Human Rights Action (HRA) has today proposed to members of parliament, the Government and the EU Delegation concrete amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs that would ensure the procedure for establishing security clearance obstacles (“security barriers”) is conducted through a minimally fair process – one in which the officer or candidate against whom such obstacles are alleged has the right to be informed of the reasons for them and to present arguments before they are established. The obstacles would be determined by a Commission structured to inspire confidence in its objectivity, since its members would include, alongside representatives of the Ministry of Interior, persons of integrity from outside the Government. That is the essence of the proposed amendments.

HRA has put forward these proposals bearing in mind that, by signing the Agreement on Overcoming the Parliamentary Crisis on 7 July 2026, the ruling majority and the opposition agreed that the Law on Internal Affairs and the Law on the National Security Agency would be amended by 31 July 2026. Although that agreement unfortunately did not provide for a public debate, in an effort to contribute to the general interest of respecting the human rights to security, to work, to privacy, and to a fair procedure in which those rights are realised, we have submitted our proposed amendments to all members of parliament, to the Ministers of Justice and of Internal Affairs, to the Prime Minister, and to the Head of the European Union Delegation to Montenegro, thanks to whom the preliminary agreement on the legislative amendments came about in the first place.

The aim of the proposed amendments is to align the security-clearance review mechanism with the Constitution, the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the case law of the European Court of Justice.

The proposal contains the following amendments:

• Amendment 1 (Article 128 – procedure and composition of the Commission): Basic procedural principles are introduced – legality, equality of the parties, adversarial process, proportionality, a reasoned decision, and the right to an effective defence. The Commission for Reviewing Security Obstacles is expanded from five to seven members and becomes mixed in composition: instead of consisting solely of police officers, it will also include a retired judge nominated by the Judicial Council following a public call, a lawyer nominated by the Bar Association, a university professor of law or a representative of civil society working on human rights protection nominated by the competent parliamentary committee, and a representative of the Ombudsman. Members’ terms are extended to five years, with a prohibition on arbitrary dismissal before the term expires.

A key change concerns candidates’ rights regarding the obligation to be informed of the reasons for an established security obstacle. Instead of the current arrangement, under which the candidate is informed only that a security obstacle exists, without any obligation to disclose the reasons on which it is based – an arrangement the Ombudsman has already found unconstitutional on three occasions – it is proposed that the candidate be informed of the existence of a security obstacle together with the reasons on which the decision is based.

A right of appeal is also introduced, along with regular oversight of the Commission’s work by the Security and Defence Committee.

The law’s previous solution regarding the opinion of the National Security Agency (ANB) is restored. The 90-day deadline for submitting an opinion is retained, and as a consequence of missing that deadline, the legal fiction is reinstated whereby, if the ANB fails to submit its opinion within the given deadline, it is deemed that no security obstacle exists.

• Amendment 2 (new Article 128a): A statute-of-limitations rule is introduced – a security obstacle may not, as a rule, be based on events older than five years from the initiation of the review procedure, unless a criminal proceeding related to those events is ongoing or has become final, or unless newly discovered facts exist that could not previously have been known.

• Amendment 3 (new Article 128b): The person subject to the procedure is guaranteed the right to access the complete case file and to obtain copies of all evidence, subject to narrow and exhaustively defined restrictions aimed at protecting confidential sources and security interests. If part of the file is classified, the court is required to review the entire file and assess whether the restriction was justified.

• Amendment 4 (Article 162 – obstacles to continued service): The same procedural rules that apply to the initial review (the principles of legality, adversarial process, proportionality, a reasoned decision, and the right to an effective defence) also apply to reviews concerning continued service. The review is conducted by the same mixed, depoliticised Commission, ensuring a single, uniform standard of procedure.

The amendments prescribe the obligation to hold an oral hearing before making a decision on the existence or non-existence of security obstacles, granting the police officer the right to state their position, propose evidence and challenge evidence, together with an obligation on the Commission to specify in its report the facts, the evidence, the assessment of that evidence, and the reasons for rejecting the defence’s submissions. This precludes decisions based on abstract formulations lacking concrete facts and enables effective judicial review.

Deadlines for the ANB’s opinion and for the Commission’s work are made more precise, and the ANB’s silence after 90 days is to be interpreted as meaning no security obstacle exists. The report is submitted to the Security and Defence Committee for the purpose of parliamentary oversight, rather than merely “for information,” thereby strengthening democratic control over the application of this mechanism.

• Amendment 5 (new Article 162a): If a competent court issues a final ruling quashing a decision establishing a security obstacle, the police officer acquires the right to reinstatement to their position and rank, payment of outstanding salary together with social security contributions, and fair monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from harm to their reputation and professional integrity.

The proposed amendments achieve the depoliticisation and professionalisation of the Commission for Reviewing Security Obstacles, strengthen its institutional and personal independence, introduce procedural principles and standards of a fair process, increase transparency and accountability in decision-making, enhance the individual’s right to a reasoned decision and an effective remedy, and strengthen parliamentary and institutional oversight – while at the same time preserving the State’s legitimate security interests.