After data from the Report on the Work of the Prosecutorial Council and the State Prosecutor's Office for 2025 showed that prosecutors requested hundreds of secret surveillance measures, and that indictments resulted in only two cases, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office (SPO) claims that such a comparison does not give a complete picture.
In a response submitted to "Vijesti", the VDT emphasized that the effects of these measures cannot be assessed solely through one reporting year.
"It is important to emphasize that criminal proceedings in which measures were ordered in some cases do not have to be completed in the reporting year. For this reason, the effects of their application cannot be assessed solely through the number of indictments in that time period," the VDP's response states.
According to previously published data, in 2025, 138 cases were opened in which secret surveillance measures were applied, while prosecutors proposed a total of 376 measures. Investigative judges adopted 156 proposals and rejected four. At the same time, the measures led to indictments in the cases of two persons.
The Supreme Prosecutor's Office reminds that multiple measures can be ordered in one case, which further complicates the direct comparison of the number of measures and outcomes.
"As shown in the report, the total number of cases filed at all levels of the State Prosecutor's Office is 138. One or more secret surveillance measures may be ordered in one case. A total of 156 proposals were adopted and four were rejected," the institution said.
The Supreme Prosecutor's Office also emphasizes that the prosecutor's office does not make the final decision on the application of measures, but that this is a matter of judicial jurisdiction.
"Secret surveillance measures in criminal proceedings are not determined independently by the state prosecutor's office, but are determined by a written order, upon a reasoned proposal from the state prosecutor, by an investigating judge who assesses whether the legal requirements have been met, including legality, necessity and proportionality," the State Prosecutor's Office points out.
They add that these measures are used only when evidence cannot be obtained in any other way and that they are time-limited.
"These are measures that are applied exclusively when evidence cannot be obtained in any other way and are limited in time," the response states.
When asked in which types of criminal offenses these measures are most often imposed, the State Prosecutor's Office did not specify the structure, stating that they are applied "in different types of criminal offenses, depending on the specific circumstances and the assessment of whether the legal requirements have been met."
The institution says that the measures are being used in accordance with the law and with respect for citizens' rights.
"By implementing secret surveillance measures, the State Prosecutor's Office uses the instruments provided by law in the fight against crime, while consistently respecting the principles of legality and protection of citizens' rights," the State Prosecutor's Office concluded.
However, the data from the report also shows the other side of the application of this instrument. In 21 cases, the measures did not produce results, while in 17 cases, the material collected through their application was destroyed.
Additionally, almost six out of ten approved measures related to basic state prosecutors' offices, which raises the question of their use outside of the most complex cases.
This is precisely why the key question remains open - whether the widespread application of secret surveillance measures is accompanied by their actual effect, or whether the gap between the number of measures and concrete results is further deepening.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
