"It's hard to grow up without a father, not even knowing where his grave is...".
Alen Bajrović tries to reproduce the images of the drama of the May morning in 1992 in Herceg Novi, engraved in the memory of a five-year-old:
"Uniformed people came. It was no paramilitary unit, but two policemen of the state of Montenegro. Me and my seven and a half year old sister were in the house. They said to the father: 'You must come with us!'. And that's it - the end".
Fleeing the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Osmo Bajrović sought refuge in Montenegro for himself and his family.
He was arrested, deported and then lost track of him.
This is just one of dozens of destinies that speak of a crime whose consequences Montenegrin institutions and society have not properly faced.
While the then Prime Minister and President of the State Milo Đukanović and Momir Bulatović, in statements for Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), make their own deviation from what Montenegrin citizens have committed, from the civil sector they emphasize the necessity for all states of the region to take responsibility for crimes, and to stop the further humiliation of the victims of the wars in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, as well as their families.
In May 1992, the Montenegrin police illegally arrested at least 66 Muslims who had fled the war and handed them over as hostages to the army of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, allegedly to exchange them for prisoners of war. A group of refugees deported from Herceg Novi was sent to the concentration camp in Foča on May 25, and several managed to survive.
The second group, extradited after two days, was lost, and was later found to have been killed. Even after 27 years, the bodies of all the victims have not been found, it is not known where they died, and no criminal responsibility for the crime has been established.
The criminal process was conducted only against nine police officers and all were acquitted. The then heads of the State Security Service (SDB) and Public Security Service, Boško Bojović and Milisav Marković, the head of the Security Service in Herceg Novi Radoj Radunović and the operative of that service Duško Bakrač, the head of the Security Service in Ulcinj Božidar Stojović, the head of the Security Center (CB) and the station commander of the police in Herceg Novi Milorad Ivanović and Milorad Šljivančanin, head of CB Bar Branko Bujić and head of the Security Department in Ulcinj Sreten Glendža.
Montenegro, on the other hand, after a four-year trial in 2008, paid multimillion-dollar compensation to the families of the victims, due to the illegal actions of the Montenegrin police, which practically admitted that the crime had been committed.
In a similar way, the state and its institutions did not have the strength to face other cases such as torture of prisoners in Morinje, emigration from Bukovica, killing of civilians in Kaluđerski laz...
Found to be illegal
The deportation investigation was launched in February 2006, and the indictment was filed by the prosecutor Lidija Vukčević in January 2009. The defendants were charged with the war crime of unlawfully depriving 79 Bosnian citizens of their freedom and handing them over to the Republika Srpska.
That Bosnian refugees were illegally arrested and extradited as hostages was established by the final acquittal of the High Court in Podgorica, as well as by the judgment of the Hague Tribunal in the case of Krnojelac (camp manager in Foča). The verdict of the Podgorica High Court, however, acquitted the nine accused of war crimes against the civilian population, with the explanation that they did not have the status of "members of the party to the conflict in BiH", nor those "who were in the service of the party to the conflict in BiH".
"The activity of the accused, as well as the order itself, was illegal from the point of view of international law, but given that it was not proven that the accused as members of the MUP belonged to the armed forces of the FRY, nor that they were in the service of any of the parties in conflict and thus were active participants in the armed conflict, in which case the rules of International Law would be binding on them", reads the verdict of judges Milenko Žižić, Ratko Ćupić and Dragica Vuković, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The expert of the European Union, the Italian prosecutor and international judge Mauricio Salustro, in the report on the prosecution of war crimes in Montenegro, which was published in "Vijesti", points out that such an interpretation is wrong, unknown in international humanitarian law and practice. A similar thing could be heard at the recent panel "Actions for Human Rights" (HRA) and the Center for Civic Education (CGO) in Podgorica, where professor of international law Nebojša Vučinić pointed out that "the established factual situation contradicts the pronounced verdict".
"This standard does not exist in international law. If that were so, then civilians would not be able to commit a war crime, which is absurd," he concluded.
In the verdict, it was stated that there was an order of the then Minister of Internal Affairs, the late Pavle Bulatović, in the form of a telegram, which was withdrawn after a few days. It stated that the requests of the MUP of the Republika Srpska should be followed and that persons of Muslim nationality who came from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Montenegro should be deprived of their freedom and sent back, due to the exchange for Serbian prisoners.
It was also requested that persons of Serbian nationality also return to the territory of Bosnia for avoiding military service, so a number of them were deported, but there is no information that they died.
The verdict also established that all refugees were illegally deprived of their liberty, because there is no detention decision and official record for any person, and that the Montenegrin MUP did not have the authority to service the demands of the Bosnian police.
At the moment when it was announced that the order was issued by Pavle Bulatović, he was already dead. He was killed in an assassination attempt on February 7, 2000 in Belgrade, in the restaurant of the Rad na Banjica Football Club. At the time, he was the Minister of Defense of the FRY, and the murder was not solved. Milo Đukanović and Momir Bulatović, according to statements for CIN-CG, do not consider themselves responsible for the crimes of the XNUMXs, but rather responsible for their suppression. While Đukanović emphasizes that these crimes were "orchestrated from circles loyal to the military and political elite of the joint state at the time", Bulatović points out that he was the one who stopped the deportations when he found out about them.
