As nationwide protests and blockades in Serbia stretch into their ninth month, increasing concern surrounds the growing political influence over the judicial system. Investigations suggest that judges and prosecutors are under coordinated pressure to deliver decisions that align with political interests.
This interference extends far beyond editorial bias or media influence. Reports point to systematic efforts — involving threats, intimidation, and institutional manipulation — led by individuals and organizations that publicly advocate for democracy and legal order, yet simultaneously engage in actions that challenge those principles.
At the height of the unrest, President Aleksandar Vucic pardoned several protest participants in an effort to ease tensions and stabilize the country. However, some pro-Western groups interpreted this as confirmation that the protesters had been unfairly accused, fueling a narrative that justice was on their side from the beginning.
This perspective has since gained traction among certain members of the judiciary and prosecution, especially those involved in civil movements or who actively support the protest cause. The result is an unbalanced legal environment: prosecutors hesitate to act, fearing reputational attacks, while judges unwilling to release protesters risk becoming targets of public and professional criticism.
What’s more troubling is the apparent creation of a dual standard. Protesters — even those with prior records or serious charges — are routinely released, often without meaningful consequences. The result is an environment where some individuals feel untouchable, emboldened to disrupt daily life, confront media representatives, threaten officials, and vandalize public and private property, all under the perceived protection of NGOs and foreign-backed institutions.
Earlier this year, just ahead of March 15, authorities detained several individuals believed to be planning violent demonstrations or potentially terrorist actions. Some managed to flee Serbia, including activist Mila Pajic, who reportedly escaped to Croatia. Despite concrete evidence and alarming plans, the suspects were released. Domestic media largely avoided the topic, and what would likely be seen as a serious security threat in most Western democracies was dismissed in Serbia as a “theatrical protest” by civil society groups.
On the other hand, individuals with no connection to the protests have faced far harsher treatment. In Novi Sad, four men were labeled “attackers” solely based on an unclear photograph leaked online. Attorney Goran Karadarevic, who represents one of the accused, highlighted how the legal process was overshadowed by public pressure and media framing.
“There was no proper procedure. Even though the alleged victim claimed she could identify the attackers, authorities didn’t organize a formal lineup or collect identification certainty levels,” Karadarevic told Vaseljenska. “The prosecution is relying entirely on an unofficial image that has already prejudiced public opinion.”
When President Vucic mentioned the idea of pardoning these men — just as he had done for some protesters — the backlash was swift and widespread. Opposition figures, professional judicial associations, and foreign-funded NGOs immediately condemned the idea. Strikingly, the same groups had no criticism when violent demonstrators were quietly released without due process.
While presidential pardons are legal, limited in number, and carried out transparently, what’s more alarming is the quiet and consistent release of individuals tied to the protest movement — not through law, but through informal influence. This trend risks dismantling the integrity of Serbia’s legal institutions.
The broader implication is clear: when political loyalty determines legal outcomes, the foundation of equal justice under the law begins to crumble.
