By DETENTION IN MONTENEGRO — NECESSITY OR ABUSE: Among European countries, Montenegro has for years been ranked with the highest rate of remand (detention pending trial) per capita
Pobjeda’s sources warn that the measure of ordering detention has not been applied appropriately in judicial practice for years; that courts impose it too readily; that there are many cases in which detention was ordered when the legal conditions for it did not exist, that it lasted inappropriately long and in some cases turned into a punishment. They assert that such an approach is a serious problem because it later forces the state to compensate those persons, especially when an acquittal is reached.
Author: Jovana Raičević, POBJEDA
PODGORICA – Montenegro has in recent years been among the European countries with the highest number of persons remanded in custody, registering the highest rate of pretrial detention per capita, according to the data from the Council of Europe’s Annual Report on Prison Populations. The same data indicate that the incarceration rate in our country is considerably higher than the European average, standing at 164 prisoners per 100.000 inhabitants.
Alternative measures such as house arrest, bail (surety), an obligation to report periodically to a designated state authority, bans on access or meetings with certain persons, and temporary confiscation of travel documents or driving licenses are almost never applied, while the capacities of prisons in Spuž and Bijelo Polje are overcrowded.
According to the Council of Europe’s 2024 Prison Population Report, Montenegro was among the European countries that have more prisoners than available places.
“The countries with the highest incarceration rates were Turkey (356 prisoners per 100.000 inhabitants), Azerbaijan (264), Georgia (261), the Republic of Moldova (235), Poland (202), Hungary (195), Albania (192), the Czech Republic (180), Slovakia (179), Serbia (177), Latvia (175) and Montenegro (164). Other countries with high incarceration rates included Lithuania (158), the United Kingdom (England and Wales) (145) and North Macedonia (143),” the Council of Europe report states.
The document also notes that Montenegro ranks fifth among European states in terms of the share of persons held in pretrial detention (remand prisoners) without a first-instance conviction. Ahead of Montenegro on that list are Armenia, Albania, and Liechtenstein, while San Marino occupies the first place.
“Among the countries with a very high share of remand prisoners within the prison population are Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Monaco, Malta, Croatia, Slovenia, Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Denmark and Belgium,” the document notes.
Comparative data from the 2023 Report show a very similar situation — our state was highly ranked on the list by the number of remand prisoners, and the prison administrations with the largest share of remand prisoners were: Albania (55%), Armenia (53%), Luxembourg (49%), Switzerland (46%), the Netherlands (45%), Montenegro (42%) and Northern Ireland (41%).
“On the last day of 2023, on average, almost one-third of prisoners in European prisons were held in pretrial detention. The lowest shares of remand prisoners were in the Czech Republic (7.5%), Lithuania (11%), Poland (11%), Romania (12%) and North Macedonia (12%),” the report states.
Pobjeda’s interlocutors warn that the measure of ordering detention has for years not been applied adequately in judicial practice: courts impose it too readily; there are many cases in which detention was ordered despite the absence of the necessary conditions; it lasted inappropriately long; and in some cases it even turned into a punishment. They claim that this approach is a serious problem because it later puts the state in the position of having to compensate those persons, particularly when an acquittal is ultimately obtained.
What worries them most is that, so far, citizens have not had the chance to see anyone — primarily within the judiciary, and then in the Prosecutor’s Office — seriously address this issue and take steps to change the bad practice.
In addition, Pobjeda’s interlocutors problematize the institution of indictment review (control of the indictment), which, they believe, has lost its meaning and purpose because indictments are practically “rubber-stamped,” and there are many cases where an indictment was confirmed but at main trial the court had to remedy deficiencies that the Prosecutor’s Office had created during the investigation, and the proceedings ended with an acquittal, even in the most serious criminal cases.
