Serbia

Serbia generally respects human rights and the freedom of religion following the implementation of its new constitution in 2006. The vast majority of the population, 85%, is Christian Orthodox, and 94% of people belong to one of the seven ‘traditional’ religions recognised by the government. It is estimated that only 1.1% of the population are atheists.[ref]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/print_ri.html[/ref]

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
Official symbolic deference to religion
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Constitution and government
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Officially, Serbia has no state religion. The Constitution[ref]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/74694/119555/F838981147/SRB74694%20Eng.pdf[/ref] specifically invokes the principle of the separation of church and state (Article 11); however it also recognizes seven “traditional” religions, which appear automatically in its Register of Churches and Religious Communities and privileged over other registered religious groups.[ref]https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/registar/1138/spisak-crkava-i-verskih-zajednica-.php[/ref] These so-called traditional religions are the: Serbian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Slovak Evangelical Church, Reformed Christian Church, Evangelical Christian Church, the Islamic Community, and the Jewish community.

Although it is not mandatory for groups outside these seven to register, unregistered groups can experience considerable difficulty when trying to open bank accounts, purchase or sell property, or publish literature.

The process of registration is regulated in Articles 9 and 17-25 of the Law on Churches and Religious Communities. [ref]https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_crkvama_i_verskim_zajednicama.html[/ref] To register, groups must to provide members’ names, identity numbers and signatures, proof the group has over 100 members, a summary of its teachings, ceremonies, goals, basic activities and sources of funding. As of 2019, there were 25 “non-traditional” religious groups registered with the government, the majority of which are Christian.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Article 44 of the Constitution provides that:

“[The] Constitutional Court may ban a religious community only if its activities infringe the right to life, right to mental and physical health, the rights of child, right to personal and family integrity, public safety and order, or if it incites religious, national or racial intolerance.”

Preferential treatment

The government gives some preferential treatment to the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), through funding and subsidies for clergy working outside the country.

Other Orthodox Churches may only operate in the country following the approval of the SOC.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

The law grants so-called “traditional” religions with the right to receive VAT refunds and provide chaplain services to military personnel. The same benefits are not bestowed on any other registered religious groups.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref] All registered groups’ clergy receive healthcare and a pension, replacing a system in which the government would sporadically allow these benefits to certain religions based on individual agreements with the clergy and Ministers.

In 2012, the Serbian Constitutional Court ruled the law maintaining the privileged status of the ‘traditional seven’ was constitutional and not discriminatory.

Education and children’s rights

Primary and Secondary students are required to attend classes on at least one of the seven traditional religions, or opt for ‘civil education’ instead in which students learn about modern day values, including democracy, tolerance and human rights.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

According to the US State Department, “[r]epresentatives of the Office for Cooperation with Churches and Religious Communities have stated that religious education in public schools may be provided for any registered religious community, but no parents have requested education for any religion except the seven traditional groups.”[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

The curriculum taught in the religion classes varies regionally, reflecting the number of adherents of a given religion in a specific community. Typically, five interested students is the minimum needed to offer instruction in a given religion.

In June 2020, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development confirmed that religious education would continue in schools as the number of students electing to stake religious education classes remains stable.[ref]http://rs.n1info.com/Vesti/a614966/Ministarstvo-Verska-nastava-nece-biti-ukinuta.html[/ref]

The Commission for Religious Education approves religious education programs, textbooks, and other teaching materials and appoints religious education instructors from lists of qualified candidates supplied by each religious group. The commission is comprised of representatives from each traditional religious group, the Directorate for Cooperation with Churches and Religious Communities, and the Ministries of Education and of Science and Technological Development.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Family, community and society

Article 21 of the Constitution provides protection from “[a]ll direct or indirect discrimination based on any grounds, particularly on race, sex, national origin, social origin, birth, religion, political or other opinion, property status, culture, language, age, mental or physical disability.” Further, Section 3 provides specific protections of national minorities, including the expression of their “religious specificities”.

Police responses to religiously-motivated vandalism are often sluggish and inconclusive, and rarely lead to arrests, and members of minority groups occasionally experienced social aggression – including things like spray-painted graffiti, rocks and bricks being thrown at churches and cemeteries, general hate speech and a negative portrayal in the media. In particular, Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of the Jewish community appear to have been the focal targets of discrimination.[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SERBIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

However, there are also reports of rising intolerance towards migrants.

LGBTQ+ rights

Despite the appointment of the nation’s first openly gay Prime Minister in 2017, conservatism in society leads to ongoing discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.[ref]https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/16/i-m-not-giving-up-belgrade-pride-calls-for-serbia-to-address-lgbt-rights; https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/serbia/kosovo; https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/serbia/report-serbia/[/ref]

Article 62 of the Constitution defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, as such rendering same-sex marriage unrecognized.

The law prohibits same-sex couples from adopting, and recent changes to regulations imposed a ban on anyone with a “history of homosexual relations during the last five years” from donating “reproductive cells” for the purposes of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, or laboratory tests.[ref]https://www.rferl.org/a/lesbian-pm-or-not-serbia-blocks-gays-path-to-parenthood/30123813.html[/ref]

Roma

According to the 2011 census, 2.1% of the population is Romani.[ref]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/print_ri.html[/ref] However, rights groups have drawn into question the accuracy of statistics relating to the Roma in Serbia as many choose not to identify as such for fear of stigma and discrimination.[ref]https://minorityrights.org/minorities/roma-16/; https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/despite-serbian-authorities-efforts-protection-of-minority-rights-needs-to-be-significantly-improved-roma-situation-still-alarming[/ref]

According to Minority Rights Group:

“Roma face discrimination and exclusion in all spheres of life. Unemployment is particularly high among the Roma, and those who are employed are usually in low paid positions. Poverty is widespread and many people do not have access to such necessities as electricity or even clean water. Conditions are particularly appalling in informal settlements; these are makeshift temporary settlements populated mainly by Roma displaced from Kosovo or forcibly returned from abroad.[…] Roma have problems with access to basic services, such as health care and social assistance.”[ref]https://minorityrights.org/minorities/roma-16/[/ref]

According to Amnesty International, “Roma also faced ill-treatment by the police. A series of attacks by youths on Roma in Leskovac in May were not investigated as hate crimes.”[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/serbia/report-serbia/[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

While freedom of the press is technically protected under the Serbian Constitution, journalists are often verbally and physically attacked.[ref]https://rsf.org/en/serbia[/ref] Pro-government media outlets frequently smear independent outlets and journalists, describing them as “traitors” and “foreign mercenaries.”[ref]https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/serbia/kosovo[/ref] The lack of resources available to the media often leads to self-censorship.

In 2019, the Independent Association of Journalists in Serbia recorded 119 attacks on the media – including verbal threats, physical attacks as well as pressure. To date it has recorded 163 attacks on the media in 2020.[ref]https://www.bazenuns.rs/srpski/napadi-na-novinare[/ref]

Freedom of expression has been a key focus of the process of integration of the Republic of Serbia into the European Union.[ref]https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20180417-serbia-report.pdf; https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/serbia_report_2020.pdf[/ref] Among concerns raised are: concentration of media ownership; lack of transparency in allocation of state funding; attacks on the media; the lack of professionalism; spread of hate speech in the media.

According to the European Commission:

“During the COVID-19 related state of emergency, the government adopted on 28 March 2020 a decree to centralise all information on the pandemic exclusively through the government crisis team, which was then withdrawn on 2  April. A journalist was arrested after having written an article describing lack of COVID-19 protective equipment in a hospital. While the criminal charges against her for causing panic were dropped a month later, the journalist has since then continued to be the victim of smear campaigns, verbal abuse and threats, including by high-level officials. A restriction measure on access of journalists to the daily press conferences on the pandemic was in place for ten days and then withdrawn.”[ref]https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/serbia_report_2020.pdf[/ref]