12 branded: how a secret BIA recording became a coup case in Novi Sad

Statements followed from government officials and pro-government analysts that this was the preparation of a coup d'état. The then outgoing Prime Minister of Serbia, Miloš Vučević, stressed that it was a matter of "the preparation of terrorism" and "the preparation of a coup d'état". "What particularly worried me about that meeting was the idea of physically liquidating the head of state. I think they mentioned civil war six times. I know them from Novi Sad, these are people of extreme views. Behind it lies classic terrorism", said Vučević, the former mayor of Novi Sad.

The Speaker of the National Assembly of Serbia, Ana Brnabić, assessed that they had all planned a coup d'état, violence as a prelude to civil war and the assassination of the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, stressing that what she found most terrible and most shocking was the role of the University of Belgrade, referring to the part of the recording in which Marija Vasić speaks about contact between the trade union of the Serbian Armed Forces and the University of Belgrade.

"My question to the professors, the deans, the rectorate, the extended rectorate, Rector Đokić, is who from the University of Belgrade (BU) took part in the attempted military putsch, coup d'état and civil war in the Republic of Serbia, as well as in the assassination of the president. Who from BU took part in it and who confirmed to Marija Vasić that they are in contact with the trade unions of the Serbian Armed Forces and that they are negotiating as the University of Belgrade and that the University of Belgrade guarantees that the army will come out into the streets and react. What is the role of BU in planning a coup d'état and a military putsch?", asked Ana Brnabić. The Extended Rectorate of the University of Belgrade responded, stating that Marija Vasić is not a professor of the University of Belgrade, nor is she connected with the university in any context, and rejected the claims that the University could be a participant in any anti-state movements. "We express public protest at the malicious insinuations that the University of Belgrade, as a fundamental national institution for more than 200 years, could ever be a participant in any anti-state movements", the statement issued in response to the parliament speaker's press conference said. The Extended Rectorate also stated that the making and spreading of untrue information in the media by holders of public office, in the context of causing panic and creating an atmosphere of insecurity among citizens, is grounds for legal, political and moral responsibility.

An extraordinary press conference ahead of 15 March was also held by the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, who said that all persons who had planned the break-ins and the seizure of institutions, and who are on the territory of Serbia, had been arrested, and that others who set foot on the country's territory would be arrested as well. He stressed that what was heard on the recording is shocking and had disturbed the public, stating that the authenticity of the recording had been confirmed. Vučić stressed that Marija Vasić, of whom he pointed out that she is a teacher at the Jovan Jovanović Zmaj grammar school, from where they drove the prime minister's son out into the street to protest against his own father, had said that the army is expected to come out into the street and that negotiations are under way with the independent trade union and that the University of Belgrade is negotiating about it. "I am certain that the competent authorities will manage to investigate whether that is true, whether Ms Vasić was telling the truth or was merely boasting. If she was telling the truth, then we come to far greater responsibility on the part of persons from the University of Belgrade", said Vučić, stating that the participation of the army in a coup d'état is a putsch, which is one of the gravest criminal offences in Serbia.

Immediately after the arrests, the PSG issued a statement saying that the views expressed on the recording represent neither the views nor the plans of the party, and least of all its position on the student protests and their demands. "Aware of the fact that at this moment all other topics are of lesser importance, including who recorded the conversation and in what way, we wish to offer an apology to all citizens for the irresponsible discussions and to guarantee that no PSG member will, by any gesture or act on Saturday, disturb the overall character of the protests, which should pass in a peaceful and dignified tone", the statement says.

STAV also responded on Instagram, stressing that it does not call for violence, does not fall for propaganda media spin, and that the regime has taken fright and is trying by every possible means to discredit the revolt of citizens and students.

Students in blockade also issued a statement, saying that the broadcast recordings clearly contain an agreement on strategies of manipulation and incitement of the crowd and that the plans set out have nothing to do with the students and their struggle. They stressed that, as students who have been on the streets and at the faculties for months, they are deeply disappointed and astonished by such conduct by organisations that claimed to represent student interests. "That is why we once again clearly distance ourselves from all the organisations and parties mentioned in the recording. We are not part of any political calculations, nor will we allow the student struggle to be used for someone else's interests", the statement says.

