The digital panopticon and the criminal-law protection of minors: an in-depth analysis of Article 185 of the Criminal Code

In modern legal practice, we face a paradigm in which technology often moves ahead of legislation. Nevertheless, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia is one of the most vital pillars of the defence of human dignity in the digital ecosystem. The internet is no longer merely a means of communication; it has become an asymmetric space in which the boundaries between private and public, possession and access, have become porous, leaving minors exposed to risks that go beyond the traditional framework of sexual freedom.

The ontology of digital space as the place where the offence is committed

In legal terms, the digital world is characterised by ubiquity: the possibility of committing an offence from any point on the planet, with consequences that are both immediate and permanent. Social networks, forums and Dark Web platforms operate on the principle of multiplying content. Once posted, material created through the exploitation of a child ceases to be a static document and becomes a digital virus that spreads exponentially.

From a lawyer's perspective, the key challenge is the persistence of evidence. Unlike physical objects, digital material is almost indestructible. Even when removed from the primary source, it continues to exist in caches, server logs and private databases, which makes the acts described in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article particularly dangerous and socially harmful.

The international legal order and the “Lanzarote” standards

Protecting children in the digital space is not a local but a global legal obligation. Serbia has aligned its criminal-law framework with the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (the Lanzarote Convention). This international instrument rests on three pillars:

Criminalising every link in the chain: from production to consumption itself (knowing access).

International legal assistance: since servers are often located in foreign jurisdictions, the effectiveness of Article 185 depends on cooperation with bodies such as Interpol and Europol.

Harmonisation of definitions: what constitutes “simulated conduct” or a “sexual purpose” is determined according to objective standards of international law, not the subjective judgment of an individual.

Here the court must carefully assess circumstantial evidence and digital traces showing the perpetrator's conscious will to overcome barriers and access prohibited content.

Slaviša Cincarević

Social networks as catalysts of risk

Social-network algorithms, designed to maximise user engagement, can unintentionally (or through misuse) facilitate access to vulnerable groups. Phenomena such as grooming often precede the acts covered by Article 185.

The problem of encryption: as lawyers, we see an increase in offences committed through end-to-end encryption, which makes it harder to prove the intent required by paragraph 5 (knowing access). Here the court must carefully assess circumstantial evidence and digital traces showing the perpetrator's conscious will to overcome barriers and access prohibited content.

Anonymity versus accountability: the apparent anonymity of the internet often gives perpetrators a false sense of impunity. However, digital forensics today makes it possible to reconstruct events even where VPN services or anonymisers were used.

A precise analysis of Article 185: from doctrine to practice

The legislator used precise terminology in order to cover every aspect of digital abuse:

Knowing access (paragraph 5): this is a revolutionary provision that criminalises consumption itself. It protects not only the particular child in the recording but also suppresses the market. Without demand (those who access the material), production loses its purpose. Legal scholarship recognises “indirect victimisation” here: every new viewing of the material violates the victim's dignity anew.

An extended notion of material (paragraph 6): the definition of material that the Criminal Code calls child pornography, known internationally as child sexual abuse material, is intentionally broad. It covers any material that visually depicts a minor in a sexually explicit context. This includes deepfake technology and AI-generated content, because the law protects the reputational and psychological integrity of minors regardless of whether the material is physically authentic or simulated.

Sentencing policy and preventive effect

A prison sentence of up to eight years (paragraph 3) for offences against children under 14 clearly shows that the state treats such material as a danger of the highest social order. As defenders of the legal order, we must stress that mandatory confiscation of objects (paragraph 7) is essential. A computer used to access this material is a “weapon” with which a child's dignity was attacked, and as such it must be permanently removed from legal circulation.

Conclusion: the role of the legal profession in digital sovereignty

The legal battle against the exploitation of minors requires lawyers who know not only the text of the law but also the architecture of the internet. Our role is to ensure, through precise interpretation of Article 185 of the Criminal Code, that the digital revolution does not become a regression of human rights. A child's integrity in virtual space must be protected with the same intensity as in physical space, because wounds inflicted digitally are often deeper and more lasting.

This text expresses the author's professional opinion and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.