The coverage agrees that the Higher State Prosecutor’s Office in Kotor has overturned the initial finding that the death of Serbian tourist Tijana R. during a parasailing ride in Budva was a mere accident and has returned the case to the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Kotor for re-examination. All sides note that Tijana, from Novi Sad, died after falling from a parasail in 2022 on the Montenegrin coast, that her family appealed the original decision, and that the appeal was upheld on the grounds that the facts were inadequately and incorrectly established in the first procedure.
Both opposition and pro-government reports highlight that the case has drawn regional attention as an example of safety and legal gaps in marine tourism activities, especially parasailing, in Montenegro. They concur that investigations revealed irregularities linked to the operator, including that the boat was not registered for parasailing services, the skipper lacked the appropriate license, and that there were no adequate technical safety measures such as a panic button or proper monitoring of passengers in distress. They also agree that the family’s lawyer argues that the lack of specific regulation in the parasailing sector does not exempt skippers and service providers from criminal or civil responsibility, and that the renewed procedure could set precedents for regulating adventure tourism safety.
Areas of disagreement
Responsibility and blame. Opposition-aligned outlets tend to frame the case as evidence of systemic negligence and potential protection of local business interests, emphasizing prosecutorial failures and suggesting that authorities initially rushed to classify the death as an accident. Pro-government media, while acknowledging irregularities by the parasailing operator, mostly present responsibility as an issue of individual failings by the skipper and company, stressing that the new review shows institutions are ready to correct mistakes. Opposition sources are more likely to imply that only persistent pressure from the family forced the system to act, whereas pro-government sources suggest the appeal mechanism worked as designed.
Portrayal of institutions. Opposition coverage usually depicts the Basic Prosecutor’s Office and maritime regulators as passive or complicit, arguing that they ignored obvious safety violations and only reacted under public scrutiny and regional outrage. Pro-government outlets stress the Higher Prosecutor’s Office decision as proof of institutional self-correction, underlining that the matter is being lawfully re-examined and that the state is determined to ensure someone is held accountable. While opposition narratives highlight a pattern of impunity in similar tourism-related accidents, pro-government narratives present this case as an example of gradual improvement in prosecutorial rigor.
Regulation and reform. Opposition sources describe the lack of clear parasailing regulations as a long-known problem that governments failed to address due to lobbying by tourism interests and broader dysfunction in legislative and enforcement bodies. Pro-government coverage tends to treat regulatory gaps as a technical issue that became visible only after this tragedy, suggesting that the renewed proceedings may spur pragmatic updates to safety rules without framing it as a deep political failure. Opposition media often connect the case to broader demands for systemic reform and independent oversight, while pro-government media frame it more narrowly around fine-tuning existing laws and procedures.
Narrative focus and tone. Opposition outlets are more inclined to center the pain and perseverance of Tijana’s family to illustrate power asymmetries between ordinary citizens and institutions, using the case to question the moral credibility of the authorities. Pro-government outlets, while also invoking the emotional aspects of the tragedy, place more narrative weight on procedural steps, legal terminology, and assurances that the state will now identify the responsible parties. The opposition narrative tends to be accusatory and skeptical about future outcomes, whereas the pro-government narrative is more optimistic, presenting the re-examination as an unfolding success of the justice system.
In summary, opposition coverage tends to use Tijana R.’s case as a symbol of systemic institutional failure, impunity, and captured regulation, while pro-government coverage tends to emphasize institutional responsiveness, individual liability of operators, and the potential for incremental regulatory improvements.