On the other hand, detainees complain about poor conditions in the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (UIKS), the pace of judicial proceedings, and say that their right to a fair trial has been violated due to the length of pretrial detention. They fear that the Draft Law on Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (ZKP), which envisaged that detention could last up to five years (instead of the current three) from the filing of the indictment to the delivery of a first-instance judgment, might again be put before Members of Parliament. The reason for such concern, they say, is the weak application of alternative measures and plans to expand the spatial capacities in Spuž.
According to data provided to Pobjeda by the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (UIKS), there are currently a total of 1,473 persons in the institution, of whom 729 are held in pretrial detention at the Spuž Remand Prison. The remand unit at the prison in Bijelo Polje houses 114 detainees, while the number of sentenced prisoners serving imposed sentences is 630.
They state that the majority of detainees are those for whom detention was ordered on suspicion of having committed crimes in the area of organized crime, and that for a number of remand prisoners there are operational indications that they are members of organized criminal groups.
They emphasize that, given such a composition of detainees, it is very complicated to carry out everyday activities such as outdoor exercise, family visits, lawyer visits, distribution of meals, and medical therapy.
Meanwhile, during the last inspection of the remand prison, the Ombudsperson for Human Rights and Freedoms (OMBUDSMAN) found that overcrowding remains a key challenge, with negative consequences for living conditions, healthcare and the overall well-being of detainees. Detainees themselves point out poor conditions and inadequate hygiene and, in addition to these problems, claim that their right to a fair trial has been violated and that detention, because of its length, has turned into a punishment.
Because of such circumstances, the UIKS says it is working intensively to expand accommodation capacities.
“Measures taken in the previous period relate to freeing up a significant part of accommodation capacity, primarily in the Short-Term Sentence Prison where about 165 remand prisoners are housed, and the capacity of this facility has been additionally increased by 71 places. Also, the capacity of the Remand Prison has been expanded by an additional 60 places, as well as the capacities of the Prison in Bijelo Polje, also by 60 places, where about 114 remand prisoners are currently housed,” they explained.
In that connection, UIKS has informed all competent institutions as well as other state bodies that can contribute to overcoming the problem about the existing challenges.
“We emphasize that the plan to build new facilities is something that requires coordinated activities by the responsible ministry and the Government of Montenegro. Regarding the construction of the Special Health Institution located within the prison complex, the implementation of the project has reached 67 percent. Upon completion of construction, the facility will be equipped and qualified professional staff will be provided,” they told Pobjeda.
In previous years there was speculation that one option to solve the problem of overcrowded spatial capacities would be construction of a new prison in Mojkovac, intended only for the northern part of the country and with capacity for 200 persons. That investment, which could cost €40 million, has so far remained only words on paper, because the executive branch considers that construction of such a complex should be carefully considered and its justification re-examined due to a lack of professional personnel and additional costs not foreseen by the project “Construction of a Prison for the Northern Region of Montenegro in Mojkovac.”
(NON-)USE OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
The modest application of alternative measures is one of the leading problems in criminal proceedings highlighted by numerous legal experts and by the European Union, which in its reports encourages member and candidate countries, such as Montenegro, to use alternative measures instead of pretrial detention for less serious criminal offenses.
However, research by the Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI) shows that courts opt for detention roughly four times more often than for any milder measure. And although the judiciary faces problems in that respect related to staffing — insufficient numbers of judges, prosecutors, administrative staff and limited police resources to monitor the application of alternative measures — a much more frequent challenge is public perception, because citizens often do not “recognize” alternative sanctions as equally legitimate as pretrial detention. This particularly applies to cases in which public officials or well-known businesspersons are involved in the investigation.
Regarding the application of alternative measures, the Ministry of Justice notes that it has electronic monitoring devices available, of which 109 are so-called “ankle bracelets” intended for sentences of up to six months’ imprisonment. They note that these devices are used only in the execution proceedings of criminal sanctions under the competence of the Ministry.
“The Ministry of Justice has at its disposal 109 complete sets of devices (a stationary unit + transmitter, so-called ‘ankle bracelet’). In addition, the Ministry has at its disposal a set of 105 devices (receiver + transmitter) used in the execution of protective measures banning approach, as well as in the supervision of conditionally released convicted persons to whom the court has imposed an obligation during the period of conditional release,” the ministry told Pobjeda.
