Belgrade judge faces threats after refusing search warrant

A pre-trial judge at the Higher Court in Belgrade, Ksenija Maric, has received death threats after she declined to issue a warrant to search the home of a man prosecutors accuse of threatening Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic. The threats were made public on Thursday, July 30, by an informal group of judicial staff called Defence of the Profession, and by early afternoon the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade (VJT) had sent the daily Danas a statement arguing that the judge is overstepping her legal powers.

The suspect is identified as S. S. from Kragujevac. Prosecutors asked the court for a warrant to search his flat, Maric refused to sign it, and within days a dispute over a single procedural step moved out of the case file and into public view.

What the judge said

Speaking to Danas on July 30, Maric said her only authorities are the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code. Asked about the coverage of her work, she was brief: “I answer only to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the laws of this country, not to tabloids.”

In the same interview she said her duty is to protect the law rather than to fill political orders, and that judges are being labelled accomplices to a would-be killer while a target is being drawn on her forehead.

Who is asking for protection

Defence of the Profession said days of sustained media attacks on the judge had produced threats to her life, and asked that she be given physical protection.

“We demand an urgent response from the competent institutions, the police and the relevant prosecutor’s office”

The statement came out in the morning. By the end of the working day only one of the institutions it named had spoken publicly, and on a different subject.

Why do prosecutors call it arbitrary conduct?

The VJT argues that by refusing the warrant the judge is acting in direct conflict with articles 152 to 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Issuing a search warrant, the office says, does not require establishing even the lowest degree of suspicion, only a likelihood that the search will turn up the accused, traces of the offence or items relevant to the proceedings. The statement adds that at this stage a pre-trial judge does not try a case, but rules on motions.

Its assessment of her conduct is blunt:

“Pre-trial judge Ksenija Maric is exceeding her legal powers and is definitively entering the territory of arbitrary conduct”

The response was sent to Danas at 2.53 p.m., with a request that it be published under Serbia’s media legislation, that is, under the right of reply.

Four hours between two statements

The sequence of that single day shows how far the dispute has travelled from the courtroom. The report on the threats to the judge appeared at 10.50 a.m., and the prosecution’s response landed four hours later. That response deals strictly with the application of the Criminal Procedure Code and the powers of a pre-trial judge.

So two separate proceedings now run around the same name. One is criminal, against the suspect from Kragujevac. The other is public, over whether the judge was entitled to refuse the warrant, and it is being conducted in the press rather than before a panel of judges.

What happens next

The demand for a published reply means the argument continues in the pages of the newspaper, within the deadline the law sets for replies. The investigation into S. S. proceeds without a search of his flat, because no warrant exists. One question carries a possible date: whether the police and the relevant prosecutor’s office will act on the request to protect the judge, and how long that will take.

Until a final verdict, S. S. is accused of threatening the president and is presumed innocent. Guilt is not established in press statements or newspaper columns, but in proceedings that have, for now, stalled over a warrant that was never signed.