HRA AND WRC ON THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COUNCIL FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF POLICE WORK REGARDING THE MASS MURDER IN CETINJE: DECISIVELY PREVENT THE REPETITION OF THE SAME MISTAKES
HRA AND WRC ON THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COUNCIL FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF POLICE WORK REGARDING THE MASS MURDER IN CETINJE: DECISIVELY PREVENT THE REPETITION OF THE SAME MISTAKES
The Council for Civilian Oversight of Police Work published, after 11 months, the conclusions of its review of a complaint submitted by Action for Human Rights (HRA) and the Women’s Rights Center (WRC) on January 24, 2025. The complaint requested the establishment of the factual situation and an assessment of the application of police powers in responding to the mass crime in Cetinje, which occurred on January 1, 2025.
HRA and WRC support all of the Council’s conclusions and recommendations and join the call for the Prime Minister to establish a commission that would have access to all necessary information to examine the causes that led to two mass murders in Cetinje and to formulate appropriate recommendations for all state authorities to prevent the recurrence of similar tragic events.
The facts established by the Council show that the same or similar mistakes were repeated despite the experience of the mass murder in Cetinje, in Medovina in 2022. Two and a half years later, in January 2025, there was the same insufficient number of police officers in Cetinje—11 of them—not all of whom even participated in the search for the killer. The police call-recording device (register phone/recording system) continued to log calls with delays.
While the perpetrator of the 2022 massacre did not have his permit to carry weapons revoked in time, despite having been finally convicted of violent conduct, the second mass killer in 2025 was not promptly prosecuted for illegal possession of weapons after such weapons were found in his possession. Nearly 14 months passed from the seizure of the illegal weapons (in 2022) to the filing of the indictment proposal (in 2024). Therefore, we join the Council’s call for the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the Prosecutorial Council, to examine the actions of the competent state prosecutor in that case.
With regard to both mass murders, the public has not been informed of the results of the actions taken by the State Prosecutor’s Office, and we therefore expect it to finally address this matter with an appropriate public statement.
Although the Police Administration cooperated with the Council for Civilian Oversight of Police Work, not all requested documents were provided to the Council, and there were delays in submitting the necessary documentation. All of this ultimately resulted in nearly a year passing before an assessment of the application of police powers was reached—an assessment that is still not complete.
We expect the Police Administration in the future to diligently provide documentation to the Council for Civilian Oversight of Police Work, so that this body can perform its function more quickly and contribute to the necessary reforms.
Of the five questions for which WRC and HRA requested answers, the Council did not provide an opinion on the reasons the police used to justify the prolonged search for the killer in Cetinje (five and a half hours), nor was it reliably established how he obtained illegal weapons and ammunition.
With regard to the first question—who informed the police about the killings in Cetinje on January 1, when and in what manner, and how police officers acted upon those reports—the Council’s conclusions state that 15 calls were recorded between 5:26 p.m. and 5:58 p.m., as well as a total of 108 calls received on the day of the killings after 5:26 p.m. It was noted that all recordings from before, during, and after the mass crime were seized, and that data on police movements were provided.
As for the recording of incoming calls to the police (the so-called call-recording system, “registrofon”), it was established that the device deviates by 56 seconds from real time, meaning that calls are recorded inaccurately. We recall that after the mass crime in Medovina on August 12, 2022, it was also determined that this device deviated by 4 minutes and 35 seconds from real time. It is necessary to establish the reasons for the chronic inaccuracy of this device and to publicly disclose whether it now records the correct time or not.
We support the Council’s recommendation that, when there are objections to police conduct, the police should publicly disclose the content of calls made to 122 and the content of conversations with officers of the Police Administration’s duty services. This would indeed contribute to greater transparency, public trust, and the resolution of identified problems in the work of this public service.
In response to the question regarding the number of operational police officers at the time of the killings in Cetinje, the Council clearly states that the number of police officers in Cetinje on January 1 at the time of the mass crime (11) was not sufficient “to adequately respond to the event at the outset.” Regarding what was done to improve the security situation in Cetinje after 2022, the Council found that the organization of police work had been “significantly improved,” but that on January 1, 2025, between 5 and 6 p.m., an organizational “gap” arose between shifts, which led to insufficient initial readiness of the police to respond to the commission of the criminal offense.
We consider it unacceptable that at any time only 11 police officers were responsible for securing that city.
With regard to the fact that the Police Administration failed for five and a half hours to locate and arrest the perpetrator of the mass murder in Cetinje, the Council did not assess whether that period was excessively long, but instead cited the Police Administration’s explanations of the actions taken during that time.
It was not established how the perpetrator of the criminal offense obtained illegal weapons and ammunition. The Council stated that the pistol most likely belonged, in illegal possession, to his late uncle, whose house was located near the perpetrator’s family home.
The State Prosecutor’s Office conducted expert examinations of both the perpetrator’s weapon and phone, but the results of these analyses have not been made public to date, nor were they available to the Council; they remain with the State Prosecutor’s Office. We call on the State Prosecutor’s Office to inform the public of their findings.
We recall our earlier demands related to more effective control over the acquisition of weapons, the issuance and review of permits for possession of weapons, the manner of storage and access to weapons, including strengthened oversight of procedures for issuing membership cards and certificates by shooting clubs, and the introduction of high taxes on the ownership and possession of weapons. We also join the Council in insisting on the urgent adoption of a new Law on Weapons, strengthening administrative capacities, more effective control of legal and illegal arms, and the proactive seizure of weapons from persons who exhibit risky behavior, especially those reported for violence, as well as in noting support for victims’ initiatives for the so-called “Marko and Mašan Law,” with a recommendation that the Ministry of the Interior engage in direct dialogue with families.
With regard to the final question, it was stated that there had been no reports against the perpetrator of the mass crime for domestic violence.
On June 26, 2025, based on a report by Internal Control dated June 20, 2025, the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Cetinje opened a case to examine police conduct in connection with the mass murder of January 1, 2025. We call on the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office to inform the public about the progress and status of this case.
HRA and WRC will seek to monitor the implementation of the Council’s recommendations, in the interest of justice, truth, security, and the dignity of all citizens and the families of the victims, who for years have been demanding a decisive state response to mass murders in Cetinje.
English