Identification

Author

Nikola Kovačević

The Asylum Act explicitly envisages that, in the course of the asylum procedure the specific circumstances of certain categories of applicants requiring special procedural or reception guarantees will be taken into consideration. This category includes minors, unaccompanied minors, persons with disabilities, elderly persons, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims or survivors of trafficking in human beings, severely ill persons, persons with mental disorders, and persons who were subjected to torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as women who were victims of female genital mutilation.[1]

However, it remains unclear how in practice and in which kind of specific procedure relevant asylum authorities are conducting vulnerability assessments, what kind of decision do they issue and how they design special and individualised programmes for meeting the special needs of the above-listed categories in different contexts (accommodation, provision of psycho-social support, provision of medical support, in asylum or integration procedure, etc.).

Screening of vulnerability

Article 17 of the Asylum Act envisages that the procedure for identifying the personal circumstances of a person is carried out by the ‘competent authorities on a continuous basis and at the earliest reasonable time after the initiation of the asylum procedure, or the expression of the intention to submit an asylum application at the border or in the transit zone’.[2]

However, the registration of foreign nationals who are willing to lodge their asylum application is usually conducted in differed police units around Serbia (rarely in border or transit zones), and this process is deprived of any type of vulnerability assessment. It is conducted without interpreters and acting police officers simply take biometric data from foreigners and issue them with registration certificates. They do not use any kind of screening tools (e.g. questionnaires specially designed for specific vulnerable groups) and do not indicate in the registration certificate observations which can potentially indicate to some type of vulnerability. Thus, it can be safely said that there is no vulnerability assessment during ‘the expression of the intention to submit an asylum application at the border or in the transit zone’, or in other police departments within the mainland.

The admission process into asylum and reception centres also is deprived of any systemic screening except for the basic health care assessment which, if a medical condition is discovered, can further lead to more complex and specialist examinations and adequate support. However, there are no screening tools which CRM workers are applying for other categories, such as survivors of trafficking in human beings, LGBTQI+ persons, SGBV or torture survivors. HRC recommended to Serbia to enhance efforts to systematically identify, prevent and combat trafficking in migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, especially those at heightened risk, such as unaccompanied and separated children.[3] An entire set of recommendations was also issued by GRETA.

In 2024, IDEAS published two assessment which clearly showed that vulnerable asylum seekers who belonged to LGBTQI+ community or who are SGBV survivors[4] do not undergo any type of screening when arriving to asylum centre or during their stay. Both Analysis have clearly shown that refugees and asylum seekers who belong to this category experience challenges in all stages of their stay in Serbia. ‘’

As already outlined, it is still not entirely clear in which form the Asylum Office, Asylum Commission or Administrative Court determines that an asylum seeker is in need of special procedural guarantees.  Most of the vulnerabilities are flagged by legal representatives in the asylum procedure, or during the in-depth legal counselling which implies in depth interviews which are usually conducted prior to the initiation of the asylum procedure. Thus, the CSOs are the ones who flag vulnerabilities prior and during the asylum procedure.

Accordingly, the practice has shown that vulnerability assessments for the purpose of procedural or reception guarantees have never been conducted through a special procedure or through a separate decision which is issued in some sort of procedure. It is also not clear if the CRM has any role in that regards, and in relation to reception guarantees, but the practice has shown that many vulnerable applicants have never benefitted from special reception guarantees.

The Asylum Office has been so far the only asylum authority which highlighted vulnerabilities of certain applicants in the reasoning of its decisions. In almost all decisions related to UASCs, the first instance authority explicitly stated that special procedural and reception guarantees were secured in UASC’s cases since they were appointed a legal guardian, a legal representative and were accommodated in social care institution designated for children.[5] This practice has remained unchanged in all of the UASC cases which were positively decided in 2022. In 2023 and 2024, there were no decisions related to UASCs, but there was a BID assessment in the case of an Afghan minor whose case is still pending before the Asylum Office.[6]

And indeed, accommodation of children in specialised social care institutions reflects special reception guarantees, while the appointment of the temporary legal guardian provides for the additional procedural security in asylum, but also other procedures. In all of these decisions, the Asylum Office invoked Article 10 of the Asylum Act (best interest of a child principle) and Article 17 (special procedural guarantees).

