From the media

The Protector of Citizens Zoran Pašalić was the guest of the central news show of TV Tanjug.

In the report “Forgotten Children of Serbia” it is stated that the children are tied, neglected, put in cages and girls and women suffer sexual abuse. The Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, Darija Kisić Tepavčević, says that commissions of the Ministry, Protector of Citizens and European Council published the surveillance which does not show what the non-governmental organizations claim. On this occasion we talk tonight to the Protector of Citizens, Zoran Pašalić. Welcome to Tanjug television. You said that you were not surprised by this report. What did your surveillance show?

- We did the surveillance for at least ten years back in such institutions, it is a part of our regular activities. What we identified, we issued recommendations to competent ministries for that in order to correct those shortcomings. Last year we issued 25 recommendations related to what should be improved at such institutions, 10 recommendations were acted upon, 2 were not, and 13 recommendations are in progress because these are problems that require long-term solutions.

What are these problems?

- These are the problems which were presented partially also in the report we are all familiar with and they are also special problems we noticed and that we believe go significantly deeper into the solving of this issue.

Does it mean when we say that children are tied, neglected, put in cages, that girls and women suffer sexual abuse. Is that what we are talking about?

- We are talking about what we saw on the spot, especially when we paid so called unannounced visits and what we heard from the home residents themselves, less from those working in these homes and one part of these visits was upon the reports of parents.

That is what I wanted to ask you. You heard what the residents said, were there reports, parents reported, right?

- Yes, but most of the findings are when you talk to the home residents and when you ask them what would they want, I am talking about those wo have this type of communication so that you can conclude from that communication that it was really their problem and that was a real problem and what you can see on the spot, especially during unannounced visits, talks a lot about the conditions at such institutions.

How many times so far have you paid unannounced visits, the surveillance in any institution of social welfare?

- Only in 2020 we had restrictions due to Covid-19 situation. Otherwise, this number is between 20 and 30 visits every year. I personally went to almost all institutions of this type and, as I said, I was in contact with primarily those who live at these homes and with whom the communication may be established and I learned a lot about the conditions at homes, but also what is very important, and that is the position of these children in society in general. It means – what is happening outside these homes. It is their status in their primary families, by their parents, relatives and all those who are legally obliged to take care of them.

Could we talk about that for a while, what is exactly what you identified in those unannounced visits?

- In these unannounced visits we primarily identified, and I always need to point out that, that the number of employees at these institutions is insufficient. At one of these institutions I came across one person, it was a female employee, taking care during the day of 20 to 30 residents, who were in great part incapable of taking care of themselves as far as the personal hygiene is concerned. Do you know what this may include, that is really impossible physically and definitely indirectly and mentally to accept such job and perform it in the manner how it is supposed to be performed. Because of that the fluctuation of the staff is high, people cannot stay long. The only ones who can persist are the ones who have to, who cannot find another job or do not have another source of existence. That is the first thing I noticed in the conversation with the staff. Surely, these conversations were very confidential, and I heard from them what I wanted to be told honestly and it is a realistic condition in these institutions.

In what manner are people who will be working at these institutions selected?

- Don’t think about the selection of people, these are not the people who are bad, these are not the people who are a priori violent as you could or as the public could conclude. Among them there are exceptionally, exceptionally qualified people and people with a high level of empathy towards these persons. Certainly, there are exceptions and people who abuse the position of these children. What I primarily noticed is the work exploitation, where these children, the children who are physically capable, are taken when there are some seasonal works to perform those works. The one who takes them gets some sort of compensation and the children are given a symbolic, not even the compensation but the reward.

Let’s go back just once more to employees. Who is to blame for the lack of employees at social welfare institutions?

- The one who should ....

Is it the state to blame?

- You cannot say colloquially that it is the state. The one who designs the number of employees, and these are competent ministries which deal with that, so not just one ministry. Let’s say, when you mentioned sexual abuse, there are relations among children who live at these homes, I refer to boys and girls here. We insisted on multiple occasions that each of these homes should have at least one gynecologist to perform regular examinations, especially according to the number of residents. So it is not just the problem of just one ministry. It is the systemic problem which can be solved by reviewing primarily if everyone accommodated at such homes really should be there. We had situations in which someone was literally moved to such institution without fulfilling the conditions for staying at such institution for several reasons, I wouldn’t name them now. That is the first thing. So the actual number of residents at such homes. Then, the actual number and the actual need for employees. That means not just the ones dealing with their personal hygiene, their accommodation and nutrition, but those of special professions and expertise. The third, if there is an option, I cannot say it is ideal, to separate those children to separate communities which are in communication with the home, but where they are provided with the opportunity to be self-organized under the strict control of the home, where these children would feel far better that in home conditions. Moreover, the same importance is on the relationship with parents, if any, and relatives, when there are no parents or social welfare centers from the town these children come, the number of visits, the number of communications, the general interest in the destiny of these children. We were convinced, me personally, that in some cases there was abuse with regards to taking of business capability so someone else handles the property of these children and practically they don’t have any other contact with these children, and they are left to the state to take care of them. The question that should be asked now is whether this is really the only solution? These are some basic questions which, when taken into serious consideration and when the analysis is performed, but not the analysis which would last for months or years, can be done in several following months and really show the actual situation. Because this report, it is just a part of an image with these examples which are the most drastic and which drew the public attention because of that.

Then who told the president that the report was actually not true and that everything was alright?

- That is not a question for me, I cannot know who said that to the president and who presented that stand in communication with the president at all. Don’t be mad with me, I cannot answer that question.

