The law office of Vladimir Beljanski, representing N1 journalist Branislav Sovljanski, issued a statement regarding Tuesday’s incident in which traffic police stopped and drug-tested the journalist. We are publishing the statement in full:
“As legal counsel for Branislav Sovljanski, regarding yesterday’s events, the police conduct, and the detention to which he was subjected, as well as the inaccurate information reported by certain media outlets, we believe it is necessary to inform the public of the following:
- There are significant indications that Mr. Sovljanski was not stopped randomly by the police and subjected to morning drug testing, but that he was targeted because of his professional work, specifically his recent interview with Dragan Bjelogrlic and the criticism directed at top political officials on his programs;
- The procedure of taking him to a police station due to the alleged faulty nature of the testing device is highly unusual and raises suspicions of manipulation of the test results;
- In the official police detention order, a key piece of information was altered. Correction fluid was used to overwrite a previously written word and replace it with ‘positive.’ From this, we conclude that the result was previously recorded as ‘negative’ for psychoactive substances;
- Despite Mr. Sovljanski’s insistence on being tested at a medical facility, he was not shown the test results;
- Despite his request to be examined by a doctor of his choice, specifically his primary care physician, in accordance with the law, this request was refused.
“All of the above points to numerous violations of procedure and the rights of Mr. Branislav Sovljanski. He will use all available legal means to protect his rights, including a request that the samples taken be frozen for subsequent forensic DNA analysis to determine their origin, as well as toxicological testing to confirm the absence of psychoactive substances.”
Sovljanski: See you in court!
In a post on his X account, Sovljanski noted that tabloids had already published exactly what he was supposedly “positive” for while the test results were still pending. He questioned the nature of the “routine check,” asking: “What kind of routine control involves being followed from your home to your workplace?”
“Suddenly the device doesn’t work and can’t print the results? I ask for additional analysis, but miraculously, there is no laboratory report at the VMA (Military Medical Academy) either; instead, the result was ‘phoned in,’ as the doctor put it? You refuse my request for an examination at any other laboratory? And finally, the icing on the cake: you use correction fluid to alter the key word on the only piece of paper I received? You’ll have to do better than that!
“I’ll see you in court!” Sovljanski said.
Source: N1
