The Media Council for Self-Regulation expresses serious concern regarding the final decision of the High Court for Misdemeanors in Bijelo Polje, which acquitted three adult defendants of responsibility for attacks and threats against journalists during reporting from Gornji Zaostro in August 2025.
Dailies Pobjeda and Vijesti reporters were exposed to insults, threats, physical contact and confiscation of equipment while professionally performing their work, trying to document the removal of an illegally erected monument to chetnik commander and criminal Pavle Đurišić. Despite this, the epilogue of the misdemeanor proceedings is - there is not enough evidence.
Of particular concern is the unevenness in the qualification of actions that took place during the same event and were aimed at preventing journalists from doing their job. While in one case there is a criminal proceeding for the act of coercion against a journalist, in the misdemeanor proceeding, confiscation of the phone and prevention of recording was evaluated as an action without elements of physical attack, with the explanation that there was no "body to body" contact.
All this may impose the question of the consistency of the application of the law and the uniformity of judicial practice in cases related to the safety of media workers.
Additional concern is caused by the fact that other proceedings related to this event have been marked by multiple postponements of hearings, which prolongs legal uncertainty and weakens confidence in the efficiency of the judiciary.
The Media Council reminds that the role of church structures in the context of the erection of monuments, the removal of this one was the reason for the attack on journalists, was repeatedly pointed out in public. Of particular concern is the fact that the monument to Pavle Đurišić, after being removed to the church and then to the monastery, was never found, nor was a clear and convincing explanation given to the public about the actions of the competent authorities in that part of the case.
In a democratic society, it is legitimate to ask whether all institutions in this case acted equally efficiently, impartially and without the influence of any extra-institutional authorities and whether the protection of journalists was treated as a priority in relation to other interests. Any perception that religious or political authorities can have more influence than the law is a serious problem for the rule of law.
The Media Council for Self-Regulation does not prejudge the responsibility of any entity, but believes that the absence of a convincing and consistent institutional response creates a perception of impunity. It can negatively affect the freedom of the media and the willingness of journalists to report on topics of public importance.
We will continue to monitor this and all other cases of attacks on journalists, insisting on transparency, consistency and accountability of institutions, because without real protection of journalists, there is no fundamental freedom of the media.
Media Council for Self-Regulation (MSS)
