The Police Department violated the right to life Natasha (35) Marku (8) and To Masan Martinovic (10), who were killed by a mass murderer in Cetinje on August 12, 2022 Vuk Borilović.
This is the key conclusion of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, who examined the complaint of Natasa's mother and grandmother, Marko and Mašan Martinović, Vesna Pejovic.
In her complaint regarding the work of the Police Directorate and the basic state prosecutor's offices in Cetinje and Nikšić, Pejović wrote that her daughter and grandchildren's right to life was violated:
“In the unprecedented tragedy that occurred on August 12, 2022, in Cetinje, when they were killed in their family home.”
In a detailed reasoned opinion, the Deputy Ombudsman, Mirjana Radovic It noted a number of serious shortcomings. It states that in critical situations, when police officers used firearms, the weapons jammed several times, which may indicate a technical malfunction or a lack of skills on the part of the officers.
The police helicopter that day was out of order, and the police officers did not have enough protective equipment or adequate weapons at their disposal. A particular problem is the chronic shortage of personnel, as well as insufficient training for handling crisis situations.
The Ombudsman found that the Police Directorate was late in providing information to the public, which further increased the anxiety of citizens, and also registered an inefficient procedure for informing each other among management personnel. He particularly criticized the fact that the request for consent to engage a special unit was sent only 22 minutes after the first report.
"Which, among other things, ultimately resulted in the acting police officers and citizens being left to their own devices in the meantime," the Opinion states.
At that time, the director of the Police Administration was Zoran Brđanin and the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was Filip Adžić.
After detailed statements, the Deputy Protector states:
“Based on all of the above, the Protector concludes that in this particular case, the Police Administration violated the right to inviolability of physical integrity under Article 28, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Montenegro and, analogously, the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention by failing to take preventive measures to protect the lives of the complainant's daughter and grandson - Nataša, Marko and Mašan Martinović.”
Radović emphasizes in his Opinion that the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Cetinje, as well as the ODT Nikšić, did not timely and thoroughly investigate all aspects of the police's actions. It is particularly problematic that the victims' families were not invited to provide their knowledge about the event, although this is one of the conditions for a comprehensive and effective investigation.
The Ombudsman notes that such conduct "does not contribute to the effectiveness of the investigation, nor to strengthening public confidence in the work of the judiciary."
In addition, it is pointed out that the prosecution initially assessed that there was no basis for criminal proceedings, but later filed an indictment against the then head of the Cetinje branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for failing to initiate proceedings to seize Borilović's weapons. This, it is alleged, called into question the consistency and professionalism of the prosecutor's actions in the case that shook the entire country.
MASSACRE
Three years ago, Borilović killed ten people, two of whom were children, and wounded six fellow citizens in the Cetinje neighborhood of Medovina, after which he was killed by the police.
In addition to Nataša Martinović and her two sons who had just stepped into life, Borilović also killed their godfather that day. Milan Martinović (37), then three family members Damn it - Rajka (56) and his parents Danica (74) and Dimitrija (81), but also Goran Đurišić (54) and sisters Alexander (52) and Milo Radunović (50).
He took their lives in a murderous rampage on Friday, August 12, 2022, between 15.23:15.50 p.m. and XNUMX:XNUMX p.m.
In the same interval, he wounded five other fellow citizens - Filip Đurković, Aleksandar Drecuna, Slavica Zvicer, Mileva Ramadanović, Darinka Celebic and a policeman Ljubiša Maksimović.
In an exchange of fire with the police, Maksimović was wounded and Borilović was killed.
The police then fired five shots at the mass murderer, one of which was fatal. A Cetinje resident also participated in the shooting of Borilović. Nenad Neno Kaluđerović, but the investigation determined that his shot was not fatal to the mass murderer.
CONCLUSIONS AND OMISSIONS
Examining whether the state is responsible for the death, the Deputy Protector states that it is necessary to answer whether, upon learning that Borilović had begun using weapons, the actions of the Police Directorate were such that they met the requirements of adequate preventive action aimed at preventing murders and injuries.
It also emphasizes that the duty to take preventive operational measures under Article 2 of the Convention is an obligation of means, not of result, which means that the state is not responsible for every death that occurs, but only if it failed to take reasonable measures that it could have taken to prevent a known and real danger to life.
