonsense.” Petrović went on to note that:
“‘Otpor,’ as an association of citizens shall not change anything in
its system of actions. “Otpor” shall not get a leader and the main
organizational body shall be the presidency and later, all actvisits,”
said Petrović. He added: “In the past month over 750 activists were
arrested. While earlier they were only detained and questioned, now
their dossiers are opened and record is made of all their
activities.” (Blic, 25 May 2000)
Popular movement “Otpor” on 26 May held its founding
assembly and decided to submit a registration application as an
association of citizens to the Federal Justice Ministry. “Otpor”
invited all those interested in its activities to take part in its
founding ceremony and become founders of the popular movement
“Otpor.” It was quoted in its Statute that the goals of the
association of citizens were advocacy of democratization of society,
dissemination and promotion of anti-fascist ideas and raising of
terrorism and violence awareness. The University Committee for
Defense of Democracy decided to collectively join “Otpor.” (Glas
javnosti 26 May 2000)
On 29 May an “Otpor” delegation submitted its
application for registration as an association of citizens. But, the
Federal Ministry of Justice declined to enter the Popular movement
“Otpor” into the register of associations and social and political
organizations. That negative decision was signed by the Federal
Justice Minister, Petar Jojić (member of the Serbian Radical Party.)
In a reasoned opinion in writing it was stated that “it is a widely
known fact that.... members of the applicant (movement) for quite
some time now have been operating illegally and contrary to our
regulations by organizing public rallies at which they call for a
massive rebellion aimed at forcible overthrowing of the
constitutional order.”
VII
THE POŽAREVAC CASE
Developments preceding the 3 May incident in front
of a café “Pasaž,” and the ensuing chain of events, represent one of
the most salient examples of the political reality in Serbia, of the
effects of the entire repressive apparatus (misuse and harassment of
the media and journalists, abuse of the judiciary), and of weakness,
inadequacy, and lack of ideas of the opposition and other regime’s
opponents.
“Otpor” activists, Radojko Luković, Momčilo Veljković,
and lawyer Nebojša Sokolović, were beaten up on 2 May in the
Požarevac café “Pasaž.” After having tried to prevent harassment and
blackmail of Dragan Milanović, also “Otpor” activist, the three of
them ended up in the Požarevac hospital with serious scull injuries.
Luković also sustained grievous jaw, both eyes and arcades injuries,
while Veljković had both arcades broken (Glas javnosti, 3 May
2000)
In the aftermath of the incident the Požarevac police
detained Momčilo Veljković, Radojko Lukovć and Nebojša Sokolović
from Požarevac on charges of attempted murder of Saša and Milan
Lazić. They were remanded in custody. In its report the police
stated that “the aforementioned...are known as delinquency-prone
persons.”
Ivan Marković, Secretary of the Associated Yugoslav Left
stated that “there was an attempt to murder a nineteen-year old
member of the Associated Yugoslav Left in Požarevac.“ “A group of
hooligans with the fascist symbol of “Otpor” attacked in a café
“Pasaž” younger members of the Yugoslav Left and shot at Milan
Lazić. Then Milan’s brother Saša was seriously injured when one of
the hooligans hit him on the head with the butt of his pistol.
