Child's Death at Smederevo Aqua Park: Three Arrested
Prosecutors in Smederevo ordered the arrest of the director, an operations manager and a lifeguard at the Jugovo aqua park, where a five-year-old boy drowned four days ago.
- A five-year-old boy drowned on July 20 in a pool at the Jugovo aqua park near Smederevo.
- Three people responsible were arrested: the company director, the operations manager and a lifeguard.
- They are charged with a serious offence against public safety under Article 288 of the Criminal Code.
- Prosecutors ordered them held for up to 48 hours for questioning.
The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Smederevo has ordered the arrest of three people responsible for the operation of the Jugovo aqua park. The trigger was the death of a five-year-old boy, who drowned in a pool at the complex on July 20. The suspects were detained four days later, on the prosecutor’s orders.
Those arrested are the director of the company that runs the aqua park, the operations manager and a lifeguard. All three are from Smederevo. In line with the rule that a suspect’s full identity is not published before a final verdict, they are recorded in the files under the initials M. Dj., D. Dj. and B. R.
They have been held for up to 48 hours for questioning before the competent prosecutor. After that, the prosecution will decide on the further course of the case and any request for pre-trial detention. None of the suspects has been found guilty at this stage.
What are the suspects charged with?
The three suspects are charged with a serious offence against public safety. The classification is specific. It concerns the offence under Article 288, paragraph 2, in connection with Article 278, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code. That provision applies when a failure to observe regulations results in the death of one or more people.
The prosecution’s suspicion is that those responsible failed to follow the prescribed safety measures. On that theory, it was precisely the absence of the required supervision that allowed the drowning to happen. The lifeguard was arrested because of his direct duty at the pool. The director and manager because of their responsibility for organising and enforcing protective measures.
For now, no details have been released about which specific measures were missing. The prosecution is establishing those facts in the preliminary investigation. An expert examination of the circumstances under which the child was left unsupervised in the water is also expected.
How will the case proceed?
After questioning, the prosecution has several options. It can request detention, seek lighter measures to secure the defendants’ presence, or allow them to defend themselves while free. A decision on detention is made by the court, at the prosecution’s request, on grounds set out by law.
A serious offence against public safety ranks among the graver crimes in Serbian law. When the consequence is the death of a person, the prescribed sentence is substantial. The length of any sentence, however, is decided solely by the court, and only after the evidence has been heard.
Cases of children drowning at swimming sites almost always raise the same question of responsibility. Who was required to watch the water, and did that supervision exist. In this case the prosecution took a clear position at the arrest stage. In court it will have to prove the link between the omitted measures and the tragic outcome.
For the family of the five-year-old boy, the legal outcome will not change the hardest part. What remains is a question that recurs after every such tragedy: how strict is supervision at public pools really, and who checks it before the worst happens?
