While he was the president of the Basic Court in Bar, a judge Goran Scepanovic he was allegedly under secret surveillance measures, and according to "Vijesti" information, he was tapped at the request of the then special prosecutor, now the accused Saša Čađenović.
According to the interlocutors of "Vijesti", this happened while the Special State Prosecutor's Office was headed by the accused Milivoje Katnic.
The Podgorica High Court neither confirmed nor denied the findings of "Vijesti", but they claim that they would have to physically examine all the cases going back several decades, in order to answer the journalist's questions - whether Judge Šćepanović was under secret surveillance measures at one time.
Šćepanović is a current judge of the High Court.
They emphasize, however, that his name is not in the register of persons against whom the proceedings were conducted, which should be the case if secret surveillance measures resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings.
"...The register of cases for secret surveillance measures due to the confidentiality of data is not kept by the names of the persons against whom the order on the determination of secret surveillance measures is issued, but the business code of the court case, the business code of the applicant of the order is recorded in the register (Higher State Prosecutor's Office or the Special State Prosecutor's Office, without specifying the name of the prosecutor) and the number of persons against whom the order was issued (without specifying personal data). Court rules do not prescribe the recording of secret surveillance measures", the High Court in Podgorica, which is presided over by a judge, replied to "Vijesta" Zoran Radovic.
They also explained why they cannot precisely answer the questions of "Vijesti" - whether the former president of the Basic Court of Bar was subject to secret surveillance measures at the request of Čađenović, and if so - in which case it was requested and approved...
"In order for the court to be able to provide you with the requested information, a physical examination of all cases would have to be carried out, going back a couple of decades, which, bearing in mind the sensitive nature of the data and the scope of that work, would require a great deal of involvement of employees. If secret surveillance measures resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings, the data of the accused person are entered in the register for that type of case (Kri, Kris, later Ki KS), and the name of Goran Šćepanović is not in the register of persons against whom criminal proceedings were conducted before this court. , at the request of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office and the Special State Prosecutor's Office".
However, they did not answer the question of "Vijesti" - whether, possibly, Judge Šćepanović was illegally under secret surveillance measures.
"Vijesti" learned that Šćepanović was not, as required by law, informed about the measures after the legal conditions for their implementation had expired, nor were the results obtained by secret surveillance measures destroyed in front of him.
The law stipulates that the person against whom the measure of secret surveillance has been taken, in the event that criminal proceedings are not initiated, will be informed about the measures applied to him.
"Before destroying the material obtained by the execution of secret surveillance measures in the cases referred to in Article 160 para. 7 and 8 of this code, the investigating judge will inform the person against whom the measure was taken, and that person has the right to inspect the collected material", is provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC).
Nevertheless, the same legal act leaves the authorities with the possibility not to do so, but only if there is a well-founded fear that notification or insight into the obtained material could represent a serious danger to people's lives and health, or could endanger one of the ongoing investigations or for other justified reasons... In that case, the investigating judge, based on the obtained opinion of the state prosecutor, may decide not to inform the person against whom the measure was taken and not to allow him to see the obtained material.
WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, secret surveillance measures can be determined if there are grounds for suspecting that someone alone, or in complicity, has committed, is committing, or is preparing to commit serious criminal offenses, and that if evidence cannot be gathered in any other way, or their collection would require a disproportionate risk or jeopardy of human life.
The law clearly defines for which criminal acts secret surveillance measures (MTN) can be determined, but also what types of measures can be applied.
The same act stipulates that secret surveillance and recording of telephone conversations and other remote communications, interception, collection and recording of computer data, entry into premises for the purpose of secret photography and video and audio recording in the premises, secret monitoring and video and audio recording of persons can be determined. and subjects.
In addition, if there are grounds for suspicion that a person alone or in complicity with another has committed, is committing or is preparing to commit criminal offenses for which MTN can be imposed, and the circumstances of the case indicate that evidence will be collected with the least violation of the right to privacy, simulated purchase of objects or persons and simulated giving and receiving of bribes, then the provision of simulated business services or the conclusion of simulated legal deals, the establishment of a fictitious company, monitoring the transportation and delivery of objects of a criminal offense, the recording of conversations with prior information and the consent of one from interview participants, engagement of undercover investigators and collaborators.
It is also foreseen that MTN can be ordered against a person for whom there are grounds for suspicion that he or she is transmitting messages related to the criminal offense to or from the perpetrator of the crime, that is, that the perpetrator is using their phone connections or other means of electronic communication.
In the case where there is no information about the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal act, MTN can be determined according to the subject of the criminal act.
The law stipulates that against those who carry out the measures of simulated purchase, giving and accepting bribes... no criminal prosecution will be undertaken for actions that represent aiding in the commission of a criminal offense, if this is done for the purpose of providing data and evidence for the successful conduct of criminal proceedings.
Also, it is stipulated that these measures must not constitute incitement to the commission of a criminal offense.
MTNs can also be carried out against fugitives for whom an international warrant has been issued or against those for whom there is reason to suspect that they are in direct contact with fugitives...
Measures can be ordered for criminal offenses for which a prison sentence of ten years or a heavier sentence can be imposed, those with elements of organized crime, then for criminal offenses of causing false bankruptcy, abuse of assessment, accepting bribes, giving bribes, illegal influence, abuse official position, as well as abuse of authority in the economy and fraud in the service, for which a prison sentence of eight years or a heavier sentence is prescribed.
Measures provided for numerous criminal acts
Secret surveillance measures can also be ordered for the criminal offenses of kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, mediating prostitution, showing pornographic material, embezzlement, evasion of taxes and contributions, smuggling, illegal processing, disposal and storage of dangerous substances, assault on an official in the performance of official duties. duties...
With a justified request, they can also be determined for criminal offenses: prevention of evidence, criminal association, disclosure of secret information, violation of procedural secrecy, money laundering, forgery of money, forgery of documents, falsification of official documents, making, procuring and giving to others means and materials for forgery, participation in foreign armed formations, arranging the outcome of competitions, illegal possession of weapons and explosive substances, illegal crossing of state borders and people smuggling and criminal offenses against the security of computer data...
Bonus video:
