It appeared quietly, through the back door, but it could bring major changes.
That is, in short, how the Draft Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code could be described. If the government proposes it and parliament adopts it, 86 articles of Serbia’s highest criminal statute will be introduced or amended.
While Justice Minister Nenad Vujić insists that these changes align Serbian legislation with international conventions and European standards, critics link them to anti-government protests and view them as repressive.
The amendments are “without any doubt a strengthening of repression” in the current socio-political context in Serbia, says Goran P. Ilić, Professor of Criminal Law at the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, speaking to the BBC in Serbian.
“The reform agenda in this case is being used as a pretext. The changes seriously infringe upon the achieved level of human rights, and in a regressive way. This is a highly repressive law, whose sole purpose is to crack down on people protesting in the streets of Serbian cities,” says Milena Vasić, Programme Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (YUKOM).
The Minister denies that the proposed changes have anything to do with the protests.
Ilić and the National Convention on the EU criticise the lack of public debate and the short time frame for comments.
“This is a dangerous precedent in the process of adopting criminal legislation,” they say.
The proposed measures, they add, “in many cases will not actually improve criminal legislation, but will lower the achieved level of guaranteed rights.”
Experts and the public will only be able to submit remarks by email, which, Ilić points out, is not the usual practice when passing such important laws.
“You can’t even find the draft on the Ministry of Justice’s website, it has only been published on the e-consultation site, somewhat hidden.
“We don’t even know who exactly wrote the amendments, as at least three members of the Working Group established in 2021 have publicly said they did not take part in the final drafting. Among them is Professor Zoran Stojanović, the chair of the body,” Ilić told BBthe C in Serbian.
Traffic blockades become a criminal offence
One of the main signs of possible increased repression, according to Vasić, is the change to Article 290, to which a new paragraph has been added.
Until now, unlawful obstruction of traffic was considered a misdemeanour and was not covered by the Criminal Code, unless “life or physical safety of people or property of significant scale” was endangered.
If the amendments are adopted, “placing obstacles on roads and stopping vehicles in traffic contrary to regulations,” even without serious consequences, will be punishable by up to one year in prison.
“It doesn’t take much wisdom” to link the new provision with ongoing anti-government protests and blockades, says the professor.
“The state is rewarding us with a new basic form of this offence, which carries only abstract danger, as it is termed in criminal law.
“It is enough to show up, block a road, and you are a candidate for a one-year prison sentence,” Ilić argues.
In the draft’s explanatory notes, it is stated that the law “aligns with the needs of practice” and envisages appropriate penalties depending on the gravity of the case, with the aim of “strengthening road safety and improving the prevention of the most serious consequences.”
If the changes are adopted, prosecutors will determine in each case whether there are grounds for a criminal offence or whether it should be classified as a misdemeanour, Minister Vujić told Tanjug.
“No one will be sent directly to prison (for blockades); a court procedure will follow, with a possible sentence of up to one year,” he said in an interview for RTS.
When asked directly whether this provision of the law is related to the events on Serbia’s streets, he replied: “This is harmonisation with European standards and the protection of the rights of those who are entitled to hold different opinions and the right to freedom of movement.”
During anti-government protests, there were instances when police prevented demonstrators from blocking streets, so they endlessly crossed pedestrian crossings, thus blocking traffic for cars.
“You know how a pedestrian crossing should be used,” Vujić responded to RTS when asked about such cases. “If there’s a traffic light, you cross on green, and if there’s a traffic policeman, you are obliged to stop and cross when he allows it. If you don’t behave that way, you are committing an offence. But that’s not the same kind of traffic blockade,” he added.
But such wording could affect the freedom of public assembly, especially in the midst of “the burning situation we currently have regarding that matter,” criticises Milena Vasić.
“The question arises whether this was deliberately done in order to restrict public gatherings, because it can be both problematic and dangerous,” she concludes.
‘Counselling’ via social networks
If the amendments are adopted, social media users in Serbia will soon have to be far more cautious about what they share.
They could face charges for a new criminal offence: “publishing material that provides counselling for the commission of a criminal offence.”
The draft amendments prescribe prison sentences ranging from three months to three years for those who “make available, through information technologies or in another way, material containing information that provides advice on committing the most serious criminal offences.”
These include offences “against the constitutional order and security of Serbia,” for which some participants of months-long anti-government protests have been charged.
The newly introduced offence differs from the existing concepts of incitement and aiding in the commission of crimes, says Goran Ilić.
“This does not imply that you are deliberately advising someone, creating in them the intention, and reinforcing their determination to commit the act,” the lawyer notes.
The wording in the new draft is “too broad” and, according to him, “everything could be characterised as a criminal offence.”
“For example, anything my colleagues or I say during lectures about the crimes we study could be characterised as counselling someone to commit those offences,” explains Ilić.