How can anyone from the competent ministry say that everything is alright at all?

- I don’t know what the Ministry told the president, I know that the Ministry said that during our controls it was confirmed that there are systemic solutions which were observed. You see, that should be explained to the public. When we control, we firstly control whether something is done in accordance with, let me call it colloquially, some normatives. It means what the accommodation of these children is like, what the life conditions are, what the nutrition is, how they are treated, if they have health protection, if they have all these conditions. Surely, as it can be read from our reports, we never said everything is alright. We emphasized somewhere what should be changed and in what direction it should go and somewhere where we really found a situation, because you cannot take that at all homes the situation is disastrous – it isn’t, that perhaps some improvements may be solved immediately and be made immediately.

Do you think that the president of Serbia really should go and personally confirm that? He even announced he would do that.

- Don’t ask me that. There are two reasons, first I don’t oversee or have constitutional right to oversee the actions of the Serbian president, Constitutional Court president…

Of course, we find it clear, but I want to hear your opinion. Do you think that it is necessary in this situation?

- It is designated by those who regulate his working hours and his obligations, definitely not me.

Thank you for this response, but...

- Tell me, are you dissatisfied with the answer?

I would like to hear your opinion, where is the problem here? We have the competent ministry which says that in principle everything is more or less alright, and that report which is not that disputable…Then we have the report which states some really serious things which shocked the public. Do you really think that we don’t have a problem here?

- I never said we didn’t have a problem, I emphasized this problem on several occasions. I am just saying that this problem is complex and that we cannot perceive it just from one angle. When I say from one angle, it is just to take only the most drastic condition in certain homes. Because I could talk to you about what I personally saw at homes, what is catastrophically bad and what is good. When I say good, I refer to the persons who work very diligently, when I say bad, I refer to poor conditions, the behavior of individual employees at such homes and what is very important, which I constantly repeat, it is the conduct of those outside the homes who should deal with these children.

Alright, what else should be done in order to ensure better conditions of residence at homes? You mentioned the lack of people first of all, what else can be done?

- That is exactly what I told you, to put really into the realistic framework what in comparison to the number of children is needed to be done in terms of the number of employees. Secondly – to provide additional trainings for the people who work, if needed, but definitely also to provide them with certain motivation so that they could do that job and that there is no fluctuation. What is important is to include parents in solving of such problems, there are instances where parents self-organized, outside homes I mean, and found solutions to such situations. On others you have a complete lack of interest of parents where they leave the child at the home and simply forget about him or her. These children suffer a lot because of that. I talked to many of them and what I noticed is that this visit of a close person, even of the Protector of Citizens whom they see as someone close to them after several talks, that means a lot to them. And you can imagine then what is the relationship when it is about someone closer to them.

Evidently. I have to ask you, the indictment against Miroslav Aleksić was confirmed today. You visited him in prison. What did he say?

- I visited the Central Prison, more precisely the detention unit in Belgrade where, among others, I talked to Mr. Aleksić. I also discussed with other detainees and I talked to him about the conditions in which he spends his time in detention. It refers to the same conditions other detainees have and in the case of Mr. Aleksić, considering his age and health condition, it refers to the necessary health care when someone with health problems is detained. As for the topic which was in the focus of public attention, I do not talk about that because it is the matter of court, the prosecutor’s office and court designate the details about it and the evidence proceedings and all activities, not to name them all now which will be conducted in the proceedings, so it was not our topic.

We will follow that proceedings too. Finally, I would like to ask you about the information you have regarding Petnica. What have you learned?

- We have some findings and every day these findings are getting deeper, so to say. Petnica has been a paradigm of one institution dealing with the education of the most talented children. It turned out that the situation is not that great. Therefore, from our side we will go into details to see how Petnica has operated and who had the obligation and if they had it, why it was not implemented. And that is the operation oversight. I must say, I don’t know how much the viewers are familiar with that, Petnica is an association, registered with the BRA as an association in 1982 and it is not within our scope of educational institutions. I wouldn’t like this comparison to be misunderstood, but it is approximately at the equal level as the acting school of Mr. Aleksić in the organizational sense, not to get misunderstood. And whether, as far as other elements such as the form of financing, programs, consent of certain institutions which are obliged to provide consent as soon as the point of connection is found are concerned, and we will publish that very soon to the public, then the entire case must be studied to the details, indeed.

Finally, tell me briefly what is that the Protector of Citizens can do in order to protect the rights of victims of sexual abuse?

- The Protector of Citizens can do only one thing and that is to encourage those who are, not victims of sexual abuse but of any type of abuse here we mentioned Petnica, acts, I wouldn’t name now everything that may be included here, to make them feel free to report it to competent authorities and what is equally important, and it is what I ask all the media, I always asked them in these situations, especially those the most drastic ones in which young girls were raped, minors, is not to make a sensation out of it. And I will use the opportunity to say, if you can give me just a minute more...

Please.

- …to say it. In the conversation with those who suffered drastic sexual abuse, I was told by those persons that it was more difficult for them that they were for months, pardon the colloquial expression, dragged across the media than what they went through with the violator. I stand behind my words, I will not mention the names of persons for the sake of their protection and the situations which were also in the focus of the public but I was under a great impression of it and I always appealed to the media not to make a sensation out of it because in this manner they hurt the person who is already hurt.

Thank you for being our guest, we will follow what is happening in future, too and we hope there will be less of such occurrences and that we will prevent, not solve problems.

