SHARE Foundation  is a Belgrade-based NGO that works on privacy protection, security and freedom of expression. The activities of the organisation include training, support and awareness raising on digital security for journalists, activists, civil society and human rights defenders. These are organised around four pillars: freedom of expression online, data protection, digital security, and free access to knowledge. The NGO has also developed the SHARE CERT  , the first special CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) in Serbia for online media and civil society, offering incident response, training and mentorship to journalists and media organisations that incur in digital issues.

 

What are the main trends that you notice regarding digital security challenges in Serbia?

We recently published our yearly monitoring report in which we track violations in three main areas: cyber attacks, privacy and data protection issues, as well as frauds, threats and manipulations. In 2023, we recorded many threats and manipulations. During the election campaign, for example, opposition politicians faced significant digital threats, including a smear campaign involving an intimate video aired on national TV, which forced a politician to withdraw from the race.

 

Are media outlets and journalists major targets of digital rights violations?

Yes, they are frequently targeted, especially when they expose government wrongdoing. This makes them inconvenient for the authorities. Civil society organizations like CRTA also face attacks from high-ranking officials.

 

Who are the most common offenders and forms of online attacks?

Public officials and politicians are the major offenders. However, we also see attacks from citizens, especially on social media. While these citizen attacks are numerous, those from politicians have more severe consequences. As for the kind of attacks, we mostly observe smear campaigns, accusations, and insults, often through social media and pro-government media outlets. Private actors often use SLAPPs, strategic lawsuits against journalists who write about their activities. Investigative outlets like KRIK, for example, face numerous lawsuits and digital threats from powerful actors.

 

How do these digital security challenges impact journalism?

Journalists continue their work professionally despite threats. However, these attacks amplify public hatred towards them, creating a hostile environment.

 

Is there an awareness of the seriousness of digital threats among journalists and civil society organizations?

Awareness varies. Organizations that have experienced attacks are more vigilant, while others may not realize the severity of these threats.

 

How prepared are media outlets to face digital threats?

There is a gap among media outlets. Smaller local media often lack resources and digital security awareness. Investigative journalists, however, are well-prepared, receiving training and support, especially from international organizations like OCCRP. They often meet confidential sources in person and use encrypted apps like Signal. They implement proper digital security measures tailored to their threat models.

 

How do you assess Serbia’s legal framework regulating the digital environment, especially regarding media freedom?

It can be improved. Most laws are influenced by European integration. For instance, our law on personal data protection is modelled after GDPR but, it combines it with the law enforcement directive, making it complex. We also have the law on information security, primarily focused on critical infrastructure. Efforts to update it were stalled by political events.

 

Do you see a gap between the law and the practice?

Yes, implementation often lags due to a lack of political will. Independent institutions try their best, but the broader system is not supportive.

 

Is there a network or coalition advocating for digital security in the country? Do you have transnational links with counterparts in the EU and other regions?

We are part of the national CERT network and cooperate with other special CERTs. We represent civil society and media in these forums.

The SHARE Foundation is also a member of European Digital Rights (EDRi) and other networks, such as CiviCERT. We receive significant support from these coalitions, which is empowering and essential for our advocacy efforts. We also co-founded the Southeast European Digital Rights Network, involving diverse organizations from across the region.

This publication is the result of activities carried out within the Media Freedom Rapid Response and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.

According to the Serbia Media Pluralism Monitor 2023, editorial independence is one of the areas in which Serbia registers high risks. What are the main threats to editorial autonomy in the country? 

Journalists suffer various forms of pressure, mostly of a political and financial nature. Independent editors in Serbia are an exception, rather than the rule. They are usually appointed by their media owners, who choose from among their loyal so that they can control journalists’ work from the inside through soft censorship.

 

Some significant forms of pressure come from SLAPPs as well as from smear campaigns, often initiated by state authorities and public officials and mostly targeting investigative and critical journalists as enemies of the country.

 

Political pressure is also applied through financial blackmail: state advertising and direct state subsidies are often allocated through politically biased and non-transparent mechanisms. Pro-government media are the biggest beneficiaries of this type of support, including tabloid media, although they often disregard the journalistic ethical code.

 

Finally, most TV and radio stations, as well as print media outlets, belong to companies that are under direct or indirect control of subjects close to the ruling party.

 

What impact do these challenges have on journalists and the quality of their work? 

