HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND NEW YEAR !

Ecard2017-eng



19/11/2017 STATE PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE VEHICLE ARSON TARGETING JOURNALIST MIROSLAV DROBNJAK

Human Rights Action (HRA) calls on the state prosecution of Montenegro to provide an effective investigation of attack on the property of journalist Miroslav Drobnjak, by interrogating the injured party and witnesses and undertaking all other investigative actions urgently. It is also necessary to determine whether the safety of the journalist and his family is threatened and, if yes, to take protective measures.

This year, on 11th of October,  the car belonging to the journalist Drobnjak, reporter of the newspaper “Evening News”, burned out in the yard of his family house in Pljevlja.

The court expert, in his report of 20th of October, found vehicle arson, i.e. stated that the fire had been set up intentionally. The police informed Drobnjak about the expert’s findings only 26 days later. No one has been interrogated in this case to date, according to the information of the injured journalist. The competent state prosecutor in Pljevlja failed to come to the crime scene and even did not interrogate the journalist to date.

HRA calls on the State Prosecution to immediately interview Drobnjak, who can provide valuable instructions for the effective direction of the investigation. This especially bearing in mind negative experience of investigating attacks on journalists in Montenegro, of which 2/3 remain unresolved, as well as the particularly negative experience with the investigation  of the attack on journalist Tufik Softić, whom the state prosecutor in Berane interviewed for the first time only seven years following the attack.

HRA calls on the competent investigative bodies, primarily the State Prosecutor’s Office as well as the Police, to establish a special protocol for investigating threats and attacks on journalists and their property, to ensure that in all such cases all available investigative actions are urgently undertaken, and to act in each case on the assumption that the attack has been directed against freedom of speech and public information, requiring urgent, independent and professional investigation in an adequate manner in public interest.

International, and particularly European, minimal human rights standards require the state to undertake independent and effective investigation in the case of the attack on a journalist, as well as to apply protective measures when there are indications that safety of journalist may be at risk. An effective investigation is an investigation initiated by the state prosecutor on his/her own initiative – he/she should not wait for the injured party to start the investigation. The investigation should be conducted independently from those who have been alleged to have been involved in the incident. The authorities must collect all relevant evidence and the investigation must been prompt and thorough. There has to be some transparency as well as public scrutiny of the investigation or of its results, so as to secure accountability and maintain public confidence. More on this standard established in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in HRA Bulletin no. XVIII “Violence against journalists”.



19/11/2017 DRŽAVNI TUŽILAC AKTIVNO DA ISTRAŽI PODMETANJE POŽARA NA AUTOMOBIL NOVINARA MIROSLAVA DROBNJAKA

Akcija za ljudska prava (HRA) apeluje na državno tužilaštvo da obezbijedi djelotvornu istragu napada na imovinu novinara Miroslava Drobnjaka, tako što će odmah saslušati oštećenog i svjedoke i blagovremeno preduzeti sve druge istražne radnje. Neophodno je utvrditi da li je bezbjednost novinara i njegove porodice ugrožena i, ako jeste, preduzeti zaštitne mjere.

Ove godine, 11. oktobra, izgoreo je automobil “ford fokus” Miroslava Drobnjaka, dopisnika “Večernjih novosti”, u dvorištu porodične kuće u Pljevljima.

Da je požar namjerno podmetnut, konstatovao je sudski vještak u nalazu od 20. oktobra. Policija je o ovom nalazu vještaka obavijestila Drobnjaka tek 26 dana kasnije. U ovom predmetu do danas niko nije saslušan, prema saznanjima oštećenog novinara. Nadležni državni tužilac u Pljevljima nije izlazio na lice mjesta niti je do danas saslušao novinara.

HRA apeluje na državno tužilaštvo da odmah sasluša Miroslava Drobnjaka, koji može dati dragocjena uputstva za djelotvorno usmjeravanje istrage. Ovo posebno imajući u vidu generalno negativno iskustvo s istragama napada na novinare u Crnoj Gori, od kojih 2/3 još uvijek nisu rasvijetljeni, kao i posebno negativno iskustvo s istragom napada na novinara Tufika Softića, koga je državni tužilac u Beranama saslušao prvi put sedam godina posle napada.

HRA apeluje na nadležne istražne organe, prvenstveno državno tužilaštvo, a i policiju, da naprave poseban protokol za postupanje u istragama prijetnji i napada na novinare i njihovu imovinu, koji će obezbijediti da se u svim takvim slučajevima hitno preduzimaju sve raspoložive istražne radnje, i da se u svakom slučaju postupa pod pretpostavkom da se radi o napadu na slobodu govora i javnog informisanja, koji zahtijeva da bude hitno, nezavisno i profesionalno istražen na odgovarajući način u opštem društvenom interesu.

Međunarodni, a posebno evropski minimalni standardi ljudskih prava, državi nalažu obavezu da u slučaju napada na novinara preduzme nezavisnu i djelotvornu istragu, kao i zaštitne mjere kada postoje indicije da su novinari ugroženi. Djelotvorna istraga je istraga koju državno tužilaštvo pokreće na sopstvenu inicijativu – ne treba da čeka da je pokrenu oštećeni. Istraga treba da bude sprovedena nezavisno od onih koji su moguće umješani u incident. Državni organi moraju brzo i temeljno da prikupe sve relevantne dokaze. Mora da postoji transparentnost i javnost istrage ili njenih rezultata, kako bi se osigurala odgovornost i održalo povjerenje javnosti u rad državnih organa. Detaljnije o ovom standardu utvrđenom u praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u HRA biltenu br. XVIII “Nasilje nad novinarima”.



16/11/2017 COUNCIL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO FAILED TO ADOPT THE COMPLAINT OF JOURNALIST TUFIK SOFTIĆ FOR UNKNOWN REASONS -THE SESSION OF ALL JUDGES WILL DECIDE

Council members of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro today, for unknown reasons, voted against the proposal of Judge Rapporteur Miodrag Iličkovic for adoption of the constitutional complaint of journalist Tufik Softić filed due to the state’s failure to provide effective investigation of his attempted murder. Therefore, the session of all judges of the Constitutional Court will soon be deciding on this case.

HRA hopes that most judges of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro will exercise their jurisdiction to protect human rights of journalist Tufik Softić. They should bear in mind that due to the lack of serious investigation in two cases of attack on Softić, his colleagues journalists, as well as the entire Montenegrin public, have been exposed to a devastating impact on freedom of expression and confidence in the state’s ability to exercise the rule of law.

HRA recalls that the Constitutional Court recently found that the state prosecution failed to execute effective investigations of police ill-treatment in three cases, upon constitutional complaints filed by HRA for Milorad Martinović, Branimir Vukčević and Momčilo Baranin.  Today’s Vijesti announced that the Supreme State Prosecutor Ivica Stanković allegedly sent a protest letter to the President of the Constitutional Court, Dragoljub Drašković, in which he disputed the jurisdiction of that court to give orders to the State Prosecutor Office. HRA requested from Supreme State Prosecutor Ivica Stanković to publish that letter we believe is of the highest public interest.

In the Softić case, judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica, Milena Brajović, recently found that the State Prosecutor’s Office failed to provide effective investigation, which led to the violation of the human right to life protection and protection against abuse, and awarded compensation to Softić in the amount of 7,000€ in the name of a incurred mental suffering. Against this first-instance decision, the Protector of Property and Legal Interest of the State filed complaint (whose most important part was shown earlier on our FB page), and the fate of this judgment is now expected, which depends on the decision of the second instance court – the Higher Court in Podgorica.

HRA believes that there is no legitimate reason for numerous failures of the competent State Prosecutor’s Office and Police in the investigation of the attempted murder of Tufik Softić.

