The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro (Ombudsman) has issued a third opinion finding that the so-called vetting of police officers is contrary to the Constitution of Montenegro and the European Convention on Human Rights. This opinion demonstrates the continuity of the Ministry of Interior’s (MoI) practice of violating human rights. The Government has disregarded this harmful practice, and has even insisted on adopting amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs that only reinforced it. Moreover, the Government has tolerated the labeling of human rights defenders who warned against this harmful practice — lawyer Veselin Radulović and the Executive Director of the Human Rights Action (HRA) — as accomplices of criminals, by the Democratic Montenegro party, which controls the entire security sector. HRA calls for the Ombudsman to be mandatorily included in the drafting of amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs, on which the ruling majority and the opposition recently reached agreement. HRA expects current and future Montenegrin authorities to respect well-founded criticism made in the general interest of protecting human rights and the reputation of Montenegro in international community.

***

The Ombudsman recently issued an opinion finding that the Ministry of Interior (MoI) denied a candidate for a position in the Police Directorate any explanation of the reasons why a security clearance issue had been established against him, thereby preventing him from exercising his right to work. The Ombudsman found that the MoI thereby violated the candidate’s right to a reasoned decision and to an effective remedy, contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, and once again recommended amending Article 128, paragraph 10 of the Law on Internal Affairs, from which, as stated, a “systemic problem” arises. HRA welcomes this opinion, which confirms the validity of our earlier criticism of police “vetting” as being contrary, among other things, to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which Montenegro must adopt upon accession to the EU.

In this particular case, the complainant, Muamer Matović, applied for a position as a police officer and passed all stages of the recruitment process. Despite this, he was never told why a security clearance issue had been established against him: he was only informed that he did not meet that specific requirement, without receiving any document explaining the reasons, and without a decision containing instructions on legal remedy.

In its statement, the MoI claimed that “a security clearance issue was established regarding the named individual, and that it is necessary to withhold access to the evidence, its source, and the methods of its collection,” since disclosing this information could allegedly jeopardize the work of the ministry and of the Commission for Reviewing Security Clearance Issues.

The Ombudsman, however, found that the complete denial of information, combined with the absence of a reasoned individual act, left the complainant in a state of legal uncertainty and created an impression of arbitrariness in the work of public authorities. It added that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, even invoking national security concerns cannot serve as grounds for completely excluding judicial or other independent review of the lawfulness of a decision — an individual must be able to understand the essence of the reasons adversely affecting their legal position and to challenge them before a competent authority. Since this was not the case here, the Ombudsman found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision, as an element of the right to a fair trial (Article 32 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention), as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy (Article 20 of the Constitution and Article 13 of the European Convention), in connection with the right to work (Article 62 of the Constitution, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention).

Interestingly, this is now the third time the Ombudsman has issued the same finding regarding the unlawful practice of establishing security clearance issues. The first time was in May 2024, then in December 2025 and now in June 2026.

The 2024 and 2025 opinions concerned candidates for admission to the Police Academy who, despite having successfully passed all tests, were rejected on the basis of a secret negative “integrity assessment,” without any explanation and without the possibility of appeal. In those cases as well, the Ombudsman concluded that the right to a reasoned decision and to an effective remedy had been violated, and recommended amending the same Article 128, paragraph 10 of the Law on Internal Affairs.

Both the Ombudsman and the legal experts who criticized the “vetting” practice within the MoI have consistently emphasized that what is being challenged is not the state’s authority to conduct security screenings, but the manner in which this is done. By failing to provide candidates with any reasoned act, or with instructions on legal remedy regarding a negative security assessment, they are denied the minimum level of protection against arbitrariness — a guarantee essential to lawfulness under the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. All three of the Ombudsman’s opinions on this matter emphasized that even in areas concerning national security and the protection of state security interests, the conduct of public authorities cannot be exempt from the fundamental requirements of legality, transparency, accountability, and protection against arbitrariness, and that every decision by a public authority producing legal consequences for an individual must be accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards.

The Ombudsman warned that measures affecting fundamental human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent body competent to review the reasons for the decision and the relevant evidence, with appropriate limitations regarding the use of confidential information. An individual “must be able to challenge the authorities’ claim that, for example, national security is at risk, which is why an independent body must be able to intervene when an assessment lacks a reasonable factual basis, or reveals that the interpretation of ‘national security’ is unlawful, contrary to common sense, or arbitrary.”

This, therefore, is the same systemic, unconstitutional practice, repeated year after year, affecting both candidates for the Police Academy and candidates for positions in the Police Directorate, and which, through identical regulation, also applies to active police officers when security clearance issues are established regarding their continued service (Article 162).

This opinion fully confirms the validity of HRA’s earlier warnings. The provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs, which allow a commission appointed by the minister to decide on security clearance issues through a secret procedure — without any obligation to obtain the opinion of the National Security Agency (ANB) and with the possibility of relying on unverified information — are contrary to the Constitution and the ECHR. HRA reminds that they are also contrary to Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights — the right to good administration — as well as to the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, which guarantees the right to be heard and the right to a defense as general principles of EU law, binding before any decision that may adversely affect the rights or interests of an individual. Montenegro will become directly bound by this Charter upon accession to the European Union.

Because of these warnings, instead of a substantiated response, Democratic Montenegro reacted sharply, accusing HRA’s Executive Director Tea Gorjanc Prelević and lawyer Veselin Radulović of protecting “compromised police officers” and “personnel who served the mafia,” portraying their criticism of “vetting” as a “political mission” to preserve the old order. Through such labeling, the Democrats attempted to criminalize the protection of human rights in the form of legitimate criticism of unconstitutional provisions and practices — prompting a response from as many as three UN Special Rapporteurs and numerous non-governmental organizations.

The Ombudsman’s position completely discredits such labels. It shows, unequivocally and for the third time, that insisting on constitutional procedures and international standards is not an obstruction to reforms, but their necessary precondition — an elementary defense of the rule of law and the institutional integrity of the state.

HRA now expects that, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the disputed provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs be urgently amended, and that the complainant be provided without delay with a reasoned act stating the grounds on which the security clearance issue was established. Moreover, we believe it is essential to include the Ombudsman in the drafting of new provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs, given that it has warned three times, since 2024, of the inadequacy of the existing ones.

We call on the Government to ensure that labeling and discrediting of those who warn against human rights violations stops within its ranks. Such criticism is not an attack on reforms, but precisely what makes them credible. The fact that UN Special Rapporteurs, along with other international organizations and diplomats, had to step in to our defense speaks for itself about the seriousness of these pressures — which compromise not only individuals, but also the state and its reputation as a whole.