At an HRC63 side event in Geneva, the Council of Europe commissioner linked pressure on journalists, protesters and civil society to weakening public safeguards ahead of Serbia’s election.
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty told a Geneva side event on Thursday that Serbia had undergone a “sharp decline in respect for human rights” between his visits in April 2025 and May 2026. His central warning went beyond individual allegations: institutions intended to protect rights and uphold the rule of law were themselves losing trust, capacity or independence.
The discussion, “Fundamental Freedoms Under Pressure: Human Rights and Accountability in Serbia”, took place on 17 September in Room Concordia 4 at the Palais des Nations. Organised by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, it was held alongside the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, which runs in Geneva from 7 September to 7 October.
Serbia was not the subject of a formal country debate on the Council’s agenda. The side event instead gave international officials and Serbian civil-society representatives a forum to compare concerns about freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, digital surveillance and accountability. A Serbian delegation was present in the room.
A warning about institutions, not only incidents
O’Flaherty’s presentation drew on two country visits made roughly a year apart. In his published remarks, he described a pattern involving harassment of journalists, limited accountability for alleged police attacks, strategic lawsuits against public participation, and a media market that he said favoured pro-government outlets.
He also raised attacks on peaceful protesters by police and unidentified people, allegations of spyware found on civil-society members’ phones, and the portrayal of rights groups as “traitors” or “foreign agents”. Such labels, he argued, do more than damage reputations: they can expose legitimate civic actors to violence.
One of his sharpest criticisms concerned the disputed events of 15 March 2025, when thousands of demonstrators in Belgrade reported a sudden disturbance during a silent protest. O’Flaherty criticised the Higher Public Prosecutor’s handling of allegations that a sonic device had been used, noting that around 3,000 testimonies had been submitted. He also expressed concern about warnings that people accused of spreading false claims could face prosecution.
The allegation remains contested. Serbian officials have said police acted within their legal authority when managing public gatherings, while prosecutors later dismissed the sonic-device claims. During O’Flaherty’s first visit, Interior Minister Ivica Dačić reaffirmed Serbia’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the government’s account of their April 2025 meeting.
Yet O’Flaherty’s argument in Geneva was that disputes over particular incidents cannot be separated from the credibility of the bodies asked to resolve them. He pointed to a broad loss of confidence in the police, concerns about the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office, deficiencies in the Protector of Citizens, and the apparent collapse of earlier cooperation between state institutions and human-rights organisations.
He also called for implementation of Venice Commission recommendations intended to protect prosecutorial autonomy. That concern places the side event within a wider European debate over whether Serbia’s formal legal commitments are matched by institutions able to apply them independently. As The European Times reported in August, rule-of-law and media-freedom questions remain central to the credibility and pace of Serbia’s EU accession process.
The election raises the stakes
The discussion came little more than five weeks before Serbia’s early parliamentary election on 25 October. In that setting, freedom of assembly, association and expression are not peripheral civil liberties. They shape whether candidates can campaign, journalists can report, monitors can observe and voters can make informed choices without intimidation.
Other panellists widened the evidence presented in the room. UN Special Rapporteur Gina Romero, joining remotely, said restrictions on civic space and alleged digital surveillance could undermine meaningful political participation. Representatives of Serbian rights groups described pressure on independent institutions, alleged spyware targeting activists, and rising threats and assaults against journalists.
Their interventions reinforced O’Flaherty’s institutional focus. A state may have an ombudsman, specialised prosecutorial procedures and formal channels for protecting journalists, but those mechanisms offer little security if investigations stall, official orders are not carried out or victims see no effective remedy.
In an election period, impunity can influence public behaviour before any case reaches a court: reporters may avoid an assignment, organisers may stay home and citizens may decide that participation carries too high a personal cost.
Hope rooted in Serbian society
O’Flaherty did not end with institutional failure. Asked whether he remained hopeful, he answered yes. His confidence, however, rested less on official assurances than on people continuing to exercise their rights under pressure.
He pointed to resilient civil-society organisations, academics who refused to be silenced, growing scrutiny by the UN, Council of Europe, OSCE and European Union, and above all Serbia’s young people. Students and other young citizens have been central to sustained protest and public demands for accountability since the Novi Sad railway-station canopy collapse in November 2024.
That closing note gave the Geneva event its most important tension. O’Flaherty portrayed Serbia’s human-rights safeguards as eroding, but Serbian civic life as far from extinguished.
The coming election will therefore be judged not only by the administration of polling day, but by whether journalists, students, monitors, opposition actors and civil-society groups can participate freely before, during and after the vote, and whether credible allegations of abuse receive independent investigation.