The Higher Court has repeatedly stated that there is a “shortage of ankle bracelets,” and that because of this it is forced to order detention even when that measure is not strictly necessary. The Ministry of Justice, for its part, explains that these devices are used only in cases when the judgment is final.
“The stated number of devices in the previous period satisfied needs for executing criminal sanctions controlled by electronic monitoring and these were executed within statutory deadlines. Nevertheless, considering the influx of cases of this kind, the Ministry of Justice will assess the need to procure an additional number of devices,” they emphasized.
They stress that in proceedings for the execution of criminal sanctions controlled by electronic monitoring, the Ministry of Justice acts only as the enforcement authority for decisions made by courts.
“In that regard, we note that in 2024 the Ministry of Justice received from courts for enforcement 330 judgments in which a prison sentence to be served in the domicile premises was imposed, and 61 judgments in which a protective measure banning approach was imposed. These sanctions represent only part of the alternative sanctions whose enforcement is carried out by the Ministry of Justice,” they clarified in replies to Pobjeda.
They add that it is the court that decides which type of criminal sanction will be imposed, but they also point to the need to impose alternative sanctions and monitoring measures because prison capacities are full.
“Thus, the court evaluates the existence or non-existence of facts on which it bases its decision according to its free conviction, while it imposes the penalty guided by the rules on sentencing prescribed by law. We point out that there are recommendations from international addresses to eliminate overcrowding in penitentiary-correctional institutions, and in that sense to apply more sanctions and measures that are alternatives to prison sentences, i.e., to detention. We also point to the need for courts in Montenegro to make even greater use of the statutory possibility of imposing alternative measures in all situations where the conditions for them are met and where the court finds that such a sanction would achieve the general purpose of criminal sanctions and the purpose of punishment in relation to the specific perpetrator,” the Ministry of Justice stressed.
They remind that, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure (ZKP), the measures that can be taken against an accused person to secure his/her presence and ensure the unhindered conduct of criminal proceedings are: summons, bringing (compulsory appearance), supervisory measures, bail (surety) and detention. They add that the Ministry of Justice is not competent to carry out the supervisory measure prohibiting leaving the apartment (house arrest) and that enforcement of this measure has been entrusted to the police pursuant to Article 168, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“In addition to the already mentioned ban on leaving the apartment, supervisory measures include: prohibition on leaving the place of residence; prohibition on visiting a certain place or area; obligation to report periodically to a designated state authority; prohibition on accessing or meeting with certain persons; temporary confiscation of travel documents; and temporary confiscation of a driving license,” they explain.
They add that the court may impose one of these measures ex officio or at the proposal of the prosecutor or the injured party if there are circumstances indicating that the accused may flee, hide, go to an unknown place or another country, or obstruct the conduct of criminal proceedings.
“With regard to bail, the law prescribes that an accused who is to be placed in detention and an accused who has already been placed in detention solely because of circumstances indicating that he/she will flee, or because, although duly summoned, he/she avoided appearing at the main trial, can be released if he personally or another person provides a bail (surety) that he/she will not flee until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, and the accused promises not to hide and not to leave his/her place of residence without permission (amount of the bail to be added),” the Ministry of Justice told Pobjeda.
Official data show, however, that bail is used extremely rarely in Montenegrin courts and that the Prosecutor’s Office most often resorts to the most severe measure — ordering detention. There are cases in which defendants’ counsel repeatedly offer bail during court proceedings but the court mostly rejects such proposals. One such example is the case of Miloš Medenica, son of the former President of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica, where his counsel submitted the bail proposal to the court as many as five times, and it was continuously rejected.