Alongside publishing content, the same penalties are proposed for those who share the material and for those who “knowingly access it using information technologies.”
“That also means we will be at increased risk of surveillance of digital communications, because the article does not apply only to social networks but also to private correspondence,” warns Milena Vasić.
The Minister, however, dismisses such comments.
This group of offences, Vujić says, is a consequence of the tragedy at Vladislav Ribnikar Primary School in Belgrade (when, in May 2023, a pupil killed nine children and a school guard).
“This is most often about the darknet or dark web, where there are instructions on how to make explosive devices,” Vujić told RTS.
Abolishing extortion of confessions
While previous articles of the law were added to and expanded in the new draft, the existing Article 136 could disappear.
Under it, officials who obtained a statement or confession through force, threats, or other unlawful means faced prison sentences, which could last up to ten years if serious violence was used.
The authors argue that “the reason for its removal lies in partial overlap” with other offences, particularly “abuse and torture.”
“In practice this led to inconsistent legal classification,” states the explanatory note.
Professor Ilić points out that legislators justified this decision as being in alignment with international standards, a requirement for Serbia.
But such an explanation “does not hold water,” he says.
He recalls the case of the disappearance of two-year-old Danka Ilić in Banjsko Polje near Bor in March last year.
The brother of one of the two suspects died on 7 April at a police station in Bor, and the Institute of Forensic Medicine established that the death had occurred through violence.
In April this year, a man committed suicide in a police vehicle.
If, in such cases, the immediate or indirect cause of death was extortion of a confession, it could henceforth be punished only as abuse and torture.
“There is a major difference between these offences, and such simplification is not possible in law,” Ilić argues.
The Minister’s claim that abuse and torture already encompass the offence being deleted is “only partly correct,” says Milena Vasić.
“Some elements of the offence are indeed included, but at present we have extensive repression due to the protests in Serbia, with many situations that are problematic from the perspective of extorted statements.
“It is very dangerous to delete this offence from the Criminal Code now,” Vasić adds.
Serbia has for years had the obligation to harmonise its legislation with the United Nations Convention against Torture, but has failed to do so, the lawyer points out.
“And now it is removing the offence of extorting statements.
“Recommendations are inconsistently applied, always in favour of the repressive apparatus, that is, the state,” Vasić concludes.
‘Intercourse without consent’
According to the proposed amendments, the Criminal Code could introduce the offence of “intercourse without consent,” something strongly opposed by women’s rights organisations.
Intercourse without consent is defined as a sexual act without the victim’s agreement and would be classified separately from rape, which, under the current la,w is committed through the use of force or threats.
“By introducing this new offence, we are expanding the circle of protected persons, because practice has shown that we have a group of women left without protection, since for the offence of rape, force, threats, or the victim’s helplessness are required,” Minister Vujić told Radio Television of Serbia.
Under the draft amendments to the Criminal Code, the penalty for intercourse without consent would be imprisonment from three to twelve years, while rape carries a sentence of five to twelve years.
Some activists fear that the introduction of intercourse without consent could lead prosecutors to take the path of least resistance and qualify rape cases under this offence, since it is easier to prove.
“There is no reason why the Ministry of Justice believes that coercion into unwanted sexual relations, in which victims did not resist, constitutes a lesser offence that does not deserve to be called rape,” stated the Autonomous Women’s Centre.
This organisation demands that every sexual act without consent be considered rape, as in many cases, victims freeze in fear and do not resist.
The draft also stipulates that those serving prison sentences for rape, intercourse with a helpless person, or intercourse with a child will be “completely barred” from parole.
This is described as “in line with a stricter penal policy for these crimes,” but also with international standards for protecting human rights and society from dangerous offenders, the draft adds.
However, Professor Ilić notes that legislators in the draft have not consistently implemented the Istanbul Convention, which criminalises sexual acts “without consent.”
“The convention does not mention coercion at all, because it is simple – either there is consent or there is not.
“We are introducing unnecessary confusion into judicial practice. I believe that in a few years we will realise this was not needed and that we will return to the proven practice we had,” he explains.
Punishing revenge pornography
For the first time, the Criminal Code will sanction revenge pornography.
It proposes the introduction of a new criminal offence – misuse of a recording, photograph, portrait, audio recording, or document with sexually explicit content.
The prescribed sentence is between three months and three years in prison, and if the victim is a child – from one to eight years.
For officials who commit the offence, the penalty is two to ten years in prison.
If the material is made available to a large number of people, the punishment ranges from six months to five years.
“The mere fact that you have sent someone a personal photograph, with your consent and their agreement to receive it, does not mean you have given permission for it to be shown to third parties or further shared,” said the Minister.
The introduction of this article “should be welcomed,” since it fulfils “a long-standing demand” of human rights organisations, argues lawyer Milena Vasić.
(BBC Serbia, 26.09.2025)