At first, HRA promptly pointed out these failures to the Supreme State Prosecutor Ivica Stanković, to no avail, and then to the Constitutional Court in the constitutional complaint, as well as to the regular court in the claim for compensation:

  • The investigation into the attempted murder of journalist Tufik Softić was open only seven years after the attack on him (1 November 2007 – 18 July 2014);
  • The Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Berane failed to order the police to block the city exit roads immediately after the attack, in order to prevent the perpetrators and aiders from escaping (Article 243 in connection with Article 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro 47/06);
  • The state prosecutor in Berane and the investigating judge failed to come to the crime scene after being informed of the attack by the police, although it had been their duty especially bearing in mind the seriousness of the attack (Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro 47/06);
  • The state prosecutor in Berane failed to promptly interrogate the persons whom Softić named to the police as suspects, i.e. as persons who might have been connected with the attack – two of them were interrogated only seven years later and the third person had never been interrogated;
  • The state prosecutor in Berane failed to order the investigating judge to search apartments, facilities, vehicles and persons that Softić marked as suspicious (this is obligatory in case of an NN perpetrator according to Articles 247 and 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro 47/06);
  • The state prosecutor in Berane interrogated the injured party, Tufik Softić, for the first time only seven years after the attack, in 2014, although the prosecutor had the right and professional obligation to do so immediately (Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro 47/06);
  • The owner of facilities in which the bats which were allegedly used for beating Tufik Softić have been discovered had never been interrogated as a witness with regard  to how the bats came into his possession and who had left them in his facilities;
  • The DNA analysis of the baseball bats which were allegedly used in beating Softić, as well as matching the DNA with Softić’s profile, has been carried out only in 2013, although the bats were found six years earlier, back in 2007;
  • The attacker’s DNA material was not immediately collected from Softić, bearing in mind that the attacker hit Softić with his hand in the area of his arm (Articles 230 and 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro 47/06);
  • The DNA profile of the suspected was not made or matched to the DNA profile of the discovered baseball bats, although Softić named him as suspicious;
  • The state prosecutor in Berane and the police failed to take photographs of Tufik Softić’s injuries immediately after the attack (for appearance of injuries, accurate localisation, spacing, shape), in order to provide for precise determination of means by which the injuries were caused;
  • After initiating the investigation and qualifying the offence as attempted murder, the prosecutor in Bijelo Polje failed to request from the investigating judge to order surveillance of the defendants, in order to enable the possibility for collecting any new evidence (Article 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of Montenegro 49/10);
  • It remains unclear why the police and the prosecution in Berane failed to undertake any actions during the investigation phase for 5 years and 6 months (from 3 March 2008 to 15 August 2013);
  • It remains unclear why no relevant activities have been undertaken during the following periods from initiating the investigation: from 20 October 2014 to 1 April 2015, and from 1 April 2015 to 28 October 2015, when the investigation was suspended.

If necessary, HRA will repeat and document all these reasons to the European Court of Human Rights. Judging by the previous practice of that Court, it would not dwell over whether Softić human rights had been violated or not.



16/11/2017 VIJEĆE USTAVNOG SUDA IZ NEPOZNATIH RAZLOGA NIJE USVOJILO ŽALBU NOVINARA TUFIKA SOFTIĆA – ODLUČIĆE SJEDNICA SVIH SUDIJA

Članovi vijeća Ustavnog suda Crne Gore juče su iz nepoznatih razloga glasali protiv predloga sudije izvjestioca Miodraga Iličkovića da se usvoji ustavna žalba novinara Tufika Softića zbog propusta države da sprovede djelotvornu istragu pokušaja njegovog ubistva, pa će o ovom slučaju uskoro odlučivati sjednica svih sudija Ustavnog suda.

Nadamo se da će većina sudija Ustavnog suda Crne Gore primjeniti svoju nadležnost da zaštite ljudska prava novinara Tufika Softića. Oni bi trebalo da imaju u vidu i da su zbog nedostatka sprovođenja ozbiljne istrage u dva slučaja napada na Softića, i njegove koleginice i kolege novinari, kao i cjelokupna crnogorska javnost, izloženi pogubnom uticaju na slobodu izražavanja i povjerenje u sposobnost države da ostvari vladavinu prava.

Podsjećamo da je Ustavni sud nedavno u tri slučaja utvrdio da je državno tužilaštvo propustilo da sprovede djelotvorne istrage policijskog zlostavljanja, postupajući po ustavnim žalbama koje je HRA podnijela za Milorada Martinovića, Branimira Vukčevića i Momčila Baranina. Jutros su Vijesti objavile da je Vrhovni državni tužilac (VDT) Ivica Stanković navodno uputio protestno pismo predsjedniku vijeća Ustavnog suda Dragoljubu Draškoviću, u kojem je osporio nadležnost tog suda da naređuje državnom tužilaštvu. HRA je jutros zahtijevala od VDT g. Stankovića da objavi to pismo koje smatramo da je od najvećeg javnog interesa.

U slučaju Softić je sudija Osnovnog suda u Podgorici, Milena Brajović, utvrdila da je zbog propusta državnog tužilaštva da sprovede djelotvornu istragu Softiću prekršeno ljudsko pravo na zaštitu života i zaštitu od zlostavljanja, i dosudila mu 7.000 eura naknade štete za pretrpljene duševne bolove. Protiv te prvostepene odluke Zaštitnik imovinsko-pravnih interesa države je izjavio žalbu (čiji smo najvažniji dio prikazali ranije na našem FB zidu), pa se tek očekuje sudbina ove presude koja sada zavisi od odluke drugostepenog suda – Višeg suda u Podgorici.

HRA smatra da ne postoji ni jedan opravdani razlog za brojne propuste nadležnog državnog tužilaštva i policije u istrazi pokušaja ubistva Tufika Softića.

Na ove propuste smo blagovremeno ukazali prvo VDT-u Ivici Stankoviću, a zatim i Ustavnom sudu u ustavnoj žalbi, kao i redovnom sudu u tužbi za naknadu štete:

  • istraga pokušaja ubistva novinara Tufika Softića je otvorena tek sedam godina posle napada na njega (1.11.2007 – 18.07.2014);
  • Osnovni državni tužilac (ODT) u Beranama, nije odmah nakon događaja dao naredbu policiji da izvrši blokadu grada, da bi spriječio bjekstvo izvršilaca i pomagača (čl. 243 u vezi čl. 230 ZKP-a, list RCG 47/06);
  • ODT u Beranama i istražni sudija nijesu izašli na lice mjesta, po obavještenju policije, iako je to bila njihova dužnost (čl. 246 ZKP-a, list RCG 47/06);
  • ODT u Beranama nije obezbijedio da odmah budu saslušana lica koja je Softić iste večeri označio policiji kao lica koja su mogla imati veze sa napadom – dvojica od njih su saslušana tek sedam godina kasnije, a treći nikad i nije saslušan;
  • ODT u Beranama nije dao nalog istražnom sudiji da se izvrši pretres stanova, prostorija, automobila lica koja je Tufik označio kao sumnjiva (prema čl. 247 i 248 ZKP-a ovo je obavezno kada se radi o NN izvršiocu, list RCG 47/06);
  • ODT u Beranama je saslušao oštećenog Tufika Softića prvi put tek sedam godina posle napada, 2014. godine, iako je tužilac imao pravo i profesionalnu obavezu da to uradi odmah (čl. 243 ZKP-a, list RCG 47/06);
  • nikada nije saslušan u svojstvu svjedoka vlasnik prostorija u kojima su pronađene palice 2007. godine, kojima je pretučen Tufik, a na okolnosti kako su dospjele kod njega, ko ih je ostavio kod njega, odakle mu;
  • tek nakon 6 godina od pronalaska palica, 2013. godine, urađena je njihova DNK-a analiza i poređenje sa DNK-a profilom Softića;
  • nije odmah pokušano da se izuzme DNK materijal napadača sa Softića, iako je Softić udaren rukom napadača u predjelu svoje ruke (čl. 230 i 243 ZKP-a, Sl. list RCG 47/06);
  • nije urađen DNK profil osumnjičenog i upoređen sa DNK profilom nađenih bejzbol palica, obzirom da je njega Softić označio kao sumnjivog;
  • ODT u Beranama i policija su napravili i propust utoliko što povrede Softića nijesu fotografisane odmah nakon što su nanijete (izgled povreda, tačna lokalizacija, rastojanje, oblik), kako bi se moglo precizirati sredstvo nanošenja povreda;
  • nakon otvaranja istrage i kvalifikacije djela kao pokušaj ubistva, tužilac u Bijelom Polju nije tražio od sudije za istragu određivanje mjera tajnog nadzora prema okrivljenima, kako bi se stvorila mogućnost prikupljanja eventualno novih dokaza (čl. 159 ZKP-a, list CG 49/10);
  • nejasna je neaktivnost od 5 (pet) godina i 6 (šest) mjeseci, tokom koje nisu preduzimane nikakve radnje od strane policije i tužilaštva u Beranama u fazi izviđaja (3.3.2008 – 15.08.2013);
  • takođe, i nakon otvaranja istrage, nijesu preduzimane nikakve mjerodavne aktivnosti od 20.10.2014. godine pa do 1.04.2015. godine, od 1.04.2015. do 28.10.2015. kada je istraga obustavljena.

