Torture of Aleksandar Pejanović must not remain unpunished

Aleksandar Pejanović, our fellow citizen, was brutally beaten twice by, according to information from the criminal trial, members of the special intervention police unit while in the police detention unit in Podgorica known as Betonjerka, between the 31 October and the 2 November of 2008. Court experts (three of them) recorded a combination of 19 heavy and light injuries on his entire body.

After five years and eleven months of trial, on 9 October 2014, just three weeks before the criminal prosecution was to become time barred, the High court in Podgorica reached a final verdict stating that the three police officers in charge of securing Pejanović in “Betonjerka“ had committed a criminal offence of Ill-treatment through assistance and sentenced them with three months of prison each. Those police officers opened the prison doors to the members of the special unit who had come in to beat Pejanović, i.e. they did nothing to stop them, and did not report what had happened. By the end of the trial, all three convicted officers, as well as the other two who were acquitted in the meantime, claimed that during the disputed period nothing suspicious had happened and that Pejanović had not been hurt at all. Police officer Goran Stanković was the only one who testified that the ill-treatment did happen and that it was “ordered from above”. This man, the only known “whistle-blower” of the Montenegrin police does not work there anymore. He claims that he abandoned his office because of the pressures and threats on his security.

Although the court found the three police officers guilty for enabling the beating and taking no actions to prevent it, it decided to sentence them at a minimum – with three months of prison, although it could have imposed penalties of up to three years. The court thus acted contrary to international standards and the explicit recommendation of the Committee against Torture (CAT) to Montenegro that the sentences must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Moreover, if the convicted officers are to behave well in prison, there is a good chance they will stay there for only two months, and that is unless some new Pardon law is adopted by the Montenegrin Parliament, or they are pardoned by the President of state Filip Vujanović.

Can anyone seriously expect that such a lenient sentence would persuade other officers to refuse to comply with unlawful orders to terrorize citizens? Is this a way of encouraging the citizens to report police ill-treatment?

Let us not forget that in 2009 the Internal Control Unit (ICD) of the Police, led by Zoran Tomčić (now the Director of Forensics Centre of the Police Directorate), found that the police officers have not overstepped their authority in this case, thus obviously protecting the criminals in the police, which represents a criminal offence just like the offence for which the three officers have been convicted.

Six years after the crime was committed it is still unknown who ordered the beating of Pejanović, or who the members of the special police intervention unit that executed this order were. We are quite sure that all of them still work at the police, under the authority of the Police Director Slavko Stojanović and under the auspices of the Minister Raško Konjević, who have done nothing (known to the public) to punish the thugs or those who ordered the beating.

Additional concern is that senior public officials – Prime Minister Milo Đukanović and the former Police Director Veselin Veljović (now advisor to the President on defence and security) obstructed the investigation, because they never acted on the orders of the prosecutor to submit a list of members of the intervention unit who were on duty at the time when the crime was committed.

However, as noticed by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the fact that the Prime Minister and the Police director failed to cooperate does not mean that the competent State Prosecutor – Ljiljana Klikovac (recently appointed to the Head of the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office) was supposed to instantly give up on further investigation, instead of making an effort to obtain the information in question through issuing of a search warrant, prosecuting those who obstructed the investigation, hearing all members of the intervention unit etc. We would like to remind that the CPT requested detailed comments of the Montenegrin authorities on these points, but the Government disregarded this (please see below).

Since it was finally determined that the crime related to late Aleksandar Pejanović within the police premises did occur, and that both the thugs and the ordering party remained unpunished, the Supreme State Prosecutor Ivica Stanković should put further investigation of this case on the top of his priority list, in order to establish the trust in rule of law in Montenegro. When the perpetrators of the crimes are police officers, the State Prosecutor’s Office is solely responsible for ensuring an impartial investigation. Mr. Stanković should also determine responsibility of the competent state prosecutor’s office for the ineffective processing of this case.

Human Rights Action, Tea Gorjanc-Prelević, executive director

Centre for Civic Education, Daliborka Uljarević, executive director

Institute Alternative, Stevo Muk, president of the managing board

APPENDIX 1:

Persons who were competent for prosecution of the responsible persons at the time the crime was committed still occupy the same positions, or have been even promoted to higher positions in the civil service:

– Milo Đukanović, former and current Prime Minister, the director of the Police Directorate reported directly to him, not he Minister of Interior Affairs at the time when this crime was committed (Police Directorate became part of the Ministry of Interior Affairs in 2012);

– Ljiljana Klikovac, former Basic State Prosecutor, whose work was criticized by CPT in its report, has been recently appointed to the Head of the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office; The Supreme State Prosecutor at the time when the crime was committed, from April 2008 to April 2013, was Ranka Čarapić;

– Veselin Veljović, former director of the Police Directorate, now covers the position of Advisor on defence and security to the President Filip Vujanović;

– Zoran Tomčić, former head of the Internal Control Unit of the Police, current Director of Forensics Centre of Police Directorate.