There was also the case of former employee of the National Security Agency (ANB) Petar Lazović who offered a bail of €9.3 million to be released from detention — the largest bail in the history of Montenegrin justice. Lazović repeatedly submitted the bail offer to the Higher Court in Podgorica to defend himself from liberty, but, as with all previous proposals, the court rejected it.
From 2022 to 2024 the state of Montenegro collected €445,500 in bail, show data provided to Pobjeda by the Higher Court in Podgorica. The largest single amount of bail paid in those two years was €150.000.
“In 2022 the total amount of cash bail deposited was €170.000; in 2023 it was €135.500; and in 2024 the amount of cash bail deposited was €140.000,” the Higher Court told Pobjeda.
THE PROBLEM OF THE DURATION OF DETENTION
The Ombudsperson also believes that there is a great need to relieve remand capacities by applying alternative measures. In that sense, the Ombudsperson points to the need to improve material conditions and to implement recommendations by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
“It is necessary to ensure basic standards for the size of remand accommodation and to improve hygiene and health conditions in order to ensure humane and dignified treatment of detained persons. Although detainees are generally satisfied with the treatment by staff and the food, it is evident that lack of space and limited outdoor time affect quality of life, increase stress and the risk of conflicts,” the Ombudsperson’s office warns.
They note that hygienic conditions and the state of infrastructure are not at a satisfactory level — particularly regarding the condition of cells, sanitary facilities and shower stalls.
They argue that, from a human rights perspective, overcrowding in penitentiary institutions significantly affects the mental health and psychological state of detainees.
“The lack of personal space, constant exposure to other persons and limited privacy create chronic stress that can lead to various negative consequences including increased anxiety, depression and aggressive behavior,” they explain, adding that in such conditions tensions among prisoners rise, increasing the risk of conflicts and violent incidents.
They particularly emphasize that in the Remand Prison, where detainees are not finally convicted and there are no rehabilitation programs, psychological pressure may be even more pronounced.
“In such conditions, it would be important to provide at least basic forms of psychological support, better healthcare and outdoor time in accordance with the Rules, in order to reduce the negative psychological effects of being in detention,” the Ombudsperson’s replies to Pobjeda state.
The Ombudsperson’s office warns that detention must not be a form of isolation and that detainees’ rights in this respect are protected by international and domestic regulations.
“A detainee has the right to inform family about his/her detention and to communicate regularly unless that communication is temporarily restricted by a court decision in order to prevent influence on witnesses or obstruction of the proceedings. If that right is denied to a detainee without legal basis or for longer than necessary, it may constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Denying the right to contact family and access to legal assistance may constitute a violation of fundamental human rights, and unlawful interference by the state in private life may lead to a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” the Ombudsperson states.
The problem of prolonged detention and the minimal use of alternative measures is also pointed out by lawyer and former President of the Bar Association, Zdravko Begović, who stresses that detention is imposed too easily in Montenegro and recalls that the President of the Supreme Court, Valentina Pavličić, recently stated that Montenegro ranks first in Europe for the length of detention, which in his view is an automatic indicator that the problem must be reduced to a reasonable degree.
foto: Pobjeda
“It is important to point out that so-called alternative measures, starting from bail, house arrest and other supervisory measures, are rarely applied. We are in a situation where a proposal for bail may be annulled five or six times, and the bail decision then lasts up to a year, which is absurd,” Begović told Pobjeda, referring to the position of the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court who consider that detentions in some cases last too long.
According to him, this is yet another reason to resolve the problem as soon as possible.
“Honestly, I must say that in the last ten days, after the strike in the Remand Prison, a number of detentions in organized crime cases were lifted and maybe that is the first step toward what will happen in the nearer future,” the lawyer told Pobjeda.