Ako bude potrebno, sve ove razloge ćemo ponoviti i dokumentovati i Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava. Taj sud se, sudeći po dosadašnjoj praksi, ne bi dvoumio oko toga da li su Softiću prekršena ljudska prava.



8/11/2017 MARTINOVIĆ CASE: DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO IN CASE OF INNEFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION OF POLICE TORTURE

Foto: screenshot (YouTube)

Foto: screenshot (YouTube)

The Constitutional Court of Montenegro executed and communicated the decision in the case of unpunished police torture of Milorad Martinović. The Constitutional Court adopted Martinovic’s constitutional complaint and found that he was a victim of a violation of Article 28 of the Constitution of Montenegro and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture), both because of the torture he suffered from the police and because the State Prosecutor’s Office did not effectively investigate it ever since 24 October 2015.

The Constitutional Court ordered “the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica to take other appropriate measures and actions to enforce a fundamental, rapid and independent investigation, which should ensure the identification and prosecution of police officers of the Montenegrin Police Directorate – Special Anti-Terrorist Unit, who are suspected of committing the criminal offense of abuse at the detriment of the applicant, referred to in Article 167, paragraph 2, in relation with paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, in conjunction with the criminal offenses of grievous bodily harm under Article 151, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, and the destruction and damage to someone else’s property from Article 253, paragraph 2, regarding paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.”

The Constitutional Court ordered the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica to execute the decision within three months and to submit the report on what had been done.

Although the decision in the case of Martinović was delivered already on 25 July 2017, it was executed and communicated only three months after, on 6 November 2017, and is still not been published in the Official Gazette of Montenegro. Therefore, the quarterly deadline in which the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica is obliged to implement all necessary actions has not yet started to run. As the Constitutional Court stated in the decision that the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office did not provide for an urgent investigation and ordered them to now implement it urgently, the delay of the Constitutional Court in executing the decision and publicizing it in the Official Gazette of Montenegro does not support seriousness of the order for urgent investigation.

The Constitutional Court previously, in two related decisions on the failure of the state prosecutors to execute effective investigation of police ill-treatment of citizens Branimir Vukčević and Momčilo Baranin in Jewellers’ Street (“Zlatarska” street) ordered the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica to execute the decision within three months and to submit them the report on what has been done. As this deadline expired, the director of the HRA representing Vukčević and Baranin in that proceeding, asked the Constitutional Court to provide access to the report.

In the decision regarding the Martinović case, the Constitutional Court stated that the duty of the state prosecutor’s office was to thoroughly investigate police torture and “scrutinize the police version of the events”. However, it was concluded that in this case the competent state prosecutor in the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica obviously was not prepared to scrutinize police reports as he did not pose a single question to any of the participants:

“… The Constitutional Court considers that, although it is true that the competent state prosecutor questioned the complainant and the witness of the event, he did not pose a single question to any of them. Further, although later, in the case Kt. 1126/15, the competent state prosecutor heard all members of the Special Anti-Terrorist Units, despite the fact that, bearing in mind the footage that clearly shows how the event occurred, it is obvious that none of the police officers spoke the truth in an effort to avoid criminal responsibility, they were not asked any questions. Accordingly, there is no indication that the competent state prosecutor was prepared to examine the police report about the incident… “(page 22 of the decision).

It was also determined that the state prosecutor did not allow Martinović and the witness to identify police officers:

“What the Court considers particularly striking is that even though the applicant (at the hearing by the State Prosecution Office) and witness M.K. (during a hearing by the Police Directorate) clearly stated that they would be able to identify the respective police officers, if they had the opportunity to see them personally, nothing was done to enable them to do so” (page 22 of the decision).

Finally, it was concluded that the state prosecution, “incomprehensibly,” persistently asked the police to identify the perpetrators, although it was obliged to conduct an independent investigation and directly investigate the police:

“… persons responsible for the investigation, and those who conduct the investigation, must be independent of those who participated in the disputed event, and therefore it is incomprehensible that the State Prosecution seeks the gather of data and evidence from the head of a police unit whose members are suspected of committing a criminal offense … The Constitutional Court considers that the competent State Prosecutor’s Office conducted an investigation in a manner that does not meet the standard of independence of the investigation because it continuously required from the Police Directorate to take measures and actions to identify police officers, ignoring that police officers, from which an investigation is required, are subordinated to the same command chain as those officers who were interrogated” (page 23 of the decision).

>>>



8/11/2017 ODLUKA USTAVNOG SUDA U SLUČAJU NEDJELOTVORNE ISTRAGE POLICIJSKE TORTURE NAD MILORADOM MARTINOVIĆEM

Foto: screenshot (YouTube)

Foto: screenshot (YouTube)

Ustavni sud Crne Gore je izradio i dostavio odluku u slučaju nekažnjene policijske torture nad Miloradom Martinovićem, kojom je usvojio njegovu ustavnu žalbu i utvrdio da je žrtva kršenja čl. 28 Ustava Crne Gore i čl. 3 Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima (zabrana mučenja) kako zbog samog mučenja koje je preživio od policije, tako i zbog toga što državno tužilaštvo nije djelotvorno istražilo taj događaj od 24.10.2015. godine.

Ustavni sud je odlukom naložio „Osnovnom državnom tužilaštvu u Podgorici da preduzme druge odgovarajuće mjere i radnje, radi sprovođenja temeljne, brze i nezavisne istrage, koja treba da osigura identifikovanje i krivično gonjenje policijskih službenika Uprave policije Crne Gore – Specijalne antiterorističke jedinice, za koje se osnovano sumnja da su, na štetu podnosioca, izvršili krivično djelo mučenje iz člana 167. stav 2. u vezi stava 1. Krivičnog zakonika u sticaju sa krivičnim djelima teška tjelesna povreda iz člana 151. stav 1. Krivičnog zakonika i uništenje i oštećenje tuđe stvari iz člana 253. stav 2. u vezi stava 1. Krivičnog zakonika.“

Ustavni sud je obavezao Osnovno državno tužilaštvo u Podgorici (ODT) da u roku od tri mjeseca izvrši tu odluku i da izvještaj o tome što je preduzelo dostavi Ustavnom sudu.

Odluka u slučaju Martinović je donijeta 25. jula 2017, dostavljena je posle više od tri mjeseca 6.11.2017, a još uvijek nije objavljena u Službenom listu, pa tromjesečni rok u kome je ODT dužno da sprovede sve potrebne radnje još nije ni počeo da teče. Kako je u odluci Ustavni sud konstatovao da ODT nije hitno sprovelo istragu i naložio da je sad hitno sprovede, odugovlačenje Ustavnog suda u izradi odluke i njenom objavljivanju ne podržava ozbiljnost naredbe za hitno sprovođenje istrage.

Ustavni sud je prethodno, u odlukama o nedjelotvornom sprovođenju istrage policijske torture u Zlatarskoj ulici (slučaj Branimira Vukčevića i Momčila Baranina) naložio ODT da sprovede sve neophodne radnje u toj istrazi i ostavio tromjesečni rok da podnese izvještaj o tome što je preduzeto. Kako je taj rok nedavno istekao, direktorica HRA, punomoćnica Vukčevića i Baranina u tom postupku, zatražila je od Ustavnog suda da dostavi taj izvještaj.

U odluci u slučaju Martinović, Ustavni sud je konstatovao da je dužnost državnog tužilaštva da u istrazi policijske torture postupa temeljno i izvrši ”strogu kontrolu policijske verzije događaja”. Međutim, zaključeno je da u tom slučaju nadležni državni tužilac u ODT Podgorica očigledno nije bio spreman da preispituje policijske izvještaje jer nikome od učesnika koje je ispitivao nije postavio ni jedno pitanje:

„… Ustavni sud smatra da, iako je tačno da je nadležni državni tužilac ispitao podnosioca žalbe i očevice događaja, nikome od njih nije postavio ni jedno pitanje. Nadalje, iako je kasnije, u predmetu Kt. 1126/15, nadležni državni tužilac saslušao sve pripadnike SAJ-a, uprkos tome što je, imajući u vidu snimke na kojima se jasno vidi kako se događaj odigrao, očigledno da ni jedan od policijskih službenika nije govorio istinu, nastojeći da izbjegne krivičnu odgovornost, njima nije postavljeno nijedno pitanje. Prema tome, nema indikacija da je nadležni državni tužilac bio pripremljen da ispituje policijski izvještaj o tom događaju…“ (str. 22 odluke).

Takođe je utvrđeno da državni tužilac Martinoviću i svjedoku nije omogućio da identifikuju policijske službenike:

„Ono što Sud smatra naročito upečatljivim jeste i to da, iako su podnosilac žalbe (prilikom saslušanja od strane državnog tužilaštva) i svjedok M.K. (prilikom saslušanja od strane Uprave policije) jasno rekli da bi mogli da identifikuju dotične policijske službenike, kada bi imali priliku da ih lično vide, ništa nije urađeno da bi im se omogućilo da to i učine“ (str. 22 odluke).

Konačno, zaključeno je da je državno tužilaštvo, “neshvatljivo”, uporno tražilo od policije da identifikuje počinioce, iako je ono bilo dužno da sprovede nezavisnu istragu i da neposredno istražuje policiju:

”… osobe nadležne za sprovođenje istrage, i one koje istragu provode, moraju biti nezavisne od onih koje su učestvovale u spornom događaju, pa je, stoga, neshvatljivo da Tužilaštvo traži prikupljanje podataka i dokaza od starješine policijske jedinice, čiji su pripadnici osnovano sumnjivi da su izvršili krivično djelo… Ustavni sud smatra da je nadležno državno tužilaštvo sprovodilo istragu na način koji ne zadovoljava standard nezavisnosti istrage jer je u kontinuitetu zahtijevalo od Uprave policije da preduzme mjere i radnje u cilju identifikacije policijskih službenika, zanemarujući pri tom da su policijski službenici, od kojih se traži sprovođenje istrage, podređeni istovjetnom zapovjednom lancu kao i oni službenici koji su bili podvrgnuti istrazi“ (str. 23 odluke).

>>>



2/11/2017 ON THE INTERNATIONAL DAY TO END IMPUNITY FOR CRIMES AGAINST JOURNALISTS

Međunarodni danOn the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, Human Rights Action (HRA) reminds of the most serious crimes against journalists in Montenegro, which to date have not been effectively investigated and punished. HRA urges all who can to excerpt influence so that the perpetrators and those who ordered these crimes do not remain unpunished. HRA recalls that all murdered and attacked journalists and writer Brković wrote about organized crime and alleged links between top authorities and organized crime in Montenegro.

Murder of Duško Jovanović, editor in chief of daily Dan, remains unsolved for 13 years, and murder of Srđan Vojičić, who was killed while protecting writer Jevrem Brković, who was targeted by physical assault, had not been solved for 11 years.

In the report ““Unsolved Murder of Duško Jovanović, Director and Editor-in Chief of Daily Dan – Questions Without Answers”, published last year on the occasion of twelve years of the assassination, HRA concluded that the investigation had not been effective, that many questions remained unanswered and appealed to the authorities to engage a foreign expert to review the investigation, but this was not done to date.

Although ten years passed since the attempted murder of journalist Tufik Softić (1 November 2007 – 2 November 2017), perpetrators and person who ordered the crime have still not been found. The investigation of the attack on Softić in 2007 was suspended and the Basic Court in Podgorica recently (on 20 October 2017) found that the state violated his human rights because the attack had not been effectively investigated. In its first-instance verdict, the Court found that the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office and the Police did not undertake investigative measures at the level of the minimum European standard, in particular, that the pre-investigative period lasted for almost seven years, of which no action whatsoever had been taken for five years and six months. Once opened, the investigation had been closed after one year and three months. The state prosecutor has heard the victim only seven years after the crime occurred. Also, out of the three persons the victim reported as those who threatened him, the state prosecutor heard two of them after seven years elapsed from the crime and one was never heard at all. The DNA analysis of traces from the baseball bat, the suspected weapon, was done only six years after the bat had been found and the analysis did not include the DNA sample of one of the suspects.

Investigation of the second attack on Softić, the activation of an explosive device in front of his house in 2013 was not officially suspended, but Softić had not been informed that any new actions were taken in that investigation. Limitation of criminal prosecution expires on 11 August 2018.

Previously, the investigation of physical attacks on journalists Mladen Stojović (from 2008) had been suspended without results, beating of director of Vijesti, Željko Ivanović, (2007) had not been prosecuted convincingly, perpetrators of burning three cars of daily Vijesti (from 2011 and 2014) had not been detected, and death threats to journalist of daily Vijesti Olivera Lakić had not been punished.

During the protests in October 2015, several physical assaults on journalists have been recorded, one of which, from a total of three attacks of police officers on the editor of portal IN4S, Gojko Raičević, had been documented by video recording. None of the attacks on Raičević was investigated to date.

Last year on the International Day for the End of Impunity of Crimes Against Journalists, HRA published the report “Prosecution of attacks on journalists in Montenegro”, which presents 55 attacks on journalists in Montenegro and their processing since 2004. Until then, 1/3 of these attacks were resolved. Today, a year later, the situation is unchanged.

Unfortunately, the last year’s statement of the HRA executive director Tea Gorjanc-Prelević still remains relevant:

 “So far, unfortunately, the Euro-Atlantic integration of Montenegro has not led to progress in investigations of the most serious cases of murders and attacks on journalists and those unresolved attacks have become a feature of the state system. Due to the unwillingness of the State Prosecutor’s Office to review ineffective investigations, the burden of great expectations is again placed on the newly established Commission for Monitoring the Investigation of Attacks on Journalists. “

The Commission for Monitoring the Investigation of Attacks on Journalists was formed on 23 September 2016. It has held 11 sessions to date, adopted two reports and submitted them to the Government of Montenegro, which acknowledged them in June 2017. To date, no Commission report has been revealed to the public.

 * * *

REMINDER (from the UN web site):

The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 2 November as the ‘International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists’ in General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/163. The Resolution urged Member States to implement definite measures countering the present culture of impunity. The date was chosen in commemoration of the assassination of two French journalists in Mali on 2 November 2013.

This landmark resolution condemns all attacks and violence against journalists and media workers. It also urges Member States to do their utmost to prevent violence against journalists and media workers, to ensure accountability, bring to justice perpetrators of crimes against journalists and media workers, and ensure that victims have access to appropriate remedies. It further calls upon States to promote a safe and enabling environment for journalists to perform their work independently and without undue interference.

