Juvenile crime is a topic that often occupies the public's attention. Although the dominant public image of juvenile crime implies a narrative of a steady rise in juvenile crime rates, increasingly violent crimes, and increasingly brutal younger generations, the question arises as to whether this is really so. In order to consider the validity of such a position from a phenomenological point of view, the author analyzes available statistical data on various aspects of juvenile crime from judicial records in the eighteen-year period, from 2006 to 2023. Although the focus of the paper is on the problem of violent crime with special reference to serious murders, the starting point in dealing with this issue is the analysis of the phenomenology of overall juvenile crime and primarily the determination of legality in its manifestation. The results of the analysis of the frequency of total juvenile crime represent the basis for a more detailed analysis of the state and dynamics of one form of violent juvenile crime: crimes against life and body. The author considers both the absolute indicators related to the mentioned criminal acts and the relative figures, i.e. the share of those acts in the overall structure of juvenile crime. Serious murder, as one of the crimes from the group of crimes against life and body, is separately and in detail processed in view of the stimulated public debate regarding the way of treating minor perpetrators of such crimes, but also in the context of the Ribnikar case, which once again actualized the issue of lowering the age limit of criminal responsibility. This is one of the most difficult forms of criminal manifestation, so, among other things, longitudinal monitoring and determination of its statics and dynamics in the case of minors is important for the continuation of the debate on the future directions of the development of juvenile criminal law.

The article explains the main characteristics of penal populism as one very interesting criminological phenomenon and the basic manifestations of penal populism in some amendments and provisions of the Criminal Code of Serbia. This is especially reflected in some areas of criminal-justice legislation: 1) Introducing the prohibition of mitigating the penalty for certain types of criminal offences; 2) Introducing the institute of multiple recidivism; 3) Significant limitation on possibilities of suspended sentencing; 4) Prescribing a lifetime imprisonment, in combination with introducing a legal prohibition on release on parole for certain categories of offenders sentenced to this penalty. The paper also explains that the current Criminal Code of Serbia has been frequently amended and supplemented by numerous amendments. Some of these amendments of the Criminal Code of Serbia, culminating in the amendments from 2019, also contain elements of penal populism. The authors present an argumentative critique of the superfluous elements of penal populism within the Serbian Criminal Code, which are also evident in some of the proposed amendments. That tendency is also not in accordance with the prevailing understandings of modern criminal law, criminology, penology, or criminalistic doctrine, nor, more importantly, is such an approach of the legislator in line with the current state of crime rates and the need to respond to it in an adequate manner. The article explains that populist penal provisions prescribed in the Serbian Criminal Code, as well as in the proposed amendments to the country's criminal legislation, directly contradicts Serbia's official efforts to strengthen the system of alternative criminal sanctions aimed at reducing prison overcrowding. Moreover, in certain respects, it conflicts with the restorative justice framework that Serbia has adopted. These contradictions provide a compelling reason to reconsider several provisions of the Criminal Code. Authors especially conclude that a judge in a country characterized by the rule of law must still have the strength to resist such "public expectations" and to make his decision in accordance with the law and according to his free conviction and of course, the judge must also resist the influence of criminal populism promoted in the media or by some politicians, even other public figures/persons, etc., but a special problem arises when elements of criminal populism penetrate in the criminal legislation.

The paper analyzes the crime of aggression through the development of the international community up to the present time and current issues related to aggression. It points out the specifics of this crime that do not exist in relation to other international crimes. Aggression as a crime against peace developed gradually in international law, but it gained its personalization through international criminal law. The author analyzes the good and bad sides that exist in terms of the definition itself, but also its application in practice. Precisely because of its dual nature, the realization of individual criminal responsibility is difficult. In addition, the author points out the problem of an insufficient number of ratifications of the amendment itself regarding the crime of aggression. The author devoted particular attention to new forms of aggression, primarily attacks on cyberspace, and pointed out the dangers that lie behind such attacks. The activity of the United Nations and the Security Council in this direction is particularly emphasized. This gives this work the necessary relevance, and introduces the necessary changes to the concept of aggression under international law.

Denoting the negative trends within the reform of the special part of criminal law, this paper critically analyzes the following criminal offences: aggravated murder (art. 114, par. 1, it. 6, 7 and 8. CC), serious bodily harm (art. 121, par. 6. CC), obstruction of justice (art. 336b par. 2. CC), endangerment of safety (art. 138, par. 3. CC), and assault on a lawyer (art. 336v CC). Apart from introducing more severe penalties for a great number of criminal offences, the most important characteristic of the Criminal Code's special part reform is the accentuated criminalization, i.e. proscription of new criminal offences. Such tendencies of the legislator have had several negative consequences. First of all, the zone of incrimination has been widened, and special forms of existing criminal offences have been proscribed as separate incriminations. Furthermore, incriminations with undeterminable content and scope impair efficient application of law and undermine legal certainty. Finally, certain existing incriminations are not justified in the systematic context. All of the aforementioned trends have greatly endangered the principle of lex certa and are tendentiously transforming criminal law from ultima ratio, the ultimate mean of society's defence from unwanted acts and behaviours to prima ratio, which is incompatible with criminal law's nature and purpose.

In this paper author sheds a light to the right to compensation for crime victims in Serbia, analyzing it from the multiple perspective: the relevant international standards, applicable national legal framework, the current state of play in the practice of Serbian courts, the recent progress made, as well as in term of the remaining challenges. The analysis shows that even though the national legal framework on compensation for crime victims provides for the solid ground for exercising this right, the reality seems to be quite different. Discouraged by the practice of regular referral to the civil proceedings, paired with a lack of legal aid in the process of claiming compensation or even discouraged by lawyers who represent them, victims are not skilled, empowered and/or supported enough to submit a compensation claim in criminal proceeding and pass through this process saved by a various protective measures that belongs to victims in criminal proceedings and especially those that are especially vulnerable. Neither legal nor institutional set up allows for compensation from a state fund in cases when there is no possibility for a victim to be compensated from an offender from various reasons (offender unknown or died or has no resources/property).

The main goal of this paper is to research the position of nuclear weapons, i.e. their use and threat, under international criminal law. In that sense, the author, after introductory remarks on some of the most relevant technical issues regarding nuclear weapons, as well as a brief overview of the stance of international law in general towards this kind of weapons, focuses on what he calls two levels of possible reaction of international criminal law in relation to them. The first level of reaction, which could be labeled as a more general one, encompasses all the cases in which core international crimes could be committed by the means of nuclear weapons - as such, the legal status of nuclear weapons is essentially not different from the status of any other means (e.g. conventional weapons) through which these crimes could be perpetrated. On the other hand, the second level of possible reaction is the one which would deem the very use of nuclear weapons as a crime per se, regardless of the concrete effects of that use. This second level is still only in the domain of de lege ferenda. The author concludes that this is unlikely to effectively change in the near future, once again pointing out at the ultima ratio character of criminal law - it is the last resort of legal reaction to unlawful behavior and, on the other hand, when it comes to nuclear weapons, the situation is that they are still not absolutely and universally prohibited even by some other branches of law, more "lenient" branches of law, in the first place international humanitarian law.

In this paper, the author focuses on the circumstances that the High Court in Novi Sad considers as mitigating or aggravating when sentencing the perpetrators of the crime of rape. The research was important primarily due to the severity of prison sentences imposed, which are at the level of the special minimum or slightly above the special minimum prescribed for the crime of rape, even though rape is one of the most serious forms of sexual violence. Therefore, the subject matter of analysis is the case law of the High Court in Novi Sad for the criminal offense of rape in the period from January 1, 2018, until May 1, 2023. The aim of the research was to determine which circumstances the court considers relevant and evaluates as mitigating or aggravating, and how they affect the court's decision on the severity of the sentence. In addition to an insight into the circumstances that the courts value when sentencing, this paper provides the analysis of the attitude of professionals who perform judicial functions towards the criminal offense of rape, i.e. sexual violence.

This paper deals with the concept of conditional release, for which, although it has existed in criminal legislation since the 19th century, there are disagreements on some issues, from the question whether it is a criminal or penal concept, which law should regulate it, and the like. In the paper, the authors discuss the legal nature of conditional release, its purpose and impact on penal policy. The authors then deal with the issue of requirements and conditions for granting conditional release, as well as, perhaps, the most important issue - who should be entrusted with deciding on conditional release. Furthermore, there are two models of conditional release in comparative law, depending on the entity decides on it - judicial and administrative, and the authors list the advantages and disadvantages of both. The largest part of the paper is dedicated to conditional release in Montenegrin legislation.

The author points on eternal dilemma on importance and role of the truth in criminal proceedings. Analyzes the importance and the role of the truth in international criminal judiciary and transitional justice, especially addressing the Right to the truth as human right and international custom, development of this right under the auspices of commissions and international bodies, with special reference to the Right to the truth before EctHR. The author points to the inherent shortcomings of international criminal justice that make it difficult to reach the truth, especially in modern forms of negotiated jusitce. Finally, the author is offering a note of caution on the pretensions of international legal mechanisms of criminal law to deliver the truth about historical events under the mantle of international justice.

This paper examines the detention measure imposed during the preliminary investigation procedure on arrested and suspected individuals, based on article 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia. It concerns a form of deprivation of liberty ordered by the public prosecutor, who may entrust the issuance and delivery of the detention order to the police. The court has a "supervisory" function, as it is within its jurisdiction (more precisely, within the jurisdiction of the judge for the preliminary procedure) to decide on appeals filed against detention order. The paper is divided in four parts; introductory considerations, conditions for ordering the detention measure, the detention procedure, and conclusion observations. The authors aim to examine the measure in question in a detailed and critical manner, and at the end of the paper, they offer certain de lege ferenda proposals.