N15.T6 – More than two fifths of cases with unknown perpetrators became time-barred over ten years
HRA NEWSLETTER 15 – TOPIC 6
An analysis by the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office shows that, over the past ten years, criminal prosecution became time-barred in 41.8% of cases involving unknown perpetrators—roughly four out of every ten initiated cases.
“In cases initiated against unknown perpetrators (13,861 cases formed over a ten-year period), criminal prosecution became time-barred in 41% of cases (5,794 cases). The reason for the expiry of the limitation period is the inability of the police to identify perpetrators within the statutory time limits. As a result, once the legally prescribed time for criminal prosecution elapsed, prosecution became time-barred and further proceedings were no longer possible,” the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office stated.
The Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office also found that, from 1 January 2020 to 1 November 2025, criminal prosecution became time-barred in 362 cases out of 57,756 cases initiated against known perpetrators. This indicates that time limitation in such cases is statistically negligible and that prosecution offices generally act in a timely and effective manner, according to the Office.
“In 339 cases initiated against known perpetrators, criminal prosecution became time-barred before a criminal complaint was filed with the prosecution (representing 0.59% of the total number of cases). In only 23 cases initiated against known perpetrators did criminal prosecution become time-barred after the criminal complaint had been filed (representing 0.04%of the total number of cases),” the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office announced.
Despite this, the prosecution service headed by Milorad Marković examined whether the expiry of the limitation period was justified and what circumstances led to it, particularly in the 23 cases where time limitation occurred after a criminal complaint had been submitted.
“By reviewing the case files, it was established that the limitation period expired for justified reasons beyond the control of state prosecutors, despite actions taken in accordance with the law, except in two cases, which led to the initiation of one disciplinary proceeding against a state prosecutor,” the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office stated.
These findings further indicate that the problem of expired limitation periods in criminal prosecution is largely linked to cases involving unknown perpetrators. However, the actions of the Prosecutorial Council in relation to these cases do not suggest an adequate institutional response. In October 2023, the Prosecutorial Council was informed that, at the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica, certain cases from 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 had been kept in the archives and had not been assigned to state prosecutors for handling.
Although the Council subsequently requested reports from all state prosecution offices, these were not submitted within the prescribed deadline and were only considered in March 2024. At that time, it was established that as many as 2,208 cases had become time-barred in state prosecution offices across Montenegro. Neither at that session nor at subsequent sessions did the Prosecutorial Council adopt concrete measures to determine accountability for years of inaction in cases that became time-barred. Instead, it limited its response to noting the findings and issuing additional requests for reports. Such conduct by state prosecutors, which may also constitute abuse of office, undermines public trust in the State Prosecution Service.
English