 



2/11/2017 – POVODOM MEĐUNARODNOG DANA ZA OKONČANJE NEKAŽNJIVOSTI ZLOČINA PROTIV NOVINARA

Međunarodni danNa Međunarodni dan za okončanje nekažnjivosti zločina protiv novinara, Akcija za ljudska prava (Human Rights Action – HRA) podsjeća na najteže zločine protiv novinara u Crnoj Gori koji do danas nijesu djelotvorno istraženi i kažnjeni i apeluje na sve, koji to mogu, da ostvare uticaj da počinioci i nalogodavci tih zločina ne ostanu nekažnjeni. Podsjećamo da su svi ubijeni ili napadnuti novinari i književnik Brković pisali o organizovanom kriminalu i navodnim vezama vrha vlasti s organizovanim kriminalom u Crnoj Gori.

Već trinaest godina nije rasvijetljeno ubistvo Duška Jovanovića, glavnog i odgovornog urednika dnevnog lista Dan, a jedanaest godina ubistvo Srđana Vojičića, koji je stradao štiteći književnika Jevrema Brkovića, koji je bio meta fizičkog napada.

HRA je u izvještaju ”Nerasvijetljeno ubistvo Duška Jovanovića – pitanja bez odgovora”, koji je objavljen prošle godine povodom dvanaest godina tog ubistva, zaključila da istraga nije djelotvorno sprovedena, da su mnoga pitanja ostala nerazjašnjena i apelovala na nadležne da angažuju inostranog stručnjaka da preispita dosadašnju istragu, ali to do danas nije učinjeno.

Iako je prošlo deset godina od pokušaja ubistva novinara Tufika Softića (1.11.2007-2.11.2017), napadači i nalogodavci još uvijek nijesu pronađeni. Istraga pokušaja ubistva novinara Softića iz 2007. godine je obustavljena, a Osnovni sud u Podgorici je nedavno (20.10.2017) utvrdio da je država prekršila njegova ljudska prava jer nije djelotvorno istražila taj napad. Sud je u prvostepenoj presudi utvrdio da državno tužilaštvo i policija nisu preduzeli mjere u skladu s minimalnim evropskim istražnim standardima, konkretno, da je prethodni istražni period trajao gotovo sedam godina, od čega nije preuzeta nikakva radnja pet godina i šest mjeseci. Istraga je obustavljena nakon godinu dana i tri mjeseca, a državni tužilac nije našao za shodno da sasluša žrtvu gotovo sedam godina od napada. Takođe, od tri osobe koje je žrtva označila policiji kao sumnjive, državni tužilac je tek nakon sedam godina saslušao dvojicu, treći nije nikada saslušan. DNK analiza bejzbol palica kojima je žrtva pretučena urađena je tek šest godina od pronalaska palica, a pri tom nije izuzet DNK materijal napadača.

Istraga drugog napada na Softića, aktiviranja eksplozivne naprave pred njegovom kućom 2013. godine nije zvanično obustavljena, ali Softić nije obaviješten da su u toj istrazi preduzimane bilo kakve nove radnje. Zastarelost krivičnog gonjenja nastupa 11.08.2018.

Prethodno je bez rezultata obustavljena istraga teške tjelesne povrede novinara Mladena Stojovića u njegovom stanu u Baru 2008. godine, prebijanje direktora Vijesti Željka Ivanovića 2007. godine nije uvjerljivo procesuirano, počinioci paljenja tri automobila dnevnog lista Vijesti 2011. i 2014. nisu otkriveni, a prijetnje smrću novinarki Vijesti Oliveri Lakić nisu kažnjene.

Prilikom protesta u oktobru 2015. godine, zabilježeno je nekoliko fizičkih napada na novinare, od kojih je jedan, od ukupno tri napada policajaca na urednika portala IN4S Gojka Raičevića, dokumentovan i video snimkom. Nijedan od napada na Raičevića do danas nije istražen.

HRA je prošle godine na Međunarodni dan za okončanje nekažnjivosti zločina protiv novinara objavila izvještaj “Procesuiranje napada na novinare”, u kome je predstavljeno 55 napada na novinare u Crnoj Gori i njihovo procesuiranje od 2004. godine. Do tada je bilo rasvijetljeno 1/3 ovih napada. Danas, godinu dana kasnije, stanje je nepromijenjeno.

Nažalost i danas je aktuelna prošlogodišnja izjava izvršne direktorice HRA Tee Gorjanc-Prelević:

”Do sada nažalost ni evro-atlantske integracije Crne Gore nisu dovele do napretka u istragama najtežih slučajeva ubistva i napada na novinare i ti neistraženi napadi postaju obilježje državnog sistema. Zbog nespremnosti državnog tužilaštva da preispita nedjelotvorne istrage, teret velikih očekivanja je ponovo na novoosnovanoj Komisiji za praćenje istraga napada na novinare”.

Komisija za praćenje istraga napada na novinare obrazovana je 23. septembra 2016. godine, do sada je održala 11 sjednica, usvojila dva izvještaja i predala ih Vladi CG koja se 1.6.2017. godine upoznala sa njima. Do danas ni jedan izvještaj Komisije nije objavljen.

* * *

PODSJETNIK (sa UN sajta):

Generalna skupština Ujedinjenih nacija proglasila je 2. novembar za ”Međunarodni dan za okončanje nekažnjivosti zločina protiv novinara” rezolucijom A/RES/68/163. Ovom rezolucijom se države članice UN pozivaju da primjene krajnje mjere kojima bi se suprotstavile postojećoj kulturi nekažnjivosti. Datum je izabran u znak sjećanja na ubistvo dva francuska novinara u Maliju 2. novembra 2013. godine.

Rezolucija osuđuje sve napade i nasilje nad novinarima i medijskim radnicima. Njome se od država članica UN zahtijeva da preduzmu sve što je u njihovoj moći da spriječe napade na novinare i medijske radnike i obezbijede odgovornost, privedu pravdi izvršioce zločina i osiguraju žrtvama pristup odgovarajućim pravnim ljekovima. Ona poziva države da promovišu bezbjedno i podsticajno okruženje za novinare da svoj posao obavljaju nezavisno i bez neprimjerenih uticaja.



22/10/2017 Determining Accountability for Breach of Judicial Ethics in Montenegro (Operation of the Commission on the Code of Judicial Ethics 2011-2016)

The Commission on the Code of Judicial Ethics in the first five years of its operation 2011-2016 did not fulfill expectations regarding strengthening impartiality and accountability of judges. On the contrary, the Commission, which was established in October 2011 as a specialized body to monitor the application of rules of judicial ethics, did not come across as impartial. The Commission’s decisions were most often based only on the statements of judges and not on objective fact-finding and sound reasoning. The Commission never initiated a single disciplinary proceeding against a judge, on occasions declared itself incompetent without providing reasons and omitted to provide interpretation of the Code that would be useful for its future implementation.

These and other conclusions result from report “Establishing accountability for breach of judicial ethics in Montenegro – Operation of the Commission on the Code of Judicial Ethics 2011-2016”, edited by Tea Gorjanc Prelević, executive director of NGO Human Rights Action (HRA). The report is available in printed form upon request from HRA.

The analysis covered all decisions made by the Commission in the five year period, a total of 47, out of which the Commission found violations of the Code in 5 cases. In 8 cases the Commission declared itself incompetent and in one case the procedure was suspended or the initiative had been rejected.

The reasoning of the Commission’s decisions was generally vague, unclear and incomplete. The decisions did not always indicate actual reasons of the complaint. Sometimes the Commission overlooked some of the allegations raised in the complaint, and often lacked clear statement as to the basis for adopting a decision. Some improvement in this regard was recorded only in 2016.

On the other side, the Judicial Council, which adopted annual reports on operation of the Commission, had in no way influenced the Commission to improve its manner of performance.

Although the Judicial Council was supposed to correct failures in the system of accountability, in accordance with its legal obligation to ”ensure accountability and professionalism of the courts and judges”, the Judicial Council declared, without a basis in law or other regulations, that neither the Council nor the Commission are competent to evaluate the conduct of judges in cases in which a final decision had been reached. Such position was supposed to justify disregarding the complaint regarding scandalously biased conduct of judges in the case in which a victim of abuse and trafficking had been sentenced in absentia to a year in prison for allegedly giving false testimony. (More details on the case of Moldovan women victim of trafficking, assessed also by CoE and OSCE, are available here).

In accordance with the conducted analysis i.e. with reached conclusions, the report contains 22 recommendations for improving the regulations and actions of the Commission and the Judicial Council.

Prior to publication, the report was submitted to the Chairman of the Commission on the Code of Judicial Ethics and member of the Judicial Council, Dobrica Sljivančanin, and members of the Commission, judges of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Hasnija Simonović and Dušanka Radović, who declined to comment and declared that the author of the report “has no legal authority to comment on the final decisions.”

HRA, however, insists on the freedom of expression in a democratic society, which includes an argumentative statements on public interest topics, such as deciding on judicial ethics by official and public bodies. The right to comment on the decisions of the Commission on the Code of Judicial Ethics is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19), the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10) and the Constitution of Montenegro (Article 47).

The report was created within the framework of the project “Judicial Reform Monitoring” supported by the European Union through the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, conducted by HRA and the Center for Monitoring and Research (CeMI) in the period from August 2014 to April 2017.

HRA publications are available here and, on request, are available and printed.



22/10/2017 Utvrđivanje odgovornosti za kršenje sudijske etike u Crnoj Gori – rad Komisije za Etički kodeks sudija (2011-2016)

Komisija za Etički kodeks sudija u prvih pet godina rada (2011-2016) nije ispunila očekivanja u pogledu jačanja nepristrasnosti i odgovornosti sudija. Naprotiv, Komisija koja je osnovana u oktobru 2011. kao specijalizovano tijelo za praćenje primjene pravila sudijske etike, odavala je utisak pristrasnosti, tako što je odluke po podnijetim inicijativama za utvrđivanje kršenja Kodeksa najčešće zasnivala samo na izjašnjenju sudija, bez objektivnog utvrđivanja činjeničnog stanja i sadržajnog obrazloženja. Nije pokrenula ni jedan disciplinski postupak, bez obrazloženja se proglašavala nenadležnom i propuštala je prilike za tumačenja Kodeksa koja bi bila značajna za njegovu buduću primjenu.

Ovi i drugi zaključci predstavljeni su u izvještaju “Odgovornost za kršenje sudijske etike u Crnoj Gori – rad Komisije za Etički kodeks sudija (2011-2016)“, koji je uredila mr Tea Gorjanc Prelević, izvršna direktorka NVO Akcije za ljudska prava (HRA), koji je dostupan i u štampanom obliku.

Analizom su obuhvaćene sve odluke koje je Komisija donijela u navedenom periodu, ukupno 47, od kojih je u 5 slučajeva utvrđeno kršenje Kodeksa. U 8 slučajeva Komisija se proglasila nenadležnom, a u po jednom slučaju postupak obustavljen, odnosno inicijativa odbačena.

Ocjena HRA je da su obrazloženja odluka Komisije po pravilu bila nedovoljna, nejasna i nepotpuna, kao i da se iz njih nije moglo uvijek zaključiti na što su se inicijative konkretno odnosile, odnosno na osnovu čega je Komisija donijela odluku, kao ni zbog čega nije odlučeno o svim pritužbama koje su istaknute u inicijativama. Izvjesno poboljšanje u ovom pogledu je zabilježeno tek 2016. godine.

S druge strane, Sudski savjet, koji je usvajao godišnje izvještaje o radu Komisije, ni na koji način nije uticao na Komisiju da unaprijedi način utvrđivanja činjeničnog stanja, zaključivanja i obrazloženja.

Iako je trebalo da koriguje propuste u sistemu utvrđivanja odgovornosti, u skladu s zakonskom obavezom da obezbjeđuje odgovornost i profesionalnost sudova i sudija, Sudski savjet je čak, bez utemeljenja u zakonu ili drugim propisima, proglasio da ni Savjet ni Komisija nisu nadležni da ocjenjuju postupanje sudija u pravosnažno okončanim predmetima. Ovakav stav je, pored ostalog, doveo do ignorisanja inicijative o skandalozno pristrasnom postupanju sudije u slučaju u kome je žrtva zlostavljanja i trgovine ljudima pravosnažno osuđena u odsustvu na godinu dana zatvora zbog navodnog davanja lažnog iskaza.

U skladu sa sprovedenom analizom, tj. izvedenim zaključcima, u izvještaju su date i 22 preporuke za unapređenje propisa i postupanja Komisije i Sudskog savjeta.

Izvještaj je prije objavljivanja dostavljen na komentar predsjedavajućem članu Komisije za etiku i članu Sudskog savjeta, Dobrici Šljivančaninu, i članicama Komisije, sutkinjama Vrhovnog suda Crne Gore, Hasniji Simonović i Dušanki Radović, koji su se izjasnili stavom da autorka izvještaja „nema zakonska ovlašćenja komentarisanja obrazloženja donijetih odluka koje su konačne i pravosnažne.“

HRA pak insistira na slobodi izražavanja u demokratskom društvu, koja uključuje argumentovano izjašnjavanje o temama od javnog interesa, kao što je i odlučivanje o sudijskoj etici od strane zvaničnih i javnih tijela. Pravo na komentarisanje odluka Komisije za etički kodeks imamo na osnovu Univerzalne deklaracije o ljudskim pravima (čl. 19), Međunarodnog pakta o građanskim i političkim pravima (čl. 19), Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima (čl. 10) i Ustava Crne Gore (čl. 47).

Izvještaj je nastao u okviru projekta “Monitoring reforme pravosuđa” koji su podržale Evropska unija posredstvom Delegacije Evropske unije u Crnoj Gori i Ambasada Kraljevine Holandije, a koji su od avgusta 2014. do aprila 2017. godine sproveli HRA i Centar za monitoring i istraživanje (CeMI).

Sve publikacije HRA dostupne su ovdje, a na zahtjev su dostupne i štampane.



20/10/2017 COURT ADOPTS CLAIM OF JOURNALIST TUFIK SOFTIĆ AGAINST THE STATE OF MONTENEGRO

TufikThe Basic Court in Podgorica adopted the claim for damages filed by journalist Tufik Softic against the state of Montenegro due to state failure to provide effective investigation of his attempted murder since 2007.

Judge Milena Brajović awarded compensation to Softić in the amount of 7000€ “in the name of incurred and future mental suffering due to violation of personal right to ineffective investigation and in the name of a threatened and future fear of renewed attempted murder”.

This is the first time ever in Montenegro that damages are awarded for lack of effective investigation.

”HRA is pleased the court confirmed our claims that the attempted murder of the journalist was not investigated at the level of minimum European standard of the right to life, which is binding on Montenegro. Unfortunately, the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office found earlier that our claims were unfounded and that everything that was supposed to be done in that case had been done. The today’s verdict should encourage state authorities to ensure an effective investigation of the attack on Softić and also that never again an attack on a journalist is investigated so superficially”, stated Tea Gorjanc-Prelevic, HRA executive director.

Regarding deficiencies of the investigation, the court found that the pre-investigative period lasted for almost seven years, of which no action whatsoever had been taken for five years and six months. Once opened, the investigation had been closed after one year and three months. The state prosecutor has heard the victim only seven years after the crime occurred. Also, out of the three persons the victim reported as those who threatened him, the state prosecutor heard two of them after seven years elapsed from the crime and one was never heard at all. The DNA analysis of traces from the baseball bat, the suspected weapon, was done only six years after the bat had been found and the analysis did not include the DNA sample of one of the suspects.

The appeal will be filed, however, regarding the awarded amount.

The trial on the lawsuit of journalist Softić began on 23 February 2017.

Tufik Softić in this case was represented by lawyer Dalibor Tomović in cooperation with HRA, thanks to the financial support of the Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) from London.

