Historical, legal, and normative analysis with ECtHR jurisprudence and international comparisons

Abstract
This study analyzes the removal of the commemorative monument of the fallen fighters of the Liberation Army of Preševo, Medveđa and Bujanovac (UÇPMB) on January 20, 2013, by Serbian state authorities. Using a historical, legal, and normative approach, the article argues that the act constitutes cultural ethnocide against the autochthonous Albanians of Eastern Dardania. The analysis includes international and European human rights instruments, ECtHR jurisprudence on cultural symbols, comparisons with similar cases in the Balkans and Europe, and an overview of Serbian laws and local acts that enabled or legitimized the intervention. [1]

TERMINOLOGICAL NOTE
Given the political and legal nature of the debate, it is necessary to clarify terminology:
1. Eastern Dardania – a term used in this study for the territory administered by Serbia as the “Preševo Valley” (the municipalities of Preševo, Bujanovac and Medveđa). This term reflects the historical and ethnocultural continuity of Albanians in this area. [2]
2. Autochthonous Albanians – a concept supported by the principles of UNDRIP and international law on indigenous peoples, where autochthony is not merely an administrative category but a historical and cultural status. [3]
3. Cultural ethnocide – the destruction of cultural elements, memorials, symbols, and public spaces that hold the collective identity of an ethnic community. [4]
4. Symbolic expression – any form of cultural expression, including memorials, monuments, toponyms, and objects of collective memory, which constitute part of the right to expression and identity. [5]

INTRODUCTION
The removal of the UÇPMB monument in the center of Preševo is a paradigmatic case of state intervention in the cultural space of an autochthonous community. This study argues that the act constitutes cultural ethnocide, as it aims to erase collective memory and homogenize public space. The analysis includes:
• the historical and political context of Eastern Dardania,
• the international and European legal framework,
• ECtHR jurisprudence on cultural symbols,
• international comparisons, • and analysis of Serbian laws and local decisions. [6]

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Autochthony and collective rights
The concept of autochthony includes the right to historical continuity, the right to self-identification, and the right to preserve the cultural elements of the community. International instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasize the right to preserve cultural heritage and to not be subjected to forced assimilation. [7] In this context, treating the Albanians of Eastern Dardania as a “minority” is a reduction of their historical and legal status. [8]
2.2. Cultural symbols as part of freedom of expression
Cultural symbols (monuments, memorials, plaques, toponyms) are not neutral objects; they are textualizations of history and collective identity. When the state removes them, it does not erase only an object but also the community’s historical narrative and identity. This is linked to the concept of “symbolic expression” as part of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) [9] and the right to private life (Article 8 of the ECHR) [10] as an aspect of cultural identity. [11]
2.3. Cultural ethnocide
Raphael Lemkin, in his work on the concept of genocide, included the destruction of cultural elements that preserve a people’s identity. [12] Cultural ethnocide, in contemporary doctrine, includes forced assimilation, the erasure of language, expulsion from public space, and the destruction of cultural symbols. [13]
METHODOLOGY
This study uses document analysis and comparative legal analysis. Primary sources include:
• international and European legal instruments,
• ECtHR jurisprudence,
• scientific literature,
• media reports and documents of the event. [14]

HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EASTERN DARDANIA
4.1. Historical continuity of Albanians in Dardania
Dardania has been a region with a continuous Albanian presence and a consolidated cultural structure. Although political borders have changed, the population has preserved its identity and connection to the territory. This makes the treatment of Albanians of Eastern Dardania as a “minority” an unjustifiable reduction of their historical status. [15]
4.2. State policies after 1999
After the end of the conflict in Kosovo, Eastern Dardania faced an increase in security forces and policies of institutional marginalization. [16] In this context, the UÇPMB formed as a reaction to security conditions and institutional discrimination. [17] The Končul Agreement (2001) aimed at integration and identity protection, but tensions remained. [18]
4.3. The UÇPMB monument as a symbol of collective memory
The monument in the center of Preševo was a memorial to the fallen UÇPMB fighters and represented an important element of collective memory and identity for the Albanian community. Its sudden removal by Serbian gendarmerie forces indicates a deliberate intervention in the cultural space. [19]

THE REMOVAL OF THE MONUMENT: DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVENTION
5.1. Description of the act
On January 20, 2013, Serbian gendarmerie forces removed the UÇPMB monument in the center of Preševo. The operation was conducted with heavy police presence and no recorded incidents, while the monument was removed without clear information on its destination. Reports indicate it was a planned operation with strong security measures and the involvement of high-ranking police and gendarmerie officials. [20]
5.2. Symbolic dimensions and impact on the local community
The removal of the monument was not a technical act; it constitutes a symbolic act aimed at erasing collective memory. In this way, the state controls the historical narrative and public space, marginalizing the Albanian community. [21]

LEGAL ANALYSIS: INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN INSTRUMENTS
6.1. Universal instruments
The removal of the monument violates:
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 27, guaranteeing the right to participate in cultural life. [22]
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Article 27, protecting the rights of ethnic groups to preserve cultural identity. [23]
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), Article 15, guaranteeing the right to participate in culture and preserve cultural heritage. [24]
6.2. Instruments for indigenous peoples
UNDRIP (2007), Articles 8 and 11, prohibits forced assimilation and protects cultural symbols. [25] UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) requires the protection of cultural expressions of ethnic communities. [26]
6.3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The ECHR provides:
• Article 8 (right to private life and cultural identity), [27]
• Article 10 (freedom of expression), [28]
• Article 14 (non-discrimination). [29]
These principles are essential for assessing the removal of the monument as an intervention in the community’s symbolic expression. [30]

ECtHR JURISPRUDENCE ON CULTURAL SYMBOLS
7.1. Gorzelik and Others v. Poland (Grand Chamber, 2004)
In this case, the ECtHR emphasized the importance of freedom of expression and participation for ethnic communities, acknowledging that organizations protecting cultural identity and heritage play a key role in democratic societies. The Court noted that freedom of expression includes symbolic expression and activities that protect the cultural identity of ethnic communities. [31]
7.2. Dimitras v. Greece (2001)
This case set the standard for limiting freedom of expression: any restriction must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. [32] This is a basis for evaluating the removal of the monument as an intervention in symbolic expression. [33]
7.3. Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria (2021)
In this case, the ECtHR addressed restrictions on freedom of expression through symbolic actions regarding a statue. The Court emphasized that state intervention must be necessary and proportionate, and that a restriction cannot be justified solely by public order without clear evidence. [34]
7.4. Karner v. Austria (2003) and Săcăreanu v. Romania (2019)
These cases emphasize that cultural and community identity is part of private life, and that state interventions in this field must be limited and based on real necessity. [35] The ECtHR recognized that communities have a legitimate interest in protecting their symbols and cultural spaces, and that the state cannot impose uniform standards arbitrarily. [36]

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS: STATE AND CULTURAL SYMBOLS
8.1. Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Srebrenica Monument
In Bosnia, disputes over Srebrenica memorials show that cultural symbols can be targets of attempts to reform historical narratives. In some cases, efforts to relativize or oppose memorials have been interpreted as forms of historical revisionism and symbolic violence. [37]
Comparison with Preševo: In both cases, symbols (memorials) are central points of collective memory. State intervention to erase or minimize community symbols is similar to attempts of historical revisionism. [38]
8.2. North Macedonia: changes in toponyms and monuments
In North Macedonia, debates over monuments, toponyms, and historical memory are linked to identity politics and efforts to create a uniform national narrative. [39]
Comparison with Preševo: State intervention in public space to standardize historical narratives is similar. In both cases, the ethnic community loses part of its symbolic identity, and the state uses public space to impose a dominant narrative. [40]
8.3. Russia/Ukraine: destruction of cultural symbols as a political instrument
In recent conflicts, the destruction of monuments and cultural symbols of various communities has been used as a tool of cultural warfare. This shows that cultural symbols are not just “objects” but instruments of control over space and identity. [41]
Comparison with Preševo: Although on a smaller scale, the removal of the monument in Preševo has similar elements: the state uses power to remove a symbol representing the identity and memory of an autochthonous community. [42]

SERBIAN LAWS AND LOCAL ACTS
9.1. Law on Police and Law on Gendarmerie (Serbia)
In Serbia, the Police and Gendarmerie operate under the legal framework of the Law on Police and the Law on Security Forces, which provide:
• the duty to maintain public order and safety, [43]
• authorization to intervene in cases of “risk of violence” or “threat to public order,” [44]
• but also restrictions to act within legal rules and proportionality. [45]
In the case of the monument removal, Serbian authorities argued that the monument was placed “illegally” and that legal deadlines had expired. However, to verify this claim, it is necessary to analyze:
• documents of the permit for placing the memorial,
• municipal decisions regarding public space,
• and administrative acts authorizing or prohibiting the placement. [46]
9.2. Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Serbia)
Serbia has a legal framework for the protection of monuments and cultural heritage, which includes: • the preservation of monuments, [47]
• authorization for intervention in public space, [48]
• and prohibition of destruction of objects of cultural value. [49]
In this context, the removal of a memorial of an ethnic community must have:
• an administrative decision (with detailed justification), [50]
• public consultation (to respect the community’s rights), [51]
• and acceptable alternatives (e.g., relocation with a joint decision, preservation in another appropriate place). [52]
9.3. Acts of the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Interior (Serbia)
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior of Serbia declared that the removal occurred “after the expiration of legal deadlines” and by order of the Ministry of Justice. In this context, it is necessary to analyze:
• whether an administrative order existed for the removal, [53]
• whether notification procedures were respected, [54]
• and whether proportionality was considered. [55] If there was no proper process, this implies that the legality of the act is questionable, and the state used law enforcement power to achieve a political objective (erasing the symbol). [56]
9.4. Local municipal decisions and the role of local government
The Municipality of Preševo and local authorities have a direct role in:
• managing public space, [57]
• permits for monuments, [58]
• and decisions on relocation or removal of symbols. [59]
In this case, a complete analysis requires knowing:
• whether there was a municipal decision for placing the monument, [60]
• whether there was a decision for removal, [61]
• and whether public consultation procedures were respected. [62]
In the absence of these, the act appears centralized and unilateral, denying the community’s participation in decision-making. [63]