"In this regard, it is necessary to answer several questions, including: whether enough police officers were deployed on the day of the tragic event, whether the officers who first took measures and actions to protect the lives of the citizens of Cetinje were appropriately equipped and trained to handle firearms, whether they acted and, if so, according to which protocol or rules of the service in a given situation, whether they were provided with assistance and what kind, whether the management staff acted in a timely manner and what measures and actions were taken in connection with the tragic event, and what attitude the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Police Directorate displayed towards the public during the critical event," it was explained.
The Ombudsman determined that on the day of the tragedy, 34 police officers were working at the Cetinje Police Station, although the systematization provided for 47, and that 12 of them were absent due to vacation, sick leave or assistance at other stations. There were only five in the field, another five as assistance and one on duty.
"From 7.00:19.00 a.m. to XNUMX:XNUMX p.m., five police officers were on duty in the field, while five police officers were also deployed to secure the monastery as backup from the Nikšić Police Station, while one officer performed the duties of the head of the Cetinje Police Station Duty Service. In his preventive mandate, the Protector repeatedly pointed out the shortage of personnel in the Cetinje Police Station, as well as the overloading of existing personnel," the Opinion states.
Radović notes that the case files record that police weapons malfunctioned several times during the intervention, and that there is no evidence of when the officers last cleaned their weapons, conducted shooting training, or checked their psycho-physical abilities.
"There are no facts or circumstances in the case files that could be used to conclude when the police officers last cleaned their weapons, checked their correctness, or participated in periodic shooting training before the tragic event, nor that the above issues were subject to control by management," she states, concluding that there was a lack of timely and coordinated reaction by the Police Directorate, caused by a chronic lack of personnel and equipment, as well as a lack of systematic checks.
"Finally, the Police Directorate, through a subsequent analysis of the observed shortcomings, concluded that the main shortcomings and problems were the lack of personnel, the lack of available protective intervention equipment, inadequate firearms, insufficient training of officers, the inability of the helicopter unit to provide assistance due to a helicopter malfunction, and that the Police Directorate was late in issuing a public statement," the Opinion states.
Radović emphasized that the information that a crisis situation was underway, how many people were killed, how many were wounded, should have been immediately made public, and in this way, the spread of misinformation and panic would have been avoided.
"This would avoid the publication of a series of unfounded statements and texts on social networks and through public information in a short period of time, and would also to some extent avoid the anxiety of citizens throughout Montenegro," the Opinion states.
Radović issued recommendations to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, namely the Police Directorate, to ensure the employment of the missing number of police officers in the Police Directorate in accordance with the applicable systematization acts, to provide them with the necessary funds and equipment for the work of police officers, and to periodically review the psycho-physical condition of police officers.
She also recommended that they ensure periodic checks of the correctness of work tools and equipment, including means of coercion, as well as periodic training regarding the application of police powers, but also to draw up a detailed plan for dealing with crisis situations with a precise listing of the persons responsible for implementing the plan, and then to conduct training for officers in this regard.
Families should not hide problems
The opinion also states that there is no evidence in the case files that the Police Directorate had knowledge of the symptoms of mental illness exhibited by Vuk Borilović.
However, the Protector reminds that in such cases, prevention is only possible if there is early identification of risk and timely response - by the family, community and institutions.
"There is no evidence in the case files that the Police Directorate was aware that the deceased Borilović was exhibiting symptoms of mental illness, which would, in this regard, have an obligation to act preventively. In this regard, the Protector recalls that, when it comes to persons with mental illnesses, it is crucial to understand that early identification of risks and appropriate response depend on both the persons with whom they are in contact, and the health and social protection systems that must act proactively, be accessible and strong enough to enable timely intervention - so that risks are recognized and remedied at an early stage. Prevention requires synchronized action - by family members, the community and institutions. If families do not take measures and do not provide support to a family member in treatment, but hide for social, cultural, customary and/or other reasons, fatal consequences may occur," the Opinion states.
In this regard, the Protector recalled the previously given recommendation to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Welfare, Family Care and Demography - to develop, in cooperation with the Police Directorate, a Protocol that would precisely define the role, procedures and cooperation of the acting officers, including employees of mental health centers, social work centers and police officers, with the aim of a timely, synchronized and multi-sectoral approach in working with mentally ill persons.
Unclear chain of command
The Deputy Ombudsman states that the inadequate reaction of police officers in terms of eliminating the danger, or providing assistance to the citizens of Cetinje, is confirmed by almost all witnesses who gave their statements before the Higher State Prosecutor's Office.