- We are working on acting in a preventive manner, but mostly, and I feel sorry about that, we can only act when something bad already happens.

And why is that so? What is the problem?

- It is because everyone must take their part of responsibility. None of the problems is solved by one ministry, one institution, but only the connection of such institutions with the aim of solving one problem may solve the problem.

Do you think that there is no good connection among institutions?

- I can absolutely say that it is not good.

Even though it was worked on two, three years ago, we have the law which connected to the network...

- Not two, three years ago...

Four years.

- For three years, it has been worked on for a long time, but you are saying through the law...

But in 2017, is that so?

- I am talking through initiatives, through attempts. It was never about the law, but the people who should implement that, that is the essence. It means that if we have a problem, then we don’t have vanity on the other hand where someone would say that it is not my problem or I am the best person to solve that problem, but everyone act with the goal of solving that problem. I can state a series of examples in which the problem was understood as a personal promotion, someone else’s problem, as a personal promotion, I repeat, and not with the goal to solve the problem.

We will definitely talk about this more. Thank you for being a guest at our television.

Protector of Citizens Zoran Pašalić was a guest on the morning program of Euronews Television.

We are speaking with the Protector of Citizens Zoran Pašalić, good morning, welcome. We have seen data that show that the rate of domestic violence against women seems to have increased in the past month. During the past week, we saw two femicides and one attempted murder in Prokuplje yesterday. What do these data tell us?

- These data tell us that you noticed it, they don't say anything that domestic violence is escalating, these are data that are repeated from year to year. If you follow them, and I follow them for more than a decade and a half, you will see that domestic violence is a serious concern not only in our society but in all communities, I can say this freely because in contacts with ombudsmen of other countries I saw that it is a really serious problem. What is the root of that problem? Primarily, relations in the family, that is, the ruination of the family as a community.

Do you have data on how many women have been killed since the beginning of this year?

- We do not keep this information. Our goal is to prevent women from being killed in the future, that is, not to reach the stage of killing, God forbid, but only the stage of the beginning of violence that can escalate into murder. This is what I have always said even when I started dealing with this topic: the first violence, to say colloquially, the first slap is an indicator. It must stop there, there is no more time to wait and expect that the bully who did it will change. In 99 percent of cases, I can freely say that the perpetrator does not change, but continues with this, so to speak, behavior until it escalates, and in a number of situations it ends up with a tragic epilogue. Whether he will kill his wife, or she will kill him to get rid of the violence, these are all very realistic possible epilogues.

We mostly collect information about this from the media, and from some organizations for the protection of women's rights. That number has been 11 since the beginning of the year. The balance is similar to the previous year, however, I have to ask you, how much has the corona and the situation of confinement increased the percentage of domestic violence? Do you have that information recorded?

- It certainly has. Confinement definitely affects us, gives an additional impetus to the abuser to express his dissatisfaction, mostly dissatisfaction not with his partner but with his own construction, his own life, on those who are weakest, and that is the wife or husband much less often, children, and frequently parents as well. This is what we pointed out a few days ago, violence against the elderly. We talk about the murders of women here, but we have to record all cases of violence that happen within the family.

We mentioned this the day before yesterday on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. We continue the talk with Zoran Pašalić. How’s the implementation of the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence going? It was adopted 4 years ago.

- It cannot be expected that the law will solve the problem that lasts and will last, but it can steer the attitude of the society towards that phenomenon. The first and foremost is that society recognizes this phenomenon as key to breaking up the family and thus the wider community. What I have always emphasized is that the perpetrator is formed within his family, and that you become a victim in your own family. We once studied the so-called transmission of violence, where someone who sees violence in their family or experiences violence – either becomes a bully or a victim.

There is no middle, these are two extremes.

- The point is that we need to stop this. It is not just a matter of punishment, the one who suffers violence must be sure that if he or she leaves that environment, that he or she will be completely protected. This does not mean that the perpetrator will be imprisoned, detained, protected by society. Primarily, sufferers need to become economically independent. Some research has shown that women who suffer violence leave and return seven times until they decide to finally leave. The most common cause for that is their lack of economic independence, their dependence on partners and spouses.

And what are the state mechanisms that can help victims to really separate themselves physically and mentally?

- First of all, we need to treat the situation of the victim in a serious way, not as a situation interesting to the media that will last a few days or that some institutions or associations will use in some research and give some intellectual account of how violence is in principle dangerous in any society. We know that it is dangerous, but the victim should be protected by giving her economic support. Economic support does not only mean a job, it means that they can move out of the environment and live on their own, and that it isn’t just for a shorter period of time, such as going to a safe house.

You recently announced that women who suffer violence are now against having a forensic doctor's examination.

- The court proceedings have shown that a woman who often suffers violence, for the reasons I just mentioned, will amend her statement, i.e. change it, and if there is no solid material evidence, the abuser or those who represent him will use this to mitigate his verdict or release him. When you have material evidence then it is much easier to prove in court that it really happened and that it happened the way it actually happened. Therefore, it is necessary for every woman and every man who suffer violence, if the consequences of violence are such that they do not require a stay in the hospital or clinical treatment, to be examined in forensic centers and institutions. This is where a causal link between the act of violence and the consequences should be established. I have seen in countless cases that forensic experts, even in the case of women who were killed and where the perpetrator and the murderer defended themselves very meaningfully, could conclude on the basis of material evidence that this person did what he did in the way that he did it.

What to do in cases when a woman reports violence several times? When all measures are legally applied in relation to the abuser, and he returns at some point and kills that woman?

- No one can predict that. The only way is the one I was talking about, to remove the woman from that environment, but when I say "remove", I don’t mean remove her in such a way that she would feel insecure or safe just for the moment, but permanently safe. All those who deal with the protection of women must think about the fact that they should be provided with permanent shelter. When I say "permanent shelter" I do not only mean a home, but also a job, so that she can be safe alone or with her children, since women most often leave because children also suffer violence, sure that there is no basis for further contact with the abuser.

The UN praised us for the legal and institutional framework in resolving this issue, but they say that the implementation of legal measures is not always adequate.

- Well, I thank them for such a statement, but why don’t they tell us where it is adequate, in which country? I have talked to ombudsmen from Sweden to Azerbaijan, and my colleagues have repeatedly emphasized to me that often some of these legal frameworks are not implemented adequately in their countries as well.

And finally, is it necessary to make some kind of central records?

- Absolutely. A central record that is filled out not only when violence occurs but daily, even in milder cases. Economic violence in the countryside was mentioned here, but you have economic violence in the city too and not only against women, you have cases where grandchildren steal pensions from the elderly, where someone literally exploits someone's work in a way that he does not do anything and takes the funds from those members of the family or community who do work. You have many such manifestations. We need to follow them from day to day and not only on those days when tragedies happen.

Thank you very much for being our guest.

The Protector of Citizens Zoran Pašalić was a guest in the show "New Morning" on Pink Television.

We are talking about the biggest problems of our society and everything that is being done in order to protect the citizens of Serbia in the right way. This morning, our guest is the Protector of Citizens Zoran Pašalić. Good morning. Indeed, 12 June is a very important date, the International World Day Against Child Labour, and you have pointed out that the corona virus pandemic has further aggravated the situation of children who are victims of labor exploitation.

- It is a story that is repeated from year to year. The labor exploitation of children really occupies the institution of the Protector of Citizens, especially the Sector for the Rights of the Child. It is not just that day when we deal with that topic, children's problems and everything that happens to them, and it is bad for their development, psyche in general, or even worse than that, when crimes are committed against children. It is in the interest of the Protector of Citizens.

However, one gets the impression that some categories of the population are invisible. It is the same with this story, you give importance, as you said, not only on that day, but you deal with it always. What will change there?

- In what sense?

In the sense of protecting those children who are exploited for work.

- It depends exclusively on you, that is, on the media. On the application of the law, of course, but the most important thing is how much media attention is paid to it, but in the right way. So, it is not sensationalistic, but the interests of the child are protected in the sense of pointing out some phenomena, their frequency and what those phenomena do to those children.

Many children are used, unfortunately, for begging, but we have even worse examples, like sexual exploitation, or shall we call it abuse of children?

- We have had several cases in recent days and, most importantly, the Protector of Citizens, although he does not have the ability to control the courts, deals with this issue in terms of how much the centers for social work and all those who were in contact with children, schools and and the police, dealt with the topic in terms of preventive action to prevent such situations. To clarify, how much, in certain families where there are social problems, they followed the relationships and how much they followed the most important relationships, those between parents and children or children and guardians, because children come first. They are in focus so that such things, which have unfortunately been stated several times and are in the media and are the subject of serious proceedings before the courts, would not happen.

As we have seen, there is also pedophilia and we can say a severe form of violence against one’s own children. It’s something that shocks us all. You have already mentioned somewhere how to prevent this... How can we monitor the issue of protection of children's rights, how can we realize, for example, that part of our responsibility is also what you mentioned, the center for social work, environment, schools, kindergartens, and I don’t know what else?

- In the only way that it can be monitored, and that is not only through those institutions that are obliged to monitor the development of children, their interests, but also, all of us as citizens must in such situations, when we notice that someone is treating children badly, one’s own or someone else's, we must react to it, not to turn our heads away, but to report this to the institutions that are competent. Secondly, a good part of the responsibility lies with you. What I mean is, you mustn’t write about those children sensationalistically, because that is what additionally traumatizes those children. It leaves terrible consequences because if a child is the subject of some sensationalist news, the public and their friends will learn about it, people with whom they come in contact with will also be informed about it. That communication later becomes difficult, not to say very, very difficult.

Violence against the elderly should also be mentioned. On Tuesday, there was an event on the Republic Square regarding that. In addition to the physical violence that exists in the family, there is also financial violence in the family, which is somehow "reserved" for the elderly. They say that it happens that old people do not see their pension for months or that someone who takes care of them takes a large part of their money leaving them only with a minimum, one meal a day instead of three and so on. How to stand in the way of such things?

- This is specific, yes. A friend of mine, who drew parallels between the European countries, to which we also belong, even though we are not a member of the European Union, told me that there are some specifics of every individual country, jokingly adding, even though it is not funny at all, that it happens that a 90-year-old father supports a 70 or 65-year-old son. In such a situation, economic violence is particularly pronounced and there must be a great focus on that. Because these are the categories of citizens who really need special protection. You have made a good parallel – on the one hand, they are children and the old people, those who are often really not in a situation to protect themselves. This is the problem with the Law on the Protector of Citizens, we hope that we will change it now, work is underway on changes, that is, work on the new Law on the Protection of Citizens. It will offer a possibility of wider control by the Protector of Citizens. You mentioned nursing homes. We can control them only indirectly, not directly, because the law is like that. In most countries in Europe, they can be controlled by institutions like ours directly, and then you can really see if those citizens who are accommodated there have the adequate care they deserve, primarily in terms of health, some other terms and certainly in accordance with the dignity of their age.

I have the impression that the neighbor will report the other neighbor if he plays music too loudly but he will not report domestic violence if he hears it. He says, I don't want to interfere, it's not my business and so on. How can we become aware of this? Because we have had a large number of examples lately where deaths occurred within a family, which is always thought to be the safest place to live, and then it turns out based on some examples that it actually is not the safest place.

- It is now 2021. Back in 2004, I dealt with this topic, and my colleagues and I even made an educational film on the prevention of domestic violence and on recognizing domestic violence. The essence of that project was to react to the domestic violence that is happening somewhere around you, in the apartment next to you, in an environment that is close to you, and to report it. Then I got acquainted with cases that were really striking and drastic. In one case, for example, a husband killed his wife and we asked the neighbors if that had happened before. They said it has been happening for years. Why they didn't report it – no one could explain to us.

Today, we have an example in the newspaper, somewhere near Kanjiža, there is a place where a husband killed his wife. He kept her in a blanket in the house for eight days, and now the neighbors are giving statements. Unfortunately, such news is everyday.

- Domestic violence is a serious problem. First of all, what I have been insisting on since 2004, and especially today, is not to allow, and perhaps it is not the best expression, a kind of transmission of domestic violence from the primary family to the secondary one. An example is when children who observe domestic violence or are victims in a good number of cases, become bullies in their secondary family.

There is talk of the missing girl in recent days...

- I wouldn't say she is missing, the media said that exposing the story. We are a serious institution and we deal with it professionally and until we have all the relevant information, we will not give our opinion or recommendation to those we control, which is the Center for Social Work in Rakovica, because the case you mentioned is in their jurisdiction, the line ministry, and we also sent a letter to the police asking whether there was violence in that family, i.e. whether they recorded any domestic violence, regardless of who committed it.

When will we have the information?

- Very quickly, and while waiting, the institution will carry out the activities it can conduct, such as conversations with the actors of the whole case, the former spouses.

We hear conflicting stories.

- Stories are always contradictory. Please allow me to say, and I have always said this, since a large number of such cases are before the institutions – that when the love between partners or spouses ceases, they still remain parents to their children. Children must not see this in the way that someone is instructing them in one or the other direction towards one or the other parent. This has unforeseeable consequences, i.e. children bear unforeseeable consequences. Even with the great effort of all professional workers who work to correct this, it is very difficult. So, I repeat – people do not have to live to old age or live the rest of their lives together, but children from these relationships and marriages are primary, and we deal with their protection.

Parents take revenge on each other through their children.

- You said it right, it is simpler.

Thank you very much.

The Protector of Citizens Zoran Pašalić was a guest in the show "Uranak" on K1 Television.

The case of a nine-year-old girl from Belgrade who called the police twice, complaining that her father was keeping her in custody and her uncle was entering the bathroom while showering, upset the public. The whole case was reported to the police by mother Marijeta Savić. According to the media, the Rakovica Center for Social Work, under unexplained circumstances, assigned custody of the nine-year-old girl to her father. The girl has already run away from him several times. The Center for Social Work ignored the mother's appeals to return the child. How does the child, who has lived with her mother so far, find herself in this situation? Why was there no reaction despite the reports? Why and who ignores this case, and who is obliged to protect the girl in public? This morning, we invited Zoran Pašalić, the Protector of Citizens, as a guest. You have initiated the procedure of controlling the regularity and legality of the work of the City Center for Social Work in Rakovica and the Ministry of Family Welfare and Demography, and you are asking to be informed about what exactly happened in this case, within a deadline of 15 days.

- We also asked the police if there were any reports of domestic violence.

What information have you received?

- We have not yet received any information. We expect answers within the deadline provided by the Law on the Protector of Citizens.

When did you submit the request?

- A few days ago, after learning about it from the media, we expect to receive information from those we contacted.

Is it usual to wait for the expiration of the legal deadline in such cases?

- Usual, yes.

This is a minor, a girl who may have been abused. Shouldn't there be an emergency procedure, shouldn’t the police deliver the answer sooner, shouldn’t the Center for Social Work answer you immediately? Because, 15 days in this case is quite long.

- As long as the law is as it is, then you have to abide by it, even if it is the worst. That is why we have suggested the amendments to the Law on the Protector of Citizens, which would in such cases envisage a much shorter procedure, i.e. shorter deadlines. We hope that it will be in the parliamentary procedure at the beginning of the summer season.

What worried you? When you say, we learned about it from the media, what is it that you recognized in the media article as problematic?

- I have to correct you first. The Center for Social Work is not the one that grants or, as we have said, gives one parent the right and denies the other. Only the court can do that, and the court decision is as it is, and then we have to take care of that. The Center for Social Work gives an opinion based on all the parameters it has in its work, but the final decision is the decision of the court...

Why is this so important?

- This is very important because we cannot talk about something and take one side or the other until the court gives a final opinion.

I absolutely agree, but the centers for social work are the ones based on whose opinion a court decision is always made, and often...

- Don’t, please...

...the decision does not agree with the centers for social work.

- It is the court that decides, that gives the final decision, and that is just one of, let's say, the parameters that affect...

Nevermind that, but tell me this, what did you see problematic in this case when you read the article in the media, what worried you?

- It’s the manner in which it is presented in the media, how it is reported on. You have to take into account one thing, that we protect the interests of children in the first place, more or less the interests of parents, one or the other. The interests of the child are paramount to us. So, we pay special attention to everything that could negatively affect the child. The media often go beyond what might be called the "interest of the child". We are even considering initiating proceedings against certain media, because one position or opinion cannot be given without both sides being heard and without waiting for the final decision.

We called the Ministry of Family Welfare yesterday. They told us that they were the second instance in this whole case. We asked for answers about what their jurisdiction was in writing, we did not get them. So, should the Ministry of Family Welfare be involved in this case?

- They must get involved in this case, absolutely. And not only must, it is the right thing to do, as they control the work of the centers, they are under their jurisdiction.

Did they make a mistake?

- We will determine whether and to what extent they checked, so to speak, what the Center for Social Work in Rakovica did. But what’s the starting point for all that? In Serbia, 40 percent of married people get divorced, and in that relationship of ex-spouses, it is often overlooked that although they are no longer husband and wife, they are still the father and mother of the child, and the child's interest is a priority. We must not make such mistakes, because it has been shown not only in Serbia but in the whole world that when that happens to a child, especially at that age, the consequences are immense. This is the focus of our work – whether all of them, not only the Center for Social Work Rakovica, but also the relevant ministry, police, the media, did something bad to the child by not acting according to the rules required by law and certainly according to certain obligations that go beyond the law, in terms of moral and ethical norms.

It seems to me that the media are not at the very top in that chain. So, we need to investigate what happened to the girl, and then protect the rights of the child from the media too.

- Our experience has shown in conversation with children, at their request and not at our insistence, because we do not have the right to get into the essence of the problem in that way, that children are most affected by reporting in the media. Because those children go to schools, kindergartens, they socialize. The reaction of their friends, those with whom they come into contact with is a reaction formed precisely based on what they learned in the media.

If they had not been molested, their peers would not have had anything to read about in the media. So, first of all, the basic thing is the deed that was committed.

- Yes, but also, you shouldn’t approach such a topic in a sensationalist way. If the public needs to be informed, then it can be informed about what has either certainly happened or possibly happened, and then you stop there.

So, the mother reported the case to the police, this is all written in the media now, when the daughter called from the bathroom. Since the video call was on, she saw that her uncle had entered the bathroom. She states that the police reacted immediately, but that the father of the child showed that he had a custody paper. After the police call, the father and uncle did not allow the child to talk on the phone anymore. The mother's lawyers say that the acting court reacted and that the girl was questioned yesterday, the media also report, I say this to explain the whole story, that the girl's mother and father separated even before she was born because the father did not want her to have a child. She decided to keep the child, and for the first eight years, the girl saw her father sporadically. According to the mother, after eight years, the father decided to file a lawsuit and ask for custody of his daughter. The girl's mother claims that the Center for Social Work in Rakovica gave custody to the father and that they used her diagnosis of bipolar disorder as an argument, regardless of the fact that she was on medication and therapy and that she never did anything bad to her child. Why are the child's requests to live with the mother ignored and are they important?

- The child's request or statement is absolutely not ignored in the procedure...

Isn't that the most important?

- No. The whole situation is important, everything that is related to the case. What you read was only one paragraph, you did not read the other opinion, of the one to whom this refers, and that is the father of the child. I do not represent the father nor the mother, but the interests of the child. Certainly, the child will be given the opportunity to express an opinion, to explain in the simplest words the situation which she found herself in. But certainly, the position of the center for social work and of the court that decides on it cannot be based on the child's opinion or the position of only one side, as it could be conveyed in the media, because it must be supported by a very serious analysis. It's not just social workers, but also psychologists and others, if necessary, that determine what the best interests of the child are.

The girl escaped three times in the four months she was with her father. The father sued the mother for abduction. When the child ran away from school, no one informed the mother about it. This really looks like a movie script and it seems to me that sides don't matter at all here... Believe me, I've been in the media for a long time and I know very well that two sides have to be heard, but when you see a nine-year-old child is afraid and running away, claiming that she is being locked, not allowed to make a phone call, this is very stressful for a child.

- Every situation such as this one is stressful for a child, which we see every day. There are a large number of situations when the conflict between partners, ex-spouses, leads to the child having to choose one side or the other. I repeat, which is why I came to your show, that even when someone is no longer in love, they still remain the mother and father of their children and they should behave accordingly. In 90 percent of the cases, the child ends up with the mother, and this is not such a situation. Mothers often instruct their children against the other parent, and vice versa. It is a fatal mistake, something that will damage the child for a very long time, maybe even for life, even with all the required treatments. I am saying that we cannot take this for granted, and that we need to protect the interests of the child. The child will say, when necessary, what he or she experienced in his or her environment, whether with the father or the mother.

What are the next steps in this case? The child was questioned, the mother's lawyers say, and the acting court reacted.

- Our steps are to see if everyone has done their job properly. We would like to be able to participate in the procedure itself, and there are countries, not even that far, like Montenegro and some others, where the Protector of Citizens is authorized by law to participate in such proceedings that relate precisely to this, to the custody of the child...

I understand, so you are waiting for 15 days for the legal deadline to pass.

- We are waiting for an answer, but we are not idle, as they say, we are not just sitting and waiting for 15 days to pass, we are collecting information that is very important to us and when we get an answer from these institutions we have contacted, we will compare it with our info that we received during those 15 days.

Who else are you getting information from?

- From those who are participants in the procedure. We cannot...

Have you contacted mother and father?

- We called the father and we'll call the mother today. We cannot...

You called the father first. Why?

- Because such was the order, there is no reason for something to be first or second.

What kind of order is that, to call the father first, and then the mother?

- Why should we call the mother first and then the father? Give me a reason.

Because it is the father who is problematic in this case.

- That's what you say, that he is problematic. Are you sure he is problematic?

From the media, yes.

- Well, from the media. See how you take one side in this show? We will listen to both father and mother and then we will say...

And you are taking the other side, I see.

- I’m not taking the other side. The institution takes only the side of the child.

The child is currently waiting for 15 days...

- The child is not waiting for anything.

What do you mean? It was heard yesterday, when it comes to you, 15 days need to pass...

- The child is not waiting for anything. So, it's not 15 days.

For you.

- Not for us, but for those who need it. We do not have the right to deal with the essence, but the thing is that no one is waiting for anything. Don't take such an attitude. Simply, in order to get the realistic, relevant picture of the situation based on collected facts, the way things really are, you have to hear all these sides and take all these factors into account. You cannot follow the logic that someone is guilty and someone is not.

What does the father say?

- First of all, it is a thing that is not talked about because it is a procedure where, when it is over, we will make everything public. It is not, as I would say, a procedure that is made public at every stage.

If you are protecting the interests of the child, the father's statement is important or the father's statement does not match the impression that we gained from the media. Why don't you want to help us get to the truth?

- I have now started a story that may be interesting to the media, but which is not good for the interests of the child.

Let me tell you, it is completely uninteresting to the media and I would like there to be no such stories at all.

- But the media deal with this topic, which means that it is interesting to them.

It’s not about what’s interesting. We have a child who runs away, who has problems, who was taken away from her mother. That’s the side we know from the media, so tell us...

- From the media.

Have you just corrected me now?

- I didn't correct you, I just wanted to say that it is only knowledge gained from the media, knowledge that you read or heard.

Then help us to...

- We work on the basis of what can be determined exactly. Also, I repeat, we do not make authoritative decisions, we look at all institutions, control them and we want to hear the truth. It is my approach. Based on what comes from the institutions and what the parents say, regardless of the order of who is first and who is second, we will make our own picture that will be closest to reality, again, all in order to protect the child.

And when you get that picture of yours, then what?

- Then, based on that, we will give a statement about that case, as we have given about many others. The most important thing is that in most cases, the picture that was presented in the media was incorrect. I can cite numerous examples of this.

Now you are leading me to think that the truth here is completely opposite to what we read in the media...

- No, if I knew the truth, I would tell you, I would give a statement about it first, and then we would discuss that statement.

But we talk very unusually, in the sense – the media talk, they write untruths. It is usually untrue what the media say. It turns out based on the report, the analysis, that what we read in the media was not true, and we are talking about a specific case, where we previously mentioned that only one side was held...

- I just said that in 90% of the cases, what is given in the media is not so in practice, and that is why it is up to the institutions...

And you really want to underline that now, when we talk about this case, don’t you?

- I always want to emphasize this because I have always insisted that the media do not go sensationalist, no matter which side is in question, which side is protected, but to protect the interest of the child by publishing information and to stop there and wait for the institutions, if we have confidence in our institutions, while we as an institution that deals with it, give our final position, without holding one side or the other.

How would you find out about this case, if it weren't for the media?

- Maybe in some other way, maybe we would not even find out. That is exactly what I am talking about, but the information that was in the media is the point at which you should stop writing about it until the case is finished before the competent institutions.

They say, and this is not clear to me, so please explain it to us, that you will also address the Center for Social Work and the Ministry of Family Welfare, which we said at the beginning. So, if the ministry is not in charge of the centers for social work, explain to us the hierarchy, since obviously we are all wandering around. They say that the dispute between the mother and the center should end first, and that then they will see what happens next. Which is the institution... The dispute between the center and the mother should end... So, who is protecting the interests of the child here today, in this whole case, which institution in Serbia?

- Primarily, those who deal with it, which are the centers for social work within their hierarchy to the line ministry...

Which is the line ministry?

- The one you mentioned, for family welfare. In case they fail, then the institution I am in charge of, that is, the Protector of Citizens, more precisely the Department for the Rights of the Child, deals with it. We can't resolve a dispute between one or the other parent and the center. Both parents may be dissatisfied with the center's actions, and then they will contact us. We then start the procedure, as you yourself stated at the beginning, towards the center and towards the one who controls the work of the center, and that is the line ministry.

The ministry, I understand. All right, but here, when there are parties to the dispute, and the subject of the dispute is a child who is a minor, who protects the interests of the child?

- I tell you again – the center protects them, we protect them, that is, the Department for the Rights of the Child. In our country, an entire sector deals with the protection of children's rights, so I insist on child protection. That is why I insist that the child is not brought into a situation that is disastrous for his or her development and psyche.

Okay. So, you give an opinion, then time passes, and I assume that you will give an opinion urgently?

- When we get the answers, we will give an opinion as soon as possible.

Within a day or two, right?

- That's right.

So that is already known. But what I want to tell you is – what then?

- We will not give an opinion until we get all the elements of the case. This is what I told many of those who came to us with, say, an idea that we might take one side or the other or that we will even incline towards the attitude that is already proclaimed in the media. You know that verdicts are almost passed before the procedure is over, which is inadmissible. There is a presumption of innocence, even if it does not apply to this case. We are working to make our position so well-founded that no one can really dispute it.

All right. You give an opinion, is that what it's called?

- No. It’s a recommendation, of course, but it doesn’t matter.

Okay, it doesn't matter, but it does. But what I am interested in is which institution in this case will have to act on the basis of your recommendation?

- All those who are the subject of our recommendations. In this case, the Center for Social Welfare, the line ministry, and even the police if they did not act properly.

Okay, and what do we do with the court that has already awarded the child?

- What do you mean by the court that awarded the child? Well, we are not examining the court's decision, at this moment we have no legal right to. But we are determining whether all these institutions that I have listed have acted in accordance with what they had to do.

All right, let’s say that the Center for Social Work did not act accordingly, and based on its opinion, among other things, a court verdict was passed on who gets the child. What then?

- Sorry, but you are mixing two things. I'll explain. There is form and there is content. The form of action is one thing, the content and establishing the facts are another. We re-examine the first. The latter is being reviewed by the court. And not just in one instance but multiple instances, within a series of hierarchies of courts. And whatever the court decides, it will be an obligation for both parents.

Okay, and the court has made its decision.

- The court has not decided yet, it has passed a temporary measure as far as I know, since we do not control the courts, I repeat. This decision of the court may be perceived by one or the other parent as unfair. But if we are going to relativize everything, to say that everything is wrong, then that brings us to a situation of chaos.

I don’t want to relativize anything. I want to understand the power of the institution you represent. In the sense that when you give an opinion, does the one who reads it say, here is this guy with the reports again, and puts it aside like this, or are they obliged to act on the basis of your analyses? Anyone in this state.

- I tell you with complete certainty that in 90 percent of cases they act according to what we state in the recommendation. In case they don’t, we have other means ahead of us that we can use to implement what we think should have been done. That's why I say – we work carefully, you can't take a stand without having all the facts in mind.

Okay. Thank you so much for coming, and for having the patience to explain everything to me. But let me tell you, I think that we will see each other soon, very soon, since this whole analysis of yours will be completed very soon.

- You know, the thing with cases like this, which are usually a subject of interest, is that we see them every day. It's not comforting at all, but it's true.

Not only that it's not comforting, but it's scary as well.

- If I may, I would use a few more seconds of your show. I will always appeal to parents that, although they are no longer in love, they should not forget that they are still the parents of their children or their child, and that they should, in a way, create an atmosphere that will benefit the child.

Yes. Thank you very much for visiting... When it comes to centers for social work, here are just two more pieces of information. Let's remind the viewers. On 27 July 2017, in front of the Center for Social Work in Rakovica, Marko Nikolić killed his wife with a knife, and strangled his 4-year-old son Mihajlo. Do you remember that?

- Not only do I remember, but I know the whole case in detail. From the moment the problem arose to the moment when, so to speak, the problem ended, I don't think it's the best possible expression, with the suicide of the father in custody.

Yes, and we also have 5 July of the same year, in the Center for Social Work New Belgrade, when Milan Lovrić killed his ex-wife with a stone, in front of his three sons. And we remember that. I'm just afraid that, when you and I talk like this, somehow, it seems to me that we have confused the people a bit.

- In what sense?

I don't know how to explain. This looks like a discussion between you and me, and the bottom line is that…

- No, we withdrew the basic thesis, which is...

The essence is…

- The interest of the child. So, if someone in the Center for Social Work does not act in accordance with how he must act, then he should bear responsibility. That's our job. If the controlling ministry does not act, then it bears responsibility.

Yes, but I am afraid that this conversation went in the direction of me defending and representing one side in the media, based on insufficient evidence. You're in the middle, but you can't talk much about it. So, I'm going to say it, the conclusion of this whole conversation is that this woman who talked in the media, the mother of the child, is making things up.

- I never said or thought that.

Okay, but I'm telling you. That's how I feel, now I'm going to ask for the first time the people who work here with me, who have listened. What is your impression after the end of this conversation? Here.

- You see, this here is a very, very important moment.

Come on, because we, not wanting to get into everything…

- Just as your employees did not declare themselves now, it happens that someone observes the case of family…

They did declare themselves, in my headphones.

- Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Okay. I mean, they declared themselves and said that they also have the impression that you may be unintentionally defending the other side. That is…

- I am not defending either side.

Well, it’s the same as when you tell me that I’m on the mother's side.

- No, I'm just defending…

So, we got the impression that you are on the father's side.

- No. Why would I be on either side? I am on the side of the child.

Actually, not that you are on the father’s side, but that the mother is making things up.

- Did I lead you in that direction?

Well, maybe, how do I tell you, that's my subjective feeling. I just wanted to share that with you.

- Do you know why you have that subjective feeling? I'll tell you.

Why?

- Because I didn't accept the story that is unverified. Because I am a professional and I cannot react emotionally and take what I read for granted. I have to hear all sides. To see what an institution did, so that I could then take a stand. And then it may seem like I’m taking one side.

Well, yes, but we are going back to the beginning, again, you learned about all that from the media, reading about the mother's opinion.

- No, no, we learned from the fact that we know very well what actions someone must take to protect the best interests of the child.

Well, all right, but you got some information from the media?

- We were informed about the event. But we did not pay attention to the conclusions or comments provided by the media. Don't be angry.

No, absolutely. Let me tell you something, I didn’t take either side. I'm just talking about what I read in the same media that you read, but the thing is that I have one position and you have a completely different position. Maybe if we had called you after your conversation with the mother, you would have had a different attitude.

- What do you mean a different attitude?

Well, I don't know, maybe.

- I have an attitude based on the position of one or the other parent.

Based on the parents.

- I have an attitude about what is happening to the child.

And will you call the child to talk to her?

- We cannot call the child because that is not what this institution can and should do.

All right. Thank you very much for coming. And we will see, when this is all over, we will talk again.