APPENDIX 2:

An excerpt from the report of the CPT on its visit to Montenegro in 2013, in relation to the case of Pejanović (HRA translation to Montenegrin), original document available at: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/mne/2014-16-inf-eng.html

NOTE: Immediately after the publication of the report, on 22 May 2014, HRA requested from the Government of Montenegro to translate the report into Montenegrin and publish it on its website, but this has not been done to date. Also, the Government has never provided detailed replies to the question of the CPT regarding this case, or at least it has not published these replies as a part of other replies to the report.

CPT report on the visit to Montenegro, paragraph 20: “In the course of the 2013 visit, the delegation examined one particular case concerning the alleged beating of X in November 2008 at Podgorica Police Detention Unit.

X was apprehended by the police on 30th October 2008 following his participation in mass street protests in Podgorica, and transferred to the police detention unit known as “Betonjerka”. According to different testimonies, an unidentified group of some ten masked police officers from the special intervention unit entered his cell on two occasions (between 31 October and 2 November 2008) and subjected him to kicks, punches and blows with truncheons. He was seen by a doctor following his release from police custody on 5 November 2008 and a combination of 19 heavy and light injuries were recorded on his entire body (and later confirmed by a court appointed forensic expert). The Podgorica District Prosecutor initially launched an investigation on 6 November 2008 and issued an indictment on 1 September 2009 for torture and ill-treatment against six officers who had been on duty with custodial tasks in the detention unit during the period when X was in police custody. In the course of the trial at the Podgorica District Court, one of the accused officers stated that the ill-treatment of X had been “ordered from above” and that it was inflicted on two occasions by unidentified members of the intervention police. The Podgorica District Prosecutor requested the Director of Police on 15 June 2010, and on two other occasions directly the Prime Minister himself, to indicate the names of the officers from the intervention police who were on duty on 31 October and 2 November 2008. However, the delegation was informed by the Podgorica District Prosecutor that no reply was ever received to any of those requests. And, as far as the delegation could ascertain, this is where the matter was left.

The Committee also notes that the Internal Control Unit (ICD) of the Police concluded in March 2009 that none of the police officers involved in the alleged beating of X had overstepped their authority.

Clearly, the above conclusions as well as the unwillingness of the senior officials concerned to provide the prosecution service with information it needed for a criminal investigation is of great concern. At the same time, it can be asked whether the prosecution service had no other means at its disposal to obtain the information in question (e.g. through the issuing of a search warrant). The CPT would like to receive the detailed comments of the Montenegrin authorities on these points.

The response of the Government of Montenegro, Ministry of Interior Affairs:

„There is a court proceeding before the High Court in Podgorica against three police officers who are suspected to have physically abused X. Following the appeal made to the high court, the Basic Court came to a liberating verdict for the police officers in question. The case has been forwarded to the High Court resulting in the suspension of the officers who will remain so until the closure of the case”.

APPENDIX 3:

Statement of Dalibor Kavarić, representative of deceased Pejanović and his family

In relation to the decision of the High Court in Podgorica, which upheld the conviction of the Basic Court in Podgorica against three police officers for beating of Aleksandar Pejanović, while being in custody at the police station in Podgorica, so called: Betonjerka (Concrete cell), from 31 October to 2 November 2008, I underline:

The lowest rank and least accountable police officers who did not have a strong enough protection to be released, were sentenced for this offense. The fact is that police officers Leković, Kljajević and Paunović did not directly beat Pejanović. Still, the nature of their term of office was not giving them a privilege to be observers of this event, they had to take all measures and actions to prevent the beating. Although officers Leković, Kljajević and Paunović were not direct perpetrators but practically a collateral damage in the event, their responsibility lies in their silence and concealment of direct perpetrators, by which they tried to help the perpetrators, and in that manner they agreed with their actions of beatings.

What in this event does not leave the impression that justice is served is the fact that those who in the dark, savagely beat a defenseless man still remain to work undisturbed for the police and they are still able to beat up people, because the practice and experience undoubtedly testifies that a criminal, although influenced by certain circumstances temporarily placates, but in the end, always repeats his crime. Also, the impression of justice is being grossly spoiled with the fact that those who are able to design and order this heinous crime continue to wear uniforms and are protected by their anonymity and mixed with other police officers thus with their further work and stay in the police they burden the same police, forcing on it the mortgage of a services in which such abomination could happen.