His colleague, attorney Veselin Radulović, focused in particular on the problem with the institution of indictment review, which he believes has lost the meaning and purpose assigned to it by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Foto: Pobjeda
“The court does not engage in a more serious control of the indictment, which in practice should result in those indictments that are not complete and where the investigation was not conducted adequately — where so many things are missing that the factual situation is insufficient to even bring the case before the court. There are many such cases in practice where an indictment was confirmed, but later it turned out that at the main trial the court had to remedy defects that the Prosecutor’s Office made during the investigation. You can never conduct an investigation at the main trial, and courts have unfortunately often been put in that situation. Then those cases ended ‘ingloriously’ for the Prosecutor’s Office because they ended with acquittals,” Radulović explained to Pobjeda.
MILLIONS IN COMPENSATION
The state of Montenegro pays enormous sums of money in compensation to persons finally acquitted for the time spent in detention. Million-euro amounts are paid on this basis. According to the Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI), between 2018 and 2024 Montenegro paid approximately €2.56 million pursuant to court judgments.
In 2018 €505,251.09 was paid, in 2019 €714,804.30, while a record €893,435.12 was paid in 2020. Statistics show that in 2021 the state paid €256,601.12, while in 2022 there was a drastic drop — €27,160.61 was paid in compensation. Slightly larger amounts were paid in the past two years — in 2023 €68,043.35, and in 2024 €93,871.51.
Economic analyst Mirza Mulešković believes these payments have a very negative effect on the economy and directly affect citizens, because the budget is exposed to an additional burden and funds potentially intended for other purposes must be redirected to pay compensation. Lawyer Radulović shares Mulešković’s view and warns that citizens alone will end up compensating for the damages that resulted from detention decisions.
The average cost of keeping a remand prisoner per day in the previous year was €31.77, while in 2023 that figure was €28.25. According to official data, more than €14 million was allocated this year in the state budget for the Montenegrin prison system. Those funds were allocated for staff salaries, security services, healthcare, rehabilitation and reintegration programs, professional training and prisoners’ work, administrative tasks, food, prison activities, prisoners’ employment, maintenance services — facility maintenance, utilities, water, electricity, transport…
On the other hand, the Constitution of Montenegro guarantees the right to compensation to persons who have been unlawfully or unjustifiably deprived of liberty or unjustifiably convicted (Article 38). According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 502), the right to compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty belongs to everyone who has been arrested, detained or remanded and the criminal proceedings against them were not initiated, were discontinued by a final decision, or ended with an acquittal or the rejection of the indictment. The same right belongs to convicted persons who, after a retrial or proceedings on a request for protection of legality, received a lighter sentence, a sanction without deprivation of liberty, or who, although found guilty, remained without an imposed sentence.
One such example of unjustified remand is the case of mother and son Marina and Budimir Krstović, who spent 15 months in pretrial detention on unfounded charges of trafficking 1.2 tonnes of cocaine. Today, almost three years after their final acquittal, they are suing the state at the Basic Court for compensation, although they say there is no money that can undo the injustice they suffered.
Marina Krstović told Pobjeda that she and her father were sentenced in advance and that, without a single piece of evidence from the Prosecutor’s Office, they were handcuffed and branded as drug smugglers.
Pobjeda spoke with Marina Krstović only a day after the hearing was held on the lawsuit she filed against the state for violations of the right to a fair trial, violations of personal reputation and dignity, and psychological suffering.
At the hearing held on 15 October, Marina gave a detailed statement about the arrest, time in detention, the trial and the consequences she now faces, after which a medical expert, Dr. Željko Golubović, will provide his findings and opinion.
She claims that everyone avoided responsibility in the case, from politicians who politicized the matter to score political points and paint a target on them.
She explains that they filed a lawsuit against the state at the Basic Court in Podgorica for compensation due to violations of the right to a fair trial, impairment of personal reputation and dignity, and the psychological suffering endured, but she does not hide her bitterness at the political pressure from the then-government that accompanied the case.
The drug seizure in 2021 was characterized as one of the largest ever for Montenegro’s security services — “something even the United States would envy,” the then political and security leadership declared. Those pompous announcements collapsed, however, because the Krstović family proved their innocence in court while the investigation never identified the real perpetrators of the crime.
