Interior Ministry: suspect arrested for incitement to violent change of the constitutional order
Counter-terrorism officers detained M. K. (41) from Novi Sad on reasonable suspicion of calling for drone attacks on military and police facilities.
Members of the Criminal Police Directorate and the Counter-Terrorism Service of the Ministry of the Interior have deprived M. K. (41) from Novi Sad of his liberty on reasonable suspicion of the offence of incitement to violent change of the constitutional order, according to a statement issued by the ministry on 23 May. The operation was carried out on the order of the Special Prosecutor’s Office for High-Tech Crime within Belgrade’s Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office.
According to the ministry’s statement, on 21 May the suspect, using a Facebook account called “Slobodna Vojvodina” (“Free Vojvodina”), publicly called for and encouraged the use of explosive-carrying drones against the military airfield at Batajnica, the Church of Saint Sava, the building of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and other facilities of particular importance, with the aim of violently changing the constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia.
A search of the suspect’s flat was carried out on a court order, during which electronic devices, including a computer and mobile phones, were temporarily seized and sent for examination. M. K. was placed in custody for up to 48 hours, after which he will be brought before the acting deputy public prosecutor for questioning, the ministry says.
The offence under Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, relating to incitement to violent change of the constitutional order, carries a prison sentence of three months to three years. Where the offence is committed through mass media or has led to a direct threat to life or property, the sentence is six months to five years.
The Special Prosecutor’s Office for High-Tech Crime has jurisdiction over offences committed through the use of computers, computer networks and other electronic communications. A prosecutor’s statement, which would clarify the procedural qualification and the precise description of the act, had not been issued at the time of writing.
The Interior Ministry’s public statement did not name M. K.’s defence counsel. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect has the right to a defence counsel of his choosing; if he does not engage one, an ex officio defence counsel will be appointed before his first questioning.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM) recalls that, although the offence of incitement to violent change of the constitutional order exists in domestic law, courts have in past practice carefully distinguished between the public expression of political views and a specific call to action that endangers persons or property. YUCOM director Milan Antonijevic, in a statement to the daily Danas, said that the key element of any qualification is the specificity of the threat and of its intended targets.
The next procedural step is the issuance of a decision to conduct an investigation, after which the prosecutor’s office will gather evidence, order digital forensic examination and question witnesses. After the investigation, which under the Code may last up to six months, the prosecutor’s office decides whether to file an indictment or to discontinue the proceedings.
