Raičević and Ralević each sentenced to six months in prison for coercion of a "Vijesti" photojournalist

The Basic Court in Berane sentenced Nikola Raičević and Milić Ralević to six months in prison each for coercion against Boris Pejović, a photojournalist for the daily newspaper "Vijesti", during the event of the removal of a memorial to Pavle Đurišić in the village of Gornje Zaostro near Berane.

They will serve their sentence in the premises where they live.

According to the verdict, the court found that on August 8, 2025, Raičević and Ralević used threats to try to force Pejović not to publish photographs of the removal of the memorial to Pavle Đurišić.

The verdict states that the defendants took a photo with Pejović and then told him "we have a photo, so we can find you more easily, if you publish the photos of the removal of the memorial to Pavle Đurišić", which caused the photojournalist to feel fear and threatened for his life.

The court concluded that they had committed the crime of coercion.

During the proceedings, the prosecution assessed that this was an attempt to influence freedom of information and prevent the publication of materials of public importance.

In her closing arguments, the prosecutor stated that Pejović was at a public event and doing his job, and that he was not banned from taking photographs. She emphasized that the threats were aimed at intimidating the journalist and influencing his behavior.

"If such actions were tolerated, it would mean that anyone could use threats to determine what can and cannot be published. That would represent a direct attack on freedom of information," the prosecutor stated.

The defendants' defense denied committing the crime and claimed that there were no serious threats or coercion.

During the proceedings, Raičević claimed that he did not know that journalists were at the event, that he did not threaten anyone, and that he apologized to Pejović if he had “said something bad to him.” His defense attorney assessed that the accusation was based on unreliable testimony from the injured party and disputed the manner in which the defendants were identified.