First, I want to point out that the Serbian media market is highly concentrated and polarised, which means that pro-government media are larger, more numerous, and more influential, while more critical ones have smaller coverage and proportionally weaker public influence. Pro-government media tend to instrumentalise issues of public interest to foster a we vs them dialectic, where “us” are usually described as patriots, while “them” as traitors.

 

Another important feature of the media landscape is poor content pluralism, as most outlets tend to adopt and support the government’s political agenda without any critical approach. So critical voices remain marginalised and lose their capacity to contribute to democratic processes: there is zero debate and no bottom-up transfer of their proposals on government’s decisions.

 

Does this situation impact citizens’ trust in the sector? 

In general, citizens show low levels of trust in the media. Media literacy in Serbia is not good. Most citizens who live in marginalised communities are under a very strong influence of pro-government media. The public service broadcaster RTS has the biggest influence and is perceived as the most trustworthy media in the country.

 

What we notice is an increase in the number of people getting news online. In this regard, it is important to note that the digital space in Serbia is characterised by aggressive communication, threats, and insults, and the number of online attacks on journalists has increased, especially through social networks.

 

In recent years new Internet portals were opened without being properly registered: most of them do not publish an impressum so we don’t know who finances and owns them. A big problem is that these portals act as main spreaders of disinformation and fake news.

 

On the other hand, some digital media have become the real drivers of alternative voices. These portals usually deal with investigative and analytical journalism, offer diversified views, and give space to voices and topics that we cannot find in the mainstream media, such as corruption and criminal affairs, local community problems, human rights, ecology, etc. They are less exposed to political interference, so they have a bigger potential to function as platforms for democratic debate.

 

As part of the EU integration process, Serbia has to align with the EU set of norms, including those on media freedom. How would you assess the country’s legal framework regarding the media sector?

In October of last year, the National Assembly of Serbia introduced two new media laws: the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, whose provisions aim at implementing the objectives of the Media Strategy adopted in 2020.

 

Some positive developments must be noted. For example, the Law on Public Information and Media regulates in more detail the process of media co-financing and state aid. When it comes to the Law on Electronic Media, it introduces some provisions that potentially strengthen the independence of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) and others that prescribe a more transparent process for the allocation of public funds.

 

However, not all the provisions of the new laws are harmonised with the Media Strategy and the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

 

Regarding editorial independence, for example, what is particularly worrisome is the return of the state to media ownership. According to the Law on Public Information and Media, state-owned companies can fund or own media outlets, a practice that is prohibited by the Media Strategy itself, which on the contrary recognises that the removal of every form of state participation in media ownership is a key factor for the improvement of media freedom in the country.

 

Do you think that the process of EU integration has an impact on the protection of press and media freedom in the country?

It is hard to say. It is true that the government occasionally undertakes some regulatory reforms as part of the EU accession process. But in practice, the adopted regulations are gradually ignored, so the ruling party manages to find ways to maintain and even increase their control over almost the entire media landscape.

 

Overall, I think the situation today is no better than, for example, ten years ago when the negotiation process formally began. I think the EU should honestly recognise that the Serbian government has reached the limits of its willingness to move Serbia forward along the path to EU membership.

 

Even if we don’t take into account Kosovo or the issue of sanctions on Russia, the rule of law and media freedom in Serbia are considered problematic areas that have blocked the opening of new negotiating clusters.

 

The institutional set-up has been further captured by the main governing party and the President himself. In this situation, the recognition that the current model is unsustainable if Serbia wants to move closer to EU membership seems to be the first step.

 

With this in mind, the EU should develop stronger relations with the main opposition parties in Serbia, sending a signal to Serbian citizens that there are other important political actors and partners in Serbia and that the ruling elite cannot claim that it is keeping Serbia on the EU membership path.

This interview was published by OBCT as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.

To: 

 

Mr Vucic, President of Serbia

 

Mr Stamenkovic, Public Prosecutor in General Public Prosecution and member of the Standing working group

 

Ms Brnabic, Prime Minister and President of National Parliament 

 

Mr Gasic, Minister of Interior

 

Mr Jovanovic, Minister of Information and Telecommunication

 

We would like to bring to your attention the urgent situation concerning the safety of journalists Ana Lalić Hegediš and Dinko Gruhonjić, leaders of the Vojvodina Association of Independent Journalists (NDNV). Over the past fifteen days, both journalists have been subjected to an onslaught of online death threats following their participation in the Rebedu Festival in Dubrovnik. The situation escalated on 21 March when graffiti was discovered at Gruhonjić’s residence. The journalists are facing imminent threats to their lives, prompting urgent action from law enforcement.