CULTURAL ETHNOCIDE: CONCEPT AND APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF THE MONUMENT
Based on the above analysis, the removal of the UÇPMB monument constitutes cultural ethnocide in the sense of destroying cultural elements that preserve a people’s identity. This act is connected to:
• institutional marginalization, [64]
• erasing collective memory, [65]
• control of public space, [66]
• and imposing the dominant narrative. [67]

DISCUSSION
The removal of the monument in Preševo should be seen as part of a pattern of state policies aimed at controlling public space and identity. Compared to other cases in the Balkans, this act is not unique; it is part of a tradition of using cultural symbols to impose the state’s narrative. The peculiarity of the Eastern Dardania case is that the Albanian community has a historical presence in this territory, and the removal of its symbols represents a form of cultural assimilation. [68]

CONCLUSION
The removal of the UÇPMB monument in Preševo is a severe act of symbolic violence and a violation of international and European human rights instruments. ECtHR jurisprudence on cultural symbols (Gorzelik, Dimitras, Handzhiyski, Karner, Săcăreanu) confirms that cultural symbols are part of freedom of expression and identity, and that state interventions must be necessary and proportionate. In the absence of these conditions, the removal constitutes cultural ethnocide against the autochthonous Albanians of Eastern Dardania. [69]

Footnotes
1. Media reports and analyses of the case (overview of sources).
2. Historical literature and analysis of the Eastern Dardania context.
3. UNDRIP, 2007; analysis of autochthony.
4. Concept of cultural ethnocide (Lemkin and contemporary doctrine).
5. Analysis of symbolic expression in literature.
6. Methodological summary and sources used.
7. UNDRIP, 2007, Arts. 8 and 11.
8. Critical analysis of the “minority” status in historical context.
9. ECHR, Art. 10.
10. ECHR, Art. 8.
11. ECHR, Art. 8; interpretation related to cultural identity.
12. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 1944.
13. Analysis of the doctrine of cultural ethnocide.
14. Methodology and sources used.
15. Historical literature on Dardania.
16. Reports and analyses of the post-1999 period.
17. Reports on the formation of UÇPMB.
18. Končul Agreement, 2001.
19. Media reports on the removal of the monument.
20. Media reports and documentary evidence.
21. Analysis of symbolic impact on the community.
22. UDHR, Art. 27.
23. ICCPR, Art. 27.
24. ICESCR, Art. 15.
25. UNDRIP, Arts. 8 and 11.
26. UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity, 2005.
27. ECHR, Art. 8.
28. ECHR, Art. 10.
29. ECHR, Art. 14.
30. General interpretation of the ECHR in the context of cultural symbols.
31. Gorzelik and Others v. Poland, 2004.
32. Dimitras v. Greece, 2001.
33. Interpretation of proportionality standard.
34. Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria, 2021.
35. Karner v. Austria, 2003.
36. Săcăreanu v. Romania, 2019.
37. Analysis of disputes in Bosnia (Srebrenica).
38. Comparison with the Preševo case.
39. Analysis of toponym changes in North Macedonia.
40. Comparison with the Preševo case.
41. Analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the destruction of symbols.
42. Comparison with the Preševo case.
43. Law on Police (Serbia).
44. Law on Police (Serbia) – intervention authorizations.
45. Law on Police (Serbia) – restrictions and proportionality.
46. Need to verify authorities’ arguments.
47. Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage (Serbia).
48. Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage (Serbia) – intervention authorizations.
49. Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage (Serbia) – prohibition of destruction.
50. Principles of administrative procedure (Serbia).
51. Principle of public consultation (international and local norms).
52. Acceptable alternatives for memorials.
53. Need to verify administrative orders.
54. Need to verify notification procedures.
55. Principle of proportionality.
56. Analysis of the “politicization” of legality.
57. Role of the municipality in public space.
58. Permits for monuments.
59. Decisions on relocation/removal.
60. Need for documentation of municipal decision.
61. Need for documentation of removal decision.
62. Need to verify public consultation.
63. Conclusion of lack of transparency.
64. Institutional marginalization.
65. Erasure of collective memory.
66. Control of public space.
67. Imposition of dominant narrative.
68. Conclusion of comparisons.
69. Study conclusion and general interpretation.

The Land of Leka;20.01.2026