Prosecutors Cite Autopsy Record in Vladimir Cvijan Case

The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade released, on August 6, parts of the autopsy record on the death of lawyer and former MP Vladimir Cvijan. It was the first time the institution had publicly cited the content of the findings from a case closed back in 2018, and the immediate trigger was a statement from the Ustavobranitelji association, published a day earlier, on August 5 at 4:10 p.m.

In the same statement, the prosecution apologized to the Cvijan family, explaining that it had been forced to publish certain details in order to refute falsehoods circulating in public. Cvijan died on January 5, 2018, at age 42. His body was found drowned in the Danube, and the public did not learn of his death until 2021.

What the prosecution quotes from the record

From the autopsy record, drawn up on the basis of the autopsy findings and a chemical toxicological analysis, the prosecution highlighted a description of an injury on the forehead: an oval area the size of a corn kernel where the skin was stripped of its epidermis, with swelling and a dark red blood bruise beneath it reaching the size of an olive. It also noted that, according to the record, the deceased was missing one tooth.

The conclusion the institution keeps repeating has not changed:

death occurred as a result of drowning, of which they are aware from direct review of the case file

It also cited a finding that “at the time of drowning a state of alcohol intoxication was present.” Based on those findings, on March 27, 2018, the prosecutor handling the case wrote an official note concluding there were no grounds to suspect a criminal offense prosecutable ex officio, and the case was archived.

What Ustavobranitelji dispute

The statement from the association’s governing board was signed by lawyers Cedomir Kokanovic, Jovan Rajic and Ivan Ninic. Their objection centers on the absence of an investigation:

It is unclear how and on what basis the Higher Prosecutor’s Office can claim that “there was no indication whatsoever pointing to the commission of a criminal offense.”

They also argue that an earlier prosecution statement was inaccurate, the one claiming “no traces were found on the body pointing to mechanical injuries,” since, they say, the autopsy report they themselves received from the prosecution contains a description of a wound on the forehead. Ninic reviewed the case file on February 18, 2022.

What changed in five days?

The level of detail changed, while the conclusion stayed the same. In its August 1 statement, which we covered on August 2, the prosecution stuck to a general claim that no traces of mechanical injury existed. Five days later, it is quoting a section of the record itself, describing the forehead injury in detail, with exposed skin and a blood bruise. That shift has moved the debate to the question of what caused the injury, and whether anyone checked before the case was archived.

At the end of the statement, the prosecution called on the Belgrade Bar Association to respond to public statements by its members who level accusations without a shred of material evidence. That is a move with a specific address and a specific deadline, since the bar association must now decide whether to open disciplinary proceedings. It shifts the center of the dispute from the content of the case file to the lawyers who speak about it.

Cvijan’s biography is the reason the case has not left the front pages even eight years later. He served as an advisor in the presidential cabinet, secretary general of the Presidency, an MP, and chairman of the parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs. He left the Serbian Progressive Party in 2013 and registered the Republican Party in early 2014. The case into his death remains archived at the prosecutor’s office, and the August 6 statement gave no indication it will be reopened.