N16.T2 – Who Is Responsible for the Escape of Miloš Medenica?
HRA NEWSLETTER 16 – TOPIC 2
The escape of Miloš Medenica on the day the judgment was delivered, 28 January 2026, despite the fact that he was subject to a measure prohibiting him from leaving his apartment, pointed to serious shortcomings in the implementation of supervision measures, as well as to a troubling tendency of the Police Directorate to evade responsibility.
After the first-instance judgment had not been rendered within three years of the filing of the indictment, the High Court in Podgorica lifted Medenica’s detention on 17 October 2025 and imposed a supervision measure – a ban on leaving the apartment – in accordance with Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
The execution of this measure falls within the competence of the Police Directorate, as clearly prescribed by Article 168, paragraph 2 of the CPC: “The measure prohibiting leaving the apartment … shall be executed by the police.”
It is evident that the Police Directorate failed to exercise adequate care in the execution of this measure, even though it concerned a high-profile case that was the focus of public attention.
No explanation has been provided as to why the police did not anticipate the risk of escape in the event of a conviction, nor has it been clarified who is responsible for this failure. Given that Medenica was on trial for serious criminal offences related to organized crime, it should have been foreseeable that he could be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. Previously, Medenica had already been unavailable to state authorities while undergoing medical treatment in Belgrade during the period from the initiation of the criminal investigation by the Special State Prosecutor’s Office on 19 April 2022 until his arrest at Golubovci Airport on 25 May 2022.
While in democratic countries such failures typically lead to the resignation of police directors, the Police Directorate of Montenegro attempted, through its public statements, to shift responsibility onto the High Court in Podgorica. The police argued that responsibility lay with the court because the first-instance judgment had not been delivered within three years, while Medenica was still in detention, and because the court had allegedly “at no point, through any act or correspondence, requested verification of the supervision measure or a report from the Podgorica Security Department.”
However, the fact that the High Court in Podgorica did not render a judgment within three years, nor requested reports on the execution of the supervision measure, cannot justify the failure of the police to fulfil their statutory obligation to supervise the defendant and to take appropriate measures to prevent his escape.
Medenica’s escape also prompted a reaction from Prime Minister Milojko Spajić, who described the omission as unacceptable and announced an urgent meeting with the Director of the Police Directorate and the relevant minister in order to establish responsibility. In response, Minister Danilo Šaranović requested that representatives of the judiciary, the National Security Agency (ANB), and the Minister of Justice also attend the meeting. To date, however, it has not been announced whether such a meeting has taken place.
When a high-risk defendant escapes while under police supervision, European practice shows that leadership assumes responsibility in order to preserve institutional credibility. The absence of accountability for such serious failures undermines public trust in Montenegro’s state institutions and sends a message of impunity for organized crime.
English