 

Since 8 March, Lalić Hegediš has endured terrifying online death threats, some of a sexual nature, alongside grave insults targeting both her and the NDNV she leads. Similarly, since 14 March, Gruhonjić, program director of NDNV who is also a journalist and lecturer at Novi Sad University, has been subjected to a public campaign of intimidation, including threats of physical violence. This campaign stemmed from a manipulated video montage from Gruhonjić’s participation to the Rebedu Festival last year, giving the impression that Dinko was expressing his satisfaction at sharing a name with the Ustasha criminal Dinko Šakić, who was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Second World war. 

 

On 21 March, an unknown individual went to Gruhonjić’ private residence to paint a threatening graffiti on the wall of the entrance of his building saying that Dinko will soon have “forever home”. The individual signed “Serbian Vojvodina”. The graffiti demonstrates the ease with which perpetrators can locate him and his family, underscoring the seriousness of the threats both journalists are facing. 

 

Despite the NDNV reporting the alarming threats to the high-tech crime prosecutor’s office and providing details of some of identified perpetrators, including those who signed threats with their names, no decisive action has been taken to conduct thorough investigation, arrest the perpetrators nor to provide the journalists with adequate protection. 

 

We urge authorities to launch immediate investigations and implement measures to ensure the safety and protection of Lalić Hegediš and Gruhonjić.

 

Politicians and officials must also be held accountable for their role in perpetuating hatred against journalists. Public statements from individuals such as Aleksandar Vulin, former director of the Security Information Agency and founder of the Socialist Movement party and Milenko Jovanov, MP at the Parliament last 18 March, only serve to escalate hatred and endanger lives. There are also serious concerns that members of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party are behind the lynching campaign against Lalić Hegediš and Gruhonjić. The person who filed a criminal complaint against them for allegedly inciting racial, religious and national hatred and intolerance during their participation in the forum is closely associated with party figures such as Aleksa Grubešić, member of the Serbian Progressive Party.

 

It is the responsibility of the State to protect journalists and provide them with the necessary protection to enable them to carry out their work. The policy of impunity in the face of threats to the independence of the press in Serbia must end. 

 

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We remain available for any further information.

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

In just ten days, no fewer than seven journalists have faced threats and assaults in the city of Novi Sad alone. Whether it is physical assaults, verbal abuse, online harassment or death threats, the ability of Serbian journalists to do their job is severely compromised and their safety is at risk. 

 

On 8 March 2024, journalists from Tanjug and Kurir Television, along with 021.rs radio, were verbally assaulted while covering a demonstration supporting Ana Mihaljica, whose three children were temporarily taken away from her by the Novi Sad Centre for Social Work. During a live broadcast on Tanjug, reporter Saška Drobnjak was interrupted by a woman claiming to be Mihaljica’s lawyer threatening the journalists, whom she accused of lying. A Tanjug photographer, a Kurir correspondent, and Žarko Bogosavljević of Reporter 021 were also verbally abused. According to the Association of Journalists of Serbia (UNS), the police present did not intervene to prevent interference in the journalists’ work. N1 correspondent Ksenija Pavkov also received numerous online insults and threats of physical violence for her coverage of the demonstration. 

 

That same week, two other journalists and leaders of the Vojvodina Association of Independent Journalists (NDNV), Ana Lalić Hegediš and Dinko Gruhonjić, received thousands of online death threats sent via social media and email. Ana Lalić Hegediš has been the target of terrifying death threats including some of sexual nature and insults, also directed at the NDNV she leads, for comments she made on nationalism at the “Rebedu” festival in Dubrovnik where she was invited as a panellist. Lalić mainly mentioned the Serbian authorities, who do not consider Vojvodina’s citizens as Serbs enough because of their multi-confessionalism and multi-ethnicity.

 

Since 14 March 2024, her colleague Dinko Gruhonjić, journalist lecturer at Novi Sad University and program director of NDNV, has feared for his life and those of members of his family.  Gruhonjić has been the target of a public lynching campaign including threats of physical violence since the publication of a video montage with excerpts from his performance at the Rebid festival in Dubrovnik last year. The montage was manipulated to give the impression that Dinko was expressing his satisfaction at sharing a name with the Ustasha criminal Dinko Šakić. NDNV reported these threats to the high-tech crime prosecutor’s office and, for some of them, provided the details of the perpetrators who signed with their names. 