Hooligans who presented themselves as the Youth movement “Otpor”
were led by a middle-aged man Radojko Lazović. In this attempted
murder he was assisted by the notorious Požarevac delinquent Momčilo
Veljković” (Glas javnosti, 3 May 2000)
Uroš Rakić, member of the University Left-Wing
Committee, also demonized “Otpor” by calling it “a terrorist
organization... whose members are not students or secondary school
pupils...but criminals, jobless and destructive personalities guided
by enemies of this country and their money... “Otpor” is tasked with
carrying out terrorist actions aimed at creating chaos and civil war
in this country. The event in Požarevac was a task they were
entrusted with by their older colleagues at the 14 April
rally...anticipated in their mention of arrests and murders of the
political opponents. It is an implementation of Đinđić’s tactics of
fighting against the authorities everywhere: in streets, at markets,
everywhere. Čanak’s pillars for hanging have unfortunately
materialized first in Požarevac, and then in Čačak.” (Večernje
novosti, 4 May 2000)
Dragan Milanović, who was allegedly the cause of brawl,
stated: “On Friday Zoran Jovanović Roleks and Milan Lazić beat me up
and threatened me with even worse treatment if I do not bring them
my “Otpor” de-registration form. As there is no such thing, two
nights ago, at 18.30 h I brought them a membership application form
in order to tear it up in front of them.” Milanović added that on
that night he asked for the police escort, but despite promises, it
did not materialize. “They did not want to let me go, and demanded
that I sign an application form for the Serbian Socialist Party
membership. Momčilo Veljković and Radojko Luković, who were also in
café “Pasaž,” asked the others to let me go, but Milan Lazić called
his brother Saša instead. When he came the brawl broke out.” Dragan
Milanović, the main cause of brawl, is currently in hiding in
Belgrade. Milanović told Beta Agency that he had no imminent plans
to return to Požarevac, for one of the brawlers threatened to kill
him. (Glas javnosti 4 May 2000)
Deputy General Director of the Catering-Commercial
Company “Madona” from Požarevac, Vladimir Ašanin, yesterday denied
that workers of that enterprise started the brawl with activists of
movement “Otpor” two nights ago in Požarevac. In a written statement
submitted to Beta Agency, Ašanin argued that “four “Otpor”
activists, assisted by 11 men attacked and tried to rough up two
young men...but instead got beaten up. Then they started accusing
the security teams and lying about their injuries.” Ašanin denied
that “Madona” workers who took part in the brawl were bodyguards of
Marko Milošević, son of the Yugoslav president and underscored that
“they were not the attackers, but rather the victims” (Danas
5 May 2000)
In a lawsuit brought by the Požarevac municipal
committee of the Associated Yugoslav Left against the RTV Studio B,
the latter was fined 450,000 dinars. Studio B was charged with
“broadcasting an absolutely untrue information that three persons
sustained serious injuries when four bodyguards of Marko Milošević
attacked members of “Otpor.” The Požarevac branch of the AYL also
stated that “hooligans were arrested and taken to the police station
for attacking members of the basic organization of the Associated
Yugoslav Left Požarevac.” (Blic, 4 May 2000)
Families of “Otpor” members, injured in the recent
incident, submitted to the YUKOM Torture Victims Assistance Center
medical documentation, that is, copies of medical reports of General
hospital “Jova Dulić” in Požarevac indicating that on 2 May,
Sokolović Nebojša, Veljković Momčilo and Luković Radojko were
medically examined in that medical institution. The aforementioned
medical documentation also indicated their injuries: one of the
examined had a split wound in the area of the left-eye arcade, his
nose was broken and he had a brain concussion The second person had
a split wound in the back of his head, while the third person had
bruised right eyeball, his right cheekbone was broken and his nose
bones were believed to have been broken. (Blic, 5 May 2000)
At “Otpor”’s proposal the opposition scheduled a meeting
in Požareac, after which an avalanche of the regime’s threats
ensued:
The Rakovica committee of young members of the Yugoslav
Associated Left stated that: “ ‘the alleged youth’ organization
“Otpor,” had attempted to murder members of the AYL. Terrorists from
“Otpor,” paid criminals guided by ideas of the nazi ideology,
traitors of this country attacked the AYL members and tried to kill
them just because there were people who thought differently, who did
not want to betray and sell their country.“ “When offered to join
the Serbian Socialist Party they responded they were members of
“Otpor”,” reads the AYL communiqué (...) “Otpor” membership
application forms are intended for Hitler jugend with the Fascist
symbol, those bent on committing murders, the fifth column youth
which through their terrorist actions in a short span of time, but
repeatedly, tried to destabilize both our country and the left-wing
forces, for they had to justify the money they had got from their
Western financiers and commanders. However enlistees of the
destructive criminal organization “Otpor” shall end up like their
Western bosses, despised by their people and branded as traitors and
the fifth-column by the history (Politika, 5 May 2000)
Nikola Šainović, member of the Executive Committee of
the city committee of the Serbian Socialist Party, stated: “We shall
not tolerate provocation, violence and introduction of notorious
methods from the fascist history into our political life.” He also
stressed: “We were not frightened of the biggest power in the world.