In an interview with CIN-CG, Momir Bulatović added that the dispatch was not signed by Pavle Bulatović, but by a man "from the current top of the police", not wanting to say who it was about.
He said that he gave the court a document showing that the list was signed by that other man, and that the evidence was found in Rožaje and was declared secret. He did not show the CIN-CG journalist the document, which is not even mentioned in the explanation of the verdict, stating that it is "in Belgrade".
"That crime happened on May 27, the same day when the decision was made that we would not apply Yugoslav laws. I ordered that this action must be stopped. It was a political showdown, federal regulations were misused, a moment of powerlessness was used. It was a tragic mistake, but not by those to whom it was attributed," said the then president of the country.
When asked by CIN-CG about whether he feels his own responsibility for the deportations, whether he believes that the case was adequately investigated and prosecuted and whether justice was served, and what he thinks about how Montenegro faced the past and the war crimes of its citizens, Milo Đukanović, who was prime minister at the time, pointed out that he repeatedly condemned both deportations and "every act that took place during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, aimed at persecution, murder and other forms of inhumane treatment of citizens of a different religion or nation". .
"Already in that time of the whirlwind of war, which engulfed our region and for a long time diverted us from the path towards our natural environment, the European Union, the intention of Montenegro was clear for a complete departure from destructive politics, which gave birth to the initially proclaimed idea of preserving the then community . I remind you that in those years, Montenegro received all the refugees from the former Yugoslavia, who at one point made up almost a fifth of the total population, which is a unique example in the world. With such a well-thought-out policy, we managed to preserve the threatened multi-ethnic and multi-confessional harmony in Montenegro in those years", Đukanović assessed, obviously having in mind the war in 1999, when there were about 100 thousand Albanian refugees in Montenegro.
The damage that was done, he pointed out for CIN-CG, cannot be repaired by condemnation, nor by looking for the culprit for individual acts, "although it is certainly our duty to satisfy justice".
"Those who initiated and encouraged such a destructive policy were ultimately held accountable. As a state, we have compensated the victims' families in accordance with the final judgments. I remind you that all cases of compensation for victims of war crimes before the Montenegrin courts have been legally resolved, and that a total of 5.714.656,20 euros was awarded in the name of compensation for damages", stated Đukanović, answering the question of CIN-CG.
The current president has no objections to the judiciary either.
"The indictments filed and the judgments handed down speak enough of how determined the state is not to allow the unquestioning execution of justice to jeopardize its own integrity and its anti-fascist and multi-ethnic foundations. We do not stop there, because the Special State Prosecutor's Office has four cases in its work in which the perpetrators are suspected to be citizens of Montenegro, and on this occasion intensive cooperation is being achieved with the Residual Mechanism, which represents the successor of the Hague Tribunal, with which a memorandum of cooperation was recently signed. Đukanović announced for CIN-CG.
In the report on the progress of Montenegro, the European Union, however, emphasizes that no new case has been opened since 2016, and that the mentioned four cases remain in the preliminary phase of the investigation.
"Montenegro must further increase its efforts in the fight against impunity for war crimes by applying a proactive approach to the effective investigation, prosecution, trial and punishment of war crimes in accordance with international standards, as well as for prioritizing such cases," the EU report says.
In his statement to CIN-CG, Đukanović also assessed that Montenegro faced the past in the best way, by moving away from the destructive politics of the time, and that the key to reconciliation is understanding the past and rejecting nationalist ideologies.
"What we need to learn from these unpleasant examples is that no one, ever again, puts us in a situation where such acts are possible, but that through joint action we continue to preserve the centuries-old multi-ethnic harmony that characterizes Montenegro," concluded the President of Montenegro.
In May 2012, Professor Milan Popović, journalist Esad Kočan and MP Koča Pavlović filed a criminal complaint against Milo Đukanović and the then Chief Prosecutor Ranka Čarapić, suspecting them of the war crime of deportation and helping the perpetrators of the crime to avoid justice. As one of the pieces of evidence, they submitted the testimony of Momir Bulatović before the High Court in Podgorica in 2010, when he admitted that it was a "state error".
In 2014, the Prosecutor's Office rejected the application in two words and without explanation - there is no basis.
Strasbourg, the last hope for justice
A group of mothers, daughters and sisters of victims submitted a petition to the European Court of Human Rights in 2013 and supplemented it in 2015, because Montenegro did not provide criminal justice and respect the human right to life and the prohibition of torture.
It concludes that the Montenegrin courts joined the climate of covering up and diminishing the significance of the crime, that they did not correct the errors in the qualification of the prosecutor's actions, and therefore acquitted all the accused on the basis of a non-existent legal standard.