 

“We have been under attack with the Association for decades. But this time, it’s the greatest pressure ever. Who knows what will happen to us” worries Lalić, while Gruhonjić deplores the “policy of impunity when it comes to threats against the independence of the press in Serbia, even when the perpetrators are not anonymous”.

 

“The number of threats and insults against journalists is on the rise in Serbia. Knowing that Serbia is a country where the three murders of journalists in the last three decades have not been punished, we are very worried about every threat against journalists that goes unresolved,” said Tamara Filipović, project manager of the Association of Independent Journalists of Serbia (NUNS).

 

On 15 March 2024, a resident of Novi Sad filed criminal complaints against Gruhonjić and Lalić for allegedly inciting racial, religious, and national hatred and intolerance during their participation at the forum in Dubrovnik. “We have serious reasons thinking the plaintiff is connected to members of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party” declared Gruhonjić. Some politicians have revived the insults in public debates.  

 

We join the Safe Journalists Network in calling on officials to refrain from targeting the media in Serbia. Their hostile rhetoric legitimises and normalises verbal and physical violence against journalists and media workers. We urge authorities to guarantee a safe environment for journalists, allowing them to work without fearing for their lives, and to put an end to the unacceptable culture of impunity by systematically investigating attacks and complaints.

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

The journalist of the In media portal from Indjija, Verica Marincic, was kicked out of the Indjija municipality building because she “wasn’t on the list” to monitor the conference regarding the residents’ protest against the abolition of the railway station. In a video published by N1 television, it is seen that a member of the security forces removed the journalist from the building using physical force.

 

Verica Marincic says that she came to see off the protest that was announced earlier, and when she saw that Indija journalists were entering the building, she followed them, but was met at the entrance by the chief of staff of the municipal president, who told her that she could not go to the conference.   

 

“I took my phone to record what he was saying to me and he grabbed my left upper arm because I had a phone in that hand and squeezed me expecting the phone to fall out of my hand. Because I didn’t want to let go, he took my phone. When he saw that it was all being recorded by a journalist from N1, then he withdrew. After that, a man from security came out and started pushing me to go outside,” stated Verica Marincic. The whole case was reported to the competent authorities.

 

The SafeJournalists Network and Media Freedom Rapid Response call on the state to urgently send a message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and to condemn this kind of behavior towards journalists. The SafeJournalists and MFRR also appeal to public officials and politicians to refrain from targeting media in Serbia, because their rhetoric encourages individuals to later threaten the media and media workers.

 

Each attack on journalists is an attack on public interest, democracy and the rights of all citizens.

This statement was coordinated by the SafeJournalist Network and signed by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

The news came at the end of a particularly intense day on Friday: a few hours earlier, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić had announced that, due to the situation in Kosovo, he would request a convocation of the United Nations Security Council. Attention was therefore focused on the events relating to Kosovo and on possible new tensions.

In this context, the news arrived that the Belgrade Court of Appeal acquitted all four defendants accused of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija.

Ćuruvija, a journalist of great civic spirit, was killed in April 1999 after criticising the regime of Slobodan Milošević and his wife Mira Marković. At that time, Vučić was the Minister of Information.

The four defendants were very prominent figures of the Državna bezbednost (DB), the security agency of the Yugoslav Interior Ministry, heir to the infamous UDBA. Specifically, Radomir Marković was its head at the time, Milan Radonjić was head of the Belgrade department and Ratko Romić   and Miroslav Kurak were DB operatives.

The trial of the four began in 2015, thanks to the  Commission to investigate the killing of journalists in Serbia  . The Commission was created in 2013 by the Serbian government, in which Vučić was then deputy prime minister, as the result of the persistent insistence of Veran Matić, the historic editor-in-chief of B92 at the time of Milošević, who wanted to shed light on the murders of Ćuruvija, Dada Vujasinović and Milan Pantić. At the time of the start of the trial, Vučić himself had said that he would resign   if those responsible were not found.

 

A troubled trial

From the beginning, Ćuruvija’s was defined as a state murder and it was thought that the trial would confirm what everyone knew.

The trial, which began in 2015, saw around a hundred witnesses appear before the judges, although some key figures, such as Milošević’s wife Mira Marković  , believed by many to have instigated the murder, were never heard. The investigation only looked at the facilitators and material executors of the murder, without trying to find out who the instigators were, since this would most likely have led to Mira Marković and Slobodan Milošević.

