Member of Parliament Josip Jurčević stated during his address in the Croatian Parliament on July 14, 2025:
“It is utterly scandalous, immoral, and dishonorable that Mr. Milorad Pupovac, a Yugoslav communist protégé, and, what is even more appalling, a person reasonably suspected of war crimes during the Serbian armed aggression against Croatia, should speak about war and post-war crimes in any period.”
(available here from 7:15)
The statement was made during a heated parliamentary debate in which MPs Milorad Pupovac and Josip Jurčević exchanged sharp accusations following Pupovac’s condemnation of the Ustaša salute “Za dom spremni” (“For the Homeland – Ready”). The statement was soon picked up by several media outlets (see examples here, here, here, here, here, here).
Such accusations, especially when they imply criminal liability or moral discreditation, have the potential to undermine trust between majority and minority populations and to polarize society. Since this claim implies criminal responsibility of a long-time MP and political representative of the Serbian national minority, we examined whether Jurčević’s statement that there is reasonable suspicion against Milorad Pupovac for war crimes is true.
First, it is necessary to clarify what the term reasonable suspicion means in legal terms. According to the definition provided by the Croatian Terminology Database (STRUNA), reasonable suspicion represents a higher degree of suspicion based on collected evidence, sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that exists only when established by a competent authority, namely, by the State Attorney through an official act: a decision, ruling, or indictment.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the State Attorney is obliged to initiate criminal proceedings if there is reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed a criminal offense prosecuted ex officio, and if there are no legal obstacles to such prosecution.
Reasonable suspicion also serves as the basis for ordering investigative detention under Article 123 of the Criminal Procedure Act; detention may be ordered against a person only if there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed a criminal offense.
Moreover, an investigation must be conducted against any person for whom reasonable suspicion exists, and the notice of rights must specify the circumstances from which the reasonable suspicion arises.
Therefore, the existence of reasonable suspicion against a person can only be determined through formal acts of the competent authorities. In practice, reasonable suspicion is manifested through explicit procedural actions: when the State Attorney initiates an investigation (thereby implying reasonable suspicion), when an investigating judge orders detention (which presupposes that reasonable suspicion has been established), or when the indictment panel confirms an indictment (explicitly confirming reasonable suspicion).
In other words, reasonable suspicion is never established in the abstract—it always exists within a concrete procedural act by a judicial authority.
A review of publicly available databases and registers, including the official website of the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (DORH), public records maintained by that institution, accessible court registers and criminal case databases, as well as media archives that could contain information on any criminal proceedings against Milorad Pupovac, revealed no information suggesting the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Criminal Code or the Criminal Procedure Act.
No publicly available documents, such as decisions, rulings, or indictments, issued by the competent authorities indicate that there is reasonable suspicion against MP Milorad Pupovac for committing war crimes.
Funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU.
Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission, nor the positions of the Agency for Electronic Media. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission, nor the Agency for Electronic Media can be held responsible for them.
This post is also available in: Hrvatski
