State prosecutors and officers of the Police Administration committed procedural failures in the case concerning the summoning of RTCG portal columnist Duško Kovačević for an informational interview over a Facebook post in which he criticized the Director of the Police Administration, Lazar Šćepanović.

The state prosecutor ordered the police to establish the identity of the author without first assessing whether a criminal offence had been committed. The police then exceeded the prosecutor’s instruction by collecting statements from Kovačević, even though they had not been authorized to do so. This was stated by the Supreme State Prosecutor, Milorad Marković, in a letter to Human Rights Action (HRA).

The letter emphasizes that the state prosecutor from the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica made an omission by failing to determine, before issuing instructions to the police, whether there were any grounds for suspicion that the author’s actions contained elements of a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio. It further notes that the prosecutor requested that police officers notify him once they had established the author’s identity so that he could provide further instructions for subsequent action.

However, although the prosecutor’s order referred solely to identification, officers of the Police Administration arbitrarily undertook the step of collecting statements. As Kovačević stated, no one asked him to confirm his identity; instead, he was asked whether he had threatened the Director of the Police Administration.

As a result of such conduct, Kovačević was forced to explain that the published text did not contain threats against the police director, even though it was entirely clear from its content that it constituted criticism rather than a threat. In this regard, Human Rights Action (HRA) also addressed the Supreme State Prosecutor, pointing out irregularities in the actions of the competent authorities.

These failures by the state prosecutor and the Police Administration sent the public the wrong message — that criticism of public officials is a dangerous activity — which in itself undermines freedom of expression. This is particularly problematic when those responsible for protecting citizens’ human rights put those rights into question through their own conduct.

Nevertheless, it is very important that the failures in this case have been established. It is expected that this will serve as a clear message that similar situations must not be repeated and that the competent authorities should take appropriate measures against those who exceeded their powers.

Furthermore, both the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Police Administration should directly issue an apology to Duško Kovačević for the unnecessary distress he experienced.

Reasoned public criticism falls within the scope of freedom of expression, which state authorities must protect instead of mobilizing the criminal-law apparatus of state repression against it.