The Belgrade Centre of Human Rights has the pleasure to present the results of the public opinion survey poll on refugees and migrants in the Republic of Serbia. 

The key survey findings show that the vast majority of Serbia’s citizens (85%) do not know how many migrants and refugees are living in Serbia. Only 15% of the pollees said that they knew how many migrants are now living in Serbia; on average, they put their number at around 22,000.

Most of the respondents (56%) were against Serbia granting African and Middle East refugees citizenship; 25% disagreed. The respondents’ answers to questions on the refugees’ integration in terms of their employment and education, whether they would have anything against refugees becoming part of their family or living in their neighbourhoods indicate that women, university graduates, residents of urban settlements and youth are more tolerant towards refugees.

One out of two respondents said that they would befriend refugees from Africa or the Middle East. Willingness to befriend refugees was slightly higher in Vojvodina and among university graduates. Slightly over half of the respondents (54%) would not be pleased if an African or Middle East refugee married into their family. Many of the latter are male and live in rural areas. On the other hand, slightly over a third of the respondents (37%) would have no problem with that; many of them were women, youth and university graduates.

Over half (56%) of the pollees would have nothing against African and Middle East refugees settling down in their neighbourhood. Many of them were Belgraders and residents of other urban areas. On the other hand, 39% disagree with them, mostly because they fear for the safety of their neighbourhood. Headway on this issue has been noted compared with 2019, when only 42% of the respondents would have welcomed refugees in their neighbourhood.

The vast majority of respondents (78%) have nothing against children of African or Middle East refugees going to school with their children. Interestingly, this percentage was much lower in 2019, standing at 58%. It may be concluded that Serbia’s citizens have become more tolerant towards refugees, at least when it comes to education, and that they view refugee children as members of society who have the right to education. 

The survey results also show that Serbia’s citizens have grown more tolerant about working side by side with refugees – the number of respondents who had nothing against refugee co-workers grew from 39% in 2019 to 51% in 2021. One out of two pollees would have nothing against working together with African and Middle East refugees and would help them feel welcome. Another third would have nothing against working with refugees, but would not spend their time with them after work. Women and Belgraders are more willing to accept refugee co-workers.

The respondents’ views on the state’s migration policies are divided. Nearly a quarter of them approve Serbia’s policy on African and Middle East refugees, while 36% hold otherwise. In 2019, one out of three respondents approved of Serbia’s migration policy. Interestingly, the number of respondents who said that they were not fully familiar with the state policy on migrants fell substantially since 2019, from 30% to 16% in 2021.

Asked whether the parties’ position on migration was one of the factors they would take into account when deciding which one to vote for, 60% of the respondents replied ‘yes’. Interestingly, most of them are pensioners. The percentage of respondents who consider this an important issue increased by nearly 10% since 2019.

The public opinion survey on refugees/migrants in Serbia was conducted in cooperation with the Ipsos Strategic Marketing agency on a representative sample of 1,000 citizens in November 2021. The questionnaire comprised 10 questions of various types.  Most of the questions were Likert scale questions allowing the respondents to express how much they agree or disagree with a particular statement.

The entire 2021 survey is available in Serbian here.

The November 2019 survey is available in Serbian here.

A group of civil society organisations and experts hereby points out that the way laws and by-laws are passed, amended and abolished shows a true picture of the catastrophic state of democracy in Serbia. The content, enactment and urgent abolishment of the decree stipulating that scientific and other research of importance for the country’s defense, conducted in cooperation with foreign entities, will require the approval of competent authorities, violates all principles of democracy, rule of law and freedom of expression.

The regulation in question – which the government non-transparently passed, only to later abolish it – would restrict academic freedoms and violate the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the right to freedom of expression, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Human and Civil Rights. It would make it completely impossible to conduct independent research in many different fields, from natural and social sciences to mathematics, to the research of ores and mineral resources. In the context of the current fight against dirty technologies in Serbia, the latter particularly raises doubts about the legislator’s intentions. The above means that the Government could deny consent to research conducted in cooperation with foreign entities in these areas if it arbitrarily assesses that such research would threaten the country’s defence. This would open up the possibility of abuse and prevention of free and independent research and public information.

