Action for Human Rights (HRA) announced today that Democratic Front (DF) MP Nebojša Medojević was illegally imprisoned, and that his and DF MP Milan Knežević's prison sentences for "refusal to testify" violated the human rights to personal freedom, a fair trial and freedom of expression.
The NGO appealed to the Constitutional Court to decide on their constitutional appeals as soon as possible, as this is of key importance for the functioning of democracy and the protection of the basic rights of deputies.
"Prison sentences were imposed on MPs Medojević (in the first case) and Milan Knežević by a court that was not competent for it, because the decision was based on an appeal which, according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Montenegro, the state prosecutor had no right to testify against the decision of the investigating judge to reject his proposal to punish the witness (Article 119 paragraph 5 of the CPC). Medojević was sentenced to prison because, in the first case, he did not reveal the identity of the National Security Agency official who allegedly provided him with information that the Chief Special Prosecutor allegedly received a bribe in order not to demand the detention of a former mayor and ambassador.In another case, he was punished for refusing to reveal the identity of a person from diplomatic circles in Croatia who allegedly put him in touch with a witness to war crimes from Konavle in which he allegedly participated Chief Special Prosecutor Knežević was also sentenced to prison, which he is avoiding by staying in the Parliament building, for refusing to provide information about the judge who allegedly offered him to cancel his conviction for assaulting a police officer in 10.000 for 2015 euros. The MPs were punished based on Article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for fines and imprisonment for a person who "refuses to testify without a legal reason". In the court proceedings against Medojević, which HRA had insight into, it was undisputedly established that Medojević responded to the summons to testify, that he testified about various circumstances, but that he did not reveal one piece of information - the identity of the person who communicated the information to him, and therefore punished," the HRA statement said.
HRA considers that under the mentioned circumstances, the broad interpretation of "refusal to testify" and the punishment of a person who testifies about everything he knows, except for one piece of information, which is possibly unknown to him, is questionable.
"HRA indicates that MPs, like journalists, have the right to protect their sources of information, and that, like journalists, they should not even be heard as witnesses based on Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that a lawyer, health a worker, a journalist, as well as other persons whose testimony would violate the duty of professional secrecy cannot be heard as witnesses. The MP must enjoy the trust of the citizens he represents, and they must feel free to approach him and communicate information without fear that could expose themselves to criminal prosecution, loss of job or even more severe consequences. In this context, the European Court of Human Rights especially emphasizes the importance of the freedom of expression of deputies and that any interference with that freedom requires the strictest scrutiny (Castells, 1992)," HRA said.
The NGO added that punishing Medojević also raises the issue of protecting whistleblowers, both ANB officials and persons from Croatian diplomatic circles, whose identity Medojević did not reveal and was therefore punished, or Medojević himself.
"International standards on the protection of whistleblowers speak of the possibility of their identity being protected, with the right for them to communicate what they know to a member of parliament. The previous practice of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in Montenegro (the case of Patricija Pobrić) indicates that a member of parliament can also be considered a whistleblower (ASK denied protection to Patricia, finding that she was not a whistleblower, but "a person connected to the whistleblower", i.e. MP Mladen Bojanić). disclosure of information can be made - to the media or a member of parliament, for example - is a key guarantee for the protection of the public interest, which is covered by the right to freedom of expression (paragraph 2014).” The Law on Prevention of Corruption of Montenegro, which in a separate chapter prescribes the protection of whistleblowers, prescribes that the whistleblower can remain anonymous, as well as the appropriate protection of his personal data (Articles 60, 46)", HRA said.
The HRA also states that the fact that neither the Special State Prosecutor's Office nor the High Court in Podgorica were exempt from the proceedings, even though the basis for the draconian punishment of the deputies were their statements that the main special the prosecutor, that is, the judge of the High Court in Podgorica allegedly received a bribe, that is, that the chief special prosecutor participated in war crimes.
2 In response to that, the Special State Prosecutor's Office, under the leadership of the Chief Special Prosecutor, initiates the procedural punishment of deputies, which was carried out by the High Court, although in that procedure no one was exempted from proceedings, i.e., the jurisdiction for proceedings was not transferred to the regular prosecution (in the case of Medojević who in both cases for which he was punished accused the Chief Special Prosecutor) or to another court, in the case of Knežević. Regardless of the formalistic explanations of the courts that in these cases it is a matter of failure to fulfill a civil obligation and a procedure that does not fall under the protection afforded to MPs by parliamentary immunity, the HRA points out that the MPs were given two-month prison terms (Medojević had a total of four months), which have the same effect as criminal, without due process and without respect for parliamentary immunity. Finally, if the real reason for these procedures was essentially a legitimate motive, to protect the Chief Special Prosecutor and the judge of the High Court from defamation, we emphasize that other procedures are provided for this purpose in Montenegro. "The imprisoning of MPs by means of a "brief court" has achieved a completely negative effect, which undermines trust in the judiciary and the ability of state institutions to ensure the rule of law," the HRA statement concluded.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