We shall respond adequately, in an energetic manner and shall take
all the legal measure to protect ourselves and our people.” (Večernje
novosti, 5 May 2000)
Due to pressures piled on him, Boško Papović,
investigative judge of the Požarevac District Court decided to
delegate the Požarevac case to another judge. He told Beta Agency
that on 8 May he suspended detention of Momčilo Veljković, Radojko
Luković and Nebojša Sokolović, after having determined that there
was no reasonable doubt that they tried to kill people from the
security services of “Madona.” “I acted in line with my conscience,
expertise and in keeping with the provisions of the Act on Criminal
Proceedings. My conscience is clear, for it cannot be reasonably
believed that actions taken by the accused Momčilo Veljković,
Radojko Luković and Nebojša Sokolović, were tantamount to the
criminal offense of attempted murder. Consequently as there are no
grounds for detention, I released the accused from detention on 8
May in the afternoon, “said Papović (Blic, 11 May 2000)
(N.B.: Boško Papović, a magistrate of the Požarevac District Court,
Đorđe Ranković, a magistrate of the Požarevac District Court who
took part in the unheld opposition meeting and Jovan Stanojević, the
Požarevac District Public Prosecutor, who refused to institute
proceedings against the accused, were relieved of their duties on 12
July 2000, while Radojko Luković and Momčilo Veljković were detained
again on 9 May. (Blic, 10 May 2000)
On 9 May, the date on which the opposition rally was to
be held, the regime launched its most brutal wave of repression
against citizens heading for this town and journalists. That is why
the rally was called off and a new one was scheduled for 15 May in
Belgrade. The opposition’s communiqué read: “Slobodan Milošević’s
regime clearly bent on repression, violence and terror, did its
utmost to prevent the democratic opposition meeting in Požarevac,
although the rally was not officially banned. The police forces
cordoned off all the access roads to town. A genuine counter-rally
was to be held and the podium for the counter-rally speakers had
been placed in the spot originally chosen for the podium of the
opposition leaders. Those actions were stage-managed by the top
leadership. All the aforementioned indicates that the regime intends
to cause clashes among citizens and even a civil war in the
country.” (Glas javnosti, 10 May 2000)
Požarevac police accounted for its 9 May repressive
measures in the following manner: “We detained 10 offenders who
tried to disturb the 9 May (the Day of Triumph over Fascism)
celebrations. Among those 10 detainees there were several grave
recidivists. All detainees were from areas of Belgrade, Despotovac,
Jagodina, Smederevo, Svilajnac and Velika Plana, and not a single
one was from Požarevac,” told the Požarevac police communiqué.
(Glas javnosti, 10 May 2000)
In a separate development many journalists were detained
Serbia-wide. In Požarevac the following journalists were detained:
Nataša Bogović, Bojan Tončić, Veljko Popović, Imre Sabo (from
Danas), Mile Veljković (Beta and Blic correspondent),
while several foreign journalists were expelled from the city:
Gillian Standford from the London “Guardian”, David Godfraw and Joel
Finks (both from Netherlands), Dušan Tubić, translater of the Dutch
team, Dragan Zamurović (from the French agency “Gama”), and Miloš
Radivojša, Vladimir Đorđević, Dragoljub Petrović and an assistent
camera man from “Video weekly” (VIN). Detained were also
photoreporters Branko Belić (NIN), Ivan Dobričić (“Nedeljni telegraf”),
Studio B correspondents from Mladenovac, Miloš Maslarić, Jelena
Petrović, Novica Dabić and Pavle Ješić. Marina Fratucan (“Radio Free
Europe”), Bojan Erdeljanović (TV Montenegro), Žarko Bogosavljević
(Radio 021), Gmizić (Radio 021), Jovan Đerić (Radio In), Nenad
Šeguljev (Independent Radio) were detained in Novi Sad. Sergej Bibić,
RTV Pančevo camera man was detained in Pančevo (Blic, 11 May
2000)
Twelve members of the Serbian Renewal Movement, the
Christian Democratic Party of Serbia and activists of “Otpor” have
been remanded in custody since 9 May. Their lawyer Ružica Lekić said
that they were detained because of “shouting insults at the protest
rally.” (Blic, 12 May 2000)
On 30 May before Milan Bojić, a magistrate of the
Požarevac District Court and Dragan Petrović, Deputy District Public
Prosecutor, the first witnesses were heard in the case against
“Otpor” activists Momčilo Veljković and Radojko Luković, and a
jurist Nebojša Sokolović (...) Statements were given by “Otpor”
activist Dragan Milanović, who had been harrassed by “Madona”
workers, and workers of that company Saša and Milan Lazić... defense
counsels suggested that detention of Veljković in the Požarevac
investigative prison, and of Lukić kept in investigative prison in
Belgrade be suspended. Likewise the search for Nebojša Sokolović (Blic,
31 May 2000)
The Požarevac District Court extended for another month
detention of “Otpor” members, Momčilo Veljković, and Radojko Luković.