The decree is not only contrary to Serbia’s declarative commitment to joining the EU; imposing restrictions on cooperation of domestic researchers with foreign entities would also seriously hinder international scientific and research cooperation of faculties, institutes and citizens’ associations from Serbia that are financed from foreign funds. This would actually set a barrier that would prevent the public from being able to control the state authorities’ possible abuses: researchers would not be able to interview whistleblowers who react to unlawful activities, while researches would be prevented even from conducting public opinion surveys – it would be enough for the competent authorities to refuse to give approval under the pretext that the activity would endanger national security.

This is the second time that the government is trying to pass this sort of a decree. The attempt from 2017 was prevented by the strong reaction of the public. In order to eliminate the danger of this or a similar regulation being passed again, we ask that the disputed Article 71a of the Defence Act – based on which yesterday’s Decree was passed and later abolished – be abolished. However, there are fears that the reasons for this latest attempt to abolish transparency and stifle freedom of speech are rooted in our country’s ever stronger alliances with regimes that are known for much more brutal confrontations with political opponents, independent media and non-governmental organisations.

Just like the recent examples of the adoption, abolishment and amendment of two laws that led to mass civil protests, this is another proof that there is no division of power and independence of institutions in Serbia. Now that it has been reaffirmed that not only the laws, but also the by-laws are the result of the will of the President of Serbia, and that the procedures defined by the Constitution are no more than ornaments that help simulate the rule of law, it is clear that civil society remains one of the few barriers to full autocracy. If similar attacks on the civil sector continue, even that last bulwark of democracy in Serbia will be destroyed. For this reason, we call on the public, the media, non-governmental organisations, the academic community, activists and human rights defenders to raise their voices against such intentions of the government.

Signed by:

• ASTRA
• Belgrade Centre for Security Policy
• Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
• CRTA
• Civic initiatives
• Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights
• Drug Policy Network South East Europe
• Victimology Society of Serbia

The Trade Union of Doctors and Pharmacists and Doctors of Serbia and the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) presented the results of a survey on respect for human rights of health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic on the eve of International Human Rights Day marked on 10 December.

The answers of doctors and medical technicians who took part in the survey indicate large-scale and diverse violations of their human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic. They singled out breaches of their rights to respect for their private and family life, an effective legal remedy, equality (prohibition of discrimination), freedom of expression, health care and some of their work-related rights.

Most of the respondents were not asked whether they suffered from any chronic diseases or conditions putting them at risk of grave consequences if they were infected with COVID-19 before they were referred to work in the COVID-19 system. The Trade Union’s data indicate that over 130 doctors infected with COVID-19 have died since the pandemic broke out.

A number of respondents said that they worked extremely long hours in COVID-19 hospitals (they worked 12- and 15-hour shifts in hazmat suits), with no breaks or adequate compensation. Some of them reported they were fined for using up PPE (surgical masks) and referred to COVID-19 institutions without any prior training or guidance from specialists (infectologists, pulmonologists or epidemiologists). Most respondents were not asked whether they had underage children before they were referred to COVID-19 hospitals or out-patient clinics.

The survey was presented on 9 December in the Belgrade Media Center by:

• Sonja Tošković, BCHR Executive Director, 
• Rade Panić, Chairman of the Trade Union of Doctors and Pharmacists of Serbia,
• Dr. Sc. Med. Gorica Đokić, Trade Union of Doctors and Pharmacists of Serbia, and
• Vladica Ilić, BCHR.

The survey, conducted within a project funded by the Balkan Trust for Democracy, the German Marshall Fund of the United States and USAID, involved use of a structured questionnaire especially designed for health professionals, which was distributed and filled electronically (due to the epidemiological situation) by doctors, nurses and medical technicians across Serbia in the 18-28 October 2021 period, with the support of the Trade Union of Doctors and Pharmacists of Serbia.

Detailed results of the survey on the respect of human rights of health professionals during the COVID- 19 pandemic are available in Serbian here.

Results of the public opinion survey on the status of health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and satisfaction with healthcare services is available in Serbian here.

