Ombudsman Still Hasn't Closed Valjevo Police Probe
A case was opened three days after that night, the inspection of Valjevo police followed two days later, and the Interior Ministry got its first request seven months after that.
The Ombudsman has not closed the oversight inquiry it opened into police conduct in Valjevo on the night between August 14 and 15, 2025. The case was formally opened on August 18, 2025, three days after that night, and it was opened on the institution’s own initiative, since none of the affected citizens had approached the office by then.
A direct inspection of the Valjevo Police Department took place on August 20, 2025. Investigators spoke with the department chief and toured the holding cells, where no one detained under use of force that night was still being held. The Ombudsman says it received assurances that every officer who used force would have that use reviewed for justification.
Seven months to the first question for the Interior Ministry
Seven months passed between that inspection and the first request sent to the Interior Ministry. The sequence of steps the institution took looks like this:
- March 20, 2026, the Interior Ministry was asked whether citizens had filed complaints, whether disciplinary proceedings had been opened, and whether any proceedings had been brought against officers over that night
- April 24, 2026, the ministry’s secretariat forwarded a report from the Valjevo Police Department dated April 3, 2026
- May 15, 2026, a request went to the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Valjevo
- May 22, 2026, a request went to the Institute of Forensic Medicine
The Valjevo Police Department replied that no citizens had filed complaints over unlawful or improper conduct by officers during the crackdown on the unrest, so no complaint proceedings could have been carried out, and that the department had opened no disciplinary proceedings for either minor or serious breaches of duty. Asked about criminal proceedings, it said it held no such data.
The Institute of Forensic Medicine reported on June 16, 2026 that it had not taken part in examining the injuries sustained in Valjevo. The same request was sent to court expert Djordje Alempijevic, since the institution had learned of his findings from media reports, but no answer arrived.
The Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Valjevo replied that on October 10, 2025, several injured parties had filed a criminal complaint against 28 police officers over abuse and torture under Article 137 of the Criminal Code. In a ruling dated May 14, 2026, the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office assigned the case to the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime, and the file was forwarded there. The Ombudsman notes that under Article 19 of the Law on the Ombudsman, it has no authority to oversee the work of courts or prosecutor’s offices.
Explaining why the inquiry is still open, Ombudsman Zoran Pasalic pointed to that criminal case and to the volume of material involved.
Because of how complex the facts are, and because the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime is reviewing a criminal complaint filed against police officers who allegedly committed the offenses of abuse and torture in Valjevo on the night between August 14 and 15, 2025, the oversight inquiry opened by the Ombudsman is still ongoing.
He also cited Article 31, paragraph 3 of the Law on the Ombudsman, which allows an inquiry to be extended when warranted by the complexity of the facts, the volume of data or the conduct of those involved. In this case there is no complainant, since the inquiry was opened on the institution’s own initiative.
Why was the footage never requested?
Vladica Ilic, a lawyer with the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, said the institution pointed the inquiry in the wrong direction and skipped a step that should have been obvious.
The Ombudsman aimed the inquiry at something that isn’t his job, he’s looking at what the prosecution did, and then says he has no jurisdiction over that. He says he carried out an inspection, talked to the chief of the Valjevo police department. Fine, but did he ask for the footage? Did he ask for footage if some officer was recording the police operation? Because when protesters are hurt in an incident the authorities always have an interest in reporting on, the police always have some footage.
Ilic draws a line between the work of a prosecutor and the work of an ombudsman, and argues the Ombudsman’s powers are broader than the institution has used.
He isn’t bound by his jurisdiction to do this, but he can act on his own initiative. His procedure is lighter than the one before the prosecution. The Ombudsman has to establish whether public authorities violated citizens’ rights. A prosecutor has to establish individual responsibility, the Ombudsman has to establish institutional responsibility.
Asked about the fact that the injured parties never approached the institution themselves, which Pasalic cited as one reason the inquiry has dragged on, Ilic said such an approach would be logical, but that the absence of it should be a cause for concern, since it points to a lack of trust that the institution’s work has any effect when it comes to protection from abuse.
What is known about that night
According to the Valjevo Health Centre, 43 citizens sought medical help on August 14 and 15, 2025, along with 21 Interior Ministry personnel and one member of the Defense Ministry. Three citizens were kept in hospital care, and one was transferred to the University Clinical Centre of Serbia in Belgrade because of the severity of his injuries. A member of the Defense Ministry was also kept in hospital, while no police officer was hospitalized.
Forensic medicine specialists Djordje Alempijevic and Slobodan Nikolic examined 25 people, at their own request and that of their lawyers. Alempijevic told media that on one man detained that night he recorded at least 28 baton blows, bruised welts and hematomas across his back, torso, arms and legs, and that reports from the Valjevo hospital where the man was examined point to the same injuries.
In an earlier piece marking the anniversary of those events, we reported that no indictment has been filed. It is now also clear that the institution whose job is to determine whether public authorities violated citizens’ rights still has no conclusion after a year. The Ombudsman did not say when it expects the inquiry to be closed.