Also, it has become undisputable since 2020, and in some of the cases even earlier,[7] that certain types of vulnerabilities should be, and in practice are, identified by other state institutions, but also CSOs. Identification of such vulnerabilities is done through different forms such as decisions, reports, findings or expert opinions. Asylum authorities have been taking these into consideration during the decision-making process, which so far has been the case predominately with regards to UASCs, but also other vulnerable applicants:

1. UASC – the best interest determination assessment (BID) which is accompanied by a BID decision is conducted by the Social Welfare Centres (under the supervision of IDEAS – implementing partner of UNHCR). This decision contains description of different vulnerabilities which the temporary legal guardian, but also the case worker within the competent Social Welfare Centre, have determined and which are relevant for granting international protection;
2. Survivors of trafficking in human beings – decision on granting the status of the survivor of the trafficking in human beings which is conducted by the Government’s Centre for Human Trafficking Victims’ Protection (CHTV) and which contains relevant segments of applicants’ vulnerability, but also description of different forms of exploitation, some of which can be qualified as acts of persecution;
3. Sexual and gender-based violence report (SGBV report) – is only drafted and provided by the SGBV officer at the Dutch Refugee Council, Ms. Bojana Balević, which basically means that this kind of vulnerability assessment is conducted by one of the CSOs, not a state institution. In 2024, DRC was not providing SGBV reports due to the lack of funding and thus, asylum seekers who had SGBV component were deprived of this type of evidence;
4. Psychological reports – drafted and provided by CSOs PIN and IAN and which are frequently cited in positive decisions. This also means that psychological reports are provided mainly by CSOs who are contacted by legal representatives;
5. Psychiatric reports – drafted and provided by psychiatrists hired by PIN or IAN, and in rare situations by the State psychiatrist. The later one are usually provided in a form which is not suitable for the asylum authorities because very often they only contain the diagnosis and therapy, but not the causal link between the traumatic event which could amount to persecution and the symptoms which are being displayed or determined by the psychiatrist. This is not the case if the CSO providing legal aid have funds for psychiatrists who are trained to provide reports in line with the Istanbul Protocol. Still, there are many problems in practice to obtain a proper Istanbul Protocol report;
6. Medical reports – provided by different medical institutions and professionals which can also be used to flag the vulnerability of applicants to the asylum authorities and which was the case in several positive decisions;
7. Forensic medical reports – usually drafted and provided by forensic experts with extensive experience with torture survivors, but also the practice has shown that medical experts opinion were provided by psychiatrists, gynaecologists (for rape survivors) and infectious disease specialist (for HIV+ applicants) also upon the request of CSOs.

To reiterate, it is safe to say that vulnerability screening within reception facilities does not exist. Even when the vulnerability is determined, special reception conditions are not provided for anyone except potentially for survivors of human trafficking and women at the imminent risk of SGBV (placed in CSO Atina’s safe house), and also UASC who decided to apply for asylum. For all other categories, they are provided with regular accommodation unless they are not suffering from medical conditions that are so serious that their health can significantly deteriorate of life can be threatened if not accommodated in a medical institution.

Regardless of the type of vulnerability, the common feature of all kinds of screening mechanisms is that they largely depend on the work of and referrals made by different CSOs, but are in many cases conducted in cooperation with different state institutions. Thus, the State support system can be described as partially effective with regards to UASCs and survivors of human trafficking, and strongly dependant on the limited resources of CSOs who assist UASC, survivors of trafficking in human beings, victims of SGBV, persons with health and mental issues, torture survivors, etc.

It should be also borne in mind that the capacities of CSOs are also limited and not always of the highest quality. For that reason, it is safe to say that only small numbers of vulnerable persons that may be in need of international protection receive the comprehensive support and mainly after they are channelled through the asylum procedure. For persons who are in need of international protection but are not registered as asylum seekers, the limited support is almost exclusively provided by CSOs, or not at all. However, the past several years has shown some improvements in the joint work of state institutions and CSOs. The biggest problem are the so called front line workers who are getting in first contact with persons that might be in need of international protection and who are employed in asylum and reception centres, CSOs, but also international organisations, and who are providing first information to potential asylum seekers. There is no screening tools systematically applied and the practice has shown that identified cases are usually the one which are most flagrant or most oblivious, while for many other cases where survivors and vulnerable beneficiaries are not obviously displaying sings of vulnerability remain under the radar and leave Serbia without getting specific information relevant for their problem. The following several cases corroborate this statement and reflect the recommendations of international bodies for the protection of human rights such as HRC and GRETA:

1. In 2022, a woman from Cameroon was qualified by most of the state and non-state front line workers as an economic migrant who resided in the Asylum Centre in Krnjača for months. After an in-depth interview with a qualified lawyer and SGBV officer from DRC, it was determined that she is a survivor of trafficking in human beings who escaped her traffickers after she was pushed back from Hungary, that she had a GPS tracker placed in her thigh and that she was receiving continuous threats;
2. An Indian transgender woman was qualified as non-credible individual, not in need of international protection who resided for more than 6 months in RC Preševo, AC Sjenica and AC Krnjača where she was assessed by state and non-state (national and international) as a non-credible case. After she was assessed by qualified lawyer, she was granted refugee status as a survivor of trafficking in human beings.
3. The most striking case from 2024 is a case of an unaccompanied girl from Cameroon who arrived to AC Krnjača in July, registered in September as adult and referred at the of October to legal representative as a single woman without any other data that might indicate additional layers of vulnerability. After the assessment, it turned out that she was underage, that she survived different types of gander-based exploitation and that she was a SGBV survivor. For three months she went under the radar of all CRM employees, CSOs and international organizations front-line workers and resided in the facility for adults. After all the facts had been determined by a competent lawyer, she was transferred to the ATINA safe house, provided with specialized services and was registered as a child, and obtained the status of survivor of trafficking in human beings. Her asylum procedure is ongoing.

Unaccompanied and separated children

UASCs who decide to apply for asylum undergo a detailed vulnerability assessment through the Best Interest Determination Procedure (BID) conducted by the CSW. BID is requested either by the Asylum Office or by legal representatives and then are used, processed and cited in the decision-making process. In the past two years, CSOs were the only ones who were requesting BID from CSW.

The Family Law provides that everyone is obliged to be guided by the best interests of the child in all activities concerning the child.[8] The Social Protection Act (SPA), as one of the principles of social protection, prescribes the best interest of beneficiaries, as well as the right of beneficiaries to participate in decision-making.[9] The legislative framework also explicitly stipulates that the UASC case manager and the supervisor from the CSW must respect the best interests of the beneficiaries in all proceedings.[10] Also, the Asylum Act provides that all activities carried out with the child must be in accordance with the best interests of the child.[11]

The relevant framework does not define the procedure for assessing the best interests of the child, but the Centre for Social Work, as a guardianship authority, is responsible for making decisions on protection of children’s rights and best interests. All professional and legal decisions are rendered in the process which is called the case management method. When CSW identifies a UASC, the caseworker shall instantly initiate the procedure of the case management which starts with the official activity which is called initial assessment.[12] The initial assessment is performed in order to determine the further content of support to the child and the facts collected during the initial assessment are the basis for future decision-making, including decision on BID.[13] In this sense, the case management process is established as a basis for assessing the best interest of a child, including for the purpose of asylum procedure. Finally, the relevant CSW provides a BID which is drafted in the form of an Expert Opinion on an individual applicant.

Thus, in practice, only UASC who have a genuine desire to apply for asylum in Serbia undergo a detailed vulnerability and needs assessment, which in the best-case scenario is concluded with the best interest determination assessment (BID).[14] According to the UNHCR, 973 UASC were recorded entering Serbian territory in 2022, but only 82 of them were issued with the registration certificate, and only 4 effectively lodged an application for international protection.[15] Out of the 82 children with a registration certificate, almost all received a more detailed support, and at least 25 underwent best interest assessments (BIA).[16] Thus, substantial support was provided to less than 3% of all recorded UASC. BID decisions were issued in 8 instances, and in relation to UASC who applied for asylum or temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. The situation remained unchanged in 2023, when 761 UASC entered Serbia and resided mainly in RC Šid, while only 30 was registered and not a single UASC lodged asylum application in 2023. Thus, there were no BID decisions in 2023.

In 2024, a total of 2,637 children were recorded in asylum and reception centres, as well as social care institutions, out of which 1,829 were put under the care of SCWs.[17] This means that some children remain only for several days and are not put under the custody of social care worker. It takes 2 to 5 days for the decisions on guardianship to be rendered. As for the number of children who was registered in line with the Article 36 of the Asylum Act, the data obtained from the MoI and MoLEVSA differs. According to the MoI, only 17 UASCs were registered in 2024, while MoLEVSA outlined that 40 UASC were issued with the registration certificates. 

Survivors of human trafficking or persons at risk of human trafficking

Also, CHTV can be considered as an authority that can contribute to the effective implementation of Article 17 of the Asylum Act. In 2022, CHTV identified only 3 persons who belonged to the refugee population as survivors of human trafficking – 3 women from Uganda, Cameroon and Burundi.[18] Still, in the majority of cases, CSOs are the ones who report alleged cases of human trafficking. In 2023, CHTV identified 6 foreign nationals as survivors of trafficking in human beings originating from: India (3), Ukraine (1), Iran (1) and Pakistan (1).[19]  In 2024, CHTV identified 16 foreign nationals as survivors of human trafficking: Nigeria (5), Ukraine (2), Burundi (2), Colombia (2), China (2), Brazil (1), Congo (1) and Russian Federation (1).[20]

If a police officer, CSO, or any other entity assumes that a person in need of international protection is a survivor of human trafficking, they are obliged to immediately inform the CSW and the CHTV, who then take measures to care for the alleged victim. The CHTV will then start the process of identifying the victim and, at the same time, inform the Ministry of the Interior about the initiation of the identification procedure.[21] The CHTV then issues a decision on the recognised status of the victim of human trafficking which is then used during the course of asylum procedure. In 2023, one person belonging to Hijra community in India was recognized as survivor of human trafficking and was granted refugee status of those grounds, as well as on the grounds of sexual orientation and SGBV.[22] Out of 16 recognized survivors, Congolese[23] and Ukrainian[24] women were granted refugee status, acts of exploitation were recognized as acts of persecution

In 2023, GRETA recommended that the Serbian authorities take further measures to strengthen prevention of human trafficking through social, economic and other measures for vulnerable groups, including members of the Roma community, migrants and asylum seekers.[25] GRETA also highlighted that the Serbian authorities should take further steps to ensure that all victims of trafficking are identified as such and can benefit from the assistance and protection measures contained in the Convention, in particular by:

• encouraging law enforcement officials, social workers, asylum officials, and other relevant actors to adopt a more proactive approach and increase their outreach work to detect victims of human trafficking for different forms of exploitation;
• increasing the involvement of specialised NGOs in the identification of victims of trafficking and strengthening multi-disciplinary co-operation between all relevant partners;
• paying increased attention to detecting and identifying victims of trafficking among migrants and asylum seekers;
• providing sufficient staff and resources to the Centre for the Protection of Victims of Trafficking to enable it to carry out timely identification of victims of trafficking.[26]

Asylum seekers with mental health issues and survivors of torture

The psychological assessment for the purpose of the asylum procedure is usually conducted by the Psychosocial Innovation Network (PIN) and IAN. In 2024, PIN and IAN identified, were occasionally present in asylum centres. Only few psychological assessments were lodged with the Asylum Office for the purpose of asylum procedure, and upon the request of legal representatives.

When it comes to the vulnerability assessment of survivors of torture, it is usually conducted by CSOs who have funds for forensic medical or psychiatric examinations. These reports are then delivered to the Asylum Office. In 2023, only 1 Istanbul Protocol Report was drafted and submitted to the Asylum Office in relation to an individual from Burundi who was subjected to different forms sexual violence, but also reports from more narrowly specialized psychosocial workers. According to the content of first instance decisions, in several cases legal representatives lodged psychological reports, while Asylum Office did not request any assessment. In 2024, there were no Istanbul Protocol Reports lodged to the Asylum Office.

Persons at risk of SGBV, SGBV survivors and LGBTQI+ persons

In 2022, DRC implemented projects which aimed to provide assistance to SGBV survivors in refugee and asylum seekers’ populations. This organisation was the only one who provided legal assistance to the refugees and asylum seekers in cases of SGBV in 2022 outside the asylum procedure. Additionally, DRC established the first Women Safe Space inside the Asylum Centre in Krnjača. The space was used by 3 organisations (DRC, ADRA and Atina) where they conducted activities raising awareness on women rights and provided direct assistance to the beneficiaries. Community-based protection has been an integral part of DRC field activities and therefore DRC trained three female asylum seekers to be gender focal points in AC Krnjača. In 2022, DRC has identified 23 survivors of SGBV who had the status of asylum seekers, produced 7 SGBV reports and contributed to the positive decision of two applicants – 1 from Burundi and 1 from Afghanistan. There is no available data for 2023 and in 2024, DRC stopped providing assistance to SGBV survivors.

CRM who is in charge of asylum and reception centres does not provide any kind of vulnerability assessment upon arrival, including in relation to SGBV survivors and LGBTQI+ persons.  Accordingly, CSOs who provide legal and other assistance to asylum seekers are the ones who usually provide care to vulnerable applicants in terms of referral to appropriate accommodation, medical care, psychological or other needs assessment. Also, the fact that the asylum authorities have recognised an asylum seeker’s vulnerability (age, state of health or other vulnerability) can mainly be found in positive decisions of the Asylum Office, while rejection decisions usually disregard the vulnerabilities of the minor applicants put forward by their legal representatives.

There is a reported the lack of screening of SGBV survivors upon their arrival to the camp and the lack of any kind of reception guarantees.’[27]

LGBTQI+ Persons

In the same way, LGBTQI+ applicants have outlined the lack of information and their challenges in reception facilities.[28]

Identification and age assessment of unaccompanied children

Serbia considers as an unaccompanied child ‘a foreigner who has not yet reached eighteen years of age and who, at the time of entry into the Republic of Serbia or upon having entered it, is not accompanied by their parents or guardians.’[29]

Although the Asylum Act prescribes that children for whom it can be determined reliably and unambiguously that they are under 14 years of age shall not be fingerprinted at registration,[30] it is not prescribed how the age is to be established, leaving it up to the competent authorities to arbitrarily ascertain the age of persons lacking personal documents form their country of origin. On 16 September 2020, IDEAS received a legal opinion from the Ministry of Justice, as per which Serbia does not have an age assessment procedure in its legal framework.[31]

According to the current legal framework, the MoI and the social protection system are primarily responsible for protecting the rights of unaccompanied and separated children in the Serbian asylum system, but the health care system also plays a significant role. In line with the MoI Instruction on Standard Operating Procedures for Profiling, Search and Registration of Irregular Migrants (SoP), during the first contact with the child (at the border or within the mainland), the police officer is obliged to determine whether there is an urgent need for provision of health care[32] and if so, the police officer is obliged to contact the competent health-care services.[33] Also, a UASC identified at the border shall not be served with a decision on refusal of entry but will receive a decision granting them entry.[34]

The identification of UASC, which includes the assessment of the child’s age, is done through the procedure of verification and identification, which is performed by a police officer. Identity verification is performed through inspection of an identification document which contains a photograph, or exceptionally, based on the statement of the person whose identity is being verified.[35] Regarding UASC who do not have identification documents, and if the identity cannot be verified in another way, the identity will be determined using data from forensic records, applying methods and using means of ‘criminal tactics’ and forensics, medical or other appropriate expertise.[36] It is not clear what kind of tests and forensic analysis is implied through this provision because that kind of age assessment has never been performed. In order to establish their identity, the child can be brought to the official premises of the police.[37] The police officer is obliged to inform the child about the reasons for their presence at the police premises, their right to inform family or other persons of their choice and other rights of persons deprived of liberty and in a language that the child understands.[38]

When a police officer determines that an individual is a UASC, they are obliged to compile a report which also contains the identity determined in line with the above-described methods, which in practice is only the statement of a child, unless they have a document.[39] This report should be then submitted to the competent Centre for Social Work (CSW) in order for a child to be taken over by the social-care system.[40] A police officer shall contact a representative of the CSW without delay, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person concerned is a child and in order to gather additional information important to establish facts from their life and provide adequate protection.

On the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Ministry for Social Affairs, IDEAS has been conducting supervision of all social care workers in Serbia working with UASC. This assistance implies counselling on individual cases, providing general guidelines and assistance in conducting BID. Thus, out of 973 children recorded in 2022, only 82 were registered, 4 lodged asylum application, while the rest remained in legal limbo, being at risk of being issued with expulsion order or penalised in the misdemeanour proceeding. Moreover, since the registration certificate does not provide for any legal status, even the children issued with this document were in the same situation as those children who were not registered at all. In 2024, a total of 40 children were issued with registration certificate according to MoLEVSA, and according to the MoI, 11 UASCs were registered in line with the Article 35 of the Asylum Act.

The screening of UASC vulnerability is conducted by the temporary legal guardians legal guardians funded by IOM and who were deployed from IDEAS in 2020. However, this is not done in line with Article 17 of the Asylum Act, but in line with the Family Act and social care professional standards. The Asylum Office did not submit any request for BID in 2022[41] and in general, in 2022, only 4 UASC applied for asylum. Thus, the age is determined on the basis of the statement of a child. What is also a concerning practice is that MoI officers who are tasked with issuing the registration certificates usually ask children how old they are. When a child says the number of years, the police officer then subtracts that number from the number of the given year (e.g., 2021) and puts 1 January as a date of birth. This practice is not in line with the principle of in dubio pro reo, i.e., the principle of the benefit of the doubt established by the CRC.[42] Thus, if a child who is 17 arrives in Serbia in 2021, his date of birth would be set at 1 January 2004. This means that a person under the age of 18 could be treated as adult before coming of age, which is contrary to the Asylum Act, the Constitution and international standards. The benefit of the doubt criterion would be respected only if the registration certificate mentioned 31 December of the given year as birth date.

To reiterate, there is no proper or developed method for ascertaining an asylum seeker’s age, meaning that the asylum seeker’s word and the official’s personal observations are the only criteria for identifying minors in the greatest number of cases.[43] On 4 April 2018, the Ministry of Labour, Employment, veteran and Social Affairs adopted the Instruction on Procedures of Social Work Centres[44] which envisages that the field social worker is in charge for identifying and coordinating support to UASC as long as the child is not put under the care of a professional social worker.[45]

Still, the identification of unaccompanied minors continues to be done on the spot by officials (most often police officers) and CSO employees, establishing first contact with potential asylum seekers. The SWC are understaffed and they usually react when the MoI or CSO inform them of a UASC’s presence within the territory of Serbia. Thus, it is clear that a large number of children residing in Serbia have never been recorded and that the numbers published by different state authorities, but also non-state entities (CSOs, UNHCR, IOM) significantly differ.[46] The Committee on the Rights of the Child,[47] and the Human Rights Committee,[48] underlined these problems as well.

[1] Article 17(1) and (2) Asylum Act.

[2] Article 17(3) Asylum Act.

[3] HRC, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Serbia*, CCPR/C/SRB/CO/4, 3 May 2024, available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/SRB/CO/4.

[4] Marko Milanović, Assessment of LGBTIQ+ Asylum Seeker Experiences in Serbia: Analysis of Reception Conditions, Support Services, and Recommendations for Policy Reform, IDEAS 2024, available here and Marko Milanović, Bridging the Gap: Enhancing Support for GBV Survivors in Serbia’s Asylum System, IDEAS 2024, available here.

[5] Asylum Office, Decision No. 2573/19, 15 October 2020, Decision No. 26-374/19, 14 February 2020 and Decision No. 26-1946/18, 9 October 2020.

[6] Asylum Office, Case File No. 854/24.

[7] For instance, Asylum Office, Decisions No. 4329/18, 26 December 2017 – person with the status of the victim of trafficking in human beings.

[8] Article 6 (1) Family Law.

[9] Article 26 and 35 Social Protection Act.

[10] Article 30 and 32 Rulebook on the Work of Centre for Social Work

[11] Article 10 Asylum Act.

[12] Article 48 Rulebook on the Work of Centre for Social Work.

[13] Only 20 in 2019, and for the purpose of asylum procedure.

[14] Only 20 in 2019, and for the purpose of asylum procedure.

[15] UNHCR statistics are available at: https://bit.ly/2LkIrZY.

[16] The difference between BIA and BID can be found in UNHCR, Guidelines on Assessing and Determining the Best Interests of the Child, November 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2WaByiA, 30 and 44-45.

[17] MoLEVSA, Response to the request for the infomration of public importance no. 003611250 2024 13400 009 001 041 001, 8 January 2025.

[18] CHTV, Annual Statistical Report, available at: https://bit.ly/3xCcp4D.

[19] CHTV, Annual Statistical Report for 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4cOcFPD.

[20] CHTV, Током 2024. године идентификован највећи број жртава трговине људима, 3 January 2024, available here.

[21] Article 62 Social Protection Act.

[22] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1562/22, 14 December 2023.

[23] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1969/24, 10 June 2024.

[24] Asylum Office, decision No. 26-296/24, 29 October 2024.

[25] GRETA, Evaluation Report Serbia, 16 June 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4ciaeE5, para. 198.

[26] Ibid, para. 210.

[27] Bridging the Gap: Enhancing Support for GBV Survivors in Serbia’s Asylum System, available here, 23-25.

[28] Assessment of LGBTIQ+ Asylum Seeker Experiences in Serbia: Analysis of Reception Conditions, Support Services, and Recommendations for Policy Reform, available available here, 20-21, 32-33.

[29] Article 2 Asylum Act.

[30] Article 35(6) Asylum Act.

[31] Ministry of Justice, Legal Opinion No. 011-00-125/2020-05, 16 September 2020.

[32] Page 20 SoP.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Article 15 Foreigners Act.

[35] Article 76 Police Act.

[36] Article 77 Police Act.

[37] Article 12 (2) Rulebook on Police Powers.

[38] Article 85 Police Act.

[39] Which is usually not the case taking in consideration that the vast majority of children are UASC.

[40] Article 12 (2) Rulebook on Police Powers.

[41] All the information was obtained from IDEAS.

[42] CRC, General comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, 1 September 2005, CRC/GC/2005/6, available at: https://bit.ly/2KIs2S5.

[43] There is no record that an age assessment procedure has ever been conducted in line with the Family Act.

[44] Instruction on Procedures of Social Work Centres – Guardianship Authorities for the Accommodation of Unaccompanied Migrant/Refugee Children, Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs, No. 019–00–19/2018–05.

[45] Section II, para. 2 of the Instruction on Procedure of Social Work Centres.

[46] BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2019, 97-98.

[47] CRC, Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of Serbia, 7 March 2017, CRC/C/SRB/CO/2-3, pp. 56-57.

[48] HRC, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Serbia, 10 April 2017, CCPR/C/SRB/CO/3, available at: https://bit.ly/3T8zneH, paras. 32-33.