Panel discussion ”Protection of Victims of Crime – Mechanisms and Practices in Montenegro”
The rights and interests of victims of crime to be in the focus of the competent authorities
Montenegro lacks a systematic approach to the protection of victims of crime, and we can not criticise individual links and parts within the system, but we need to create a system in which the victim will feel protected all the time, from the moment it is reported to the end of the proceedings.
This was concluded at the panel discussion of the Institute Alternative (IA) ”Protection of Victims of Crime – Mechanisms and Practices in Montenegro”. The panel was organised on the European Day of Victims of Crime – February 22. The event was organised within the regional project Radar of Organised Crime in the Western Balkans, supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Belgrade, the Embassy of the Kingdom of Norway in Belgrade, and the Balkan Trust for Democracy.
Dragana Jaćimović from the Institute Alternative (IA) said that it is estimated that every seventh European is a victim of crime. Jaćimović also pointed out that there are no official statistics on the total number of victims of crime in Montenegro, and that data for individual crimes can be found in the reports in the work of the Ministry of the Interior.
Bojan Božović, State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, Human and Minority Rights, referring to the United Nations Declaration on Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, said the fact that the Declaration was adopted in 1985 shows there was no readiness in the world for it to be a binding legal act, but only a legal source which represents a type of recommendation. There is also an issue in Montenegro with the implementation of these norms within the system. “Despite numerous provisions, there is still a lack of systematic approach, and certain areas are not sufficiently regulated, but there are overlaps in some norms,” Božović added.
Božović also said that it is necessary to establish a specialised national service that will aim to support victims from the earliest phase of the procedure. Special attention should be paid to media reporting, where we must continue to work, especially when it comes to protection of the privacy of victims. As main issues within the existing system, Božović points out the lack of special rooms in which the victim would stay separately from the perpetrator, as well as the frequent re-examination of the victims.
Maja Raičević, executive director of the Women’s Rights Center, said that Montenegrin legal framework is quite solid, but that the implementation in practice depends on the sensitivity of people who come into direct contact with victims, adding that “we often forget that victims of crime are victims of our environment and persons who have been exposed to a particular trauma that may affect their ability to access justice.”
Raičević stated that two separate rooms shall be enabled, so victims of crime can approach the courtroom. In Montenegrin courts, there is a situation that the victim of crime, accused and entrusted person are standing together in the hallway, where the pressure or physical attack are possible. Raičević also pointed out the need to respect what Istanbul Convention proposes, and that is for the victim to choose an entrusted person. “Today we have situations in which certain judges and prosecutors do not allow the presence of the entrusted person, although the mechanism that the victim has the right to choose entrusted person is of immense importance as empowering factor of the victim and help to judiciary organs,” Raičević stated.
As a positive example, Raičević points out one misdemeanour judge recently enabled the victim to give a statement without the presence of the accused. This was of exceptional importance, because the victim gave the statement without fear and pressure, mentioning that these cases are not often.
On the journalist question whether judges who impose penalties under the minimum can be held accountable, Božović said that the sanctions indisputably were too low, but they are aware of the bad practice, the amendments of the Criminal Code and the minimum sanction threshold are adopted. In that way, they would succeed in reaching more adequate punishments. Božović added that through amendments of the Law on Judicial Council they would touch upon the disciplinary responsibility of the judges, but it is also important to remind on the multistage procedure as it is an important instrument in the protection of the victims.
In connection to the question, Raičević said that we rarely have adequate mechanisms when it comes to the responsibility of the judges, but also problematized the qualification of the offences by the prosecutors. Official statistics show there are more than 2000 offences, and only 250 crimes for domestic violence.
Raičević points out: “Whenever we have officials, we can see the punishments, even for more serious violence do not go more than six months. In this way, they can continue working in the service what is seen as a silent agreement.”
Answering the journalist question in connection with the cases in which the abusers were sentenced to house arrest with the victim, Božović said that it is exactly one of the reasons to change Criminal Code, not to give the possibility to the perpetrators this kind of punishment. Raičević considers, in this way the victim is punished.
Sonja Perišić Bigović from the Department for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings within the Ministry of the Interior stated that we did not do enough so the victim can feel protected and safe. Perišić Bigović supports the initiative to amend the Criminal Code, she also considers that aggravating circumstances should not be taken into account in serious acts of trafficking human beings.