Ruling of the District Court reads: “detention of Veljković and
Luković is extended until 2 July since ‘it is reasonably believed
that they have committed a criminal offense of assisting in
attempted murder.” The ruling was justified by the fact that
investigation could not be completed in the course of the last month
“due to objective reasons... no-show of witnesses, workers of
company “Madona”, Milan Bajić and owner of cafe “Madona” Zoran
Ivanović.” (Glas javnosti 4 June 2000).
VIII
TERROR AND TERRORISM
1.
Notion
Notion of terrorism varies from country to country.
But the generally accepted and most accepted definition of terrorism
is the following: organized, public and planned act of violence
directed against a symbolic target (most frequently a large number
of innocent people) intended to spread general fear and achieve a
specific political goal. An essential feature of terrorism is the
public assumption of responsibility by terrorists for criminal
offense committed, which in turn focuses the media attention on
their political goals. This is a specific component, for if it
lacks, so does a terrorist act. Political message sent in this
manner to public at large must be crystal clear, with serious threat
(of consequences) and public ‘by-line.’
Notion of terror can be defined as a way of rule through
intimidation, tyranny, elimination of opponents by most cruel means
(persecution, oppression, murders) which are not in compliance with
generally accepted human rights standards.
2.
Terrorism in Serbia
If the aforementioned definitions of notions of
terrorism and terror are accepted it can be concluded that in Serbia
there are no terrorists, but there is terror. However the ruling
parties positions on this issue, often-quoted in this report,
demonstrate that Serbia is packed with terrorists and that measures
taken to date have not been effective, which in turn prompted the
regime to enact a special anti-terrorism act.
For the time being definition of criminal offense of
terrorism laid down by the FRY Penal Code, Article 125 is still in
place. That is: “anybody who causes an explosion or fire, or commits
any other generally dangerous action or act of violence creating
insecurity among citizens, with the intention to threaten the
constitutional order or safety of Yugoslavia shall be punished by
term of imprisonment of minimum three years in prison” Public
opinion is unaware of the fact that representatives of the
independent media, opposition parties, “Otpor”, non-governmental
organizations and other proclaimed “terrorists” have ever committed
an act which could correspond to the legal or general definition of
terrorism. The fact that a large number of citizens are against the
current authorities does not mean that they are against the state
and its contistuional order, for the authorities and the state are
not the same thing.
The fact that assassinations (qualified as terrorists
acts) of Pavle Bulatović, the Yugoslav Defense Secretary, Žika
Petrović, former director of Yugoslav Airlines and Boško Perošević,
President of the Executive Council of Vojvodina, are yet to be
solved, contributes largely to the mood of uncertainty. As nobody
has claimed responsibility for the first two assassinations, and
moreover the police is yet to find their murderers, it is not clear
how the regime can qualify those assassinations as terrorists acts.
Added to that the question remains why several unsolved murders,
those of Zoran Todorović-Kundak, General Secretary of the Associated
Yugoslav Left in 1997, Radovan Stojčić Badža, Assistant Interior
Minister, in 1997, Dragan Simić, the police colonel, Head of Savski
Venac police, in 1999, Milorad Vlahović, police colonel, Assistant
to the Head of the Belgrade police crime squad, killed in 1999, etc,
have not been qualified as terrorists acts. All this calls into
question the efficiency of the police work.
3.
Comments on the Anti-Terrorism Bill
The Serbian government assessed the assassination
of Boško Perošević as a terrorist act, and five days after that
event, the Associated Yugoslav Left suggested to the Serbian
Assembly and government to adopt the Anti-Terrorism Act in a summary
procedure. But ultimately it was the Federal government who tabled
the motion for the Bill and then submitted it to the Federal
Assembly on 23 June 2000.
