← Back to documents Open raw file
Transcript and translation

English translation

Request to Zagorka Dolovac for commission oversight and institutional accountability — KTRKO 533/23, 28 October 2026

Request to Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac for commission oversight and examination of institutional responsibility — KTRKO 533/23

Archive note — separate from the source document

English translation of the seven-page copy of an outgoing email dated 28 October 2026, sent from [email protected] to [email protected]. The email header shows 1:55 PM without a stated time zone.

No acknowledgment of receipt has yet been received, as confirmed by the author when submitting this document to the archive. This copy does not confirm delivery to or registration by the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, examination of the request, inclusion of the case in commission oversight, or any measure taken in response. It is the author's request, not an institutional decision, a new judgment, or an outcome in the revision proceedings. Page divisions below follow the source PDF.

Page 1

October 28, 2026 at 1:55 PM

For Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac — request for commission oversight, KTRKO 533/23

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

REQUEST FOR COMMISSION OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATION OF INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY — KTRKO 533/23, CSR Novi Sad, P2 1435/24, Gž2 211/26 and Rev 6599/26

TO THE SUPREME PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac

Subject: Request for commission oversight of the actions of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad and examination of possible criminal-law aspects of decades of conduct by state authorities in the case of two adoptions, identity substitution and denial of the right to one's origins

Dear Ms Dolovac,

Following the information published on 28 October 2026 that you have issued a general mandatory instruction for commission oversight of the work of public prosecutor's offices in the Republic of Serbia, I request that this oversight include the case of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad, Special Department for the Suppression of Corruption, case number KTRKO 533/23, as well as the documentation that subsequently became available through court proceedings against the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad.

I do not limit this request to reviewing the work of one public prosecutor.

I consider that there are serious grounds to examine the conduct of several state authorities, their officials and the legal continuity of decisions through which the consequences of the two disputed adoptions of 1979 and 1984 have been maintained for almost five decades.

I also inform you that the documentation has been organised and is publicly available in the international legal and documentary archive:

Origin Dossier — https://origindossier.org

The archive contains original official documents, court records, comparative legal analyses, a chronology of events and documentation of the conduct of present-day institutions.

I. A CASE THAT DID NOT BEGIN IN 2023

I was born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad as Milivoj Miletić, to my mother Cvita Miletić.

The court file P-1642/76 from 1977 contains statements by my biological father Pavle, also known as Pal Lakatoš, his wife at the time, family members and other witnesses confirming the existence of a child from his relationship with Cvita Miletić.

In its findings of fact, the judgment of 26 October 1977 expressly connects Pavle Lakatoš, Cvita Miletić and their child.

Pavle Lakatoš died on 7 November 1978.

Page 2

In probate proceedings O.196/79, my name appears within the inheritance-law framework concerning my late father.

Under the decision of 23 November 1979, I was included in the inheritance, after which further proceedings followed, the ultimate result of which was my removal from the circle of heirs.

Between those events, on 21 June 1979, a full adoption was carried out through which my original identity was replaced with the identity of Milan Vasić.

On 26 September 1984, a new adoption procedure established the identity of Milan Petrović.

Thus, a child of known family origins, with a living mother and an existing inheritance-law record, underwent two successive administrative substitutions of identity.

II. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AUTHORITY

In particular, I request examination of the following circumstances:

1. A known mother and the absence of her prior consent

Cvita Miletić was not an unknown person.

Her name appeared in civil registry and social welfare documentation. Nevertheless, the full adoption procedure was carried out through a construction of parental status and guardian's consent whose legality I challenge.

It is necessary to establish on the basis of which specific facts, official actions and statutory provisions the prior consent of a living and known mother was replaced by a guardian's consent.

I particularly insist on a review of the application of Article 30 of the 1976 Adoption Act of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, including the distinction between its paragraphs 1 and 4, in conjunction with Article 41 of the same Act.

2. Contradictory documentation concerning the biological father

While the court records from 1977 document a known paternal line, later documentation of the guardianship authority uses formulations stating that the father is unknown or that paternity has not been established.

I request that it be established who made such a classification, when and on the basis of which documents, what the officials knew about Pavle Lakatoš, and why the court and probate records were not appropriately considered.

3. The procedure of June 1979

Professional assessments, the appointment of a guardian and the full adoption were carried out within an exceptionally short period.

Social worker Vera Radovanović participated in assessing the prospective adopters, and subsequently in the guardianship part of the procedure.

I request a review of the legality of these multiple roles, the chronological sequence of actions and the documentation used to justify carrying out the full adoption.

4. The second adoption in 1984

The record of 12 September 1984 is particularly significant.

In it, the first adopter, Milorad Vasić, gives his consent to a new adoption of a child who had already been fully adopted in 1979.

Page 3

It is necessary to examine the legal basis for such conduct, its relationship to the statutory provisions on full adoption, and the legality of using the parental status created by the first adoption as the basis for the second procedure.

In addition, the documentation of the Centre for Social Work in Kragujevac contains a negative psychological opinion regarding adoption by the Petrović couple.

I request that it be established how that professional finding was assessed and on what basis the procedure continued.

III. LATER CONDUCT OF CSR NOVI SAD

This case does not end in 1984.

Documentation from 2005, including the report by Ljiljana Ristić, raises further questions about how the search for my biological mother was conducted, her actual status and the information provided to me.

During the present-day civil proceedings, CSR Novi Sad continued to defend the legality of the historical acts.

I request particular attention to the submissions signed on behalf of CSR by Maja Petrović, especially those from May and December 2025.

They contain legal interpretations, references to archival documentation and conclusions concerning the legality of the adoptions that must be compared with the original acts.

I ask for an examination of:

  • whether all relevant documents in CSR's possession were supplied to the court;
  • whether particular documents were selectively presented or incorrectly interpreted;
  • whether the officials were aware of evidence contradicting their assertions;
  • whether statements concerning parental status, guardianship, inheritance rights and the legality of the adoptions are supported by original documents;
  • whether there are grounds to investigate possible knowing concealment or false presentation of decisive facts.

I am not seeking criminal prosecution merely for representing an institution's legal position. I am seeking a review of whether specific official actions involved knowingly stating false facts, concealing documentation or other conduct that may constitute a criminal offence.

IV. CONDUCT OF THE HIGHER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN NOVI SAD — KTRKO 533/23

On 15 November 2023, I contacted the Special Department for the Suppression of Corruption of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad.

In my submission, I reported the circumstances of the two adoptions, identity substitution, CSR's conduct and the loss of my inheritance-law position.

The response was prepared as early as 20 November 2023 and delivered electronically on 21 November.

It was signed by public prosecutor Gordana Rainović under number KTRKO 533/23.

Page 4

The response states that criminal prosecution will not be undertaken, citing the inability to establish a criminal offence within that prosecutor's office's jurisdiction for which the limitation period has not expired.

I request that the Commission of the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office inspect the complete case file and establish:

First: What specific evidence-gathering and verification actions were undertaken between 15 and 20 November 2023?

Second: Were the original files of CSR Novi Sad, the adoptions of 1979 and 1984, probate case O.196/79 and court file P-1642/76 obtained?

Third: Was each reported act, its possible legal classification, its time frame and the question of limitation examined separately?

Fourth: Was consideration given to the possible existence of more recent, independent acts by responsible officials that cannot automatically be equated with acts from 1979 and 1984?

Fifth: Should the case, in whole or in the relevant part, have been referred to another public prosecutor's office with subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction?

Sixth: What procedural decisions were actually made, on the basis of which records and with what information concerning the rights of the person who submitted the report, in accordance with the law?

In particular, I request that it be established whether the response of 20 November 2023 was based on verification actually carried out or on a conclusion drawn solely from the initial submission.

V. CONDUCT OF THE LOWER COURTS IN NOVI SAD

Proceedings P2 1435/24 were conducted before the Basic Court in Novi Sad, in which the judgment of 9 February 2026 rejected my claim for a declaration of nullity of the full adoption of 1979.

The case was handled by Judge Bojana Vujić.

During the proceedings, I pointed out contradictions in the original documentation, proposed the taking of evidence, the hearing of witnesses and the obtaining of the complete files.

I request that, within the limits of statutory jurisdiction, it be examined whether there is any specific aspect of the conduct that is relevant under criminal law, particularly with regard to the authenticity of official records, the knowing concealment of evidence or any other unlawful acts.

By its judgment Gž2 211/26 of 22 April 2026, the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.

The decision was made by a panel composed of:

Branka Perc, Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and Marko Prentović.

I particularly challenge the manner in which the reasoning addressed Articles 30 and 31 of the 1976 Adoption Act of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, the prior consent of the known mother, evidence concerning the paternal line and the consequences of the second adoption in 1984.

These circumstances are already the subject of revision proceedings before the Supreme Court, registered under number Rev 6599/26.

I expressly emphasise that I am not requesting that the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office influence the Supreme Court's decision-making, nor that judges be held criminally responsible merely because of a legal interpretation or an adverse judgment.

Page 5

I request that any suspicions concerning independent unlawful acts by court officials be assessed in accordance with the public prosecutor's office's jurisdiction, and that questions of disciplinary responsibility and appropriate oversight be referred to the competent bodies, including the High Judicial Council, where statutory grounds exist.

Judicial independence does not constitute immunity for criminal offences.

VI. IDENTITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN AND A CONTINUING VIOLATION

There is also a dimension to this entire case that state authorities have not appropriately considered.

I was born to a Croatian mother, Cvita Miletić, and, according to the documented family and court record, a Hungarian father, Pavle Lakatoš.

The two adoption procedures resulted in the substitution of my original first name, surname, family affiliation and administrative identity.

In my case, I describe these events as forced assimilation and the institutional erasure of original identity.

I request an examination of whether state authorities, through their acts and omissions, violated legally protected rights relating to personal and family identity, origins, equality and the protection of national affiliation.

I particularly insist on distinguishing historical acts, their lasting consequences and possible separate unlawful acts in later periods.

The mere fact that a historical act is several decades old cannot replace an examination of the legality of officials' conduct today.

VII. SPECIFIC REQUESTS TO THE SUPREME PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

On the basis of all the foregoing, I request:

  1. That case KTRKO 533/23 be included in the announced commission oversight, with full inspection of the file and verification of the actions undertaken.
  2. That the conduct of public prosecutor Gordana Rainović be examined in relation to the content of the report, the available evidence, jurisdiction and the reasoning concerning limitation.
  3. That the new documentation from civil proceedings P2 1435/24 and their subsequent legal proceedings be assessed as potentially relevant evidence for a separate criminal-law review.
  4. That the original files of CSR Novi Sad, civil registry records, documentation of both adoptions and court files relating to paternity and inheritance be obtained and compared.
  5. That it be examined whether there are grounds for criminal responsibility of specific officials for possible forgery of documents, false official recording, abuse of official position, concealment of documentation or other offences established by the competent authority on the basis of the facts and applicable law.
  6. That possible responsibility for more recent official actions be considered separately, independently of the question of limitation in relation to individual historical events.
  7. That preservation of the original documentation, records, attachments and data on the movement of the files be ensured, in order to prevent their loss or subsequent unauthorised alteration.

Page 6

  1. That, if facts outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office are established, the appropriate material be forwarded to the authority competent under the law.
  2. That I be provided with written notification concerning the registration of this request, the competent handling of it, the measures undertaken and the decisions that may be communicated to the person submitting it in accordance with the law.

VIII. PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

I investigated and documented this case independently, without a political organisation, association or institutional sponsorship.

Through Origin Dossier, the public can verify the documents on which I base my statements.

I particularly draw attention to:

The initial report and the prosecutor's office's response — KTRKO 533/23:
https://origindossier.org/hr/assets/73

The complete public archive:
https://origindossier.org/hr

I am not seeking a predetermined decision or preferential treatment.

I am asking state authorities finally to answer the questions to which previous institutions have not given a complete, verifiable and legally reasoned answer.

I intend to publish this request in the documentary archive Origin Dossier, together with the date of its delivery and any response by the competent prosecutor's office, while protecting data whose public disclosure is not permitted.

This is not a call for political pressure on the judiciary.

It is a demand that the conduct of state authorities be subject to the law, oversight and public accountability.

IX. FINAL NOTE

Dear Ms Dolovac,

Your instruction of 28 October 2026 was publicly presented as an instrument for achieving legality, effectiveness and uniformity in the work of public prosecutor's offices.

You now have before you a specific case in which it is possible to examine how those principles function in practice.

A child born in 1974 cannot answer on his own who replaced his identity, why, and under which law.

That responsibility lies with the institutions that conducted the procedures, kept the documentation and later defended the legality of their decisions.

Today, I am an adult who possesses the documents and asks the same questions.

I am not asking the state to believe me. I am asking it to read its own documents and explain their contradictions.

Page 7

If the state authorities acted lawfully, let them demonstrate it on the basis of the complete documentation and specific statutory provisions.

If they did not, I demand that it be established who is responsible for what.

After almost five decades, I consider this the least that the Republic of Serbia owes one of its citizens.

Respectfully,

Milan Lakatoš Petrović
Born as Milivoj Miletić
In official records: Milan Petrović
Kragujevac, 28 October 2026

Origin Dossier
https://origindossier.org

OriginDossier
HR — Documents · Timeline · Sources
EN — Documents · Timeline · Sources
HU — Documents · Timeline · Sources
origindossier.org
[email protected]
Croatian · English · Hungarian