Reforms aimed at a more independent prosecution service
Efforts to strengthen the State Prosecution Service have intensified over the past three years, with officials focusing on independence, professional accountability and the capacity to pursue crime effectively, Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković said during State Prosecutors’ Days.
Marković described the institutional work as an effort to create conditions for prosecutors to act impartially against all forms of crime while maintaining the state’s European course. He said the objective is not only to improve the handling of cases, but also to reinforce the legal and professional standards governing decisions made by prosecutors.
At the center of his remarks was the principle that prosecutors must be able to work without improper pressure, whether that pressure comes from outside the institution or from within it. Marković identified stronger autonomy and independence for individual state prosecutors as one of the principal achievements of the period under review.
“A strong, independent and accountable State Prosecution Service is one of the key pillars of the rule of law.”
According to Marković, prosecutorial decisions must rest on the Constitution, applicable law and the evidence in each case. He said those decisions should not depend on the political, economic or social position of the people involved. That standard, he argued, is central to treating citizens equally and upholding legality.
Independence paired with professional responsibility
The reforms described by Marković also include measures intended to ensure that independence does not remove responsibility for prosecutorial conduct. The State Prosecution Service has established an institutional mechanism designed to protect prosecutors’ autonomy, adopted a new Code of Ethics and issued guidance for applying it.
Rules governing performance assessments have also been improved, according to the Supreme State Prosecutor. The changes are intended to address both sides of the prosecutorial role: protection from undue influence and responsibility for decisions that are lawful, well-founded and delivered in a timely manner.
| Area | Development identified by Marković |
|---|---|
| Independence | Greater autonomy for individual state prosecutors |
| Accountability | Stronger performance rules and a mechanism protecting autonomy |
| Ethics | A new Code of Ethics with implementation guidance |
| Serious crime | Progress in organized-crime and high-level corruption cases |
“Independence and accountability must go hand in hand,” Marković said, emphasizing that prosecutors should be shielded from interference while remaining answerable for the legality, quality and speed of their decisions. The balance is especially significant in cases in which prosecutorial action can affect public confidence in the justice system or expose weaknesses in institutional safeguards.
Focus on organized crime and other serious offenses
Marković said progress in investigations and prosecutions involving organized crime and high-level corruption has been recognized in assessments by the European Commission. He described those areas as the most important benchmark in negotiations linked to Chapters 23 and 24, which concern the rule of law, justice and security within the European integration process.
The State Prosecution Service has also improved its handling of cases involving domestic violence, attacks on journalists, ill-treatment and torture, hate speech and hate crimes, according to the statement. Those categories span both threats to individual victims and challenges to democratic institutions, including the safety of members of the press.
- Organized crime: Investigative and prosecutorial progress was cited as an important European benchmark.
- Corruption: High-level cases remain a central measure of justice-sector performance.
- Protection of rights: Officials reported improved handling of domestic violence, journalist attacks, torture, hate speech and hate crimes.
The statement presents the changes as part of a broader effort to make the prosecution service more capable, impartial and accountable. It does not provide case-specific figures or identify individual investigations, but it sets out the institutional standards officials say should guide future work: decisions based on evidence, equal treatment under the law, professional responsibility and protection from improper influence.
For the prosecution service, the stated challenge is therefore twofold. It must demonstrate that prosecutors can act independently in politically or socially sensitive matters while also showing that weak, delayed or unlawful decisions will be subject to professional scrutiny. Marković’s remarks place that balance at the heart of the service’s role in combating crime and meeting the rule-of-law expectations associated with its European path.
