The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights warns the public of an attempt to close the case of police ill-treatment of a female student, a participant in last summer’s protests in Belgrade, through the application of deferred prosecution, without court proceedings and without establishing the criminal responsibility of the police officer suspected of ill-treatment.
The case concerns an incident that took place on the night of 3 July 2025, when a police officer pulled the hair of a female student who was in Bulevar kralja Aleksandra, in front of the Faculty of Law of the University of Belgrade, in an attempt to unlock her phone using facial recognition. The incident was recorded on mobile phones by other protest participants, and the footage was published in the media.
In relation to this incident, the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights filed a criminal complaint with the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade for the criminal offence of ill-treatment and torture. The case prosecutor conducted evidentiary actions and established the identity of the suspected police officer, Tanja Drobnjak, while other police officers who took part in the incident have still not been officially identified.
Around a month ago, the case prosecutor filed an indictment against the suspect, Tanja Drobnjak, having assessed that there was sufficient evidence to conduct criminal proceedings before a court. However, instead of the case being referred to the court and responsibility examined in judicial proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, Ljubivoje Đorđević, issued a binding instruction to the case prosecutor requiring the application of deferred prosecution.
The lawyers of the injured student were informed that, under this binding instruction, the suspected police officer would be allowed to avoid further criminal prosecution by paying at least RSD 400,000 either to the injured party or for humanitarian purposes. If the suspect, Tanja Drobnjak, were to pay the specified amount within the prescribed time limit, the prosecutor would then be required to dismiss the criminal complaint against her. Within three days of receiving the binding instruction, the case prosecutor may either comply with it or file an objection with the immediately higher public prosecutor — which, under the so-called Mrdić laws, is the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, Nenad Stefanović.
The injured student, who has been granted the status of a particularly vulnerable witness in the proceedings, expressly opposes this manner of closing the case. Unfortunately, she has no effective legal remedy by which she could prevent a decision that would result in the final closure of the case without any judicial examination of responsibility for the ill-treatment she suffered.
The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights considers that the application of the opportunity principle in this case would be legally impermissible. In cases in which public officials are accused of torture or ill-treatment, the state has an obligation under the Constitution of Serbia and international law to conduct an effective investigation capable of establishing the facts, identifying all those responsible and ensuring their adequate punishment. The long-standing case-law of the European Court of Human Rights clearly indicates that amnesties, pardons, manifestly lenient sanctions, suspended sentences and other mechanisms leading to de facto impunity – such as deferred prosecution, that is, the so-called opportunity principle in criminal prosecution – are incompatible with the state’s obligations in cases involving violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and other forms of ill-treatment, particularly where police or other state officials are suspected of ill-treatment.
A number of cases concerning allegations of police ill-treatment of participants in civic and student protests are currently pending before public prosecutors’ offices across Serbia. If the opportunity principle were applied in a case in which an indictment has already been filed, this could become a model for closing other similar cases, further entrenching systemic impunity for officials responsible for acts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Serbia.
It is also deeply concerning that police officer Tanja Drobnjak was not suspended pending the outcome of the proceedings but was, according to available information, promoted after having been questioned by the prosecutor’s office as a suspect in the ill-treatment of the student.
The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights calls on the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade and all competent state authorities to refrain from adopting any decisions that would lead to impunity in this and other cases concerning allegations of torture and ill-treatment by police and other public officials. Instead of closing cases without trial, the public, the injured party and the rule of law require court proceedings in which the full truth, the identity of all officers involved and their criminal responsibility will be established.
Any other outcome would set a dangerous precedent and send the message that police violence against citizens, including students and young people participating in public assemblies, can be resolved by the payment of money, without an admission of guilt and without genuine accountability.
The Belgrade Centre has already informed the Council of Europe about this case and will also inform other international organisations and international human rights bodies. The injured student is represented in the proceedings before the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade by lawyer Jugoslav Tintor and lawyer Ana Trkulja.
