{"id":3211,"date":"2025-12-17T16:44:59","date_gmt":"2025-12-17T14:44:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/?p=3211"},"modified":"2025-12-18T08:41:53","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T06:41:53","slug":"guilty-because-he-demanded-what-the-law-guarantees-him","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/2025\/12\/17\/guilty-because-he-demanded-what-the-law-guarantees-him\/","title":{"rendered":"Guilty Because He Demanded What the Law Guarantees Him"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Background and Continuation of the Case: From a Lawful Request to Criminal Proceedings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This story is a continuation of our first article, in which we wrote about Ratko\u2014a man who, after the death of his wife, was left without answers to the most fundamental question: what happened in the moments when help was requested, but did not arrive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In that first story, we described his struggle to obtain the audio recordings of telephone conversations with the emergency medical dispatcher, the repeated refusals, institutional silence, and the closed doors he encountered while seeking information that should have been readily accessible to him under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This continuation focuses on how a lawful request for medical documentation was gradually transformed into a criminal case against the citizen, revealing a broader pattern of institutional behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We recall that Ratko\u2019s wife passed away despite calling the emergency number 194 in a critical moment, after which emergency medical assistance was not dispatched. Precisely because of this, the audio recordings of those calls represent key evidence\u2014not only for understanding what happened, but also for determining whether the emergency medical system acted in accordance with its legal obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Request for Access to Medical Documentation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When Ratko returned to the premises of the Institute for Emergency Medicine in Belgrade, he did not come to argue or provoke. Acting as an immediate family member and a legally recognized rights holder, he came to request what legally belongs to him: the audio recordings of telephone conversations conducted in connection with his wife\u2019s health condition, which form part of the relevant medical documentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was neither an emotional outburst nor an unfounded demand. It was an attempt to exercise a clearly established legal right in a system that had already demonstrated resistance to acknowledging that right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Institutional Response and Treatment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Instead of a lawful and reasoned response, Ratko was once again confronted with explanations identical to those previously given: references to internal regulations, claims of \u201cbusiness secrecy,\u201d and interpretations that had no basis in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His request was not treated as a legitimate exercise of a family member\u2019s rights, but as an inconvenience. Rather than professional engagement, he was met with dismissive attitudes, open denial, and conduct that conveyed the message that he had \u201cnothing to seek\u201d within the institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such treatment went beyond simple refusal. His demands were trivialized, relativized, and addressed in a manner that lacked both professional restraint and basic respect toward a person seeking answers about the death of his wife. This conduct deviates from the standards of lawful administrative practice and the professional handling of citizens\u2019 requests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Escalation of the Incident<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In an environment where legal norms are not applied and a citizen is simultaneously discouraged and humiliated, escalation becomes almost inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is essential to emphasize that the conflict did not arise because Ratko acted aggressively, but because the right that legally belongs to him was persistently challenged. Instead of examining the legality of the institution\u2019s actions, the focus was shifted to his reaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shift\u2014from assessing institutional compliance with the law to scrutinizing the citizen\u2019s conduct\u2014represents a recurring pattern in similar cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Criminal Proceedings Against the Citizen<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed against Ratko, and he was charged with a criminal offense under Article 344v of the Criminal Code, relating to an attack on a healthcare worker. This provision, relatively new in domestic legislation, is being applied here for the first time to circumstances arising within a healthcare institution during the exercise of a patient\u2019s or family member\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proceedings are ongoing. Ratko responded to the summons of the competent prosecutor\u2019s office and is participating in the process as the accused, while witnesses have been heard and evidence collected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A separate article will be published upon the conclusion of these proceedings, presenting all relevant facts, evidence, and witness statements, so that the entire event can be assessed in full and without selective presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Official summons issued to Ratko \u017divkovi\u0107 to appear as a criminal suspect<\/strong>
(original document, Serbian)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Reversal of Responsibility<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In this sequence of events, responsibility was effectively inverted.
The individual who sought clarity regarding his wife\u2019s death became framed as the problem, while the institution whose actions were in question remained outside the focus of scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of assessing whether the Institute acted in accordance with the law, attention was redirected toward the citizen\u2019s persistence in demanding answers that the law already guarantees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Delayed Institutional Clarification<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Institutional clarification occurred only much later\u2014eight months after the event itself\u2014during the proceedings before the Ombudsman. It was in that forum, and not through the regular administrative response, that the issues raised by Ratko \u017divkovi\u0107 from the very beginning were finally addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the intervening period, rather than receiving a lawful response to his request, Ratko \u017divkovi\u0107 was subjected to criminal proceedings, formal summonses, hearings, and the prolonged uncertainty inherent in such processes. Throughout that time, the core legal question\u2014the legality of the Institute\u2019s refusal\u2014remained unresolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus was repeatedly shifted away from institutional compliance with the law and toward the conduct of the citizen exercising his rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Selective Efficiency of the System<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dynamics of institutional action in this case are particularly revealing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the proceedings concerned Ratko \u017divkovi\u0107 as a private individual, the system acted with notable speed: criminal charges were initiated promptly, summonses were issued without delay, and procedural steps followed in rapid succession. In this context, institutional efficiency was fully demonstrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conversely, complaints and initiatives concerning the conduct of the Institute for Emergency Medicine in Belgrade\u2014relating to the denial of legally guaranteed rights, regulatory violations, and repeated unlawful practices\u2014remained without visible institutional response for months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This disparity highlights a pattern of selective efficiency: decisive and swift when directed at the citizen, slow and inert when institutional responsibility was at stake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Misuse of \u201cBusiness Secret\u201d as Justification<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During this period, the Institute justified its refusal by invoking the notion of a \u201cbusiness secret.\u201d However, the Ombudsman explicitly stated that such reasoning cannot constitute a lawful basis for withholding medical documentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ombudsman emphasized that audio recordings of conversations with emergency dispatchers do not meet the legal criteria for secrecy and that internal acts of a public institution cannot override statutory obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context, the concept of business secrecy was employed not as a legitimate protective mechanism, but as a tool to conceal conduct and avoid accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Ombudsman\u2019s Findings and Legal Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Clarification thus came only after months of institutional silence, during which parallel proceedings placed Ratko \u017divkovi\u0107 under sustained pressure and discouragement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ombudsman determined that the Institute for Emergency Medicine in Belgrade had interpreted the regulations incorrectly and in an unduly restrictive manner, that the audio recordings constitute medical documentation, and that the Institute was legally obligated to provide them to the requester. A clear recommendation was issued, requiring the immediate delivery of the requested recordings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This conclusion confirms that the system\u2019s efficiency in this case was uneven\u2014swift and forceful toward the citizen, yet hesitant and delayed when examining the responsibility of the institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Final Clarification<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the request that led to the argument was lawful.
What followed was not the consequence of unlawful behavior by the citizen, but of unlawful institutional refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n