Snežana Armenko, Deputy of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms, stated that everyone with own actions shall wake dormant rights and that the rights are not exhausted in norming, but it makes sense when the victim can consume that right in the system. Armenko points out that for the victim aspect the victim itself must know which remedies are at disposal, pointing out to the constitutional complaint.
It is concluded that it is needed to enable the complete system to function because if one part is not functioning, high sanctions are in vain. It is pointed out on the importance of social institutions, psycho-social support, as well as the witness services/injured and victim support services in courts, and that they need to be established differently from the existing one.
The event was part of the project Radar of Organised Crime in the Western Balkans (WB-OCR), which presents the initiative of the civil society created as the answer to the growing damage inflicted on the citizens of the Western Balkans by organised crime. The work is supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Belgrade, the Embassy of the Kingdom of Norway in Belgrade, and the Balkan Trust for Democracy.
The video of the panel discussion can be seen here:
The new decision of the Agency: Bošković broke the Law on Prevention of Corruption
In the repeated procedure ordered by the Administrative Court, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption has made a new Decision and decided that the current MP in the Parliament of Montenegro, and former minister of defence Predrag Bošković, violated Article 12 paragraph 5 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, as he earned 24 000 euros in 2017 as the Vice President of the Executive Board of the European Handball Federation , and 24 999.96 euros in 2018 on the same basis plus as a member of the Board of the World Handball Federation earned. This case was initiated by Institute Alternative in 2018 which argued that the Article 12 of the Law envisages that a public official could be a president or member of the management body or supervisory board, among other things sports associations, but on that basis it cannot generate incomes or other compensation.
Our comment on the Agency’s Decision for Daily Newspaper Vijesti is down below.
Long and exhausting procedures are discouraging
This decision finally confirmed what we have been pointing out more than two years and we are satisfied with that. However, we cannot be satisfied with long and exhausting procedure both at the level of the Agency and the Administrative Court, since, while the procedures lasted, Bošković’s, we now know – illegal income has been continuously increasing. What is more important – there is no mechanism in our system that would make him return illegally acquired money. In total, 29 months have passed since we first addressed the Agency with a request to investigate this case, and it was initially rejected by the former leadership of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption. Back then, at the end of 2018, Bošković’s incomes acquired on the basis of the engagement in the European and World Handball Organisation amounted to 62 000 euro.
Montenegro’s anti-corruption system still lacks an adequate response to illegal enrichment
In the meantime, Bošković reported the incomes of 33 000 euros on the same basis for 2019 and another 33 000 for 2020. His assets declaration for 2021 has not been published yet, but assumption is that in that year he had similar incomes on the same basis, so the total value of illegally acquired incomes increased to more than 150 000 euros. On the other hand, the Law on Prevention of Corruption treats his conduct as a misdemeanour and – the best case scenario, he gets sanctioned with 2 000 euros, and only for the period when the statute of limitations did not occur (within one year from the day the misdemeanour was committed). Therefore, now Agency should react really fast to check his incomes in the last year to impose a financial sanction of 500 to 2 000 euro which, in comparance to his incomes, is negligible.
For all these years, Montenegrin system did not prepare a response to the illegal incomes of public officials, and new efforts do not seem to be moving in that direction. Firstly, the Draft Law on Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime, even if adopted, would not be applied to this case, since the assets were not acquired trough criminal activity, but it was illegal enrichment. This case shows all weaknesses of the Law on Prevention of Corruption which has defined many situations in principle, so the sanctions are same for illegally acquired 150 000 and 50 euros.
Ignorance?
The most interesting part of the Agency’s Decision is the MP’s Predrag Bošković statement that he did not consider to be in breach of the Law “because the laws of Montenegro do not apply to the rules of the European and World Handball Federations“. As a public official with very long track record (he led several ministries before becoming an MP), he must have known that all domestic regulations and all restrictions in this regard apply to him, since he is a public official by the Law on Prevention of Corruption,. Although I find it hard to believe that this is really ignorance, if public officials do not know their obligations and restrictions in performing public office even after full six years of the application of the Law, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption is definitely doing something wrong in terms of prevention and education of public officials.
On the other hand, if it is really an MP’s ignorance, it is up to him to find a legal way to correct consequences of illegal behaviour and show personal and professional integrity in performing public functions.
Ana Đurnić, Public Policy Researcher in Institute Alternative and a member of the Working Group for Chapter 23
Related texts:
Agency will not act against Bošković: Law does not apply when money comes from abroad