"It is a historical fact that the Prime Minister of Montenegro (Đukanović) in 2015 is the same person who has been in that position almost continuously since the crime was committed in 1992, and this fact points to the biased and unprofessional behavior of prosecutors and judges, who were elected under the patronage of the ruling political parties", it is emphasized in the petition, which was submitted on behalf of the victims' families by HRA director Tea Gorjanc Prelević.
It also points out that the prosecution made a series of omissions in the investigation, from which the highest state officials who ordered the action, or must have known about it, were omitted.
"The applicants claim that the state also violated the ban on abuse, because it did not provide information about the fate of their family members. Of the six members of the petitioner's family who died, the bodies of two who were extradited to the Foča camp were found, while the bodies of the four who were deported from Herceg-Novi on May 27, 1992 were not found, nor is it known for sure where and how they died in the area which was controlled by the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina," says Prelević.
In a statement for CIN-CG, she says that the court in Strasbourg sent the case to the state of Montenegro after four years.
"The state made a statement, they challenged the jurisdiction of the court and the essence of the petition. Recently, Bosnia and Herzegovina also declared itself as a third party, an intervener in the proceedings. She supported and additionally substantiated the positions of the applicants, especially in relation to the historical context and authorities of the Republika Srpska to which Montenegro handed over refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina," says Prelević.
The petitioners, she points out, are not asking for compensation in Strasbourg, but only for the determination of the state's responsibility.
"If even one of the petitioners succeeds in this endeavour, the verdict will be a victory for all who care about justice for deportation victims. "I hope that the European Court will accept jurisdiction in this case and conclude that in the case of deportations, the Montenegrin courts completely incorrectly applied international law and elementary logic, as well as that the investigation was not comprehensive," said Prelevic.
The judgment of the court in Strasbourg, she believes, would be very significant in today's world flooded with refugees: "According to one of the basic rules of international non-refoulement law, no one may be deported to a country where they could suffer or be subjected to torture, such as which was unfortunately the case with the victims of deportation."
Tamara Milaš from CGO points out for CIN-CG that almost all court proceedings for war crimes cases, including deportation, show that the judiciary does not understand the suffering of the victims or is bound by political pressures to make the proceedings meaningless.
"Instead of justice, the Montenegrin authorities and competent institutions are trying to impute projected oblivion to us," Milaš said.
These cases, she says, would have been formally archived a long time ago if it were not for the criteria for Chapter 23, which led the prosecution to adopt the War Crimes Investigation Strategy.
"The strategy dictates that the fight against impunity for war crimes must be intensified through more effective research, prosecution, trial and punishment in accordance with international standards. "Four years since the adoption of that document, however, there has been no progress in the application of international humanitarian law and international standards that would eliminate mistakes made in previous judicial qualifications and rulings," Milaš pointed out.
She reminds that the reparations referred to by judicial institutions, as a positive practice, do not only include material compensations, but also criminal justice, a culture of remembrance through memorials, the installation of memorials and the establishment of days of remembrance, apologies, but also an extremely high degree of commitment to activities in order to prevent such crime in the future.
For years, non-governmental organizations have been submitting initiatives for the construction of a monument to the victims of deportation in Herceg Novi and demanding apologies from the authorities for the crime committed, as well as an accurate list of the victims and the finding of their remains. None of the initiatives were accepted.
"Justice would be served only if the guilty answer, and the family finds the remains, even if we go to the father's grave," concludes Alen Bajrović.
Bajrovići 12 years in court
The Bajrovićs are the only family that did not accept a settlement with the state in 2008 and continued to fight for compensation.
"We did not want to accept that we do not know where our father is, that we have no information about him. Today, everything seems to me like a farce, concealing reality and creating a false image. Basically, I don't expect anything, because I know there is no will, no desire. They are the same then and now, the wolf changes its fur, but never its temper," concludes the younger Bajrović.
In March 2007, the Bajrovićs filed a lawsuit due to the death of a close person and their father's inability to support them.
Four years later, the request was partially approved. The High Court then confirmed the judgment for compensation for death of 20 thousand euros, but the part about support was abolished.
In 2013, the Supreme Court changed that and ruled that they should be paid another 5.000 euros due to the death of a close person, and the maintenance procedure was returned to the beginning.
The spokeswoman of the Basic Court, Anja Krkeljić Milić, explains for CIN-CG that that same court ruled in the same year that they should also be paid money due to the loss of regular maintenance, but the High Court again canceled it.
According to CIN-CG, the High Court, in its latest decision, concluded that maintenance cannot be calculated in relation to the average salary, but according to Osmo Bajrović's last salary from 1992.
In the continuation of "trifling" it came to the point that the compensation for support will most likely be calculated in the amount of the lowest material security - about 70 euros.
This article is part of the project "Transitional justice and war crimes in Montenegro - truth or challenge?", which is implemented by the Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), and with the financial support of the European Union through the program "Civil Sector Activism for Reconciliation in to the region of the former Yugoslavia - support to RECOM".
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU or the organizations implementing the project "Activism of the civil sector for reconciliation in the region of the former Yugoslavia - support to RECOM".
Bonus video:
