Media across the spectrum report that retired Croatian criminal inspector Branko Lazarević has publicly questioned the completeness of the official conclusion in the case of Matej Periš, the young Croatian who disappeared in Belgrade at the end of 2021 and was later found dead in the Sava/Danube river area. Both opposition and pro-government outlets agree that the formal position of Serbian and Croatian authorities is that Periš drowned, that the investigation was closed on that basis, and that Lazarević is not directly disputing drowning as the most likely cause of death but arguing that the investigative work leading to that conclusion was insufficient.
Coverage on both sides notes that Lazarević reviewed police files and pointed to what he considers serious irregularities and omissions in the handling of evidence and the reconstruction of events on the night of Periš’s disappearance. There is shared acknowledgment that the case involved cooperation between Serbian and Croatian police and prosecutors, that it drew intense regional media attention and public scrutiny at the time, and that the new statements revive earlier debates about institutional capacity, cross-border investigative coordination, and the standards used to close high-profile cases without lingering doubts.
Areas of disagreement
Significance of Lazarević’s criticism. Opposition-aligned sources typically frame Lazarević’s statements as a major challenge to the credibility of the official investigation, stressing the term "not solved" and amplifying each alleged irregularity as evidence that the case should be reopened. Pro-government outlets tend to present him as a single, dissenting professional voice whose concerns may be technically valid but do not overturn the core drowning conclusion, characterizing his demands as a call for procedural perfection rather than proof of a fundamentally flawed outcome.
Portrayal of police and institutions. Opposition coverage usually uses Lazarević’s remarks to highlight perceived systemic weaknesses in Serbian law enforcement and prosecutorial oversight, suggesting possible negligence, pressure to close the file quickly, or even tacit political shielding of mistakes. Pro-government coverage, by contrast, underscores that both Serbian and Croatian police worked together under unusual conditions, emphasizes that official forensic and investigative findings remain unchanged, and portrays any missteps as isolated oversights rather than symptomatic of broader institutional failure.
Need for further investigation or reopening the case. Opposition media are more inclined to interpret Lazarević’s critique as a basis for formally reopening or at least substantially expanding the investigation, arguing that unanswered questions about the timeline, witness handling, and evidence processing undermine public trust. Pro-government media tend to stress his own admission that the ultimate conclusion might remain the same even if more work were done, framing any additional steps as fine-tuning or internal review rather than justification for a formal re-examination of the case status.
Framing of public impact and trust. Opposition outlets generally connect the case to a wider narrative of public frustration with unsatisfactorily explained tragedies, suggesting that dismissing such expert criticism deepens cynicism toward state institutions. Pro-government outlets instead highlight that constant re-questioning of closed investigations can fuel speculation and conspiracy theories, arguing that emphasizing the stability of the official conclusion is important for maintaining confidence in the justice and policing systems.
In summary, opposition coverage tends to treat Lazarević’s intervention as strong evidence that the Matej Periš case was prematurely and inadequately closed and as a lens on systemic institutional problems, while pro-government coverage tends to acknowledge his concerns but downplay their impact on the official drowning conclusion, defending the overall integrity of the investigation and the responsible institutions.