Other key figures, who could have been investigated   due to their membership and the role they held at the DB, were instead heard only as witnesses. Numerous witnesses then, during the hearings, had sudden amnesia  or changed their initial versions. Over the years, it became known that the inspector who conducted the investigations had been threatened and risked his life  .

The first instance sentence was issued in 2019 and the four defendants were sentenced to over one hundred years in prison. In the second instance, however, the sentence was overturned and in September 2019 the Court of Appeal ordered the trial to be repeated. The trial was repeated starting in October 2020 and in December 2021 the Court of First Instance essentially confirmed the previous decision for the four defendants. This sentence, however, was ultimately annulled by last Friday’s acquittal.

The four are therefore considered not guilty and although in principle there is still the possibility of appealing to the Supreme Court, the chances of success are decidedly slim  , as the experts have pointed out, and the acquittal of the four defendants cannot be overturned. In any case, on Monday 5 February, the prosecutor’s office made it clear that it intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

An announced decision

The acquittal is a tombstone on the chances of justice in the Ćuruvija case. But it is a decision that did not come entirely unexpectedly. Although it was only announced last Friday, it seems that it had already been taken for some time.

Veran Matić himself, in the spring of last year, had implied   that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on the case of the four defendants. In September, Matić himself and the Ćuruvija Foundation   had written that in fact the sentence had already been issued and that the Court had acquitted the four defendants. This despite the fact that the sentence had not yet been published, as they were waiting for the most appropriate moment to make it public  . The same invitation to publish the sentence was then reiterated by the  Ćuruvija Foundation in November   last year.

The authorities gave no explanation as to why the publication of the ruling was delayed for so many months. It is possible that the street protests against the government and the heated electoral climate were the elements that recommended delaying the publication of the sentence, so as not to further exacerbate tensions.

 

The reactions and protests

Despite the content of the sentence having been widely anticipated and the fact that the news was communicated just before the weekend, the acquittal decision still caused quite a stir in Serbia.

Perica Gunjić of the Ćuruvija Foundation   is lapidary: “The decision is scandalous and represents a defeat not only for journalists and freedom of the press, but for the entire independence of the judicial system and for the democratisation process itself”.

Regarding the trial, Gunjić comments that “the court during the entire trial made many strange decisions, which indicated that something was wrong. The two first instance decisions were written in an approximate manner, as if there was the intention to have them annulled in the second instance”. This decision, concludes Gunjić, represents an “immediate return to the 90s, to the darkest period of the new history of Serbia, to the times of wars, to the times of Slobodan Milošević”.

Matić then commented that both the political will and the role of the institutions have failed, especially as regards the judicial sector, which in fact remains anchored to the 1990s.

Matić himself then commented that in the next few days he will discuss the future of the commission investigating the killing of journalists and whether it still makes sense for it to exist. The European Union, OSCE and numerous other members of the diplomatic community expressed their disappointment at the acquittal.

Furthermore, on Monday 5 February, a protest was held in front of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, organised by journalists’ associations: the demonstrators were silent for 25 minutes in front of the Court, symbolising 25 years of silence since the Ćuruvija murder.

 

The reactions of the judicial and political world

On Monday 5, the President of the Court of Appeal of Belgrade published a statement   in which, while he understands the dissatisfaction of Ćuruvija’s family and friends, he specified that the Court judged on the basis of the evidence contained in the case which was not sufficient to support the prosecution’s thesis.

Prime Minister Ana Brnabić said she could not comment on the Court’s decision as the judiciary is independent. Brnabić stressed how the proceedings had only begun 16 years after the assassination, thanks to Vučić’s coming to power. As a citizen, however, she said she will seek justice.

The Minister of Justice, Maja Popović, however, said she was deeply disappointed   by the decision of the Court of Appeal, saying that the judicial system had not carried out its function. Vučić himself said late in the evening of February 5 that he was shocked by the decision, which is a great injustice and a terribly serious matter for the country.

The predominant feeling among those who followed the trial is one of anger and helplessness, but at the same time there is a dark awareness that the forces that dominated Serbia during the 1990s are still at work, as pointed out by Jelena Ćuruvija, the daughter of the murdered journalist  .

Symbolically, the day after the acquittal, early in the morning on the pro-government television Pink, Aleksandar Vulin, former director of the BIA – the the agency that replaced the DB – and former leading member of Mira Marković’s party in the 1990s, openly declared that his generation’s task is to bring together all Serbs wherever they live   and that this process has already begun and cannot be stopped.

These words closely echo the idea of Greater Serbia and bring the 1990s back to mind.

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.