Serbia’s top prosecutors are trading accusations after a Vrhovno tužilaštvo oversight commission report highlighted alleged failures at the Više javno tužilaštvo. The dispute centres on whether the oversight findings will lead to actions affecting major case files, as the public presses for accountability. According to the court and prosecution community, what matters now is whether the commission’s conclusions on unlawful acts and irregularities at the Više javno tužilaštvo are correct and what will happen to high-profile files, including the cases described as a “sound cannon,” an attack on students near the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, and a police search at the Faculty of Philosophy and the rectorate. While the public focuses on mechanisms that could be triggered by chief prosecutor oversight, the two prosecutors at the centre of the confrontation, the head of the Vrhovno tužilaštvo and the chief prosecutor leading the Više javno tužilaštvo, present opposite positions. The head of the Vrhovno tužilaštvo has two mechanisms available, devolucija, where a case can be taken away, and supstitucija, where a case can be reassigned from one competent prosecution to another. The commission report is tied to claims that, despite the justification for control over prosecutorial work, such supervision had not occurred throughout the head’s 16-year term. The chief prosecutor leading the Više javno tužilaštvo rejects allegations that he built a “parallel” prosecutorial system. He says the report is aimed at portraying him as a loyalist aligned with a previous regime and argues he has no reason to resign. In response to the accusations, the chief prosecutor has filed a criminal complaint against a prosecutor and a disciplinary complaint against another prosecutor. He has also said that the prosecution council may use further mechanisms, including potential dismissal. The story also notes that, before the commission’s conclusions, more than 20 case files were reportedly reviewed. The latest status is that the oversight process and related complaints are ongoing, with potential administrative consequences for prosecutors still possible.