Prema nalazima Komisije, postoje osnovi sumnje da je glavni tužilac Nenad Stefanović uspostavio "paratužilački

According to the commission's findings, there are grounds to suspect that Chief Public Prosecutor Nenad Stefanović established a "parallel prosecution system" serving interests outside the law. The report has therefore been forwarded to the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organised Crime.

The report examines several cases, including the alleged use of a "sonic weapon", a search of the Faculty of Philosophy and the alleged obstruction of a US extradition request. The commission identified what it described as a systematic abuse of authority.

It concluded that Stefanović, although formally operating within the state prosecution system, had effectively established a parallel structure, using certain prosecutors to pursue what the commission described as illegitimate objectives.

Allegations of systematic abuse and politically motivated prosecution

After reviewing seven key cases, the commission identified patterns of conduct that it said could constitute disciplinary violations, including serious misconduct, as well as grounds for suspicion of criminal offences.

Its principal findings included:

• Selective application of the law: Biased interpretation of evidence and preferential treatment of certain defendants.

• Misuse of prosecutorial powers: Alleged use of the prosecution service to discredit citizens and criminalise the constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful assembly.

• Violations of legal procedures: Unlawful searches, seizure of documents unrelated to investigations and unjustified delays in proceedings.

The commission highlighted the alleged "sonic weapon" incident, claiming that instead of investigating an alleged attack on citizens, prosecutors launched proceedings against those affected, accusing them of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.

Alleged manipulation of authority and obstruction of justice

The commission found that Stefanović had allegedly misused his organisational powers to remove cases from prosecutors who did not follow his instructions and reassign them to colleagues expected to make decisions in line with predetermined positions.

The report also alleged that injured parties were systematically denied procedural rights, including access to case files, preventing them from obtaining effective legal protection.

"The continuity and intensity of the irregularities identified indicate that these are not isolated incidents, but rather the result of management practices for which the Chief Public Prosecutor is responsible," the report concluded.

The Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office announced that it would continue monitoring the work of the Belgrade prosecution service, while the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organised Crime is expected to examine the allegations of abuse of office.

Belgrade prosecutors reject report's findings as unfounded

The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade has rejected the allegations contained in the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office report, describing them as unfounded.

In a statement published on its official website, the Belgrade prosecution service questioned the composition of the supervisory commission, noting that its membership had changed during the review process.

It argued that these changes raised questions about how continuity and consistency in the supervisory process had been maintained.

The office also questioned whether the report was genuinely intended to assess the legality, effectiveness and consistency of prosecutorial work, or whether the review had been used by the Supreme Public Prosecutor and certain prosecutors as a means of targeting the Chief Public Prosecutor and other prosecutors in Belgrade.

The Belgrade prosecution service also criticised the public release of details from the report before it had formally received the document.

It argued that publishing allegations before the institution had an opportunity to respond undermined public confidence in the prosecution service without providing evidence of wrongdoing.

The office announced that it would issue a detailed response to the report's specific findings after completing a comprehensive review.

Questions raised over the commission's authority

In its response, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office noted that the Supreme Public Prosecutor's General Mandatory Instruction No. 8/26, issued on October 27, was based on Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the Law on Public Prosecution.

That provision authorises the Supreme Public Prosecutor to issue general mandatory instructions to ensure legality, effectiveness and consistency in the work of prosecutors.

The instruction stated that supervision would be conducted to monitor and guide the work of public prosecution offices and oversee compliance with mandatory instructions, pursuant to Article 31, Item 3 of the same law.

However, the Belgrade prosecution service questioned a provision requiring it to grant commission members access to any case file they requested, provided the case was identified by description or other means.

The office described this authority as unusual and potentially questionable in light of the statutory powers of the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office.

It also stated that the commission had been established by a decision of the Supreme Public Prosecutor dated October 27, under reference number A 513/26, but that no authorised representative of the Belgrade prosecution service had been given access to that decision.

