The latest facts published regarding the implementation of court supervision measures in the case of Vesna Medenica have unequivocally confirmed what the Director of the Police Administration Lazar Šćepanović warned about from the very beginning, that the police do not create or interpret court measures, but execute them exclusively within the limits of clearly defined court orders, said Democrats MP Momčilo Leković.
The responsibility for their accuracy, content and consequences, he said, lies solely with the court.
"The written order by which the High Court, for the first time in a high-profile case (Vesna Medenica), instructs the police in detail to conduct 24-hour surveillance represents a clear admission that the previous practice was not sufficiently specific or operationally applicable. This practically confirms that without clear court instructions, there is no effective control of measures, which is precisely what the Police Directorate has continuously pointed out," said Leković.
Statistics, he added, further expose the scale of the problem.
"The police informed the courts as many as 350 times about violations of supervision measures by 93 defendants, while the court reacted with detention in only four cases. Such a disparity cannot be put into perspective; it speaks of a serious systemic failure in the court's reaction to its own decisions. The law clearly obliges the court to regularly review supervision measures and react when they are violated. When the police record repeated violations, and there is no decisive court reaction or even a request for a report, responsibility cannot be shifted to the executive body. The police do not have the legal authority to tighten the measures; they act exclusively on the court's order."
Leković states that the current case, as well as previous examples of lifting or easing measures despite recorded violations, show that the key challenge is not in implementation, but in judicial decision-making.
"Any imprecision or inconsistency in judicial practice directly produces operational, security and institutional consequences. Attempts to shift responsibility for such outcomes to the police are a distraction from the essence, it is the court that determines the rules of procedure and bears responsibility for their effects. This case is therefore a clear confirmation that insisting on precise court orders was not a formal issue, but a matter of legality, efficiency and public safety. It is time to openly state: the effectiveness of surveillance measures depends above all on a decisive, precise and consistent court decision. Without this, any discussion about the implementation of measures remains superficial," said Leković.
He also points out that it is particularly worrying that even after almost 15 days since the urgent appeal by the Special State Prosecutor's Office, which requested detention for Vesna Medenica, there has still been no decision from the Court of Appeal.
"Instead of urgent action, the public is witnessing a procedural "ping-pong" of files between courts, with twists and turns that create additional risks and legal uncertainty. The simple question is, if the system cannot quickly decide on a case marked as urgent, then what does urgency in the judiciary actually mean? Any further delay sends the message that procedural obstacles take precedence over the efficient application of the law, and that is a luxury that the legal system cannot afford, especially in a case that already carries serious security implications," said Leković.
Bonus video:
