Case correspondence / Primary source
Request to Zagorka Dolovac for commission oversight and institutional accountability — KTRKO 533/23, 28 October 2026
Milan Lakatoš Petrović asks the Supreme Public Prosecutor to examine the handling of KTRKO 533/23 and possible independent unlawful acts by officials in the history of two challenged adoptions, identity substitution and denial of access to origins. He connects the 2023 prosecutor correspondence with historical records and later court material. The author has received no acknowledgment of receipt.
Status at publication: the author has received no acknowledgment of receipt. The supplied seven-page printout documents his sent email dated 28 October 2026, addressed to the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office and Zagorka Dolovac. It does not establish receipt, reading, registration, the opening of commission oversight or any institutional response. The header displays 1:55 PM without specifying a time zone.
Referring to a report published that day about a general mandatory instruction for commission oversight of public prosecutors’ offices, Milan Lakatoš Petrović asks that KTRKO 533/23 be included in such oversight. That reported instruction is the stated occasion for his request; the supplied PDF is his communication, not the instruction itself. He asks for examination of Gordana Rainović’s response of 20 November 2023, the actual checks undertaken, jurisdiction, limitation periods, possible referral and the treatment of later material. The request does not establish that no checks occurred; it demands an account of what was done and on which records.
The author brings together the paternal and inheritance records, the 1979 full adoption, the 1984 consent and second adoption, Vera Radovanović’s roles, the negative psychological assessment of the Petrović couple, Ljiljana Ristić’s 2005 report and the later submissions signed by Maja Petrović. His central demand is that the institutions compare their own original records and explain their contradictions, rather than continue to defend the adoption acts without answering the documentary questions. He describes the changes to his Croatian and Hungarian family identity as forced assimilation and institutional erasure of his original identity. These are his expressly stated conclusions and the subject of the review he requests.
The request distinguishes historical acts, their continuing consequences and potentially separate later unlawful acts. It calls for examination of possible false official records, concealment of documentation and abuse of office, preservation of the original files, referral to competent bodies where appropriate, and written notice of registration and action. The author expressly does not seek prosecution merely for defending a legal position or issuing an adverse judgment, and does not ask the prosecution service to influence the Supreme Court’s decision in Rev 6599/26. The first-instance and appellate judgments and the separate confirmation of revision registration remain their own sources. This item records a request for oversight and accountability, not a finding of criminal liability or a ruling on the revision.