Božović: If we decide on vetting in the judiciary, the executive power will undergo similar checks

The goal is to prevent those who are in any way connected with crime from being in a position to make decisions, said at the opening of the panel discussion "Do we need what kind of vetting in the judiciary?", the executive director of the non-governmental organization Action for Human Rights ( HRA), Tea Gorjanc Prelevic.

She explained that the focus of the vetting is to check whether there are serious risks with the judge or prosecutor.

She said that the goal is to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

She pointed out that Montenegro lacks 60 judges and 25 prosecutors, and that the process of entering the vetting here must be taken seriously.

In the introductory part, Gorjanc Prelevic said that the accusations against the former president of the Supreme Court, the former chief special prosecutor and his deputy, two former directors of the Police Directorate and several police officers show that the "mafia has seriously infiltrated" both the police and the judiciary.

She said that the introduction of vetting in Montenegro needs to be viewed from two aspects, one of which is to prevent judges, state prosecutors who have been compromised, one day to judge or make decisions in the European Union.

Justice Minister Bojan Božović said that a certain form of integrity check is necessary, because "we all know what kind of challenges we face".

He said that they know how burdened judges and prosecutors are, and that they know who among them are enthusiasts and that they do not want to discourage them.

"I don't see the need to speak for daily political reasons - we need a vetting... we need it for the reason that those people who are clean do not carry the shadow of those who abused their positions," he said.

He pointed out that he would not only focus on vetting judges and prosecutors, but also notaries.

"I want the process to be open, and the procedures clear and without skipping any steps. I have been communicating with Brussels for a long time and I know that they have a certain apprehension about it. But I think that if we prepare well for all the challenges that the vetting entails, we could we will overcome them," he said.

"If we decide on this move, the executive power will undergo similar checks," he said.

He added that he thinks it is fair that those who elect, for example, members of the Judicial Council, should be vetted.

The Minister of Justice said that he did not want the vetting to end in a few months, but that it should last for years.

Božović emphasized that a large number of judges and prosecutors are missing in the system, and that they are burdened with a large number of cases, but that he does not want the introduction of vetting to damage the system, which, he said, is on shaky legs.

He said that political will is also necessary for the realization of everything.

"We don't have time to waste time. Brussels expects from us final judgments and more proactive work of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. I will advocate that we avoid a radical approach, I think the process should last for three, five or seven years," Božović stated his position.

Gorjanc Prelevic said that in addition to the right to a trial within a reasonable time, it is important to ensure the right to a fair trial.

Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković said that he thinks it is very important to take a final position - whether to enter the vetting or not.

"Today we have a question that we can easily answer - yes, we should have a vetting," he said.

He said that he would agree with what Božović said, adding that the vetting should also include public bailiffs, court experts, lawyers, the police...

He said that a mechanism of constant evaluation and control of work must be established.

"The question is whether we have already started the vetting, we have ten prosecuted officials of the judiciary..." he said.

Marković said that there is already a position of the prosecution organization to introduce constant evaluation and verification.

Judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica and member of the Judicial Council, Rade Ćetković, said that he was sorry that the Judicial Council, even though it had such an idea, did not organize a conference where the topic of vetting would be discussed.

He said that he was a member of the working group that analyzed the introduction of vetting.

Ćetković said that vetting in itself, although it is often presented in public as a mechanism that will remove all holders of judicial functions, is often misused in public discourse.

"I would appeal that the vetting be a process that will be thoroughly thought out... and that all judges who pass the vetting be returned to work under satisfactory conditions," he said.

He said that it will be easier for him and for everyone if they don't have to carry the mortgage of colleagues who are on the docks, or those who are rumored to be prone to corruption.

Ćetković pointed out that vetting is introduced only if no other mechanism has produced results.

He emphasized that it is necessary to strengthen the system and carry out checks in parallel.

Most prosecutors and judges will accept vetting if it is introduced

Olivera Komar, a professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Montenegro, presented an analysis of research on the perception of corruption by actors in the judiciary, which included judges, prosecutors, experts, lawyers...

Komar, presenting the research, stated that judges and prosecutors, when asked if there is corruption in the judiciary, perceive this phenomenon in fewer numbers than lawyers and experts.

According to that research, 36,8 percent of male and female judges disagree with the introduction of phased vetting.

About 20 percent of prosecutors believe that vetting should be introduced, and a slightly higher percentage of judges think that this mechanism should be introduced.

Komar said that 78 percent of the prosecutors said that they would accept vetting if it were introduced, and 71,6 percent of the examined judges also answered in the affirmative.

During the survey, 7,8 percent of prosecutors said that they would leave the judiciary if vetting was introduced, and slightly more than three percent of judges announced such a possibility during their responses.

Half of the experts answered the questionnaire that it would be good to introduce vetting.

The response of prosecutors and judges was great, and they responded to the questionnaire of the DeFacto Consultancy agency.

To the question about the presence of corruption in the past three years, the answers were similar - those inside the system think that this phenomenon does not exist, while outsiders think otherwise.