"...It is not possible to conclude who directed the police officers' action itself, based on what protocol or service rules, what measures and actions were ordered and with what outcome, and in terms of the existence of a clear chain of command and management of this complex situation, after learning that Borilović began using weapons," the Opinion states.
The Ombudsman noted the inefficient and complex procedure for informing management staff about this tragic event.
"The call for the purpose of obtaining consent to engage a special police unit was sent 22 minutes after the incident in question was reported, which, among other things, ultimately resulted in the acting police officers and citizens being left to their own devices in the meantime. The Ministry of Internal Affairs did not, through a public statement or warning, immediately upon learning of Borilović's actions, attempt to inform citizens of the existence of an immediate danger to life through preventive action in this way, in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs, which stipulates that the Ministry informs the public about the performance of internal affairs, when this is in the interest of the citizens of Montenegro and their safety," Radović concludes.
Omissions of the prosecution
Radović emphasizes in his Opinion that the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Cetinje, as well as the Nikšić ODT, did not timely or thoroughly investigate all aspects of the police's actions.
It is particularly problematic that the victims' families were not invited to provide their knowledge about the event, although this is one of the conditions for the investigation to be comprehensive and effective.
The Ombudsman notes that, although the proceedings before the Cetinje ODT are ongoing, he cannot help but point out previous prosecutorial conduct which, in the opinion of the Protector, does not contribute to the impression of effectiveness:
"And which must be removed in the continuation of the proceedings before the competent prosecutor's office in Cetinje."
Although, as stated, the Cetinje ODT filed an indictment against the former head of the Cetinje Branch for Administrative and Internal Affairs for failing to initiate proceedings to seize weapons from Borilović, the Protector points out that the initial decision made by the aforementioned prosecutor's office "did not contribute to preserving public trust in the rule of law."
It is noted that the acting prosecutor, in the official note Ktr. No. 77/23 of 19 July 2023, assessed that "there is no criminal offence for which prosecution is being undertaken ex officio".
She explained the decision by saying that "the possibility cannot be ruled out that the incident in question occurred and that the procedure for confiscating weapons was carried out", as well as that "the event occurred a year later than the report against Borilović" and that "in similar situations the Branch acted in the same way, which was their usual practice".
The Protector, however, emphasizes that a period of slightly more than a year elapsed between the notification of the criminal charges against Borilović and the massacre, and that the lawful conduct of state authorities is considered essential for preserving public confidence in their commitment to the rule of law and dispelling suspicions that the authorities tend to cover up or tolerate unlawful acts by state officials (Bati and Others v. Turkey, § 136).
The Ombudsman notes that the wounded citizen claimed, and his brother confirmed, that the police officer refused to help them because he “had to guard the monastery,” while the police officer denied this. It is alleged that there is no trace in the files that a third person was questioned about this, and that the prosecutor's office in Nikšić believed the police officer's version.
Pejović files complaint against police and two prosecutors' offices
Pejović wrote in her complaint that she believes that police officers did not act in a timely manner and prevent the tragedy.
The mother and grandmother of three innocent victims pointed out that the allegations were never investigated, that the killer was armed to the teeth, nor that steps were taken to disarm him and who should have done that, raising the question of who is responsible for him having a weapon in legal possession, or who allowed him to obtain the weapon and for what reason.
In her complaint and conversation with the Ombudsman, she also said that she and her husband had additional information related to this tragedy, and that, in light of the information, and taking into account the fact that on that day, members of the Intervention Unit from Nikšić, who were in front of the Cetinje Monastery, refused to treat one of the victims of the wounding, that they had still not received the footage in question, and that the police had not reacted well:
"Because if it had, at least the number of people killed would have been lower."
She also stated that the actions were slow and disorganized, that she never received information about all the omissions made by the police officers and senior staff involved...
"...And they were made as soon as the perpetrator had enough time to carry out a massacre of unimaginable proportions; and that he experiences every cover-up and concealment of the truth as if he were losing his loved ones again."
She also emphasized that she believes that the Prosecutor's Office did not conduct an effective investigation, nor did it determine all the circumstances that led to the tragedy, and that she and her husband had other information related to this tragedy:
"Which were never investigated, that all evidence was not seized, as well as the audio recording of the last minutes of her daughter's and granddaughter's lives."
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
