here - Humanitarian Law Center/Fond za humanitarno pravo

decision to restrict access to the requested information, that is, it had failed to explain how access
to requested information – copies of rulings – could seriously impede further conduct and
conclusion of court proceedings.”
Decisions made by court administration and management departments that regulate this matter
are inconsistent. The Supreme Court of Cassation, for example, in Article 4 of its guidelines for
data change and removal (anonymization) in court decisions, passed on of 27 May 2010,
expressly prescribes that the personal data of accused and convicted individuals should not be
anonymized in court decisions rendered in war crimes, organised crime or money laundering
cases. The Court of Appeal in Belgrade, on 26 April 2012 amended its procedures on
anonymization by amending the guidelines for minimum anonymization of court decisions,
adopting a method identical to that used by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Unlike these
institutions, the High Court in Belgrade has not posted new guidelines on its website, so it
remains unclear if they exist or not.
The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor is an example of good practice in this respect.
Immediately after bringing an indictment, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor posts the text
of the indictment on its website, featuring the names of the accused (but withholding their other
particulars in order to protect their privacy) and the names of witnesses and other participants in
the proceedings.
11. Media reporting on war crimes trials in Serbia
Impartial, thorough and analytical reporting on war crimes trials is essential to the process of
facing the past and reconciliation. This process will succeed only if society is properly informed
of the facts regarding victims and perpetrators of crimes as established by the courts. In this
sense, the media have not only social and ethical but also legal responsibility. 25
That said, media reporting on war crimes trials in Serbia falls well short of this ideal. As in
previous years, in 2012 the media in Serbia paid very little attention to war crimes trials
conducted before domestic courts. Newspaper report covering this topic are very short, providing
only essential facts, in the form of short straight news stories. Reporting is selective and varies
depending on whether Serbs are victims or perpetrators. Press releases from government
institutions are carried in a completely uncritical manner. Victims of crimes and their fates are
25
Article 51 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia: “Everyone shall have the right to be informed
accurately, fully and timely about issues of public importance. The media shall have an obligation to respect this
right.”
14