The day after the large protest, on 16 March, the pre-trial judge of the Higher Court in Novi Sad, following the hearing, issued a decision ordering detention of up to 30 days for the suspects, for the criminal offence of preparing acts against the constitutional order and security of Serbia as co-perpetrators, in connection with the criminal offence of attacking the constitutional order and the criminal offence of calling for the violent change of the constitutional order.

The court stated at the time that "there are particular circumstances indicating that the suspects, if at liberty, could obstruct the proceedings by influencing accomplices, that is, other suspects, bearing in mind that there is reasonable suspicion that they committed the criminal offence jointly with suspects whose questioning is yet to come" and that "there are particular circumstances indicating that the suspects could, within a short period of time, repeat the criminal offence of which they are reasonably suspected, bearing in mind that there is reasonable suspicion that it is connected with the protests of citizens in Serbia which are still ongoing".

The PSG responded on this occasion with a statement titled "PSG members are political prisoners", saying that ordering detention for their members and comrades is the most obvious example of the continuation of the repression of a regime which this time too brazenly violates not only statutory but also constitutional provisions, and is further proof that we are in an authoritarian political system.

Students in blockade of the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad issued a statement on 24 March 2025, saying that students from that faculty who had taken part in the meeting with PSG members had undermined the non-partisan struggle, for which the plenum voted to ban them from taking part in student activities. However, they stressed that this does not justify the authorities' conduct towards them and that they strongly condemn their arrest and the fact that they are charged with overthrowing the constitutional order. "Audio material that was recorded in secret must not and, under the law of the Republic of Serbia (Article 143 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia), cannot be used as relevant evidence, and therefore has no legal force before a court. The functional work of institutions, for which students in blockade have been advocating from the very beginning, implies fair and equal treatment before the law for everyone, without exception. We demand that the competent institutions explain to us, as soon as possible, the unlawful arrest and that they treat this case in accordance with the law. We call on everyone to understand the complexity of the situation and to stand in solidarity with those arrested", Students in blockade of the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad said in the statement.

Three days later, students in blockade of that faculty organised the first protest in support of those arrested, under the name "Let us ask you something", and a march from the campus of the University of Novi Sad to the seats of the Prosecutor's Office and the BIA. They asked the Prosecutor's Office on whose instruction it selectively issues arrest warrants, why it enables the persecution of citizens, activists and students, and on what principle it orders detention for activists and professors without evidence while releasing senior officials. From the BIA they sought an answer as to who ordered the wiretapping of the activists and whether that agency works and wiretaps in the interest of citizens' security or in the interest of people who have usurped all the institutions in the country. One of the questions was also how the recording ended up in the tabloids before it was delivered to the Prosecutor's Office. When the first 30 days of detention expired, the pre-trial judge Tatjana Đurašković extended their detention on 11 April by a further 30 days. The defence counsel for the students and activists asked the judge to separate from the case file the evidence that cannot be used in criminal proceedings, because it was not gathered in accordance with the law, and that all of them then be released from detention, but she refused this.

The defence counsel pointed out that conducting criminal proceedings in line with such evidence would set a dangerous precedent, which would seriously endanger the human rights not only of the accused in these proceedings, but of all future persons who find themselves in a situation where evidence against them is gathered outside the Criminal Procedure Code.

"We will submit to the Supreme Court a Request for the Protection of Legality against the decision by which the Higher Court in Novi Sad refused to separate that evidence from the case file", said defence lawyer Željko Kočić.

As he added, the acts described in the criminal complaint do not constitute the commission of a single criminal offence, nor is it stated individually for each of the accused in what way he or she allegedly committed the criminal offence, which, in his words, is unlawful and constitutes an abuse of the procedural powers of the Higher Court and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad.

In front of the Higher Court building, on 14 April 2025, a protest gathering of parents, friends and citizens was held to mark one month since the arrest of the accused, who are held in detention in the Novi Sad neighbourhood of Klisa.

On 12 May, the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad filed an indictment proposal against 12 persons, charging them with the criminal offence of preparing acts against the constitutional order and security of Serbia, but also with the criminal offence of attacking the constitutional order and calling for the violent change of the constitutional order. For the six accused who are in detention, a proposal was submitted to the court to extend their detention. At the same time, for the six who are unavailable to the prosecuting authorities, it was proposed that they be tried in absentia. The Prosecutor's Office stressed in its statement that it had proposed that the court, after the main hearing has been held, find all the accused guilty and impose maximum prison sentences on them.