Provision of Article 1, para. 1 of the Bill lays down:
“Anybody who intends to threaten the constitutional order or
territorial whole of the FRY or of its constituent republic by
provoking an explosion or fire or abducting a person or commiting
other act of violence or seriously threatens to take any widely
considered dangerous action or to use nuclear, chemical,
bacteriological or other generally considered dangerous means, which
in turn causes feeling of insecurity or fear among citizens, shall
be punished by minimum 5 years term of imprisonment.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 cover heavier or more serious
offenses, for which paragaph 3 envisages at least 10 years in prison
or life sentence. In addition to the fact that this article stresses
the intention of a perpetrator to act against the constitutional
order, instead of underscoring the fact that citizens may be
intimidated by such terrorist acts, what is also striking is the
punishment for such misdeeds, namely, the life sentence. In our
system which supplanted the death sentence (eliminated from the
federal legislation) with the maximum 20 years’imprisonment, recent
introduction of the draconian penalty, without any prior
discussions, represents a serious misuse of authority. The Act,
either because of lack of expertise or hasty drawing up thereof,
does not specify whether convicted persons have the right to parole
or conditional release, for in practice convicts who serve their
whole sentence are very rare.
Provision of Article 2, para. 1 spells out: “anybody who
intentionally distributes or makes accessible written documents,
audiovisual, electronic or other material which call for or incite
the commission of acts quoted in Article 1 of this Act, shall be
sentenced to at least three years in prison.” Paragraph 2 of this
article envisages that those who in the commission of act quoted
under para 1 of this article are assisted from abroad shall be
sentenced to at least 5 years in prison. Having in mind that
political propaganda labels all its political opponents as
terrorists, a broad and deliberate interpretation of this provision
provides the regime with the opportunity to mete out the same
punishment to those found guilty under paragraph 2 of this article
and those who plant bombs.
Article 5, first paragraph envisages: “ the offense
committed with the intention of making possible the arrest of the
other perpetrator during his/her attempt to commit the offense,
shall not be considered a criminal offense under Articles 1-3 of
this Act.” Paragraph 2 envisages that “the Federal Interior Minister
gives instructions regarding actions quoted in paragraph. 1”
It is legally and morally absolutely unacceptable that,
as instructed by the Federal Police Minister, “agents provocateurs”
encourage and induce citizens to try to commit the criminal offense
of terrorism, and thereafter not only go unpunished, but moreover
the said offense is not treated as a criminal offense at all.
Paragraph 1 of Article 6 determines that “at the proposal of the
Federal Public Prosecutor or Federal Interior Minister, President of
the Federal Court may, if deemed necessary for conducting the
criminal proceedings, rule on preventive detention of a person
reasonably believed to have committed a criminal offense specified
under this Act.”
Article 7, para. 1 envisages that “President of the
Federal Court, having obtained the opinion of the Federal Public
Prosecutor and the Federal Interior Minister, may every seven days
review reasons for preventive detention,” while paragraph 2
envisages that “preventive detention may last up to thirty days.”
Provision stipulating that anybody else, and not only
the court, may determine detention (preventive custody) or suggest
its duration, as in the aforementioned case-one of the ministers, is
contrary to Article 24 of the FRY Constitution and Article 16 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. If President of Federal
Court ‘assesses” that it can be ‘reasonably believed that a
politically “incompatible or unfit” citizen committed any offense
specified under this Act, that citizen shall spend 30 days in jail.
Under this Act political opponents shall not be convicted due to
lack of evidence, but may be ‘preventively detained’ on grounds of
even a smallest suspicion. Thus a person can be 20 times
interrogated and “detained,” without ever facing an indictment.
Paragraph 2 envisages that that “a preventively detained
person may be immediately told about reasons for his/her detention
and his or her rights, and his/her family shall be immediately
notified of the same reasons.”
Although a preventively detained person should be
acquainted with his/her rights, and their nature, this Bill does not
mentions such a possibility. It is interesting to note that the
official reasoned opinion in writing envisages para. 3, Article 8
which reads: “defense counsel elected by a preventively detained
person shall be present at the official questioning.” The absence of
this paragraph 3 in the Bill, whose original incorporation was
obviously intended, can be accounted for by its excessively
democratic nature.
Article 12, para. 2 spells out: “Public, that is, the
state prosecutor can file charges without previous investigation and
the consent of a magistrate/misdemeanor judge.”
Article 157 of the Criminal Proceedings Act lays down
that “the goal of investigation is collection of evidence and data
which have a bearing on a decision whether the indictment shall be
raised or pre-trial proceedings suspended.”
