Threats to prosecutor and minister: arrests ordered

The Special Department for High-Tech Crime at the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade has ordered police to find and arrest the authors of posts on the network X. Those posts contained death threats aimed at chief public prosecutor Nenad Stefanovic and justice minister Nenad Vujic. The order followed a series of messages that appeared on the platform.

According to the prosecution, the messages referred to hanging on Terazije and to a firing squad. These were direct threats against the lives of two senior judicial officials. Prosecutors treat such posts as a criminal offence, not as an expression of opinion.

What led to the threats?

The threats followed a media piece that criticised the handling of one high-profile murder case. In the view of a judicial source, the text baselessly suggested that the case had been handled unlawfully. The same source said the investigation had been conducted efficiently and within the law.

The judiciary stresses that public criticism of the prosecution’s work is legitimate. Citizens have the right to question the decisions of institutions. A death threat, however, crosses the line of free speech and enters the zone of criminal liability.

Cases like this are not new for the Serbian judiciary. Prosecutors and judges occasionally report threats linked to the cases they handle. Each report opens a pre-criminal procedure and a check into the origin of the post.

How does the judiciary respond to threats made online?

The Special Department for High-Tech Crime was created precisely for offences committed over the internet. It has the authority to request data on account holders and on IP addresses. Police are now working to identify the people behind the disputed profiles.

The Criminal Code treats a threat against the life of a state official as a more serious offence. The prescribed penalty is higher when the threat relates to the performance of official duty. If found, the authors of the posts could answer for endangering safety.

At this moment no one has been arrested. The identity of the authors has not been officially confirmed. Guilt cannot be considered established until the proceedings end with a final ruling.

The case raises a broader question about the line between criticism and a threat on social media. For many users, the anonymity of an account creates a sense of impunity. A digital trace, though, remains even after a post is deleted, and it is precisely that trace that forms the basis for further action.

Where, in your view, is the line between sharp criticism of the judiciary and a threat that warrants criminal prosecution?