Another case that attracted international media attention and was described as “cinematic” involved a tunnel that was dug to the depot of the Higher Court. All defendants in that case were acquitted due to lack of evidence. Although that judgment is not yet final, it is likely that those who were indicted will sue the state and seek compensation.
In the proceedings it was not proven who dug the tunnel nor that the accused — Katarina Baćović, Marijan Vuljaj, Nikola Milačić, Predrag Mirotić, and Vladimir Erić from Loznica and his fellow citizens Veljko Marković, Milan Marković and Dejan Jovanović — committed the criminal offenses with which they were charged — aggravated theft and membership in a criminal group.
So far, the real instigators and perpetrators of this major crime that shook, but also revealed weaknesses in, the security sector are unknown.
As in the case of Marina Krstović, where the court interpreter (translator) added non-existent sentences when translating her messages during the trial — which formed the basis for the indictment — today several criminal proceedings are being conducted before the Higher Court in Podgorica based on messages from SKY communication. Most of the accused in those cases are held in pretrial detention at Spuž Remand Prison.
THE SKY COMMUNICATION PHENOMENON
There are numerous cases before Montenegrin courts in which indictments have been confirmed on the basis of messages from SKY communication. While the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SDT) stated clearly that decrypted communication from the “SKY ECC” application, obtained through international legal assistance, constitutes lawful and legally valid evidence, opinions among legal experts and courts remain divided.
Attorney Zdravko Begović claims that it is only a lead toward evidence because it does not meet elementary evidentiary requirements.
“The defense takes a clear position — it is contrary to all domestic and international legislative rules and conventions. It is not possible to verify them, which is an elementary requirement of any evidence. The defense is not given a chance to properly establish how that evidence was obtained and in what way those data were acquired. We even suspect that it was not done in France, but there is a founded suspicion that it was done in another country, perhaps the Netherlands, which all calls into question the quality and validity of those evidentiary materials,” attorney Begović said, commenting on so-called “SKY cases.”
By contrast, the Higher Court has so far issued two convictions based on SKY evidence. One of them, delivered on 15 October, concerns alleged members of the Škaljari criminal clan who were sentenced to a total of 19 years in prison for forming a criminal organization and planning murders; that first-instance judgment relied largely on evidence gathered via the SKY application.
In February of last year, the first conviction based on SKY evidence was handed down. By that decision, a five-member criminal organization that in January 2021 planned to murder Budva resident Marko Ljubiša K. was sentenced to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment. In that case the Higher Court in Podgorica assessed SKY correspondence as admissible evidence, but the Court of Appeals annulled that first-instance judgment in January of this year, reasoning that the first-instance judgment did not contain clear, argued, sufficient and valid reasons on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this evidence as it relates to SKY ECC communication.
Nevertheless, two months later the Court of Appeals of Montenegro adopted a decision to accept transcripts from the once-protected SKY application as evidence, so that Darko Janjić from Nikšić was found guilty of forming a criminal organization and of unauthorized production, possession and distribution of narcotic drugs and sentenced to five years in prison. The Appellate Court’s decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court, so Janjić’s conviction became final.
Unlike Begović, attorney Radulović believes that SKY communications should be accepted as evidence like any other, noting that such a model is in use in far more developed states and judicial systems.
“We have also seen practice in Montenegrin courts in recent months — courts have begun delivering judgments that are based, among other things, on SKY communication, and I think that will continue. It is unlikely that any serious state will ignore all that we have seen, including through the media, about what was happening in criminal structures and how crimes were committed. I repeat, it is evidence and I think that in some cases, together with other evidence, it will lead to a conviction,” Radulović told Pobjeda.
Because of the large number of SKY cases, most of which are remand cases, and the various factors affecting the pace of proceedings, last year the parliamentary club Movement Europe Now (PES) submitted a Draft Law amending and supplementing the Code of Criminal Procedure (ZKP) that envisaged detention for the most serious crimes — such as organized crime, terrorism or war crimes — to last up to five years from the filing of the indictment to the delivery of a first-instance judgment, instead of three.
