In relation to the Draft Law on Internal Affairs, which is currently subject to public consultation, the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights wishes to draw attention to a number of serious shortcomings in the text of the Draft Law that may lead to a significant erosion of the human rights protection standards already achieved in the Republic of Serbia.
The Draft Law on Internal Affairs provides for police powers to prohibit movement in public places for a period of 15 days in cases of large-scale disruption of public order and peace, with the possibility of repeated extensions. Such a provision would, in effect, enable restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of assembly for an indefinite period of time, while circumventing the standards prescribed by the Law on Public Assembly. It is additionally concerning that this measure would not be subject to any form of judicial oversight.
Particular concern is also raised by the proposed expansion of the circumstances in which pepper spray may be used, including in situations where citizens offer passive resistance, such as by sitting down, lying down, and similar forms of conduct. At the same time, the Draft Law does not provide for a system of technical control and certification of means of coercion, despite a recommendation issued by the Protector of Citizens eight years ago.
Furthermore, the Draft Law lowers the existing standards for the protection of the rights of citizens summoned by the police for a so-called “informative interview”. Under the Draft Law, oral summons would no longer constitute an exception to the rule that citizens are summoned by written notice, nor is there a clear obligation to inform the summoned person, in the summons itself, of their right to the presence of a lawyer or a person of trust.
Although relevant international bodies — the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the Committee against Torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture — have repeatedly recommended the introduction of mandatory audio and video recording of police interrogations, the Draft Law contains no such safeguard. This represents a serious obstacle to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. The Draft Law also fails to ensure that police officers subject to proceedings for acts of torture or ill-treatment will be mandatorily suspended for the duration of those proceedings, or dismissed if their responsibility for torture or ill-treatment is established, although such requirements arise from the long-standing case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. These proposed solutions leave room for the already widespread impunity of officials responsible for serious violations of citizens’ rights and undermine public trust in the work of the police. In addition, the Draft Law fails to adequately regulate medical examinations of persons held in police custody, including a clear prohibition on the presence of police officers during such examinations, except in exceptional cases and at the request of a doctor.
Another problematic provision is the one under which independent public statements by police officers concerning the work of the Ministry of Interior are qualified as a serious breach of official duty — punishable even by termination of employment — without the requirement that such public statements have caused harmful consequences. This requirement is prescribed under the current Law on Police. Such a provision may also have a chilling effect on whistleblowing in the public interest. On the other hand, the Draft Law introduces so-called subjective time limits for initiating disciplinary proceedings, thereby unjustifiably placing police officers in a more favourable position than other civil servants with regard to time limits for disciplinary liability.
The Draft Law, like the current Law on Police, does not regulate the manner in which police officers’ service weapons are to be stored outside working hours. This is a matter of exceptional public interest, particularly in light of tragic cases from previous years and the risks that may arise from inadequate storage of weapons.
Targeted search measures, through which the police seriously interfere with privacy and collect a large amount of citizens’ data, remain unaligned with the standards prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. In the view of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, these measures should be regulated through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, rather than by legislation governing the work of the police.
Although the Draft Law refers in several places to the operational independence of the police, it does not contain sufficient safeguards to prevent its politicisation. It is particularly concerning that the Draft Law does not provide, even declaratively, for the operational independence of the Internal Control Sector.
The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights calls on the Ministry of Interior, during the public consultation process, to seriously consider the concerns raised and to align the Draft Law on Internal Affairs with the Constitution, ratified international treaties and international human rights standards.
