<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Response of the Police

In several cases, the police sought to protect Albanians and other minorities in the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, especially after the occurrence of a first attack against a particular individual or business. In most cases documented in this report, the premises of the victims with whom Human Rights Watch spoke were kept under observation by police patrols in the days or even weeks following a first attack.

While the deployment of police patrols after initial attacks to prevent further incidents is commendable, Human Rights Watch is concerned by the absence of a pro-active strategy to protect minorities. Given the experience of 1999 and 2004, it was not difficult to predict that the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence might produce violence directed against minorities, and particularly ethnic Albanians. In most of the locations where trouble occurred, the numbers of ethnic Albanians was relatively small. Preventive deployments might have prevented trouble, especially where specific individuals and businesses had been previously attacked during 1999 and 2004, as was the case for some business owners in Novi Sad.

In one case, a victim explicitly stated that the police had said they were under instructions to act only if someone’s physical integrity was jeopardized during the protests.¹⁰⁰ This allegation was dismissed by major general Mladen Kuribak, the head of the Uniformed Police Directorate, when Human Rights Watch met him on April 24, 2008, to discuss the policing of attacks on minorities. In this meeting and in subsequent written enquiries, Human Rights Watch asked about the reasons for not intervening when attacks took place during demonstrations, such as those on the flower shop and bakery in Novi Sad described above. Major general Kuribak said that there was no instruction from Belgrade’s headquarters for police officers to remain passive in cases of attacks on property rather than individuals.¹⁰¹ However, he said that during the demonstrations, when there are few police officers available, it was not feasible for them to intervene robustly in cases where property alone was attacked.¹⁰² He reiterated this message in a letter in response dated September 19, 2008 to further enquiries from Human Rights Watch, explaining that the police did their utmost to ensure order during the demonstrations but that due to the extremely large number of protesters, there were insufficient officers available to protect every object at risk.¹⁰³

Even if the police are given the benefit of doubt on this issue, at the very least the police presence at protests when vandalism occurred should have provided excellent eye witness accounts–by the police themselves–that could have contributed, where legally warranted, to charges against the alleged perpetrators.

In a letter to the police sent in August 2008 (see Annex 1), Human Rights Watch asked for further information in relation to the specific cases detailed in this report. The response did not contain any comment on specific allegations or information about the status of investigations into specific cases. It simply said that the police together with prosecutors had taken the necessary steps to establish the facts, had arrested people caught damaging property, and were continuing in their efforts to identify perpetrators. However, Human Rights Watch remains concerned that the police appear to have done little to identify or vigorously pursue perpetrators, despite in some instances being physically present when attacks took place.

Based on data provided by district prosecutors, it appears that police investigations failed to determine the identity of perpetrators in the vast majority of the attacks. According to the head of the Uniformed Police Directorate, as of April 24, 2008, 10 perpetrators had been convicted and fined for incidents arising from Kosovo protests and involving damaging property. In each case, the underlying act was qualified as a misdemeanor (an administrative offence) rather than a criminal offence.¹⁰⁴  None of the 10 perpetrators was charged in relation to incidents documented by Human Rights Watch in this report.  In some cases, where investigations failed to identify suspects, formal charges were brought against “unknown perpetrators” were laid. In many of the cases cited in this report, it is not clear whether a complete investigation was conducted.

The failure to identify perpetrators, even in cases where security cameras or police witnessed the attacks, prevents victims from seeking legal redress through criminal charges or civil suits for compensation. This result in further hardship to the victims, allows individual perpetrators to escape punishment, and contributes to an atmosphere of impunity for attacks against minorities or their property.

According to an international official, “nothing happens [in Serbia] without a clear order from Belgrade.”¹⁰⁵ In the light of this, it is critical for the police chiefs in Belgrade to clearly communicate to the municipal police forces (through the appropriate chain of command) that protecting minorities and thoroughly investigating offences against them should be a priority.

Response of the Justice System: Misdemeanor Judges and District Prosecutors

Due to the previous history of violent attacks against minorities being primarily dealt with as misdemeanors, Human Rights Watch contacted all of the misdemeanor judges as well as the district prosecutors responsible for the cities and towns included in this report.¹⁰⁶ As described above, misdemeanor judges are not members of judiciary, but rather administrative agencies in charge of misdemeanor proceedings, based on information forwarded by the police. The police make an initial determination as to whether a particular case should be treated as a misdemeanor (and forwarded to misdemeanor judges) or a criminal charge should be filed (and forwarded to district prosecutors).

According to the responses that Human Rights Watch received in May and June from all the misdemeanor judges we contacted, none had received cases from police related to the post-February 17 incidents.¹⁰⁷ The head of the Uniformed Police Directorate told Human Rights Watch in April 2008 that 10 people had been convicted and fined for misdemeanors relating to Kosovo. ¹⁰⁸  Those 10 individuals must therefore have been dealt with by misdemeanor judges elsewhere in Serbia.