That draft provoked divergent reactions from legal experts and the NGO sector, which opposed it as unacceptable because such a model would only further slow down court proceedings and endanger the accused’s right to defense and to a fair trial. The draft was withdrawn from parliamentary procedure at the end of last year, while some detainees fear that it could be reintroduced in parliament and that the weak application of alternative measures and the rejection of bail deposits are in fact a prelude to a new law that would foresee detention of up to five years.
DETAINEES DISSATISFIED
Detainees most often complain about poor prison conditions and overcrowding, but they also frequently assert in court that their right to a fair trial has been violated and that they have inadequate medical care.
One of them, whose identity is known to Pobjeda’s editorial office, says that institutions are silent about their appeals and strikes and about all the problems they face.
“I can freely say that my right to a fair trial, and that of the majority of persons here, is jeopardized, not only that but also the right to life. We are all pre-sentenced, no one respects the presumption of innocence. Court proceedings have become completely meaningless; we feel humiliated because absolutely no one visited us during the last strike to ask why we chose that action. Therefore, I and most detainees have been forced to revoke the power of attorney from our lawyers, because in this state he cannot help me — there is no use in the courtroom while the judiciary is like this,” he said.
According to him, alternative measures do not exist and he believes it is only a matter of days before the Draft Law, which envisages detention of up to five years from the filing of an indictment to the delivery of a first-instance judgment, may again be put before the Parliament.
“How can I not suspect that this is their ultimate goal? When was the last time you heard that bail was accepted for someone, that some measure other than detention was imposed? But intensive work is underway to expand capacities in Spuž. All of these are clear indicators of what this leads to — they want detention to last five years. Terrible conditions,” he said.
He added that this situation affects not only him but also his family, who are going through hell outside because of his case.
“Our judiciary behaves as if we have no right to life. They destroyed our families, they got them sick, especially after the last strike when they completely ignored us. And all of that so that some ‘centers of power’ would be satisfied; detentions are ordered only so that certain politicians can be satisfied and to ‘wave’ arrests and some alleged results. They only remember us when they need votes, and they deliberately remain silent about all these problems,” he believes.
He also spoke about poor conditions and the problem of lack of capacity.
“There are too many of us in one room; we cannot even prepare our defense properly because we have nowhere to do it. There is one laptop and one computer for everyone. How can 700 people share one computer? Everyone needs a lot of time to familiarize themselves with the case; most indictments are delivered on CDs. Not to mention the lack of hygiene, we don’t even have daylight, simply all our rights are being denied,” he added and appealed to Justice Minister Bojan Božović to be bold and provide them with conditions worthy of human beings.
We recall that more than 100 detainees of the Remand Prison in UIKS began a hunger strike on 15 September this year as a response to long-standing dissatisfaction with treatment in the justice system, poor prison conditions and systemic violations of their rights. During that time, detainees repeatedly addressed official institutions through lawyer Nikola Tomković, and their families organized a protest in front of the Higher Court in Podgorica on 30 September.
Family members at that protest said their loved ones were being punished before a verdict and banners could be seen with messages such as “Punishment Before Verdict,” “You’re Guilty Until Proven Otherwise,” and “Constitution of Montenegro — Duration of Detention Must Be Reduced to the Shortest Possible Time”…
Detainees officially ended their hunger strike on 8 October, but continued their protest by revoking powers of attorney from their lawyers.
THE DANGER OF NOT DECIDING WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEADLINE
The Higher Court in Podgorica recently announced that it has a number of court proceedings “older” than two and a half years and that there is a danger that courts will not be able to deliver decisions within the statutory deadline.
The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that “from the filing of the indictment to the delivery of a first-instance judgment” detention may last at most three years. For that reason, in several cases there is a possibility that the accused will be released because the court failed to deliver a first-instance decision within the statutory deadline.