Until cold-blooded criminals who ordered and executed the crime against Aleksandar Pejanovic are discovered and prosecuted, this will affect the way people perceive vast majority of honest police officers, who will be subject to the interpretation that they are ready to commit such deeds.

Dalibor Kavarić, lawyer

Parliamentary oversight in the area of security and defense – 2013 Monitoring Report and Impact Assessment

The intention of the authors of the Law on parliamentary oversight of security and defence sector, adopted towards the end of 2010, was to strengthen the control function of the Parliament of Montenegro and to introduce a more efficient oversight of the security and defence sector. After three years of the implementation of this Law, we tried to measure its impact, i.e. the impact of the work of the Committee competent for carrying out the parliamentary oversight of this sector, with a view to providing recommendations to enhance its effectiveness.

Conclusions with recommendations are presented in this report consisting of two parts. Traditionally, the first part concerns monitoring of the implementation of the Law in the third year of its enforcement1 with comparative data on the implementation of control instruments for at least three last years. In order to present the activities of the Committee in 2013, our researchers attended all sessions of the Committee which were open to public.

The second part of the report relates to the attempt to assess the systemic impact of this Law on state bodies from the security and defence sector which were subject to parliamentary oversight as well as an analysis of the opinions of representatives of state bodies which were subject to parliamentary oversight on effects of this control mechanism.

The impact of the work of the Security and Defence Committee is achieved through: initiating new laws, initiating the use of control mechanisms, adoption of concrete conclusions, adoption of amendments to the Government’s draft laws, addressing new issues significant for security and defence policy, proposals for resolution of problems, etc. In other words, its impact is reflected in delivering concrete changes and providing substantive answers to problems identified in the security and defence sector. These are some of the parameters we monitored while carrying out this research. We also analysed the positions and expectations of the representatives of security and defence institutions, their impressions on the results of the work of this Committee, we checked the extent to which conclusions were implemented, we analysed media content on parliamentary oversight, with a special emphasis on MPs’ and heads of state bodies’ statements.

During the research, we discussed these topics with the representatives of those state bodies which were directly or indirectly the subject of the Committee’s oversight or those who participated in its sessions during deliberations on their annual performance reports. We are grateful for the contribution to this report to:

  • Chairman of the Committee, Mevludin Nuhodžić,
  • Member of the Committee, Suljo Mustafić,
  • Minister of Interior, Raško Konjević,
  • Chief of Armed Forces General Staff, General Dragan Samardžić,
  • Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Nada Ulićević,
  • Director of the Secret Data Protection Directorate, Savo Vučinić,
  • Director General at the Emergency Management Directorate, Mirsad Mulić,
  • Head of the Administration for prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing, Vesko Lekić,
  • Police Administration representatives: Petar Krstajić, Radovan Ljumović, Sead Frljučkić,
  • Head of the National Security Agency, Boro Vučinić,
  • Expert service of the Security and Defence Committee for delivering material related to the work of the Committee.

As it was the case in previous years, our work in this area, monitoring of the work of the Committee, impact assessment of the Law, as well as the preparation of the report were supported by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).

European Commission’s Progress Reports In Numbers

In comparison to the previous year, Montenegro’s progress in fight against corruption was weaker, while no significant breakthroughs were made in nine chapters of membership talks with the European Union (EU).

The most recent progress report on Montenegro, issued by the Euroepan Commission, warns the country that the current pace of fulfilling the EU conditions, especially with regards to anti-corruption policies, does not ensure that the country will reach necessary standards for joining the EU any time soon.

“Corruption remains prevalent in many areas and continues to be a serious problem, requiring effective implementation of deep and lasting reforms”, reads the report, which assessed Montenegro’s efforts against the corruption as weaker than in the previous year.

In other words, while in 2013 the European Commission recognised “some progress” within the Chapter 23, on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, this year the progress was assessed as “uneven”, with the limited progress in anti-corruption policies and some progress in judiciary reform and protection of fundamental rights.

It is interesting that, overall, Montenegro’s progress was assessed better than in the last year, but weaker than in 2012, the year which marked launching of accession negotiations with the EU.

If the formulations employed by the European Commission for assessing the specific chapters, such as no progress, little progress, limited progress, further progress, some progress, progress and good progress, are translated into the values on scale from 0 to 6, number of chapters with the good, some and further progress is larger than in 2013.