Consequently, the office said it remained unclear who officially belonged to the commission, whether its members were operating collectively or independently, and whether the body could formally be considered a commission.

"The commission arrived each day with a somewhat altered or completely different composition, leaving it unclear how continuity of supervision and oversight was maintained and whether, beyond its formal title, it was actually a commission or individual prosecutors from the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office independently reviewing certain cases," the statement said.

Commission's membership and mandate questioned

The Belgrade prosecution service said the commission's exact composition and mandate remained unclear.

It also stated that it had not been provided with any internal rules governing the commission's work, including possible quorum requirements or the specific powers of its members.

Despite these objections, the office said it had provided the commission with all necessary conditions to conduct its work without obstruction.

These included a dedicated room and access to every case file requested, in accordance with General Mandatory Instruction No. 8/26.

The office maintained that it had fully complied with the instruction from the beginning of the supervisory process, respecting both the hierarchical authority of the prosecution service and the Code of Ethics for Public Prosecutors.

However, it said an issue arose at the outset concerning compliance with the Law on Classified Information.

According to the Belgrade prosecution service, several commission members either lacked the necessary security clearance to access classified case files or failed to present evidence of such clearance when requested by authorised personnel responsible for handling classified information.

The office warned that this situation could have compromised both the commission's work and compliance with the law by employees of the Belgrade prosecution service.

Prosecutor's television appearance draws criticism

The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office also criticised Branko Stamenković, a prosecutor from the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office and a member of the commission, over his appearance on Insajder television on November 2.

During an interview with journalist Jugoslav Ćosić, Stamenković discussed cases that were also subject to the commission's review.

The Belgrade prosecution service argued that his public comments were inconsistent with Article 7 of the Code of Ethics for Public Prosecutors and raised serious questions about the motives behind the supervisory process.

According to the office, Stamenković had effectively prejudged the findings of the commission before its work was completed.

Three possible outcomes

The Belgrade prosecution service noted that, when asked about the possible outcome of the commission's work, Stamenković had identified three options: initiating disciplinary proceedings, filing criminal charges or issuing mandatory instructions in individual cases.

The office criticised him for failing to mention a fourth possibility: that the commission might find no irregularities at all.

"To make matters worse, he explained that the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organised Crime would have jurisdiction over criminal proceedings against holders of prosecutorial office," the Belgrade prosecution service stated.

It questioned whether specific criminal offences had already been identified, noting that prosecutors and other judicial officials could face criminal proceedings before courts and prosecution offices with different areas of jurisdiction, particularly those with general jurisdiction.

The office further claimed that Stamenković had openly praised the work of certain prosecution offices, particularly the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad, while repeatedly casting doubt on the work of the Belgrade prosecution service.

According to its statement, his comments suggested that the commission's review was effectively being used to gather evidence for an informal preliminary investigation or to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

The Belgrade prosecution service therefore accused the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office of misusing the supervisory mechanism to pursue objectives beyond its intended legal purpose.

Belgrade prosecution service defends its work

"The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade cannot afford to remain silent," the institution said in its response.

It described itself as Serbia's largest and, in terms of jurisdiction, most significant prosecution office, employing 75 active prosecutors in addition to the Chief Public Prosecutor, excluding those temporarily assigned to other prosecution offices.

Despite unfilled positions and a substantial workload, the office said its prosecutors continued to perform their duties conscientiously and responsibly, in accordance with legal requirements and professional ethics.

Commission identifies alleged patterns of misconduct

The commission's report, issued under the authority of the Supreme Public Prosecutor, stated that its review had identified "systematic patterns of conduct by the Chief Public Prosecutor and certain prosecutors of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade that display characteristics of disciplinary violations and serious disciplinary offences".

According to the report, these patterns included selective application of the law, biased decision-making, legal violations, misuse of organisational and hierarchical powers, abuse of prosecutorial authority, and restrictions on the rights of injured parties.

Among the cases examined by the commission were those concerning the alleged "sonic weapon", presidential pardons, the "Vista Rica" case and several other proceedings.