Human Rights Action (HRA) protests the harassment of columnist Duško Kovačević, who, by order of the state prosecutor, was summoned for an informational interview at the police station because of publicly expressed criticism of the work of the Director of the Police Administration.

In this regard, HRA has addressed the Supreme State Prosecutor with a request to urgently examine the circumstances of this case and inform the public of the conclusions, as well as to issue clear instructions to state prosecutors on the application of international standards on freedom of expression, in order to prevent further unfounded harassment of government critics and protect freedom of expression.

Duško Kovačević was summoned to the police yesterday over the article “Better than Escape,” published on his Facebook profile on 1 February. He was informed by phone that he was being summoned by order of the state prosecutor due to alleged threats against the Director of the Police Administration, although the post obviously contains no threat whatsoever. He was placed in the position of having to explain to the police that his public Facebook comment did not threaten the police director, although this is entirely clear from the comment itself. The state prosecutor should have reached that conclusion simply by reading Kovačević’s text.

Although the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office has since announced that his actions contain no elements of a criminal offence, the damage has already been done — both to Kovačević personally and to freedom of expression in Montenegro.

Montenegro must not allow the practice of summoning journalists, columnists, and citizens for police or prosecutorial questioning because of expressing opinions on matters of public interest, especially when this concerns the work of public officials, who are required to tolerate a higher level of criticism. Such practice is contrary to the standards of the European Court of Human Rights and encourages self-censorship, thereby endangering the democratic order.

We remind that criminal-law repression in the area of freedom of expression may be justified only in exceptional cases, such as hate speech or incitement to violence, which is clearly not present in this case.

In addition, we point to procedural shortcomings in the conduct of the police. Kovačević did not receive a written summons stating the reason clearly, nor was he informed of his right to have a lawyer present during questioning, and the record did not specify the criminal offence for which he had been summoned nor that the summons had been issued by order of the state prosecutor.

The continuation of the practice of summoning citizens for questioning would turn the state prosecution service into an instrument for suppressing critical opinion, since even the very act of summoning someone for an informational interview because of expressed criticism produces an inappropriate intimidating effect on all citizens.