Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said on Monday that Milan Radoičić, who has admitted responsibility for the armed attack against the Kosovo Police in Banjska, Zvečan, in 2023 and for whom an Interpol Red Notice has been issued, is not facing criminal prosecution for any criminal offense.
As Vučić put it, the procedures related to him do not stem from specific criminal charges, but from political circumstances and tensions between Serbia and Kosovo.
Të lidhura
None found
He said at a press conference: “You did not say why Milan Radoičić is on the Red Notice. It is not because of crime, but because of Kosovo.”
These statements come at a time when the Banjska case remains among the most delicate security issues in the region, prompting numerous reactions both from institutions in Kosovo and from international partners.
Security expert Fidair Berisha, in a statement to “Bota sot”, opposed the statements of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, assessing that they are aimed at downplaying Milan Radoičić’s responsibility for the attack in Banjska.
Berisha said: “Of course, I see this statement by President Vučić as a continuation of an approach aimed at relativizing Milan Radoičić’s responsibility for the terrorist attack in Banjska. The claim that he is not being prosecuted for crime, but only ‘because of Kosovo’, runs counter to the fact that Radoičić has publicly taken responsibility for organizing the attack and that there is an Interpol Red Notice against him based on criminal proceedings carried out by the Kosovo authorities.”
According to him, such an approach by Serbia sends a worrying signal, as it gives the impression that political protection is being offered to a person accused of the attack in Banjska.
He stressed that this issue is not only about relations between Kosovo and Serbia, but also about respect for the rule of law and international cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism.
“I think this approach sends a worrying message, because it creates the impression of political protection for a person accused of a serious armed attack. This is not only a matter of Kosovo–Serbia relations, but also of respect for the principle of the rule of law and international cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism.
I believe international partners should take this rhetoric seriously and demand full cooperation from Serbia with justice mechanisms. If a person wanted for such an attack remains politically protected and does not face justice, this risks damaging the credibility of Serbia’s commitments to the rule of law and regional stability,” he underlined to “Bota sot”.
Security expert Bedri Elezi also assessed that Aleksandar Vučić’s statements about Milan Radoičić constitute a challenge to international justice and seek to shift a criminal case linked to the Banjska attack into a political framework.
According to Elezi, this reflects a lack of willingness on Serbia’s part to cooperate in pursuing criminal accountability.
He said: “The statements of the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, regarding Milan Radoičić no longer constitute merely a political position, but an open challenge to the fundamental principles of international justice and legal cooperation between states.
The claim that Radoičić ‘is not wanted for crime, but because of Kosovo’ is a clear attempt to shift a serious criminal matter into a political narrative. This narrative runs counter to the fact that the case is linked to the armed attack in Banjska in 2023, an incident that directly undermined the security of the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo and regional stability.
Instead of institutional distancing from an individual who has publicly taken responsibility for such an act, the political discourse from Belgrade has moved toward relativization and indirect protection. This approach creates a serious perception in international opinion that there is a lack of political will to cooperate in pursuing criminal accountability, especially when it affects structures linked to state interests.”
Elezi added that the Banjska case should not be seen as an isolated event, but as a case that requires investigation into the supporting structures and political responsibility as well. According to him, the lack of a comprehensive indictment opens the way for political denial and distortion of the facts.
“The Banjska case cannot be treated as an isolated criminal episode. It represents a pattern of the organization of structured violence, where the key questions are not only related to the perpetrators, but to the possible chain of command, logistical support and political backing. This is precisely where the most sensitive dimension arises: state and political responsibility, which cannot be hidden behind declarative narratives.
In this context, the absence of a comprehensive indictment that addresses not only the direct perpetrators, but also the supporting structures and the possible interstate dimension, constitutes a serious gap in the legal handling of the case. This institutional vacuum gives space to political denial and distortion of the facts.
Therefore, Vučić’s statements are not merely political comment, but part of a discourse that risks normalizing impunity for acts of organized violence. If such figures are politically protected instead of being legally distanced, then not only the rule of law in Serbia is called into question, but also the seriousness of its international commitments.”
In the end, Elezi stressed that the Banjska issue is now a test for international justice and that criminal accountability must not be replaced with political narratives.
“This case now goes beyond the Kosovo–Serbia framework. It is a test for the European Union and international partners: whether the principle of criminal accountability is applied without double standards, or whether political narratives are allowed to replace legal responsibility.
In the end, Banjska remains a dividing line between two worlds: that of an international order based on law, and that of the politics of force, where responsibility is relativized and violence is treated as a justifiable political instrument,” he concluded for “Bota sot”.
