On Monday, 12 October, the Basic Court in Podgorica heard testimony from plaintiff Marko Vukčević, one of the founders of the informal student group “Kamo śutra”, almost 20 months after the lawsuit was filed. The students are seeking damages from Democratic Montenegro and its officials over public accusations that their protests were linked to criminal clans.

The students from “Kamo śutra” organised protests following the mass killing in Cetinje on 1 January 2025. At the time, MPs from the Democrats claimed that “Milo Đukanović personally, together with his criminal clans” was behind the group’s demands for the resignations of Minister Danilo Šaranović and Deputy Prime Minister Aleksa Bečić. They also stated that the call to protest was “not the voice of the people, but the voice of Bemax, Aco Mijajlović, and the Kavač and Škaljari clans”, describing the other protesters as their “proxies, with a small number of misguided individuals”.

They have never presented evidence to support these claims, despite requests from the students of “Kamo śutra”, Human Rights Action (HRA) and the Women’s Rights Centre (WRC).

In his testimony, Vukčević stated that he had helped organise the protests and had communicated directly with the Police Directorate. He said that the Democrats’ accusations had made him feel unsafe in public places and fear physical attack. Some members of his extended family had believed the accusations, and others had also been targeted because of his activism. He stressed that, alongside him, Milo Perović, Itana Dragojević and Hana Rastoder from “Kamo śutra” had been particularly exposed to attacks.

Nikola Angelovski, the lawyer representing the defendant Democrats, disputed Vukčević’s entitlement to compensation, arguing that the statements in question did not refer to him personally. Veselin Radulović, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, responded that the defendants had specifically labelled the protest organisers as associates of organised crime, and that the police had recorded Vukčević’s identity as an organiser. He proposed that police officers Vladimir Leković and Goran Jokić be called to testify.

The court requested information from the Police Directorate on who had organised and formally notified the authorities of the student gatherings held from 5 January 2025 onwards. It will decide whether to hear the proposed witnesses once it receives that information.

Unacceptable Delays

The lawsuit was filed on 19 February 2025, while the preliminary hearing took place nine months later, on 19 November 2025. The Civil Procedure Act provides that, as a rule, a preliminary hearing should be held within 30 days of the submission of the response to the lawsuit (Article 284). The students were scheduled to testify on 20 January 2026, but the hearing was postponed four times. The reason was an appeal by the defendant Democrats concerning the procedural validity of the lawsuit. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.

Given that Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Act requires courts to conduct proceedings without delay, we expect the court to prevent unnecessary postponements in future. When senior state officials accuse people of links to organised crime, this seriously threatens their reputation and safety. Young activists who peacefully demand accountability from institutions must have effective and timely judicial protection.

Judge Milena Brajović scheduled the next hearing for 23 November 2026 at 9 a.m., when plaintiff Milo Perović will testify.

HRA provides free legal assistance to the students through its project for the legal protection of civic activists, funded by the European Endowment for Democracy (EED).