After inspecting the case file within the statutory deadline, the lawyers of those arrested say that everything rests on a recording made by the Security Information Agency (BIA), outside the legal rules, and that the evidence on the basis of which the prosecution drew up the indictment proposal cannot be used in criminal proceedings.

"We must take into account the way in which the recording came about, through covert surveillance, and then also the fact that it first reached the tabloid media and was broadcast there, and that only afterwards was the prosecution informed that there were elements of some criminal offence and that proceedings were initiated, and that on the basis of a recording that was not made in accordance with the law", said defence lawyer Veljko Milić.

Citizens and opposition representatives gathered on Wednesday 14 May in front of the Higher Court in Novi Sad, in protest at the decision to extend detention. In the reasoning of the decision to extend detention, the court refers to the protests "of students and other citizens" and states that there is a "reasonable fear that the accused, if they were to be at liberty, could within a short period of time repeat the criminal offence". Because of this decision, Marija Vasić went on a hunger and thirst strike on 13 May.

"It is clear that what is at issue here is a continuity of political persecution of activists, which constitutes a serious violation of fundamental human rights and constitutional freedoms and an impermissible assault on freedom of expression and of political opinion", the opposition stressed in a statement ahead of the gathering, saying that these are political prisoners and demanding their release and the withdrawal of the wanted notice for the six activists who are in exile. The Novi Sad citizens' assemblies also issued a statement, stressing that they will fight until innocent people are released, "and until those who are guilty of the killing of 16 people at the Railway Station in Novi Sad and of years of crime and corruption are arrested".

The largest protest took place on 15 May, when students, citizens and representatives of opposition parties gathered at 7 a.m. and completely blocked all entrances to the Higher Court building in Novi Sad. An incident also occurred when there was pushing between those gathered and the gendarmerie and the police, who used pepper spray. While the blockade of the court was under way, Marija Vasić was, according to her lawyers and members of her family, transferred to the prison hospital in Belgrade. On the same day, support gatherings were also held in front of the courts in Belgrade and Niš.

Marija Vasić's husband, David Trnavac, told journalists in front of the court that he had visited his wife for the first time in two months. "She is in a very bad condition, she cannot walk and speaks with great difficulty, and they have just transferred her to hospital, as I have learned, in Belgrade", Trnavac said after the visit. He claimed that for the previous two months he had not been granted a visit because the previous judge had demanded that he waive his right to testify in order to obtain permission for a visit.

One of the defence counsel for the Novi Sad activists, lawyer Veljko Milić, said that the court had informed them that it would not process the appeals they had lodged against the detention decisions because allegedly none of the employees had come to work owing to the blockade of the court building, after which the organisers of the protest said they would allow entry into the building to those competent to decide in these proceedings.

Milan Pavković, one of the defence counsel for those arrested, assessed that the Speaker of the National Assembly of Serbia, Ana Brnabić, is knowingly spreading disinformation about the case. "The claims by Ana Brnabić that the recording of the conversation on the basis of which the activists and students were charged was delivered by one of the participants in the conversation themselves are untrue. That is another in a series of attempts at spreading disinformation, which state bodies have been engaged in from the very beginning of this case", Pavković said.

On 20 May 2025, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad lifted detention and ordered house arrest with an electronic tag for Marija Vasić, Lado Jovović and Lazar Dinić, charged with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of Serbia. By partially upholding the appeals of their defence counsel, the court decided to impose on them the measure of a ban on leaving the home with electronic monitoring, with a ban on using the telephone and the internet and a ban on receiving other persons in the home, which may last at the longest until 20 August of this year, it was published on that court's website.

In relation to Mladen Cvijetić, Srđan Đurić and Davor Stefanović, the second-instance court quashed the decision of the Higher Court in Novi Sad extending their detention and ordered that court to decide on detention again. The court considers that, in relation to them, sufficiently clear, specific and complete reasons were not given as to the existence of the conditions for the possible application of a more lenient measure.

Students in blockade announced after this decision that the blockade of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad continues even after the release of the three activists. "The blockade of the court continues until all those arrested are free. Employees of the court will be allowed to come to their workplaces from 7 in the morning until 11, after which the court will be totally blocked", the students said in front of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad.

Detention for Cvijetić, Đurić and Stefanović was lifted on 28 May. The court imposed on them the same measures as on the three activists released from prison detention a week earlier. This ended the blockade of the Appellate Court. Stefanović was even physically attacked in detention at Klisa on 17 May, when another detainee broke his nose during the prison exercise period, which the lawyers and the public learned of several days later.

By a decision of the Appellate and the Higher Court in Novi Sad of 15 October, house arrest was lifted for Marija Vasić, Lado Jovović and Lazar Dinić. In the repeated proceedings, the criminal out-of-trial panel, reviewing ex officio the decision on the continuation of the measure of a ban on leaving the home with electronic monitoring, lifted the measures against the accused. House arrest for Cvijetić, Đurić and Stefanović was lifted on 24 October.

In an interview for N1 on 16 October 2025, professor Marija Vasić said that the detention unit at Klisa is "a dehumanising space mixed with military discipline".

"You have to get up from your chair or bed when someone comes in; if they take you out of the cell you have to walk on the left-hand side, and if someone comes towards you, you have to turn your head to the wall, not to address anyone and not to ask anyone anything", Vasić said. "Three times a week you have a shower and they lock you in the cubicles; you do not know how long you will be locked in, whether five minutes or an hour, that depends on where the female guards have gone and when they will come back".

"Once a day you go out for a walk, if the weather is not bad and if they let you out at all that day, but you do not know whether it will be at eight in the morning or five in the afternoon. You hear some sounds over that fence, six metres high. You hear some children, cars - some life is going on, people are living somewhere, and your life has absolutely stopped", she said.

Ahead of 1 November 2025 and the marking of the first anniversary of the collapse of the canopy in Novi Sad, Lazar Dinić said in an interview with Danas that his stay in the detention unit at Klisa had been hard and full of uncertainty. "Every day you wait for something. You wait for a parcel, a letter, a visit, an answer to an appeal. Besides that, probably the hardest thing is the absence of information. Objective and accurate information. Later I received the newspapers Nova and Danas and that saved me. The newspapers were my window onto the world. All the texts in which we are mentioned meant a great deal, but so did all the other information, which I had not had until then", Dinić said.

On 25 October, Insajder reported that the answer to the question of why the activists in Novi Sad were recorded lies in the indictment proposal filed against the 12 activists by the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad, which this outlet obtained under the Law on Free Access to Information.

Almost the entire indictment proposal rests precisely on the recording of the conversation which the accused activists held in the evening hours of 12 March 2025 in the premises of the PSG's Novi Sad board. The conversation lasted several hours, and the BIA recorded all of it. The transcript of that conversation is part of the BIA Report on the results of the application of the special measure, which forms the backbone of the indictment proposal. The report was submitted to the court on 14 March, the day before the scheduled protest, and the indictment proposal describes how it came about at all that the BIA wiretapped the premises of an opposition political party, Insajder reports.

"From the indictment proposal, the conclusion is drawn that the BIA did not deliberately wiretap the 12 activists who are now charged with several offences against the constitutional order, but that they were monitoring only one person. Moreover, as Insajder has had confirmed from several sources, that person does not appear on the indictment at all, but was monitored for entirely different reasons. It follows from this that the BIA recorded the conversation of the Novi Sad activists entirely by chance", Insajder states. It is also said that the identity of this person is redacted in the indictment proposal delivered to Insajder, and that she had been under BIA measures since 22 May 2024. Insajder stresses that these were very extensive special measures, which included the monitoring and recording of communication regardless of the electronic means of communication, then access to incoming and outgoing calls and messages, as well as the geographical location of the participants in the conversation via base stations. The extension of the measure also enabled physical surveillance, which included covert monitoring and recording both in public places and in places with restricted access.

The orders on all these measures, with the exception of one, were signed by the president of the Higher Court in Belgrade, Dragan Milošević. He also signed the first order on the application of the measures from May last year, as well as the order extending the measures from 5 August 2024. The deputy president of the court signed the order on the extension, and Milošević then signed the last order, of 22 November 2024. It was precisely that last order that made possible the wiretapping of the premises of the PSG's Novi Sad board.

