Seeking Justice: The Fight Against Unjust Detention
N.M. reached out to YUCOM after experiencing a challenging ordeal. He was detained in September 2009 on suspicions of international terrorism, which later changed to charges of endangering public safety. His detention was prolonged until February 2010, when the Belgrade Court of Appeals lifted it. After spending 136 days in custody, N.M.’s case was ultimately dismissed in January 2016 when the prosecutor withdrew the charges, declaring him a victim of wrongful detention.
In 2018, the legal team at YUCOM filed a lawsuit on behalf of N.M., seeking compensation for material and non-material damages stemming from his unjust imprisonment. The lawsuit emphasized the severe emotional distress, fear, and reputational damage he suffered, compounded by the public exposure of his case in the media, which undermined his presumption of innocence.
During his time in detention, N.M. experienced significant anxiety and physical symptoms, including headaches and insomnia, primarily due to the uncertainty surrounding his future. Furthermore, his employment opportunities were severely impacted, including a job offer from an American company that he could not accept while imprisoned.
The First Basic Court in Belgrade initially awarded N.M. 1,088,000 dinars (9.295 euros) for his pain and suffering but denied claims for additional non-material damages and lost wages. Both parties contested the decision, leading to an appeal. The Appeals Court recognized the merit of N.M.’s claims, increasing his compensation to 1,500,000 dinars (12.815 euros) for non-material damages and awarding 210,000 dinars (1.794 euros) for lost earnings.
Despite the ruling, the Republic of Serbia delayed payment, prompting N.M.’s legal team to initiate enforcement proceedings. Compensation was disbursed to him in 2022. However, the State Attorney’s Office has since filed a review against this final decision, prolonging the four-year legal battle.
Justice Delayed: The Case of a Homophobic Attack
In April 2015, A.A. was physically assaulted on the street by unknown individuals, presumably motivated by his sexual orientation. During the attack, the assailants shouted derogatory slurs indicating a homophobic motive, as the attackers and A.A. were not acquainted. In December 2015, YUCOM submitted a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court of Serbia, citing violations of A.A.’s physical and psychological integrity rights, specifically regarding discrimination. YUCOM promptly filed a criminal report, leading to the identification of the perpetrators, for which the police received public praise. However, during the investigation, the hate motive—described as a necessary aggravating circumstance in the Criminal Code—was disregarded. This was evident in both the victim’s and the suspects’ statements, as the nature of the insults directed at A.A. was not examined by the public prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor ultimately dismissed the criminal report for violent behaviour, as the suspect fulfilled a requirement to donate money to charity through a deferral agreement, typically reserved for lesser offenses.
The constitutional complaint argued that the prosecutor was obligated to investigate the hate motive before applying the principle of opportunity, especially given the social implications of hate crimes and their impact on the victim. In this instance, using this principle was inappropriate, as it undermined the purpose of criminal sanctions by allowing a severely violent offender to go unpunished.
Seven years after submitting the constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of A.A., acknowledging that his rights to physical and psychological integrity were violated concerning discrimination. The court agreed with YUCOM’s argument that the prosecutor should have investigated the existence of a discriminatory motive before opting for deferred prosecution. It emphasized that for assessing the applicability of Article 25 of the Constitution (prohibition of inviolability of physical and psychological integrity), the severity of physical injuries was less significant than the psychological effects and feelings of humiliation and insecurity experienced by the victim, which also constituted a violation of human dignity.
A persistent issue in this case is the prolonged proceedings, which left the victim waiting for justice. It remains unclear why the Constitutional Court did not address the property claim included in the constitutional complaint, particularly since it acknowledged the severity of the violation of personal dignity. Consequently, a complaint was filed with the European Court of Human Rights, requesting a determination of the violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe before the Constitutional Court of Serbia and seeking appropriate compensation for non-material damages.