What was once justified as the “defence of the constitutional order” is today increasingly framed through relativisation, media spin and the shifting of blame onto protesters
The 1990s established a dark standard – the regime at the time used the police apparatus as a primary tool for preserving power, with a clear political and ideological dimension. Violence was widespread, systemic and often fatal. Today, in the era of smartphones and social media, every use of batons or tear gas becomes instantly visible. That visibility creates the impression of greater brutality, but above all it creates immediacy – violence is no longer a distant news item, but something documented in real time and witnessed collectively.
The question of whether police force used during protests in Serbia today is more brutal or simply better documented through technology must be analysed through the prism of international human rights standards, particularly Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. What we are witnessing today is a tactic of “selective repression” and demonstration of power aimed at intimidation and the prevention of future gatherings.
Regardless of the growing body of evidence documenting police brutality, citizens remain unprotected, while those who violated the law continue to be protected. In that sense, these protests are no different from the ones before them
The target groups have also changed – no longer only political opponents, but increasingly young people, students and environmental activists, groups seen as having the greatest potential for broader social mobilisation. Institutional responses have evolved as well. What was once justified as the “defence of the constitutional order” is now increasingly managed through relativisation, media spin and attempts to shift responsibility onto protesters.
Police violence in Serbia reveals a systemic failure to fulfil the state’s procedural obligation to conduct effective, independent and timely investigations. Legal redress for victims remains the exception rather than the rule. Earlier analyses of court proceedings involving police officers accused of abuse, torture or coercion show that only around five per cent of cases resulted in convictions. The reasons behind such statistics lie in ineffective investigations leading to cases becoming time-barred, as well as in a culture of collegial solidarity among police officers that often overrides professional responsibility. Today, despite the abundance of video evidence, the institutional wall of silence and internal solidarity remains largely intact. The absence of accountability sends a clear message: the state’s monopoly on force remains protected, while citizens remain legally unprotected. The consistent lack of criminal accountability and solidarity within the security apparatus sustains a culture of impunity for police officers who exceed their authority. In this way, the state directly violates its positive obligations to protect the right to freedom of assembly, transforming the monopoly on the use of force into an instrument of political retaliation rather than a mechanism for preserving public order.