Organizations gathered around the Three Freedoms Platform strongly condemn the arrest of peace activists Aida Ćorović and Jelena Jaćimović, who were brutally detained by plainclothes police while protesting against the mural of convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić. On International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism, the arrest of human rights activists and taking the side of convicted war criminals shows the true political orientation of the authorities in Serbia.

We remind you that a gathering organized by the Youth Initiative for Human Rights in order to remove the mural of Ratko Mladić was illegally banned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to alleged danger to the safety of people and property. Minister Aleksandar Vulin then issued a statement in which he characterized the planned removal as “hypocritical, vile and driven by evil intentions”. On the day of the originally scheduled protest, and according to eyewitnesses, members of the Ministry of the Interior stopped and identified citizens who found themselves in the immediate vicinity of the mural.

We remind you that the arrest of Maja Stojanović, now the executive director of Civic Initiatives, which took place 14 years ago after a similar action against Ratko Mladić, ended with her being declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, and the President of Serbia paying the then imposed misdemeanor fine. The repetition of such catastrophic mistakes by Serbian authorities represents a step backwards, and shows that Serbia is moving in the direction of celebrating crimes, not democratization.

In its statement, the Ministry of the Interior stated that “there are many who would like to see pictures of broken Serb heads coming from Belgrade.” Instead, tonight in Belgrade, we are witnessing a brutal demonstration of force against peace activists by non-uniformed persons, in order to defend the politics of war-mongering.

1. Civic Initiatives
2. Youth Initiative for Human Rights
3. Center for Cultural Decontamination
4. Initiative for Social and Economic Rights – A11
5. Belgrade Center for Security Policy
6. Trag Foundation
7. Slavko Curuvija Foundation
8. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
9. Belgrade Center for Human Rights
10. Partners Serbia
11. Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights – YUCOM
12. Women in Black
13. Autonomous Women’s Center
14. New Optimism
15. Policy Center
16. Serbia on the Move
17. Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability – CRTA
18. Our Endowment (Naša zadužbina)
19. Catalyst Balkans
20. National Coalition for Decentralization
21. Transparency Serbia

Acting on the complaint of the Belgrade Center for Human Rights and A 11 – Initiative for Economic and Social Rights, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality determined that Raiffeisen Bank a.d. Belgrade, violated the provisions of Article 6 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination of the Republic of Serbia when it refused to open accounts for persons with granted asylum, ie recognized refugee status in Serbia. In the opinion, the Commissioner stated that it is not possible to exclude in advance the possibility of opening bank accounts for certain categories of persons solely based on citizenship, i.e. the country of origin of a natural person or nationality. This is a new decision of the Commissioner in proceedings on complaints against banks, since it was previously established in early July that Banca Intesa discriminated against refugees and asylum seekers.

After the information that some banks refuse to open a bank account for persons with granted asylum in Serbia, with Iranian origin, Initiative A 11 and the Belgrade Center for Human Rights conducted testing of discrimination in Raiffeisen Bank in May 2021. As the discriminatory situation was confirmed during testing, we filed a complaint due to discrimination. Namely, in this case, banks refused to open accounts to persons who have an ID card issued by the Asylum Office – Internal Affairs Serbia with recognized refugee status, and thus intend to settle permanently in Serbia, with the excuse of the bank’s internal procedures. The Commissioner states that during this procedure Raiffeisen Bank did not submit evidence from which it would be established that this denial was for justified reasons, i.e. to open an account for a person of Iranian origin with granted asylum in Serbia. The Commissioner states that the refusal to open an account, i.e. to establish or terminate a business relationship is possible only if the bank has determined that there is a high risk in establishing a business relationship, and could not apply intensified actions and measures in accordance with the law and the bank’s internal act.

The Commissioner also recommended that the bank, without negative generalizations, in each specific case, assess and consider the requirements for opening an account and not violate the regulations on the prohibition of discrimination. The Commissioner notes that by its actions the bank indisputably denied the application of the corpus of rights guaranteed by the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection, but also by the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees from 1951, such as the right to access the labor market, integration assistance, property rights, and social security.

