In brief
A retrial in Belgrade concluded that the parents of a 13‑year‑old boy who opened fire in a Belgrade elementary school on 3 May 2023 were guilty of neglect and unsafe gun storage. The father was sentenced to fourteen years and six months, while the mother received two years and eleven months. Both the defence and prosecution have lodged appeals against the sentences. The killings caused national shock, leading to a gun amnesty and tougher laws. The court highlighted the boy’s 66‑shot spree that killed nine children and a guard in the span of two minutes and one second.
Belgrade has sentenced the parents of the 13‑year‑old shooter who killed 10 people in a 2023 elementary‑school attack.
The boy fired 66 bullets across two minutes and one second, killing seven girls, a boy, a school guard and causing another girl to die later in hospital. He had taken two handguns from his father’s safe and carried them in a backpack.
The court found the father – Vladimir Kecmanović – guilty of neglected gun safety and a serious offence against public safety, sentencing him to fourteen years and six months. His wife, Miljana Kecmanović, was convicted only of neglect and received two years and eleven months.
Both sides have filed appeals after the sentences were imposed. A lawyer for the victims’ families described the proceedings as a "long fight" that will continue in the appeal court.
The 2023 attack was the first school shooting in Serbia and prompted mass protest, a gun amnesty and tightened gun regulations. The original trial in 2024 had the boy in a psychiatric institution but allowed the parents to stand trial; the appeal court ordered a retrial in November 2025 due to unclear and contradictory verdicts.
The retrial began in January, with the chief prosecutor arguing that the new convictions would clarify Serbia’s societal response to one of its darkest peacetime events.
Defence counsel challenged the neglect charges, claiming no evidence or expert opinion proved that the parents failed to protect their son, and that the charges were no different from the initial, now‑overturned verdict.