Lawyer Veljko Milić, who defends Dinić, tells Insajder that the surveillance measure did not relate to any of the accused at all, and that before the start of the court proceedings he cannot speak about it, bearing in mind that the decisions themselves are marked secret and that the whole case raises the question of proportionality in issuing orders for the implementation of surveillance measures. "The Law on the BIA prescribes that there must be proportionality in ordering measures, but at the same time it is given to one man, the president of the Higher Court in Belgrade, to decide on them. From this case, as well as from the fact that the premises of an opposition political party were wiretapped, one gets the impression that no one is too concerned with the question of proportionality in ordering measures", Milić states.

After a few days, the media reported that the person who was under BIA measures was PSG MP Ana Oreg.

The trial of the activists from STAV and PSG began on 24 November 2025 at the Higher Court in Novi Sad before a panel chaired by judge Vladimir Pecovski, but the main hearing was interrupted because the defence lawyers requested that the prosecutors in these proceedings be replaced. 2 February 2026 was set as the new date for the main hearing.

Recusal was sought of the public prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad, Slobodan Josimović, of the chief public prosecutor of the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad, Branislav Lepotić, of the appellate public prosecutor Tatjana Lagumdžija and of the Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac.

The defence lawyers stated that they doubt prosecutor Josimović will be impartial in these proceedings, because he is the injured party in the proceedings conducted against Radivoje Jovović, the brother of the accused Lado Jovović. The defence also sought the recusal of Zagorka Dolovac who, they stressed, was obliged to open an investigation into who from the BIA delivered to the media the recording of the wiretapped conversation of the activists, given that this is evidence carrying a classification marking.

"There is suspicion that the recording reached the public in such a way that some official from the BIA delivered it to the media, precisely in order to make a fair trial for the accused impossible, that is, so that a verdict would be passed in public before any proceedings began and so that pressure would thereby be exerted on the prosecution and the court", said lawyer Veljko Milić.

He pointed out that the indictment proposal in these proceedings was filed just before the expiry of the 60-day detention period for the activists, solely so that they would not be released to defend themselves at liberty. "That is just one of the examples of the bias of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in these proceedings. Not to mention the fact that from the very beginning these proceedings have been conducted on the basis of entirely unlawful evidence, which no prosecutor in Serbia has ever in history thought of using in criminal proceedings".

At the start of the trial, the defence lawyers also requested that it be recorded, which they had also requested earlier in writing. The request was refused because, as judge Pecovski stated, of a lack of technical conditions. To the defence's objection that in the 21st century this does not stand as an argument, the judge explained that the equipment exists, but that there are not enough employees, that is, minute-takers who could carry it out. The defence lawyers suggested that the court should authorise a person who would only press the record button. "The fact that the proposal for audio recording of the trial has been refused at this moment does not prevent the defence from again requesting that the trial be audio recorded, because the course of the main hearing itself really does depend on audio recording. If audio recording is not provided, the very point of the trial is largely lost, because it comes down to the interpretation of someone's words", Milić stated.

Ahead of the continuation of the trial on 2 February, it was announced that the request for the recusal of the public prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office (VJT) in Novi Sad, Slobodan Josimović, from the case of the Novi Sad activists, who are charged with preparing a coup d'état, had been refused. The requests for the recusal from the case of the chief prosecutors of the VJT and of the Appellate Prosecutor's Office and of the Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac were also rejected.

The main hearing on 2 February was also adjourned at the request of public prosecutor Ksenija Bašić, because the prosecutor in charge of the case, Slobodan Josimović, did not appear in the courtroom owing to sudden illness, as he informed the court. According to the prosecutor, because of the complexity of the case the main hearing should not be held in those circumstances.

One of the defence lawyers, Vladimir Horovic, asked judge Pecovski to lift the detention and to set aside the wanted notice for the six persons who are being tried in absentia in these proceedings, and stated that the decision ordering detention never became final because the court never delivered it to the defence counsel, and under the law the defence counsel have a right of appeal.

