Nine months after the crushing of the protest against the enthronement of Metropolitan Joaniki of Montenegrin Littoral, it is not known whether Cetinje's Branko Martinović (36) was injured by a rubber bullet or a tear gas cartridge.
The police administration claims that they do not have rubber bullets, and foreign experts determined that his injuries could have been caused in both ways - by a tear gas canister or a kinetic impact projectile.
Martinović previously complained to the Council for Citizen Control of Police Work, which concluded that on September 5 of last year, the police acted illegally towards that restaurateur.
The council concluded that the police officers who intervened in the action to break up the protest in Cetinje did not distinguish between citizens who intended to peacefully leave the meeting, i.e. the location where they happened, and those who were actually disrupting, on a larger scale, public order and peace.
They assessed that the police officers did not professionally apply their police powers towards Martinović and that in this particular case there was a violation of rights:
"And that the basic expected standard of police action to distinguish, when applying coercive means, between peaceful and violent participants in demonstrations was missing."
The Council concluded that the Police Directorate did not in any way connect Martinović with the commission of any criminal offense or misdemeanor, nor did it state or reliably confirm that he refused to act according to the order issued by any police officer or that he was aggressive in any way according to the police.
In their conclusion, it is also stated that the policemen, before using the means of coercion, had to enable the citizens to safely leave the location where the public order and peace was disturbed - especially those who did not offer violent resistance.
"The council, through work on other complaints in relation to police interventions in Cetinje from September 5, 2021, as well as in relation to those from 2015 in Podgorica, recognized the fact that the police did not provide citizens with even the minimum necessary (reasonable) time to begin to disperse and move away from the location where, according to the police, there was a violation of public order and peace".
Stating that the use of chemical means to break up gatherings requires a special justification, the Council concludes that it is particularly difficult to justify the indiscriminate use of means, such as throwing tear gas, in circumstances where demonstrators, especially violent ones, and bystanders cannot be separated.
"The use of force in breaking up gatherings can in certain circumstances represent inhuman and degrading treatment".
Martinović, through the activists of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, filed a complaint about the actions of the police on September 5 last year.
In his complaint, he wrote that on that day he rode with another on a motorcycle and followed the events in Cetinje, stating that they stopped at the main city square, in front of the post office, where he was injured when he tried to help an elderly lady who had fallen after the police hit with something.
"At that moment, one of the policemen from a distance of no more than ten meters turned his rifle directly at me and shot something at me. Based on the appearance of the ball, I think it is a rubber bullet," he wrote in the complaint.
The council charged the member dr Milena Popović Samardžić, who asked the director of the UP to explain and explain the behavior of the police officers towards Martinović, to submit the names of the police officers who used all types of ammunition and chemical agents on the town square that day, but also to answer whether Martinović was connected to the commission of a criminal act or misdemeanor.
At the same time, they submitted a criminal complaint to the Supreme State Prosecutor, in order to check whether the actions of the police officers towards Martinović contained any criminal offense or misdemeanor for which the prosecution is undertaken ex officio.
UP replied to the council that on that day, their officers were lawfully performing tasks of securing an unannounced public gathering, i.e. tasks of maintaining public order and peace.
They were also told that, after a group of citizens started with illegal behavior - attacking the officers of the Police Directorate, the cordon was breached:
"After which the legal conditions for the use of coercive means were met. The use of chemical agents and special-purpose agents, in particular, was applied with the aim of establishing disturbed public order and peace and preventing the further commission of the criminal offense of assaulting an official in the performance of official duties, they are permitted by law, and their use is foreseen for the reason that they create the least harmful consequences for the persons who are acted upon"
They assessed Martinović's allegations - that he was hit with a rubber bullet - as unfounded, stressing that they do not possess them.
The council concluded that police officers are obliged to use the mildest means of coercion that achieves the goal, in proportion to the reason for its use and in a way that carries out the official task without unnecessary harmful consequences.
"The rights of police officers to integrity, life and safety must also be respected and ensured".
They also concluded that tear gas canisters are never fired directly at or against a person, and that the goal of using chemical irritants that are launched at a distance is to disperse the group and avoid violence.
"In case of use, they should be shot at a high angle".
They are silent about the means of coercion
In its conclusion, the council noted that the culture of silence is still dominant in the police organization:
"Because of which it is extremely difficult to establish all the facts related to the use of means of coercion, including kinetic missiles and tear gas and their actual quantity used, the way they were fired, as well as the responsibility of those who fired them in an unprofessional manner."
Officials have to prove
The Council assessed that Dr. Popović Samardžić acted extremely dedicated and professional in that case and that, thanks to her involvement, they received the professional expertise of international experts in the field of forensics - Dr. Alper Özkök and Dr. Önder Özkalipc.
They analyzed photographs of Martinović's injuries and his medical report.
The experts stated that "the age of the current injury is generally compatible with the statement of the complainant", but also that it is a challenge to "determine the object of the impact due to unclear traces of the injury".
However, they wrote that it can be interpreted that the firing was carried out by shooting, regardless of whether it was a tear gas canister or a kinetic impact projectile, they wrote in the conclusion.
The Council explains that, whether it is accepted that the object of the strike was a tear gas canister or a kinetic impact missile, such use of force would be unlawful because of the targeted firing:
"If the law enforcement agency could not identify and document the weapon used, the complainant's allegations should be considered true due to the reverse burden of proof." Because law enforcement officers have the burden of responsibility and documentation," it says in the conclusion.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
