The Protector of Citizens dismissed BCHR’s initiative to perform an ex officio review and establish any errors or omissions on the part of the relevant medical institutions that may have led to a higher number of COVID-19 deaths and infections amongst health professionals in Serbia.

In his letter to BCHR of 20 January 2021, the Protector of Citizens said that the requirements for initiating a review of the operations of administrative authorities had not been fulfilled because the BCHR should have first sent requests for free access to information of public importance to the Ministry of Health and the Public Health Institute Dr Milan Jovanović Batut, asking them about the higher number of COVID-19 deaths and infections among health professionals.

The media have over the past few weeks been publishing alarming information and statements by doctors, representatives of the Serbian Trade Union of Doctors and Pharmacists and other medical workers, who said that around 70 doctors succumbed to COVID-19 in 2020. They drew attention to the major discrepancies between the mortality rates among health professionals, especially doctors, in Serbia and the other countries in the region (e.g. Croatia and Slovenia). In their opinion, the main reasons for the higher rates in Serbia included, among others, staff shortages, lack of quality protection equipment, inadequate testing protocols in COVID-19 zones, et al. 

Neither the Ministry of Health nor the Batut Institute have reacted to such information to date or to public appeals and requests by health professionals to release the official data on the number of medical workers who succumbed to COVID-19.

To recall, under Articles 24 and 32 of the Protector of Citizens Act, the Protector of Citizens is entitled to himself initiate a review of the operations of administrative authorities based on information he learns in any manner, in order to ascertain whether any systemic shortcomings resulted in violations of human rights, in this case of health professionals during the COVID-19 epidemic. BCHR notes with regret that the Protector of Citizens – who referred to the wrong provisions of the Protector of Citizens Act, specifically the ones governing the review of complaints filed by individuals who believe their human rights have been violated – let the BCHR and the public know that he has no intention of addressing this concerning issue.

This was the second time BCHR asked the Protector of Citizens to review the efficiency of the Health Ministry’s management of the COVID-19 epidemic. In June 2020, it requested of the Ombudsman to review the work of the Health Ministry after BIRN said that Serbia underreported the number of COVID-19 deaths and infections in the March-May 2020 period. Several months later, the Protector of Citizens notified the BCHR that he would not initiate such a review “in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health said it would re-examine the entire procedure of entering and processing data in the COVID-19 Information System”. After pressures from reporters to address the issue, the Ombudsman in mid-October 2020 “asked” the Health Minister to notify him of the Ministry’s findings of the re-examination at an unspecified time in the future. To recall, the Health Minister said that the re-examination of the number of COVID-19 deaths and infections would be undertaken once the pandemic was over.

On the eve of International Human Rights Day on 10 December 2020, the BCHR presented the main findings of its public opinion survey “Human Rights in the Eyes of Serbia’s Citizens” conducted in November.

The year behind us was marked by numerous restrictions and derogations of human rights enshrined in the Constitution and international documents in Serbia, which culminated during the state of emergency that was in force from 15 March to 6 May 2020. In the view of Serbia’s citizens, 2020 brought new challenges in the realisation of human rights compared to 2019, which came as no surprise in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The survey respondents said that the most jeopardised rights were the right to health (18%), freedom of movement (18%) and media freedoms (16%), as opposed to 2019, when they singled out the right to work, the freedom of speech/media freedoms and the right to live in dignity. Whereas public perceptions that the right to health was at greatest risk in 2020 was expected amidst the global fight against the pandemic, the respondents’ ranking of other rights among the most jeopardised ones varied depending on their age and education level: respondents in the 18-29 and 30-44 age categories singled out freedom of movement, college graduates aged 30-44 highlighted media freedoms, respondents in the 18-29 age category thought the freedom of assembly was at risk, while respondents with lower education levels and respondents between 45 and 49 years of age were the most concerned by violations of the right to work.

The survey also showed an increase over 2019 in the number of citizens who complained about human rights violations to the Protector of Citizens, non-government organisations and the Serbian President and a decrease in the number of citizens who turned to the police and courts.

Public mistrust of the judiciary was evident in 2020 as well. As many as 64% of the respondents opined that the judges were not independent. Given that courts are the most important for the protection of human rights at the national level, such deep public mistrust in their work illustrates the hopelessness of the situation of people who believe their rights are at risk or have been breached. Around 45% of the respondents positively rated the work of the police; police activites met with the dissatisfaction of around 29% respondents, mostly younger ones. This indicates that the incidents during the state of emergency and the July protests, characterised by police brutality and excessive use of force, did not reflect negatively on public assessments of their activities.

The survey results also testify to the deep polarisation of Serbia’s society on media freedoms and the right to information: 49% of the respondents, most of them over 60 and with lesser education, believed that media with nationwide coverage informed the public of issues of public interest accurately, fully and promptly. Just as many respondents, mostly 18-44 years of age and respondents with university education, held the opposite view. Most respondents got their news from the public service broadcaster Radio Television of Serbia (RTS),  then Pink and Prva TV, stations with nationwide coverage, and cable TV station N1.

Public views on the role of human rights CSOs are still divided: 26% of the respondents had positive opinions of their work and an identical share disagreed. The divide does not come as a surprise given the executive’s many activities aimed at sidelining these NGOs and labelling them as “foreign mercenaries and groups working on destabilising the state”. Although abuse of anti-laundering and terrorist financing mechanisms by the Ministry of Finance Anti-Laundering Directorate caused the most stir in 2020, 37% of the respondents had neutral views on the roles and activities of NGOs.

Serbia’s citizens believe that discrimination is widespread. As many as a quarter of the respondents said they had suffered discrimination in 2020, while nearly a half of them (around 46%) said that women were treated worse than men.  Discrimination against women is quite extensive; so are discriminatory gender stereotypes in public discourse. The survey results show that the public is aware of numerous problems in this field, especially of gender inequalities in the labour market.

“Human Rights in the Eyes of Serbia’s Citizens” is the second annual survey BCHR conducted in cooperation with the UN Human Rights Team in Serbia and Ipsos Strategic Marketing. The survey aimed to gauge public perceptions of human rights in Serbia on the eve of International Human Rights Day. 

International Human Rights Day is marked on 10 December, the day the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. This year, it is marked in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic and the states’ efforts to fight its transmission and consequences, which have all directly reflected on the realisation and enjoyment of numerous human rights and freedoms.

The BCHR is preparing its 2020 Annual Human Rights  Report, which will provide a comprehensive overview of the state of human rights in Serbia and the challenges the COVID-19 pandemic brought to their realisation.

The results of the survey “Human Rights in the Eyes of Serbia’s Citizens” you can find here in Serbian.

The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) hereby alerts to the Serbian Constitutional Court’s disputable Decision (No. IUo-45/2020) discontinuing the review of the constitutionality of the Order Restricting and Prohibiting Movement of Individuals in the Republic of Serbia during the state of emergency and several provisions of the Decree on State of Emergency Measures. In BCHR’s view, the Constitutional Court put forward unconvincing arguments to corroborate its finding that the Order and several provisions of the Decree were not in contravention of the Constitution.   

In its review of the constitutionality of Articles 2 and 3 of the impugned Decree (co-signed by the President) by which the Government authorised the Ministry of Internal Affairs to lay down measures derogating from constitutionally guaranteed human rights and freedoms (right to liberty and security and freedom of movement) either independently (Article 3) or with the consent of the Health Ministry (Article 2), the Constitutional Court upheld the following arguments put forward by the Government: that “all measures adopted by the Minister of Internal Affairs had de facto been adopted with the prior consent of the Government, because all the proposed […] measures had been discussed at Government sessions and adopted only after it had consented to them”; that the Order “was essentially an appropriate implementation act which in and of itself is not an aspect of autonomous and autochthonous decision-making” i.e. that it “does not amount to a decision in substantive terms”; and, that the Government was entitled to “task the relevant Minister with concretising specific decisions it had essentially adopted”. In other words, the Constitutional Court held that, in its Order (co-signed by the President), the Government had laid down measures derogating from human rights by the very fact that it authorised the MIA to adopt general acts restricting and prohibiting movement in public areas and that the MIA’s decisions on the duration of the prohibition of movement, all the areas and people it applied to, exceptions from the prohibition, etc. were merely an act by which it “concretised”, “activated” and “operationally implemented” measures derogating from human rights that had been laid down earlier.

The Constitutional Court also held that the measures drastically restricting the movement of people over 65 (and 70 in smaller communities) and refugees and migrants in asylum and reception centres during the state of emergency did not amount to deprivation of liberty because the purpose of the measures (protection from an infectious disease) and their substance (equated with the purpose) did not indicate as much. The Constitutional Court failed to even make mention of the total lockdown of people over 65 (and 70) from 18 to 22 March; that they were allowed to leave their homes only in the early morning hours (first from 3 am to 8 am and then from 4 am to 7 am) – the times they spent mostly buying their groceries, the following 30 days; that they were allowed half-hour walks within a 600 m diameter from their homes three times a week as of 21 April; and, that they were allowed to leave their homes one hour a day as of 25 April.

The duration of the measures, the extent of the restrictions of movement and social contacts imposed on the elderly during the state of emergency are comparable with the degree of restrictions of liberty during house arrest or home imprisonment, which are considered deprivation of liberty measures. The conclusion that the elderly were subjected to a collective measure of deprivation of liberty is also corroborated by the fact that the MIA continuously supervised compliance with the measure and that non-compliance elicited criminal and misdemeanour sanctions (maximum three years’ imprisonment and maximum 150,000 RSD fines respectively). The grounds on which the MIA issued curfew passes were not prescribed, and were thus unforeseeable; the topmost officials publicly said that they would be issued only in exceptional (especially justified) situations.

A similar regime applied to refugees and migrants, who were confined in the asylum and reception centres from 16 March to 14 May 2020. They were allowed to leave them only in circumstances in which individuals under house arrest or home imprisonment are allowed to leave their abodes.

The Constitutional Court’s above reasoning led to its failure to even discuss the proportionality of the measures restricting freedom of movement. In response to the claims by the initiators of the constitutionality review – that the above measures had discriminated against people over 65 (70) – the Constitutional Court said that “the anti-discrimination regime that applied to derogation measures was the one laid down in Article 202(2) not in Article 21 of the Constitution” – age is listed as grounds on which discrimination is prohibited in Article 21 but not in Article 202 of the Constitution. 

To recall, under well-established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the classification of confinement as deprivation of liberty or restriction of the freedom of movement in domestic law cannot alter the nature of the constraining measures and deprivation of liberty will have been at issue even if the authorities’ aim had been to assist the applicants and ensure their safety (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, App. No. 16483/12, § 71). The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is nonetheless merely one of degree or intensity (duration of the restriction, its social effects, degree of supervision, consequences of non-compliance, et al) and not one of nature or substance, reasons for the restriction or its classification in the national order (Guzzardi v. Italy, App. no. 7367/76, § 93). 

The Serbian Constitutional Court decision is available in Serbian here.

In its latest Serbia Progress Report, the European Commission said that Serbia had “some level of preparation” to implement the EU acquis on justice, freedom and security (Chapter 24, which includes asylum and migration issues) and that it continued to significantly contribute, as a transit country, to the management of the mixed migration flows towards the EU by playing an active and constructive role. The EC confirmed that migrant smuggling networks remain very active along the Western Balkan route and stated that the fight against this type of crime needed to be strengthened.

The EC Report states that most migrants in Serbia are placed in temporary accommodation facilities and do not have any legal status, but adds that Serbia continued to make substantial efforts to meet the essential needs of migrants passing through or remaining on its territory while facing increased mixed migratory movements and a large number of arrivals. The EC said that the national legal framework was largely aligned with the EU acquis but that Serbia needed to further adapt its legislation notably as regards effective access to the asylum procedure, appeal bodies, legal aid and the safe third country procedure. It also noted that access to and provision of information regarding the asylum procedure needed to be improved at all stages, especially at Belgrade international airport Nikola Tesla, where transit procedures, as envisaged by the law on asylum, were not yet being implemented and adequate premises for accommodation at the airport were lacking – issues the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights has been alerting to for years.

The European Commission made no mention in its report of the wire fence Serbia erected along its border with North Macedonia or of the “technical agreement” it signed with Austria on the implementation of the Readmission Agreement. Nor did it go into the problems in the enforcement of the bilateral readmission agreements, which are minimally implemented, if at all. It did note that lack of enforceable bilateral readmission agreements with third countries was a serious obstacle for Serbia to manage returns effectively, notably with the main countries of origin including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.

As per integration, the European Commission said that integration-related by-laws had been adopted and that the basic legal framework for integration existed but that major obstacles to integration remained. It noted that implementing legislation in different sectors needed to be harmonised with the Asylum and Temporary Protection Act to provide those granted international protection with effective access to socio-economic rights. The European Commission also noted the years-long failure of the Serbian authorities to issue travel documents to successful asylum seekers.

The Protector of Citizens and the Serbian Government have turned a deaf ear BCHR’s attempts to draw alert them to the alarming claims by BIRN published in June 2020 – that the number of COVID-19 deaths and infections in Serbia was much higher than the Crisis Headquarters had officially been publishing.

Back in late May, the BCHR requested of the Serbian Government to provide it with access to the minutes of the COVID-19 Crisis Headquarters sessions, the decision on the establishment of the Crisis Headquarters and information on all members of this body and their functions. It sent two follow-up requests in June 2020. On 22 June 2020, the BCHR filed an initiative with the Protector of Citizens to launch a review of the work of the Ministry of Health, specifically, the management of the COVID-19 Information System, emphasising, in particular, that any concealment of data on the health of Serbia’s population could result in irreparable and incalculable harm.

Neither the Serbian Government nor the Protector of Citizens have responded to BCHR’s requests for over three months now.

On 30 September 2020, the media quoted the Protector of Citizens, Mr. Zoran Pašalić, as saying that he was looking into whether there were “grounds to launch a review of the relevant institutions”. It is absolutely unclear what exactly he is waiting for, i.e. what he considers “grounds to launch a review” – one would have thought that the data published by BIRN and the public anxiety they caused, the relevant authorities’ decision to stop informing the population on COVID-19 deaths and infections by city and region, the recent statements by Crisis Headquarters member Dr. Predrag Kon, the dissatisfaction of doctors within the United against COVID protest et al would suffice. Unfortunately, this is not the first time the public has had to wait for the reaction of the Protector of Citizens to human rights violations for months. If, indeed, it ever came.  

The media and civil society organizations demand from the Ministry of Finance and the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering to immediately present the grounds for suspicion due to which they ordered the extraordinary collection of information about organizations, media, and individuals from the commercial banks. The article of the law, referred to by the director of the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering, states that such inspection should be performed exclusively for organizations for which there are grounds for suspicion of their involvement in the financing of terrorism. Since the list includes numerous organizations and individuals dealing with investigative journalism, protection of human rights, transparency, film production, development of democracy, rule of law and philanthropy, the conclusion is that this is a political abuse of institutions and a dangerous attempt to further collapse the rule of law in Serbia.

The abuse of legal mechanisms and institutions to unlawfully put pressure on the media and civil society organizations is a drastic attack on freedom of association and freedom of information. For years, the government in Serbia has been facing serious criticism from both international and domestic organizations regarding the threat to these two important freedoms. Such an attack on organizations that advocate for establishing Serbia as a state governed by the rule of law with respect for the law and a genuine fight against corruption, is an additional argument that these values are seriously endangered in Serbia. Organizations, media and citizens will not give up the fight for a free and democratic state, regardless of threats and pressures. Such and similar moves by the authorities only further motivate us as citizens to persevere in the defense of our own country.

The media and organizations will take all appropriate legal actions against those involved in this abuse, including the prosecution of those responsible, but above all they will insist on complete and clear answers on how this could have happened. We remind the public that the organizations and media from the list are subject to various types of regular state control, including inspections and rigorous checks of financial operations by the Tax Administration and the National Bank of Serbia, as well as by their own donors. Any legal inspection of the work of organizations is welcome and we will al

ways support it. On the other hand, we will fiercely oppose the abuse of institutions and procedures, because that is our mission – the fight for a democratic and legal state.

Signatories:

(the list is regularly updated with new signatures)

1. A1 Novi Pazar
2. Academy of Women’s Leadership
3. Aida Corovic, HUman rights activist
4. Alternative Girls’ Center
5. Dr Srećko Djukić, Forum for International Relations of the European Movement in Serbia (FMO)
6. Andja Jocic
7. Anja Andjusic, FM
8. AS – Center for Empowerment of Young People Living with HIV and AIDS
9. Association “Naš svet, naša pravila”
10. Association “Kutija”, Nis
11. Association Fenomena
12. Association for Consumer Protection “Prosperity” – Novi Sad
13. Association for the help of mentally challenged people “Pearl“ of the municipality of Srbobran
14. Association of Citizens “NE-BO”, Negotin
15. Association of Independent Electronic Media – ANEM
16. Association of parents and children Brodić Parkić
17. Association Stara planina Pirot
18. Association Voice of Citizens of Šumadija, Kragujevac
19. Associations Film Club Prokuplje
20. ASTRA – Anti Trafficking Action
21. Autonomous Women’s Center
22. B92 Fund
23. BalkanIDEA Novi Sad
24. Becej Youth Association
25. BeFem
26. Belgrade Center for Human Rights
27. Belgrade Center for Security Policy
28. Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence
29. Belgrade Open School
30. Belgrade Pride
31. Beta News agency
32. Biber team
33. Biljana Stepanović
34. BIRN
35. BIRODI
36. Boom93
37. Borivoj Stajić
38. Branko Vuckovic, journalist from Kragujevac
39. Business Association of Local and Independent Media Association “Lokal Press”
40. Business Info Group
41. CANVAS
42. Catalyst Balkans Foundation
43. Center for Applied Psychology
44. Center for Contemporary Politics
45. Center for Democracy and Development of Southern Serbia
46. Center for Democracy Foundation
47. Center for Development of Serbia
48. Center for Independent Living of Persons with Disabilities in Serbia
49. Center for Local Media Development
50. Center for Moms, Belgrade
51. Center for Monitoring & Activism – CEMA
52. Center for Nonviolent Action
53. Center for Policy Research
54. Center for Policy Research Argument
55. Center for Protection, Education and Empowerment of Refugees Info Park
56. Center for Regionalism Novi Sad
57. Center for Social Dialogue and Regional Initiatives – CDDRI
58. Center for Social Policy, Belgrade
59. Center for the Advancement of Society
60. Center for the Rule of Law
61. Center for Women’s Studies
62. Centre Living Upright
63. Centre of Modern Skills
64. CeSID
65. Chil Rights Centre
66. CINS
67. Citizens Association for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and All Forms of Gender-Based Violence (ATINA)
68. Citizens’ Association Institute for Corruption Research, Pancevo
69. Citizens’ Association AIM Center
70. City radio
71. Civic attitude
72. Civic Council of the City of Kraljevo
73. Civic Initiatives
74. Civil action Pancevo
75. Civil Rights Defenders
76. CK13
77. Coalition for Solidarity Economy Development
78. Coalition PreUgovor
79. Conceptual Policy Group, Novi Sad
80. Consultations for lesbians
81. CRTA
82. Da se zna!
83. Daca Jović, activist
84. Daily Danas
85. Dajana Đedović, Forum for Culture of the European Movement in Serbia (FzK)
86. Dijalog.net Valjevo
87. Djordje Popović, FMO
88. Don’t let Belgrade d(r)own
89. Dr Aleksandra Bosnić Đurić, cultural scientist
90. Dr Ljubomir Jacic
91. Dr Milorad Đurić, political scientist
92. Dr Sonja Avlijaš, FzK
93. Dragan Srećković
94. Drug Policy Network in South East Europe
95. Duga Association
96. Ecogenesis Association
97. Educational Center Krusevac
98. Environment Engineering group
99. Eurocontact, Krusevac
100. European Movement in Serbia
101. European Movement in Serbia Leskovac
102. European Movement Valjevo (Slavica and Vladimir Pantić)
103. European Policy Centre
104. FemPlatz
105. Forca Požega
106. Foundation Ana and Vlade Divac
107. Foundation for Freedom of the Press – Senta
108. Foundation Pons Nis
109. Goran Cetinic, FMO member
110. Green Network of Vojvodina
111. Heart Center, Novi Sad
112. Heartefact Fund
113. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
114. Human Rights Committee Negotin
115. Human Rights Committee Nis
116. Human Rights Committee Valjevo
117. Humanitarian Center Mitrovica
118. Humanitarian Law Center
119. Igor Mihaljević, journalist
120. Impulse – Tutin
121. Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina
122. Independent cultural scene of Serbia – NKSS
123. Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS)
124. Informal association “Za naš kej”, Belgrade
125. InfoVranjske
126. Initiative A11
127. Initiative for Požega
128. Institute for European Affairs
129. Integrity Center, Nis
130. InTER
131. Internet portal “Media box”, Nis
132. ISAC Fund
133. Ivan Medenica, FzK
134. Ivan Ninić
135. Ivana Jovanović, European Youth Movement Forum in Serbia (FM)
136. Iz kruga – Vojvodina
137. Izađi group
138. Jasmina Borojevic
139. Jedi movement, Nis
140. Jelena Erdeljan FzK
141. Jelena Šantić Foundation
142. Južne vesti
143. KC Grad, Belgrade
144. Kolubara District Women’s Association
145. Kolubarske.rs
146. Kragujevac newspapers
147. Kreni-Promeni Association
148. KRIK
149. Libek
150. Link plus
151. Loznica Pact
152. Majdanpek Resource Center
153. Media and Reform Center Nis
154. Media Association
155. Mesečina Foundation, Subotica
156. Milan Antonijevic
157. Milena Dragicevic Sesic (FzK)
158. Milena Stefanovic European Fund for the Balkans
159. Milivoj Bešlin, FMO
160. MillenniuM
161. National Coalition for Decentralization
162. National Convention on the European Union
163. National Youth Council of Serbia
164. Nedim Sejdinović, journalist
165. Nenad Šebek, Media and CSO Consultant
166. Network of Human Rights Committees in Serbia CHRIS
167. Network of the European Movement in Serbia
168. New Economy
169. New Media Center kuda.org, Novi Sad
170. New optimism
171. New Social Initiative – NSI
172. New Solidarity Network
173. Newspaper “Grad”, Kruševac
174. NGO Aktiv
175. NGO Center for the Development of Liberalism
176. NON-ALIGNED FILMS
177. Non-Smoking Educational Center Association _ RP
178. Novi Sad Humanitarian Center
179. Novi Sad Open Club
180. Novi Sad School of Journalism
181. Obrenovac Youth Foundation
182. Online Media Association
183. Open Society Foundation
184. Optimist, Bosilegrad
185. Organization for Respect and Care of Animals – ORCA
186. Partners Serbia
187. PATOS, Smederevo
188. People’s Parliament Leskovac
189. Peščanik
190. “Podrinske” Šabac
191. Podrinje Anti-Corruption Team Pact
192. Policy Center
193. Portal Kruševacgrad
194. Portal SEEcult.org
195. Proaktiv
196. Dr. Vojin Rakic
197. Propulsion Fund
198. Protecta
199. Radio Sto Plus Novi Pazar
200. Radio Zlatousti
201. Ravangrad Citizens’ Association
202. Reconstruction Women’s Fund
203. Regional Information Agency JUGpress
204. Re-Kraft
205. Remark DPCM
206. RERI
207. Res Publica Kragujevac
208. Roma Center Kragujevac
209. Roma World, Nis
210. Romani Cikna
211. Sandzak Committee for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms
212. Sanja Ivačić, FMO
213. Slavica Milojevic
214. Slavica Ranisavljev Kovacev, Novi Sad
215. Slavica Stojanović
216. Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation
217. Slobodan Georgiev
218. Smart collective
219. Society for Adult Education
220. SOinfo.org
221. SOS Women’s Center Novi Sad
222. Strahinja Brajušković, Senior consultant and member of the Working group of NCEU for Chapter 23
223. Streets for cyclists, Belgrade
224. Students for Liberty – Serbia
225. Tamara Spasojevic
226. The Lawyers’ Committee For Human Rights (YUCOM)
227. The movement of the citizens of Novi Sad
228. Tijana Jurić Foundation
229. Timok Youth Center – TOC, Zajecar
230. Trag Foundation
231. Transparency Serbia
232. UG Center for Civil Values from Subotica
233. United Trade Unions of Serbia Sloga
234. Urban In – Novi Pazar
235. USOP – Union of Organizations of Serbia dealing with the protection of people living with HIV and AIDS
236. Uzice Center for Children’s Rights
237. Uzice Center for Democracy and Human Rights
238. Vega Youth Center
239. Vesna Perić
240. Victimology Society of Serbia
241. Vladan Jovanović – independent regional consultant in the field of social protection, children’s rights, human and minority rights
242. Vojvodina Civic Center
243. Vojvodina recommended
244. Vranje Development and Integration Team
245. Vukašin Obradović
246. Women for Peace Leskovac
247. Women in Black
248. Women’s Association Peščanik Kruševac
249. Young researchers of Serbia
250. Youth Empowerment Club 018
251. Youth Initiative for Human Rights
252. Zajecar Initiative
253. Zvezda Center, Belgrade