One of the misdemeanor judges noted that cases such as those Human Rights Watch documented represent either the criminal offense of incitement to ethnic hatred (Article 317 of the Serbian criminal code) or the civil offense of destroying or damaging someone else’s belongings (Article 212 of the Serbian criminal code).¹⁰⁹ In a civil case for destruction of property, the proceedings must be always initiated by a private lawsuit.¹¹⁰ The victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch were unaware that they had to initiate civil proceedings. Such claims would in any event have required them to know the identity of the alleged perpetrators.

The response from the district prosecutor of Novi Sad indicated that there was only one relevant criminal complaint (an alleged violation of Article 317) filed by the police with respect to the attack on a bakery in Bac (not documented by Human Rights Watch).¹¹¹ The alleged perpetrator in that case is a minor.¹¹²

The Sombor district prosecutor informed Human Rights Watch that he requested that the investigative judge in Sombor open investigations in three cases of ethnically derogatory vandalism since Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February 2008.¹¹³ The district prosecutor also requested a judge to open a criminal investigation of three individuals based on suspicion that they may have been distributing leaflets calling for the boycott of the Albanian-owned bakery Dva Brata described in this report. By September 1, 2008, no decision had been made by the judge about opening the case.¹¹⁴ The district prosecutor has told Human Rights Watch that the delay was because there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against any named individuals.¹¹⁵

In Kragujevac, the district prosecutor informed Human Rights Watch that his office has received four criminal complaints against unidentified perpetrators for the crime of property damage.¹¹⁶ One of the cases opened was related to the attack on the “Avala” burek shop, which Human Rights Watch documented in this report. In all four cases, the complaints were filed without knowledge of the perpetrators’ identities, and, at the time of writing, the perpetrators had not yet been identified in the course of police investigations.

Human Rights Watch also wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Radovanovic, on June 2, 2008, requesting national statistics regarding attacks against Albanians and other minorities in the aftermath of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The letter specifically requested information related to cases in this report in locations where, at that time of writing, local prosecutors had not yet responded to Human Rights Watch’s requests for information.

On June 19, Human Rights Watch received a written response from the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, which stated that as of June 17, 2008, no criminal charges had been brought with relation to incidents of violence against minorities in the aftermath of Kosovo’s independence declaration in Subotica (or in the other towns under the responsibility of the Subotica district prosecutor, including Backa Topola and Senta).¹¹⁷

In Zrenjanin, there were no criminal cases opened related to the victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch.¹¹⁸ One criminal complaint received related to an arson attempt of a minority-owned kiosk, which took place on March 26, 2008.¹¹⁹ The letter from the chief prosecutor stated that on April 16, 2008 “the criminal complaint was thrown out because of a lack of elements of the crime under the district jurisdiction.”¹²⁰

In Negotin, the district prosecutor opened a criminal case under Article 317 against an unknown perpetrator in the case of the owner of a commercial premises interviewed by Human Rights Watch.¹²¹

The Chief Prosecutor also provided information on another incident in Negotin (not documented by Human Rights Watch), in which a minor smashed the windows of a minority-owned bakery. The victim decided not to press charges after speaking with the father of the minor.¹²²

In Kikinda, eight cases of minority-owned property destruction were reported to the police and formal investigations opened. In all eight cases, the perpetrators have not been identified, as of the date of the correspondence.¹²³ The Chief Prosecutor’s written response did not specify whether the investigations were ongoing.¹²⁴

Based on the information that Human Rights Watch has obtained, it appears that no criminal indictments have been filed or misdemeanor proceedings brought in the cases involving the victims whom Human Rights Watch interviewed. In some of the cases we documented, there were criminal charges brought against “unknown perpetrators.” 

We interviewed only a proportion of the total number of victims, whose businesses were attacked and damaged in February 2008, and were unable to obtain comprehensive statistics on prosecutions in the criminal courts. But it is notable that despite contacting the Chief Prosecutor of Serbia, and prosecutors across Vojvodina, we learned of only one active criminal case against a named perpetrator (a minor). A handful of other cases had been discontinued for lack of evidence, or were opened against “unknown perpetrators.”

With the near complete lack of criminal prosecutions, and a few as ten perpetrators convicted across Serbia with misdemeanors, none of them in areas where attacks on minorities were concentrated, it is evident that the violence in February went largely unpunished. After the violent incidents in March 2004 a similar situation occurred—few persons were charged and then only with misdemeanors (although there were a handful of criminal prosecutions for other attacks on minorities in 2004 and 2005). This demonstrated then and demonstrates now the reluctance of authorities to bring the full weight of the criminal justice system to bear on those who use violence against minorities, and more broadly, to adequately address the phenomenon of anti-minority violence in Serbia.