In addition to the civil claim, Softić in January 2016 filed a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, on the occasion of abolishment of investigation of attempted murder. Constitutional complaint requested that the Constitutional Court based on finding that he was a victim of human rights violation, request the relevant investigating authorities to take all necessary measures and actions in order to identify the perpetrators in accordance with the authority of that Court. The Constitutional Court has not yet decided on appeal although the legal deadline expired in July.

Journalist Softić has been attacked for the first time in 2007 and also for the second time in 2013, when in the yard of his family home an explosive device has been activated, which caused minor material damage. The investigation also did not lead to discovery of the perpetrators.

The first instance judgment in Montenegrin is available here.



20/10/2017 USVOJENA TUŽBA NOVINARA TUFIKA SOFTIĆA PROTIV DRŽAVE CRNE GORE

Slika 2Osnovni sud u Podgorici je usvojio tužbu novinara Tufika Softića protiv države za naknadu štete zbog propusta državnog tužilaštva i policije da sprovedu djelotvornu istragu napada na njega od 2007. godine.

Sudija Osnovnog suda u Podgorici, Milena Brajović, dosudila je Softiću 7000€ “na ime pretrpljenih i budućih duševnih bolova zbog povrede prava ličnosti tužioca usled nedjelotvorne istrage i na ime pretrpljenog i budućeg straha zbog opasnosti od ponovnog pokušaja lišenja života.”

Ovo je prva presuda u istoriji crnogorske sudske prakse kojom je tužiocu dosuđena nematerijalna šteta zbog nedjelotvorne istrage napada.

”Raduje nas što je prvostepeni sud potvrdio naše tvrdnje da pokušaj ubistva novinara Tufika Softića nije istražen na nivou minimalnog evropskog standarda prava na život, koji je Crna Gora bila dužna da obezbijedi. Nažalost, VDT je na naše tvrdnje, koje smo im uputili prije podnošenja tužbe, odgovorilo da su neosnovane i da je urađeno sve što je trebalo uraditi u cilju otkrivanja napadača. Presuda bi sada morala da podstakne sve nadležne u državi da obezbijede da se napad na Softića djelotvorno istraži i da se nikad više tako površno i nezainteresovano ne priđe istrazi napada na novinara”, izjavila je Tea Gorjanc-Prelević, izvršna direktorica HRA.

Žalba će biti izjavljena u pogledu visine dosuđenog iznosa.

Suđenje po tužbi novinara Softića je počelo 23. februara ove godine.

Tufika Softića je zastupao advokat Dalibor Tomović u saradnji sa Akcijom za ljudska prava iz Podgorice, zahvaljujući finansijskoj podršci organizacije Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) iz Londona.

Pored ove parnične tužbe, Softić je u januaru 2016. godine podnio i ustavnu žalbu Ustavnom sudu Crne Gore, posle obustavljanja istrage pokušaja ubistva. Ustavnom žalbom je zahtijevao od Ustavnog suda da na bazi utvrđenja da je bio žrtva kršenja ljudskih prava, naredi nadležnim istražnim organima da preduzmu sve neophodne mjere i radnje u cilju otkrivanja počinilaca u skladu sa ovlašćenjem koji taj sud ima. Ustavni sud još nije odlučio po žalbi, iako je zakonski rok za odlučivanje istekao u julu.

Novinar Softić je ponovo napadnut 2013. godine, kada je u dvorištu njegove porodične kuće aktivirana eksplozivna naprava, koja je pričinila manju materijalnu štetu. Istraga nije dovela ni do otkrivanja počinilaca ovog napada.

Prvostepena presuda je dostupna ovdje.

 – 22/2/2017 POČETAK SUĐENJA TUFIKA SOFTIĆA PROTIV DRŽAVE ZA NAKNADU ŠTETE



19/10/2017 10 YEARS FROM ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MONTENEGRO

On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of Montenegro as an independent state, Human Rights Action (HRA) emphasizes that the Constitution, following the 2013 amendments, improved the conditions for de-politicization of the judiciary and the state prosecution, but not enough, since members of the Judicial and Prosecutors’ councils, prominent lawyers, may also be members of political parties and former political party officials. HRA believes that it is in the interest of liberation of the judiciary and prosecution from political influence to ensure that within these bodies there are not persons with strong political ties.

This failure should also be considered in view of the limited scope of the judicial reform in Montenegro, which began in 2000 and the fact that the objective, independent, professional, accountable and efficient judiciary, accepting European standards, has not yet been achieved.

Now, before the expiry of the mandate of the Prosecutors’ Council in January and the Judicial Council’s in July 2018, amendments of respective laws should prescribe additional condition for the political independence of council members among prominent lawyers, thus preventing members and officials of political parties from continuing their career at the top of the judiciary that should remain independent of political influence. It should also be ensured that at least one member of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council be representatives of NGOs, aiming at more transparent and accountable work of these bodies.

Regarding the Constitutional Human Rights guarantees, the Constitution did not provide those guarantees at the level of the previously governing Charter of Human and Minority Rights and Civil Liberties of Serbia and Montenegro (so called “Small Charter”), HRA highlighted immediately after the adoption of the Constitution in November 2007. There remained no “guarantee of acquired rights”, that is, a guarantee that the achieved level of human and national minorities’ rights will not be reduced. Also, the Small Charter did not limit marriage to the union of a man and woman, as the Constitution of Montenegro, but defined it as a community based on the freely given consent of the future spouses, which allowed introduction of the marriage of persons of the same sex.

Other omissions in the provisions on human rights in the Constitution of Montenegro, which HRA highlighted in the initiative for its amendments in November 2007, in practice are being overcome by direct application of international treaties and practices by international bodies, in particular of the European Court of Human Rights, to which judges in Montenegro now adhere more often and better than ten years ago. However, we still believe that the guarantees of human rights in the Constitution should be prescribed more substantially and precisely.

Finally, when amending the Constitution in 2013, the recommendation of the Venice Commission was not adopted to improve the guarantee of independence of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (Ombudsman) by the fact that a person for this important function for the protection of human rights would be elected by a qualified 2/3 majority, as was envisaged for the election of judges of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme State Prosecutor and four members of the Judicial Council.

CONTEXT: During 2006, HRA attempted to contribute to the introduction of quality guarantees of human rights in the Constitution of Montenegro. We participated in the debate on the first, expert draft of the Constitution, and then in the public debate on the Draft Constitution. Although the original Draft was considerably improved, human rights guarantees have not reached the level of the Small Charter, although that had been promised to the Council of Europe at the time. The Constitution failed to incorporate the formerly existing guarantee of acquired rights, instructions for the interpretation of human and minority rights in accordance with international standards and practice of international bodies, space for enabling marriage of persons of the same sex. The Constitution does not contain: a precise guarantee of the right to life, the right to a judicial appeal in every case of deprivation of liberty (habeas corpus), prohibition of humiliating and inhumane punishment, prohibition of detention for debt, right to effective legal remedy in the event of a violation of human rights and all guarantees of the right to a fair trial.

>>>



19/10/2017 10 GODINA OD USVAJANJA USTAVA CRNE GORE

Povodom 10 godina od usvajanja Ustava Crne Gore kao nezavisne države, NVO Akcija za ljudska prava (HRA) ističe da su Ustavom, poslije amandmana usvojenih 2013. godine, unaprijeđeni uslovi za depolitizaciju sudstva i tužilaštva, ali nedovoljno, jer je dozvoljeno da članovi Sudskog i Tužilačkog savjeta, istaknuti pravnici, budu i članovi političkih stranaka i bivši funkcioneri političkih stranaka. HRA smatra da je u interesu oslobađanja sudstva i tužilaštva od političkog uticaja neophodno obezbijediti da u ovim tijelima ne budu osobe s jakim političkim vezama.

Ovaj propust treba posmatrati i u svijetlu ograničenih dometa reforme pravosuđa koja u Crnoj Gori traje od 2000. godine i činjenice da zadati cilj, nezavisno, profesionalno, odgovorno i efikasno pravosuđe, koje prihvata evropske standarde, još nije postignut.

Sada bi, prije nego što Tužilačkom savjetu istekne mandat u januaru, a Sudskom savjetu u julu 2018. godine, izmjenom zakona trebalo propisati dodatni uslov političke nezavisnosti članova savjeta iz reda istaknutih pravnika, i tako spriječiti da članovi i funkcioneri političkih stranaka nastavljaju karijeru u vrhu pravosuđa koje treba da bude nezavisno od političkog uticaja. Takođe bi trebalo obezbijediti da bar po jedan član/ica Sudskog, odnosno Tužilačkog savjeta budu predstavnici NVO, u cilju odgovornijeg i otvorenijeg rada ovih tijela.

Što se tiče Ustavnih garancija ljudskih prava, HRA je odmah po usvajanju Ustava u novembru 2007. ukazala da Ustav nije obezbijedio te garancije na nivou prethodno važeće Povelje o ljudskim i manjinskim pravima i građanskim slobodama Srbije i Crne Gore (Mala Povelja). Prije svega, izostalo je ”jemstvo stečenih prava”, tj. garancija da se dostignuti nivo ljudskih i manjinskih prava neće smanjivati. Takođe, Mala Povelja brak nije ograničavala na zajednicu muškarca i žene, kao Ustav Crne Gore, već ga je definisala kao zajednicu zasnovanu na slobodnoj volji budućih supružnika, što je omogućavalo uvođenje bračne zajednice osoba istog pola.

Drugi propusti u odredbama o ljudskim pravima u Ustavu Crne Gore, na koje je HRA ukazala u inicijativi za njegove izmjene i dopune 2007. godine, u praksi se prevazilaze neposrednom primjenom međunarodnih ugovora i prakse međunarodnih tijela, posebno Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, na koju se sada sudije u Crnoj Gori pozivaju više i bolje nego prije deset godina. Međutim, i dalje smatramo da bi garancije ljudskih prava u Ustavu trebalo da su propisane preciznije i sadržajnije.

Konačno, prilikom izmjena Ustava 2013. godine nije usvojena preporuka Venecijanske komisije da se unaprijedi garancija nezavisnosti Zaštitnika/ce ljudskih prava i sloboda (Ombudsmana) tako što bi se i osoba za ovu važnu funkciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava birala kvalifikovanom, 2/3 većinom, kao što je te godine amandmanima predviđeno za izbor sudija Ustavnog suda, Vrhovnog državnog tužioca i četiri člana/ice Sudskog savjeta.

 

KONTEKST: HRA je tokom 2006. godine nastojala da doprinese uvođenju kvalitetnih garancija ljudskih prava u Ustav Crne Gore. Učestvovali smo u raspravi o prvom, ekspertskom nacrtu Ustava, a zatim i u javnoj raspravi o Nacrtu ustava. Iako je prvobitni Nacrt značajno poboljšan, garancije ljudskih prava nijesu dostigle nivo Povelje o ljudskim i manjinskim pravima i građanskim slobodama Srbije i Crne Gore – Male Povelje, kao što je bilo obećano Savjetu Evrope da će biti učinjeno. Izostalo je jemstvo stečenih prava, uputstvo za tumačenje ljudskih i manjinskih prava u skladu sa međunarodnim standardima i praksom međunarodnih tijela, prostor za omogućavanje braka osobama istog pola. Tekst Ustava ne sadrži: preciznu garanciju prava na život, pravo na žalbu sudu u svakom slučaju lišenja slobode (habeas corpus), zabranu ponižavajućeg i nečovječnog kažnjavanja, zabranu zatvora zbog duga, pravo na djelotvorni pravni lijek za slučaj kršenja ljudskih prava i neke važne garancije pravičnog suđenja.

>>>



10/10/2017 SVJETSKI DAN MENTALNOG ZDRAVLJA – RTCG PRIKAZUJE FILM ”VAN IZOLACIJE”

photo za filmNa Svjetski dan mentalnog zdravlja, Akcija za ljudska prava (HRA) želi da skrene pažnju da je osobama sa mentalnim oboljenjima neophodna podrška, pažnja i razumijevanje kako porodice, tako i nadležnih državnih vlasti i cijelog društva u liječenju i ostvarivanju prava na dostojanstven život utemeljen na poštovanju ljudskih prava.

TVCG 1 će večeras premijerno prikazati dokumentarni film „Van izolacije“, u kome se govori o teškoćama sa kojima se susreću osobe sa mentalnim oboljenjima. Film je nastao u okviru projekta „Van izolacije – ostvarivanje prava pacijenata sa mentalnim oboljenjima“, koji su od januara 2016. do juna 2017. godine izvele nevladine organizacije Akcija za ljudska prava (HRA), Centar za žensko i mirovno obrazovanje (ANIMA) i Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) iz Budimpešte, uz podršku Evropske komisije posredstvom Delegacije Evropske unije u Crnoj Gori i opštine Kotor. Film će biti prikazan na prvom programu TVCG sa početkom u 20:45h.

Danas koristimo priliku da podsjetimo da je neophodno dodatno obrazovanje stanovništva o mentalnim oboljenjima jer neznanje dovodi do straha i sramote, pogoršanja bolesti, stigmatizacije i diskriminacije osoba s mentalnim oboljenjima. Prošle godine smo objavili da gotovo dvije trećine stanovnika Crne Gore nije raspolagalo osnovnim znanjima o mentalnim bolestima, jedna trećina je bila ubijeđena u pogrešne stavove (kao npr. da je mentalno oboljela osoba najčešće opasna za ljude oko sebe ili da osoba koja se oporavila od mentalnog oboljenja nije sposobna da se vrati na posao), dok druga trećina nije imala stav.

Ljudska prava osoba sa mentalnim oboljenjima su najčešće zaštićena kao prava osoba sa psiho-socijalnim invaliditetom. Ovo znači da nije dopušteno da se takve osobe lišavaju poslovne sposobnosti, niti da se liječe bez informisane saglasnosti. Zabranjeno je i da se u njihovom liječenju primjenjuje prinuda, kao i da budu primorane na život u psihijatrijskoj bolnici jer nemaju gdje drugo da borave. Potrebno je da se osobe sa mentalnim oboljenjima uz odgovarajuću podršku uključe u odlučivanje o sopstvenom liječenju i životu uopšte i da im se omogući život u zajednici u skladu sa međunarodnim standardima koji obavezuju Crnu Goru. Podržavamo početak napora Ministarstva zdravlja da izradi plan deinstitucionalizacije pacijenata iz Specijalne bolnice za psihijatriju u Kotoru.

U okviru projekta ”Van izolacije – ostvarivanje prava pacijenata sa mentalnim oboljenjima”, izrađeni su i izvještaj o poštovanju ljudskih prava pacijenata smještenih u stacionarnim psihijatrijskim ustanovama u Crnoj Gori i Akcioni plan za jačanje radno-okupacione terapije u Specijalnoj bolnici za psihijatriju u Kotoru, a finansirani su i uspješno sprovedeni projekti lokalnih NVO koje su neposredno pomogle izvođenje raznih aktivnosti  u skladu sa Akcionim planom. U Bolnici su održana i tri javna predavanja u cilju unaprjeđenja informisanosti i razvijanja svijesti o pravima i potrebama osoba sa mentalnim oboljenjima. Izrađeni su i izvještaji „Modeli deinstitucionalizacije i zaštite mentalnog zdravlja u zajednici“ i „Oduzimanje poslovne sposobnosti u Crnoj Gori“. Konačno, sprovedena su još dva istraživanja i to o pacijentkinjama s mentalnim oboljenjima, kao i fokusirano anketiranje ljekara i pacijenata o diskriminaciji i drugim kršenjima prava osoba sa mentalnim oboljenjima.

Nadamo se da će dostignuća ovog projekta korisititi nadležnim institucijama u postupku budućeg usklađivanja propisa i postupanja prema osobama sa mentalnim oboljenjima sa međunarodnim standardima  ljudskih prava.