Criticism of Serbia for addressing crimes or a legal kaleidoscope

Serbia has faced criticism from the U.S. State Department, Germany, and the EU over its proposed law on judicial jurisdiction in the territory of Kosovo. These parties view the proposal as a violation of Serbia's obligations under the dialogue with Pristina. Although no specific obligations have been publicly identified, some interpretations suggest that Serbia is accused of breaching agreements on integrating the Serbian community into Kosovo's judicial system. The Serbian List has criticized these objections as applying double standards, particularly as Serbia is simultaneously urged to prosecute participants in the conflict in Banjska. So, who is viewing the situation through the right lens?

Written by: Dusica Radeka Djordjevic

From the perspective of those who recognized Kosovo a day or so after its unilateral declaration of independence on February 17, 2008, it's clear that Kosovo operates under laws adopted in Pristina. However, from Belgrade's standpoint, it's even clearer that, under the Serbian Constitution, Kosovo remains a Serbian province. The dialogue with Pristina has not led to an agreement but rather operates under the principle of "agreeing to disagree."

Highlighting the unclear or paradoxical aspects, the Serbian List has pointed out that while Serbia's proposed law on judicial jurisdiction over Kosovo is condemned, Serbia is also being asked to bring Milan Radoicic and others involved in the Banjska conflict to justice.

As with Kosovo's status and the issue of "bringing justice," perspectives differ. Sociologist Vladimir Vuletic explained to Kosovo Online that Serbia is effectively being asked to extradite individuals potentially sought by Kosovo courts, despite Serbia's stance on these matters being defined by its Constitution.

Political analyst Nexhmedin Spahiu argued that "bringing justice" does not necessarily mean Serbia must be the one to prosecute.

Meanwhile, lawyer Goran Petronijevic, who is also Radoicic’s defense attorney, emphasized that if Serbia is asked to prosecute Milan Radoicic, its prosecution and courts are indeed doing so.

"But they lack cooperation from Kosovo's institutions or even EULEX to provide the evidence needed for prosecution. This appears to be an effort to discredit Serbia’s judiciary and portray them as unwilling to act, thereby putting Serbia under Western pressure, which is not true—it’s the opposite," Petronijevic stated.

He recalled Radoicic’s public admission of involvement in the Banjska events, where he outlined his reasons, leaving no "secrets or ambiguities."

"This was resistance to the severe oppression applied by Kurti's regime against the people in Kosovo and Metohija. Subsequent events have only validated this oppression. The state acted, detained him, questioned him, initiated proceedings, and requested evidence from those holding it. They refuse to provide it, knowing that without evidence, the process in Serbia will be blocked. This lack of evidence is then used to maintain a permanent political and legal attack on Serbia," Petronijevic assessed.

Simultaneous international pressure on Serbia regarding Banjska, along with objections to Serbia's attempts to establish a special prosecutor's office and court department to address crimes committed in Kosovo, represent, in Petronijevic’s view, an inconsistent application of the law.

The proposed law on judicial jurisdiction over crimes committed in Kosovo, adopted by Serbia’s government, is opposed by parts of the international community because it would target their allies who were active in 1998 and 1999, including "the KLA and its successors."

Petronijevic noted that people in Serbia have almost become accustomed to inconsistent approaches to certain issues, where it is considered "normal" for someone to say, "In this case, the state should act; in this case, it shouldn’t."

"Kosovo and Metohija, constitutionally and under international law, remain an integral part of Serbia's territory. This is the legal reality, while the factual situation differs slightly since Kosovo and Metohija are occupied territories, no matter how much our authorities or many people resist acknowledging this. They are occupied by NATO and the KLA, or their successors, now wearing various uniforms and forming armies in violation of Resolution 1244 and all international agreements and acts achieved so far," Petronijevic stated.

The proposed law, titled "On the Organization and Jurisdiction of Judicial Authorities in Prosecuting Criminal Offenses Committed in the Territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija," has entered parliamentary procedure. Its goal is to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Serbian Constitution and international documents, given the increasing violations of these rights in Kosovo. The law aims to prosecute all criminal offenses committed after February 17, 2008, in Kosovo.

Vuletic explained that the U.S. State Department's assessment that the proposed law violates dialogue obligations stems from the American view that Kosovo and Serbia are two independent states and that Serbia has no jurisdiction over criminal or any other prosecutions in Kosovo.

"Kosovo and Metohija is a territory currently not under the jurisdiction of Serbian state authorities, but that does not mean Serbia relinquishes its right to exercise such jurisdiction as defined by the proposed law. This act, not only judicial but also political, represents Serbia's response to the inaction of KFOR and other institutions regarding the increasingly intense violations of the human rights and freedoms of Serbs living in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as the conduct of the temporary institutions there. This is a longstanding dispute, not just between Pristina and Belgrade, but also between Washington and Belgrade," explains Vuletic.

He adds that Serbia's proposal for judicial jurisdiction over the territory of Kosovo comes at a time of impending political transition in Washington, making it interesting for Belgrade to see how the new U.S. administration will react to the proposal, as it still needs to pass through parliamentary procedures.

"This will serve as a test to see how the Trump administration envisions resolving this conflict and what they will say about it. I hope that the Trump administration, while perhaps not in terms of practical solutions, but generally in terms of the political spirit of problem-solving, will be closer to what could be called a compromise, which aligns with Serbia's policy," Vuletic notes.

According to Spahiu, the United States should not be interpreted as applying double standards when it simultaneously calls on Serbia to bring Milan Radoicic to justice for the Banjska events and criticizes it for the proposed law on judicial jurisdiction in Kosovo. He explains that "bringing someone to justice" does not necessarily mean Serbia has to prosecute them.

"From the U.S. perspective, Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state, so the proposed law is an interference in the judiciary of another, neighboring country. Regarding bringing someone to justice, this does not mean that Serbia must prosecute Radoicic itself but rather that it must hand him over," Spahiu stated to Kosovo Online.

He further added that cooperation between the judicial authorities of states with established relations is a normal practice.

"Naturally, those without relations do not cooperate, but in this case, there are agreements on cooperation that have been reached, and this is a call for that cooperation," Spahiu concluded.