While assigning values to these formulations, Institute Alternative (IA) employed a scale used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration for interpretation of European Commission’s remarks.

In doing so, we made no difference between the remarks and state of the art in each of the specific fields. We have also made no difference between the chapters which are opened and chapters whose opening is still pending.

However, opening of chapters does not necessarily means stronger progress, as demonstared by the case of the most demanding Chapter 23, but also by the Chapter on Company Law, whithin which a little progress has been achieved.

Two years in a row, Montenegro made no progress with regards to fisheries. Also, this is the third year that we have achieved only little progress in enivronmental protection.

In comparison to 2013, progress in external relations, free movement of workers and public procurement was also made on a slower pace.

Press relelase: Protect the rights of citizens through the Law on National Security Agency

Amendments to the Law on National Security Agency, which are now in parliamentary procedure, represent an opportunity to further standardize the work of the Agency and thus improve the protection of citizens’ rights. Priority issues that need to be further regulated are the following: destruction of citizens’ data which is not of security character, security checks performed in the process of obtaining citizenship, and internal control of the work of NSA.

These are some of the suggestions for further improvement of the legal framework for the NSA that Institute Alternative has submitted to the Security and Defence Committee.

Bearing in mind that the storage of personal data in the secret files represents a violation of the right to respect for private life, excessive collection of personal data needs to be reduced. Therefore, we recommended that the Amendments to the Law on National Security Agency prescribe the obligation of the NSA to submit the collected data to the Supreme Court following the application of secret surveillance measures. The Supreme Court would evaluate the legality of the measures applied. This means that immediately after „reading by the judge“ part of the material not related to the reasons for undertaking measures or related to other types of personal data that is not of security character would be destroyed, while the rest of the material would be kept in the records.

Additionally, we deem necessary to legally regulate all issues related to security checks performed in the process of application for citizenship. Specifically, since the details of this procedure are not stipulated by the law, an opportunity to standardize the right to remedy of persons who have received a negative opinion was not taken. Persons who have received negative opinion after undergoing security checks should be given the right to familiarize themselves with the collected material on the basis of which the negative opinion is given, as well as the opportunity to challenge it.

Practice has shown that the security checks in the process of application for citizenship need further standardization because of their direct effect on the lives of citizens. However, there are numerous types of security checks and, therefore, adoption of a special law on security checks modeled on the laws in comparative practice needs to be initiated.

IA has pointed out to unsatisfactory results of internal control of the work of NSA in 2012. The chief inspector that is responsible for the internal control of the work of this authority and that submits reports to the Government on the inspection conducted, by 2012 has not found an illegal application of secret surveillance measures or other forms of abuse, and have also failed to submit reports to the Government and to director of the NSA. Therefore, the Law on NSA should stipulate the obligation of submission of annual reports on the work of the Internal Control to the Security and Defence Committee. This would increase the pressure of the Parliament on the Internal Control to continuously exercise supervision and assist in initiating criminal proceedings against officials who exceeded their authority and broke the law.

It is especially important to delete the provision of the Law on NSA which limits the individual right of MPs, members of the Security and Defence Committee, to seek data and information from the NSA. In this manner, this Law would be harmonized with the Law on Parliamentary Oversight. Additionally, IA has submitted recommendations to the Parliament which relate to informing citizens about the measures that have been applied without a prior written request.

Our comments can be found here.

Dina Bajramspahić
Public Policy Researcher

Our suggestions of Amendments to the Law on National Security Agency

IA’s suggestions for the Bill Amending the Law on National Security Agency

The amendments bring more clarity and precision in defining competencies of the National Security Agency (NSA) and we are particularly pleased to learn that our recommendation from 2012 has been fulfilled. This recommendation stated that the provision related to “the supervision of electronic communications and postal items” should be formulated more precisely, so that it explains what the surveillance of electronic communications covers. Because of its vagueness, it was not clear whether the NSA seeks approval from the Supreme Court, for instance, to access phone records, IP addresses of Internet users, and the user’s location. It is also a good solution to restrict access to the phone records to three months, with the possibility of extension.

However, there is still room for further improvements and these amendments should be used for further standardization of the work of the NSA. On the basis of previous work in this area, we submit to the members of the Security and Defense Committee several priority issues, related to:

  • destruction of data,
  • internal control of the NSA,
  • process of informing citizens,
  • control of opinions of the NSA in the process of obtaining citizenship.

Our comments can be found here (in Montenegrin only).