He stressed that this denied the accused the right to defend themselves before the court, and also that it constitutes discrimination, given that these are persons who work or study in Serbia, which is currently made impossible for them. Prosecutor Bašić stated that she opposes such a proposal. Judge Pecovski did not wish to decide on it summarily, as the defence requested, but said that he would refer the proposal to the out-of-trial panel for decision. The continuation of the trial was scheduled for 5 May.

The trial on 5 May was again adjourned, because the activist Lazar Dinić did not appear owing to, as his defence counsel stated, the consequences of an attack during the local elections in Bor. During election day in the village of Šarbanovci near Bor on 29 March, serious incidents occurred when unknown masked attackers got out of black jeeps and physically attacked activists, students and journalists who were touring polling stations, among whom was Dinić. In that attack Dinić suffered a fractured sinus bone. His lawyer Veljko Milić said that Dinić had been hospitalised because of that event and had undergone surgery.

"This moment in which the proceedings find themselves, the stage of the main hearing, where the defence of the accused is to be presented, is very important, if not one of the most important parts of the main hearing, where the accused should be entirely psychologically prepared for such a thing. His defence and his doctors consider that at this moment, because of the recently endured traumatic event, he is not able to attend", said Milić.

Independent media reported on 21 July that Interpol had refused, at Serbia's request, to issue a wanted notice for the six Novi Sad activists, because this is a "political criminal offence". This decision closed off the possibility of their extradition through the channels of that international police organisation. The decision from Lyon first reached the Ministry of the Interior, then the Higher Court in Novi Sad, and then the defence lawyers.

"Interpol analysed the documentation submitted by the prosecuting authorities of the Republic of Serbia and thereby established that this is political persecution and that Interpol and its information channels cannot be used for these criminal offences. So Interpol gave its assessment and said that this is a political criminal offence", states lawyer Željko Kočić.



"I am glad that Interpol recognised what this is about and recognised that what is at issue here is not any kind of criminal proceedings but judicial, fabricated political proceedings, which have no foundation whatsoever; there is no evidence on the basis of which we could be convicted", said Doroteja Antić, one of the activists who is in exile.

The Higher Court in Novi Sad has again postponed the trial of the Novi Sad twelve. The hearing that had been scheduled for 4 September 2026 has been moved to 30 October, with the explanation that the expert assessment of Lazar Dinić's procedural fitness had not been carried out, according to a statement by the group "Borba je obaveza".

In a text recently published in the magazine Radar, lawyer and former president of the Bar Association of Serbia Viktor Gostiljac stressed that the main question in the proceedings against the Novi Sad activists is whether material that was not obtained under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, but for which instead the legal framework provided by the Law on the BIA was used, can be used as evidence in the proceedings. "Under the Law on the BIA, a surveillance measure may be implemented with the permission of the president of the court; however, that does not change the fact that the conditions prescribed by the CPC for its application were not met. In short, in this specific case there is no reasoned request by the prosecution and no order by the pre-trial judge ordering the measure of monitoring and recording communication", says Gostiljac.

"They annulled our passports and ID cards, searched our homes, issued a national wanted notice and ordered a trial in absentia. They called us terrorists, assigned us labels over an alleged attempt to overthrow the constitutional order and continued with their cheap propaganda campaign, which we all pay dearly for, and which they have been running against us for more than two years, almost daily. We realised that we had to find a way to accept that parallel life into which they have pushed us", STAV activist Mila Pajić said in an interview published on 2 February in the Zagreb weekly Novosti.

"One of the persons covered by the indictment did not utter a single word during the entire meeting, while another was not even in the same room. Yet proceedings are nevertheless being conducted against them too, and on the basis of security camera footage of them leaving the wiretapped premises", activist Doroteja Antić said recently for Radar.

She states that the decision of the six activists not to return from Croatia to Serbia did not come quickly or easily, nor was the key reason the attack by the tabloid media, whose target they had been for months. "Our legal team considered that it was in our interest, and also in the best interest of the others, that at least part of the group should remain somewhere safe, so that all resources could be directed towards freeing the activists from the appalling conditions of detention", Doroteja Antić stated.

She stated that everyone in Croatia has regularised status and has managed to find work, and some have also continued their studies. "We lead an outwardly normal and peaceful life. The biggest difference compared with Serbia is that here we are safe and that is how we feel", the activist concluded.