PODGORICA, 06.06.2026 – Boris Pejović, a photojournalist with the daily newspaper Vijesti, has appealed the ruling of the Basic Court in Berane acquitting Danko Femić of coercion charges stemming from an attack on him and Pobjeda photojournalist Stevo Vasiljević while they were covering the removal of a monument to Chetnik commander and convicted war criminal Pavle Đurišić in the village of Gornje Zaostro, near Berane.
On 5 June, Pejović’s legal representative, attorney Siniša Gazivoda, filed an appeal with the Higher Court in Bijelo Polje, citing serious violations of criminal procedure, misapplication of the Criminal Code, and an incorrect and incomplete assessment of the facts. The appeal requests that the Higher Court overturn the 22 April judgment and return the case to the Basic Court for a retrial.
Pejović and Vasiljević were attacked on 8 August 2025 while carrying out their journalistic duties and photographing the removal of the monument, which had previously been erected in Gornje Zaostro. Upon arriving at the scene, the journalists were verbally abused, threatened, and confronted by several individuals who attempted to seize their equipment. Vasiljević was dragged into a tent and physically assaulted, while both journalists had their equipment taken and damaged and were ordered to delete their photographs. According to previous reports, two plainclothes police officers present at the scene failed to intervene during the attack.
According to the indictment, Femić forcibly removed Pejović’s camera from around his neck and demanded that he delete the photographs, threatening to find and kill him if the images were published in Vijesti or elsewhere. Pejović subsequently deleted the photographs. During the trial, Femić admitted that he had taken possession of the cameras, removed the batteries and memory cards, and demanded that the photographs be deleted, but denied threatening either photojournalist.
The Basic Court in Berane acquitted Femić, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove he had used force or made a serious threat that influenced Pejović’s decision to delete the photographs. The court also concluded that, in Vasiljević’s case, the photographs had been deleted by mutual agreement and that Vasiljević had not felt threatened by Femić. In its reasoning, the court stated that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Femić had acted with the intent to coerce the journalists into a particular course of action.
However, Pejović’s appeal argues that the court failed to properly establish the circumstances under which his camera was taken. He testified that the camera had been hanging around his neck and that Femić repeatedly pulled at it. Fearing that he would be injured or that the equipment would be damaged, Pejović eventually let go, allowing Femić to take the camera.
The appeal also challenges the court’s inconsistent use of the terms “took possession of” and “seized” when referring to the camera. According to the appeal, the two expressions are not synonymous, as “seized” clearly indicates that the camera was taken against its owner’s will. The fact that the equipment was later returned, the appeal argues, does not alter the manner in which Femić obtained it or negate the elements of the alleged criminal offence.
Pejović further argues that the court misinterpreted the circumstances under which he deleted the photographs. The judgment placed particular emphasis on his statement that deleting the photographs was “not a problem,” interpreting it as evidence that he had voluntarily agreed to remove the images.
The appeal contends that this statement was considered in isolation, without taking into account that Pejović’s equipment had already been taken from him, that he had been repeatedly ordered to delete the photographs, and that, according to his testimony, he had been threatened with death if the material was published. In those circumstances, the appeal argues, deleting the photographs could not reasonably be regarded as a voluntary decision or the result of a mutual agreement.
The appeal also disputes the way in which the court relied on the testimonies of Pejović and Vasiljević. It argues that the incidents involving the two journalists did not occur simultaneously or at the same location, and that immediately after the attack they were together for only about eight and a half seconds. As a result, the appeal maintains that Vasiljević could not have had direct knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding the seizure of Pejović’s camera or the threats allegedly made against him.
Pejović’s legal representative also challenges the court’s finding that no witness corroborated the alleged threats, pointing out that Vijesti journalist Balša Rudović testified during the proceedings that he had heard Femić threaten Pejović.
The appeal further describes as contradictory the court’s conclusion that Femić’s conduct was “inappropriate and arbitrary,” particularly when taking the camera, while at the same time finding that his actions were not intended to coerce the photojournalists into deleting the photographs. According to the appeal, taking the camera was not an end in itself but a means of stopping the journalists from photographing the event, gaining control over the recorded material, and ensuring that it would be deleted.
Finally, Pejović argues that the case extends beyond his individual protection and concerns the broader principles of media freedom and journalists’ right to report on matters of public interest without fear. According to the appeal, upholding the view that a journalist’s equipment may be seized, photographs ordered to be deleted, and threats issued without an appropriate criminal law response could have a chilling effect on other journalists and discourage future reporting.