Contrary to all principles of criminal proceedings, para.
2 of Article 12 introduces the practice of non-investigation in case
of grave criminal offenses and filing of indictment at will of the
public or state prosecutor.
Provisions of Article 14 and 15 envisage deadlines much
shorter than the ones envisaged under the Act on Criminal
Proceedings, due to alleged-urgency. Hence an objection to
indictment can be submitted within 3 days (eight under the Criminal
Proceedings Act), extra-debate council must rule on an objection
within 48 hours (the Act on Criminal Proceedings does not envisage
any deadline); the main hearing must commence within 15 days from
the receiving of indictment by the court (2 months under the
Criminal Proceedings Act); an appeal against the ruling can be made
within 10 days from the transcript-submitting (15 days under the
Criminal Proceedings Act).
The afore-mentioned provisions violate the principle of
contradictory nature of criminal proceedings, for citizens are
deprived of their right to adequate and well-prepared defense from
charges related to commission of grave criminal offenses.
Following the analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, we
conclude that reasons for its adoption are similar to those which
motivated the enactment of the Public Information Law, University
Act and amendments to the Misdemeanour Act. The only difference lies
in the fact that the enactment and enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism
Act shall have much more serious effects on citizens and their
rights and freedoms. If this Act is strictly enforced, particularly
with respect to all those whom the ruling coalition has labeled as
terrorists, the Serbian prisons shall not have the capacity to
‘accommodate’ all the alleged offenders. Even if it is not
‘strictly’ enforced its announcement has achieved the desired
effect: it has spread panic and fear among the citizenry and it will
exist as a lawful, legal act legalizing all repressive measures
taken to date.
* * *
CONCLUSION
After ten years of stormy developments in the
political scene of Serbia, relevant political protagonists have
demonstrated their strength, goals and methods of their attainment.
The regime is in such a tight spot, that it cannot retreat under
pressure from international and domestic public opinion. It has no
other devices left in the protection of its power but to step up its
repressive laws and measures and even introduce new, even more
radical ones. In the situation when the regime fears the loss of
power, and the opposition fears its succession of power, it seems
that the regime manages its fear and other facts of political life
much better. Its experience in ruling, along with a permanent abuse
of state institutions (notably the police and judiciary) and the
media, enable the regime to preserve a more dynamic and active role
in the political struggle.
Current vocabulary used by the authorities to discredit
the opposition, media, NGOs and all political opponents, speaks
volumes about their weakness. Thus Ranko Bugarski says: “After many
years of all kinds of verbal violence, from shameful war-mongering
propaganda to the monstrous hate speech targeting its political
opponents, along with many lies, displaced thesis and similar
rhetoric strategies, it seems that the predominant discourse has now
two basic features: constant deprivation of any significance and
simultaneous intensification of the public speech and vocabulary.” (Nin
13 July 2000)
The opposition and other non-regime subjects are faced
with such a situation in which they can only follow and take note of
increasingly authoritarian moves of the authorities. But such a
passivization of the opposition cannot be explained only by the
current advantages of the regime. Moreover, those advantages were
won thanks to previously demonstrated weaknesses of the opposition
proper. Unfounded and boundless ambitions of some leaders, their
strife and splits, mutual deceits and accusations and hundreds of
unfulfilled promises, have imploded the opposition and brought it
into disrepute. Added to that an ‘oddly’ (to say the least)
effected privatization enabled a number of people from both the
regime and opposition ranks to get rich, which in turn led to the
creation of the new elite, much removed from the rest of citizenry.
Owing to the recent polarization between the elite and the rest of
citizenry, an impasse or status quo was reached, in which only
pauperized and humiliated broad strata of population sincerely want
changes. Disappointed with political parties and leaders citizens at
large were engulfed in apathy, depression and lack of faith in the
possibility of any changes.
Such a psychological state shall last until people are
ready to realize that the most difficult change is the one of proper
mind-set or awareness, and that an individual action is the
beginning of every global action. Brave, public statements of some
university professors, judges and students who have overcome their
fears, represent a path to follow.
“Outbreak of foul verbal diarrhea” is just a spin-off of
the general decay of system. But such a hate speech and vocabulary
also indicate “the firm resolve of the authorities to fight for
their survival, with all the means available and irrespective of a
price of such a fight.” Some of the regime’s methods are only a hint
of the repression to come.