The Belgrade Center for Human Rights and Initiative A 11 welcome the Commissioner`s response to the joint complaint and point out the importance that in any future similar situation, banks must justify their actions without flat and discriminatory assessments, and that regardless of procedures, rules and risk assessments, the bank must operate in accordance with the laws of Serbia. We also remind you of the stand taken by the National Bank of Serbia after the request for an opinion sent by the Belgrade Center for Human Rights at the beginning of the year, stating that regulations in the field of banking do not provide grounds for excluding the possibility of establishing business relations with the entire category of persons, with a reminder of the provisions of national legislation concerning the prohibition of discrimination.

The Equality Commissioner Opinion and recommendation is here in serbian.

The National Bank of Serbia response to BCHR’s request is here in serbian.

Organizations gathered around the “Three Freedoms” platform caution the National Assembly and the Serbian public that the Law on Protection against Noise in the Environment, adopted yesterday in the parliamentary procedure, is not in compliance with the Law on Public Assembly and international standards governing the right to freedom of assembly. At a time when a large number of public debates are taking place in Serbia on changes to the laws that affect the rule of law and human rights, leaving a very short deadline for analyzing regulations and sending comments, the Serbian government’s proposal restricting the right to public assembly went almost unnoticed.

Article 20 of the Law stipulates that local self-government decides on holding gatherings that may exceed the limit values of noise indicators. Additionally, the deadline for registration of such gatherings is 20 days. Local self-government, by a decision, regulates the streets, parts of streets and settlements, and other locations intended for such gatherings. This decision is contrary to the Law on Public Assembly, which prescribes that the deadline for reporting a public assembly is five days before the time set for the beginning of the assembly. The Law on Public Assembly regulates in detail the gathering place, ways, and conditions for restricting public gatherings, so that the place of gathering could be any place that is accessible unconditionally or under the same conditions to an individually indefinite number of persons.

The introduction of additional obligations for organizers of gatherings towards local self-governments, as well as extended deadlines for registration of gatherings, significantly complicates the holding of public gatherings. The proposer of the Law in the justification of the Proposal did not explain the reason for setting the deadline of 20 days, which is extremely long, especially taking into account the upcoming election campaign in 2022. Putting local self-government units in charge of deciding on holding of public gatherings that potentially exceed the noise limit, as well as on the places of these public gatherings, leaves room for abuse of noise protection regulations to limit political rallies.

Justifying this by protecting the environment, the Law also limits the ability of the participants to convey their message loudly, which means that the restrictions do not only apply to the use of sound systems but also any other way of making noise (shouting slogans, banging on pots, etc.). The Law doesn’t make a clear distinction between cultural and sporting events and political gatherings and regulates the confiscation of the object of the commission of the offense (speakers, megaphones, drums, etc.).

We request that the mentioned Article 20 of the Law on Protection against Noise in the Environment be aligned with the Law on Public Assemblies in terms of the deadline for registration of the gathering and the place of the gathering.

Freedom of public assembly implies that all peaceful assemblies are allowed. Restrictions on gatherings are not only a direct ban on a gathering but also any excessive and unnecessary imposition of obligations on the organizers of the gathering, which makes it difficult to organize the gathering. The adoption of regulations contrary to the already existing Law on Public Assembly creates a collision of legal norms that are detrimental to the freedom of public assembly as one of the basic civil and political right

The Three Freedoms Platform aims to contribute to the democratization of society, the rule of law, and the active participation of citizens through the protection and promotion of freedom of association, assembly, and information. The platform consists of:

• Autonomous Women’s Center
• Belgrade Center for Security Policy
• Belgrade Center for Human Rights
• Catalyst Balkans
• Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA)
• Center for Cultural Decontamination
• Center for Practical Policy
• Civic Initiatives
• Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
• A11 – Economic and Social Rights Initiative
• Youth Initiative for Human Rights
• Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights-YUCOM
• National Coalition for Decentralization
• Our Endowment
• New Optimism
• Partners Serbia
• Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation
• Serbia on the Move
• Trag Foundation
• Transparency Serbia