N17.T7 – How Did Judges and State Prosecutors Handle Torture Cases?
HRA NEWSLETTER 17 – TOPIC 7
Human Rights Action (HRA) published the report “Effectiveness of Investigations into Ill-Treatment in Montenegro 2022–2025,” analysing criminal proceedings initiated in response to allegations of torture, ill-treatment, and coercion of confessions by state officials between 2022 and 2025.
During this period, 268 cases were opened against at least 424 police and prison officers. Indictments were filed in every fifth case, nearly half of the complaints were dismissed, while almost one third of the cases remained unresolved. An increase in the number of complaints was also recorded—75 complaints were received in 2025 alone, four times more than in 2022.
However, the report indicates that the conduct of state prosecutors and judges remains inconsistent and that the quality of prosecution varies significantly from case to case.
Regarding state prosecutors and the State Prosecutor’s Office, the report notes certain improvements. A binding instruction issued in May 2024 by the Supreme State Prosecutor contributed to greater efficiency in newly opened cases, increasing the indictment rate from 9.2% in 2023 to between 27% and 32% in 2024 and 2025. In some cases, prosecutors demonstrated greater proactivity in collecting evidence and obtaining medical documentation.
At the same time, the report records instances of prosecutorial passivity, particularly during main hearings, where advisers were sometimes sent to attend witness hearings but did not actively participate in the proceedings. Cases were also noted in which prosecutors sent substitutes who were unfamiliar with the case files, as well as instances of absence from trials.
The report also highlights the dismissal of criminal complaints on grounds of alleged statutory limitation, even in situations where, according to available information, the statute of limitations had not expired.
It further points to prolonged preliminary inquiries without a clear procedural direction, insufficient use of binding instructions issued by prosecutorial superiors, the rare use of audio-visual recording of interrogations, and only occasional implementation of identification procedures. In some cases, due to insufficient evidence collected at the early stages of the proceedings, trials effectively turned into extensions of the investigation, making it more difficult to prove the charges.
With regard to courts and judges, the monitoring recorded examples of efficient case management. Some judges actively led proceedings, sought to prevent delays, and issued decisions within reasonable timeframes.
Nevertheless, frequent adjournments of hearings were recorded, along with difficulties in securing the presence of witnesses due to inadequate cooperation with the Police Directorate of Montenegro. Additionally, lengthy decision-making on procedural issues before second-instance courts slowed down proceedings. In one case, a decision on a request to exclude evidence before the High Court in Podgorica took several months, effectively blocking the work of the first-instance court.
The report also highlights inadequate courtroom conditions in some instances, where injured parties and accused police officers sat in close proximity without proper separation of the procedural parties, which is inappropriate given the sensitivity of cases involving allegations of torture. Failures in informing participants of their rights were also recorded, including the right to engage legal counsel.
In conclusion, the report shows that certain improvements in the prosecution of torture are visible, particularly through the increase in indictment rates and normative interventions by the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office. However, the system remains burdened by inconsistent practice, passivity at certain stages of proceedings, lengthy decision-making, and insufficiently consistent protection of victims’ procedural rights. An effective, timely, and consistent judicial response to allegations of torture has not yet been fully standardised, and still largely depends on the specific practice applied in individual cases.
English