The events in Užice in July 2025 provide a clear and illustrative example of how institutions in Serbia react when a civic protest crosses the line of what is politically acceptable and becomes real pressure on the regime.
It all began as a series of public gatherings and carefully escalated civic actions. After several days of blockades of the main road near Zlatibor, which gradually increased in intensity and number of participants, on July 5 a blockade of the railway station followed, halting train traffic from Montenegro. Everything passed without police intervention, despite their presence at the Fire Station, fully equipped for crowd control.
Already the next day, the approach changed: the police prevented the daytime road blockade, while at the same time open threats of arrests and police brutality appeared in the public space. In the evening, a large number of citizens moved in a protest column through the city, avoiding police cordons. The escalation occurred in Krčagovo, when a smaller group of police officers attempted to form a line only at the moment the crowd approached. Due to their unfavorable position and the pressure of a large number of people, the cordon broke, followed by a road blockade and then a brutal intervention by the gendarmerie.
However, the regime’s response that followed was far more serious than the incident itself. On the morning of July 7, a coordinated action of detaining protest participants took place. They were initially summoned to give statements as citizens, only to be immediately charged upon arrival with the criminal offense of assaulting an official, which carries a prison sentence of up to 12 years. The shift in status, from citizens giving statements to suspects, without a clear and convincing explanation of what actually happened, shows how flexibly the law can be interpreted in such situations.
"The shift in status, from citizens giving statements to suspects...shows how flexibly the law can be interpreted in such situations."
This raises a key question: where does the protection of public order end, and where does the abuse of the law to suppress protest begin? The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia guarantees citizens the right to assemble, express their views, and participate in public life. These rights may be restricted, but only when truly necessary and in accordance with the law. The problem arises when situations that might constitute a minor offense, or even fully legitimate behavior, are treated as criminal acts. In such cases, the state’s response is clearly excessive.
"Where does the protection of public order end, and where does the abuse of the law to suppress protest begin?"
The criminal offense of “assault on an official” exists for situations where someone clearly and intentionally attacks a police officer or another public official. However, during mass protests, where people move in large numbers and events unfold spontaneously, a broad interpretation of this offense can lead to collective behavior being retroactively framed as individual criminal responsibility.
Such an approach has two important consequences. First, people no longer know what is permitted and what is not, because the boundaries keep shifting. Second, criminal proceedings begin to serve as a tool of warning and intimidation, rather than solely for punishing actual wrongdoing.
This is where the essence of pressure lies. Detention, custody, and pre-trial detention do not affect only the individual, they send a message to the entire community. That message is not necessarily explicit, but it is clear: participating in a protest carries serious risks. These risks include separation from family, interruption of professional obligations, potential loss of income, and long-term consequences for personal and social status. In other words, civic engagement is translated into a criminal offense.
In the case of Užice, an additional issue is the timeline of events. Public threats of arrests, made by high-ranking representatives of the regime, preceded the actual detentions, further blurring the line between political rhetoric and institutional action.
Yet what makes this case particularly significant is the reaction of the local community. Instead of producing a chilling effect, institutional repression led to an intensification of protests. The number of participants grew day by day, support came from other cities, and Užice became a symbol of broader social resistance.
This effect reveals the limits of a repressive approach. Institutions have a legitimate right to protect public order, but when that right is exercised in a way perceived as unjust or selective, it loses legitimacy. Without that legitimacy, even formally lawful measures can produce the opposite effect. That is why the key lies not only in laws, but in citizens’ trust in institutions. And trust cannot be built by force.
"That is why the key lies not only in laws, but in citizens’ trust in institutions. And trust cannot be built by force."
The events in Užice show how dangerous it is when criminal proceedings are used to control protests and social conflicts. Such an approach does not only pressure activists, it also undermines trust in the law and institutions in the long run.
The Užice example, however, shows something else as well: repression has its limits.
When the regime crosses that line, repression stops producing fear and begins to produce resistance.
Author: Vladan Sinđić, activist
