Bigović's detention was unjustifiably extended for five years

More than half of the time spent in the Investigation Prison, i.e. five years and five months, Baranin Ljubo Bigović's detention was unjustifiably extended.

This was assessed by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which yesterday announced the verdict in the Bigović v. Montenegro case.

"When examining the validity of detention, domestic courts did not consider additional circumstances of importance for decision-making, whereby general formulations were often used, without going into their explanation. In this part, the European Court found that the domestic courts' reasons for extending the applicant's detention cannot be considered 'sufficient', as a result of which his deprivation of liberty for a period of more than five years cannot be justified," the representative of Montenegro announced yesterday before that by the court, Valentina Pavličić. Although he submitted a request for compensation for material damages in the amount of EUR 38.646,94 and non-material damages in the amount of EUR 100.000,00, Pavličić explains that the European Court did not find a causal link between the established injuries and the requested material damages and awarded him the amount of EUR 7.500 non-material damage compensation.

Bigović's defense attorneys, lawyers Bojana Franović and Dragoljub Đukanović, explained that the court in Strasbourg found that the state of Montenegro violated their client's basic human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. "There was also a violation of Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Convention, which refers to the right to freedom. The Court in Strasbourg found that there was no precision when making decisions on the extension of detention with regard to the length of detention and with regard to the lack of consistency in the periodic control of detention, which the acting courts were undeniably obliged to do. "Domestic courts did not regularly control custody, nor did they specify how long detention can last in their decisions on the extension of custody," the lawyers explained. They point out that a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention, which also refers to the right to freedom, has also been established:

"The court in Strasbourg found that during the 10-year period of detention, more than five years and five months of detention lasted unjustifiably. It was also established that the reasons for the duration of detention were unfounded and insufficient to justify such a long duration of detention, given that in the decisions on the extension of detention, the courts cited only one single sentence - that the reasons for further duration of detention still stand, without any other explanation . The violation of this article also exists due to the fact that when extending the detention, the courts did not take into account the fact that the detention has already lasted in relation to the applicant, as well as his state of health, which they were obliged to do, and also due to the fact that the regular courts did not take into account consider some of the alternative measures for securing the defendant's presence before the court. Due to all of the above, the court in Strasbourg determined that the authorities prolonged the detention of Bigović without sufficient reasons, and therefore failed to justify such a long period of detention for a period of more than five years".

That court also determined that the state violated Bigović's rights to the prohibition of torture, due to the conditions in which he was detained, and to personal freedom, due to the lack of justification for detention. Bigović is serving a thirty-year prison sentence in Spuška prison for his participation in the murder of a police inspector Slavoljub Šćekić August 30, 2005.

"The petition to the court in Strasbourg referred to the detention that lasted for 10 years, the conditions in detention and medical care, the way of making decisions on the extension of detention and its control, and especially the reasons that the acting courts in the specific case cited as justification for such a long period of detention", explained his lawyers. The court in Strasbourg found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the part that refers to the prohibition of torture, considering the conditions in which Bigović stayed in the Spuž Remand Prison, although in the meantime those conditions have improved.

"At the time when Bigović was in the Investigation Prison, the conditions were such that they represented a violation of Article 3. This means that the state of Montenegro tortured him during the disputed period," said Bigović's lawyers.

Bigovic, Saša Boreta, Milan Čila Šćekić i Ljubo Vujadinovićwere sentenced to 30 years in prison each for the murder of a police inspector.

Alan Kozar then he was sentenced to six years and two months.

The Supreme Court concluded that the first-instance Higher and the second-instance Appellate Court reliably concluded that Kožar, encouraged by Boreta and Bigović, participated in planting explosives at the construction site of the Splendid Hotel, in order to force the co-owner and investor to buy neighboring real estate for the amount of two and a half million euros.

They state that it is also from the testimony of a protected witness at the time Zoran Vlaović it was proven that Cila Šćekić and Ljubo Vujadinović killed the head of the MUP for the suppression of general crime, and that Boreta and Bigović were instigators.

The family procured medicine

Bigović's defense attorneys explain that in the part concerning medical care in relation to their client and his complicated health condition, the Court in Strasbourg did not establish a violation of Article 3:

"But he stated in the decision that this violation was not committed in the specific case because the applicant's family, in situations where the state could not provide adequate treatment - treatment, therapy, adequate nutrition and the like, provided it at its own expense. Therefore, this injury does not exist only for the reason that Ljub Bigović's family helped to overcome the problems that arose during his illness. This means that in the case of another person who, for example, would not have the means and support of the family, the state would not be able to provide adequate medical care to persons in custody, which is certainly worrying", said Franović and Đukanović. They pointed out that the Court in Strasbourg particularly referred to the actions of the Constitutional Court: "Which, when deciding on the constitutional appeal that preceded the application to the Court in Strasbourg, did not act in accordance with the previously established practice".

Pavličić: The court found that he was not humiliated during the examination

The representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights, Valentina Pavličić, announced that the court declared Bigović's petition to be clearly unfounded in one part, and found a violation in the other.

And she explains in the statement what Bigović complained about - the violation of Article 3 of the Convention: "Due to the alleged lack of adequate medical care during detention and the poor conditions in the prison cell... In addition to the above, he believed that he could not be fed in prison in accordance with diet that was prescribed by the doctor, as well as that the prison staff could not be present during his examinations, which were carried out in various health institutions outside the premises of ZIKS, considering such behavior of the prison staff as inhuman and humiliating".

Pavličić explains that the EZLjP accepted the allegations made by the representative and found that the state was not obliged to compensate Bigović for the costs of a drug that is not on the list of the Health Insurance Fund of Montenegro, that his allegations regarding the eye surgery were unfounded:

"Given that he never requested reimbursement of expenses for the same at the domestic level... The European Court also found that the applicant was provided with adequate nutrition during his stay in detention in accordance with the prescribed diet".

"In addition to the above, the European Court found the applicant's allegations that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during medical examinations under the supervision of police officers to be unfounded."

"These are not verdicts for Montenegro"

The defenders of Ljub Bigović, lawyers Bojana Franović and Dragoljub Đukanović, assessed the statements of "representatives of relevant judicial institutions and the highest positions from the government" as incorrect - that the judgments of the court in Strasbourg are for Montenegro, not against Montenegro, and that they are being successfully implemented.

"You have pointed out in this decision, on today's date, that the violations established in the Bigović v. Montenegro case are the same as those already established in the Bulatović v. Montenegro and Mugoša v. Montenegro cases. So injuries are repeated. In regular proceedings before national courts, especially in detention cases, the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant decisions of the court in Strasbourg are not yet applied", they said, assessing that domestic courts should contribute to solving such and similar situations on national level:

"In order not to get into a situation where we mitigate the judgments against Montenegro in such a way that we will call them judgments for Montenegro. The goal of the Montenegrin judiciary should be to reduce the number of decisions of the Court in Strasbourg that need to be implemented, and not to be proud of the fact that we have found violations of basic human rights at the national level," they said.