Article 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that after the indictment is submitted to the court, until the end of the main trial, detention may be ordered or revoked, upon obtaining the opinion of the state prosecutor when the procedure is conducted on his/her indictment, only by a ruling of the panel, and that from the filing of the indictment to the delivery of a first-instance judgment, detention may last for a maximum of three years.
Official data are worrying because several members of criminal clans left the Remand Prison before a first-instance decision was delivered, in most cases members of the Kavač and Škaljari criminal clans.
Immediately upon release from detention, some of them committed murders, while some were themselves killed. On the roundabout in Podgorica on 6 November 2024, Cetinje residents Žarko Pejaković and Petar Lipovina were liquidated. The alleged executors were identified as Nikšić native Vuk Lalatović, who committed the crime several months after being released from detention, and Artur Cimerman from Belgrade.
Lipovina left Spuž Remand Prison at the end of 2023, and Pejaković about ten days before the murder, because no first-instance judgments were delivered within the statutory three-year period. The Police Directorate previously said that as many as 70 members of criminal groups left detention due to the non-delivery of first-instance judgments, half of them during 2024.
Another example of failure to decide within the legally prescribed time is the case of Miloš Medenica, who was released from the Remand Prison on 17 October but the Extra-ordinary Chamber of the Higher Court placed him under house arrest. In this case the court was not able to deliver a first-instance judgment within three years, so the legal conditions for his release from Spuž Remand Prison were met.
RIGHTS OF DETAINEES
The Ombudsperson for Human Rights and Freedoms issues opinions and recommendations on what should be done if it is established that a detainee’s fundamental human rights have been violated.
“The director/manager, i.e., the person in charge of the authority to which the recommendation relates, is obliged to submit a report on actions taken to implement the recommendation within the given deadline. If the director/manager, i.e., the person in charge, does not act on the recommendation within the specified period, the Ombudsperson may notify the immediate superior body, submit a special report or inform the public,” the Ombudsperson’s office told Pobjeda.
Foto: Pobjeda
If it is established that a detainee was abused by prison staff, the Ombudsperson will request that disciplinary proceedings be initiated accordingly, that measures be taken in accordance with the law, and will inform and notify the Prosecutor’s Office so that it can take measures and steps within its competence.
“The director/manager must convey a clear message to all employees about achieving the goal of zero tolerance for torture,” they stressed.
They add that a detainee may directly file a complaint with the Ombudsperson’s Institution via complaint boxes placed in the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (UIKS), through the UIKS administration (in a sealed envelope), by post and by telephone.
“There is also a practice of complaints coming from family members, non-governmental organizations and lawyers, where, prior to action and pursuant to the legal provision, the consent of the injured party is requested,” the Ombudsperson’s office noted.
When there is suspicion of inhuman or degrading treatment, the Ombudsperson conducts an investigation of allegations in accordance with its statutory powers. The Ombudsperson may initiate proceedings on his/her own initiative with the consent of the injured party.
After collecting data, the Ombudsperson analyzes the evidence and establishes the facts. If irregularities are found, recommendations are sent to the authority or institution. Afterwards, the Ombudsperson monitors whether the authority implemented the recommendations and took measures and actions to fulfill them.
“As the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture (NPM), the Ombudsperson carries out preventive visits and in performing prevention of torture has the right to visit organs, institutions and organizations without prior notice and to inspect premises where persons deprived of liberty are held. In addition, the Ombudsperson has the right to access data on: authorities, institutions and organizations where persons deprived of liberty are held; the number of persons deprived of liberty in the organ, institution or organization visited; and the treatment of persons deprived of liberty,” they told Pobjeda and emphasized that the Ombudsperson has the right to speak without the presence of an official with arrested persons and others who can provide relevant information concerning suspected human rights violations in the organ, institution or organization being visited.
The article was produced within the project “Open Trials — monitoring cases of high corruption and organized crime,” jointly implemented by the Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI) and the Media Union of Montenegro, with the support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The claims made in the article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the donors.
