Refusal to testify in Montenegrin criminal proceedings today does not entail criminal liability, but is sanctioned exclusively with a fine of up to one thousand euros, which was confirmed in this specific case by the Basic State Prosecutor's Office (ODT), which decided not to prosecute the witness. Darko Perović.
He refused to testify in the trial against Danilo Mandic, nephew of the President of the Parliament of Montenegro Andrije Mandić, accused of several criminal offenses - against public safety, causing minor bodily harm, illegal possession of weapons and explosives, and confiscation of a vehicle.
According to the indictment, on the night between April 18 and 19, 2025, at around 3:40 a.m., in the center of Podgorica, at the intersection of Bulevar Ivana Crnojevića and Ulica Marka Miljanova, Mandić allegedly blocked the road. Aris Turković and Perović and shot at them, driving an official car of the Parliament of Montenegro, a “Range Rover”.
Turković did not appear at the first hearing because, as it was determined, he was not properly informed about the trial, while Perović refused to testify, stating that he was not mentally well. Judge Ivana Becic then called a psychiatric expert Željko Golubović to assess his psycho-physical condition and ability to testify, to which Perović did not agree. The court then fined him 800 euros, and the judge announced that, after the main trial hearing, she would submit the case files to the ODT to consider whether his behavior contained elements of a criminal offense.
The ODT confirmed to "Vijesti" that, based on the minutes of the main trial, which were submitted by Judge Becić, a special case was formed in that prosecutor's office.
"The acting state prosecutor found that there are no grounds for initiating criminal prosecution against the witness - injured party DP for any criminal offense for which he is prosecuted ex officio. This is because in this specific case, refusing to testify without a legal reason, according to the CPC, leads to a fine, which is envisaged as a procedural penalty and which has already been imposed by the court on the named witness. In the event of a repeated refusal to testify, if the court decides to conduct this evidentiary action, a fine may be imposed again," the prosecutor's office specified.
When a witness remains silent, processes stall.
Lawyers interviewed by "Vijesti" pointed out that if a witness refuses to testify, the court currently has only one option - to impose a fine of up to one thousand euros. They added that this is particularly controversial in organized crime cases, where testimony is often key evidence.
The interlocutors recall that such a legal situation is a direct consequence of the decision of the Constitutional Court (CC) made following proceedings initiated in 2018.
On September 27, 2019, the institution repealed a provision of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that allowed a witness to be imprisoned by court order if he or she refused to testify. The decision also repealed the decisions of the High and Appellate Courts that had ordered the imprisonment of Democratic Front (DF) MPs. Nebojše Medojevića i Milan KneževićThe proceedings before the Constitutional Court were initiated in December 2018, following a political-legal dispute that erupted when the courts acted upon the request of the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) and ordered the deputies to be taken to prison, even though they had parliamentary immunity.
Medojević then refused to tell the High Court the name of the person from the National Security Agency (ANB) who, as he claimed, had passed on information to him about the alleged corrupt act involving the chief special prosecutor. Milivoje Katnic was supposed to receive 100.000 euros as the former mayor of Podgorica Miomir Mugoša would not have been ordered to be detained. At the same time, Knežević refused to speak before the SDT about his knowledge of alleged corruption in the judiciary. After the High Court ordered their “imprisonment”, Medojević spent 13 days in UIKS, while Knežević did not leave the parliament building.
The situation was further complicated by the fact that the SDT did not have the consent of the Administrative Committee of the Parliament to initiate the procedure, while the Court of Appeal assessed that the immunity of deputies does not apply outside the parliament building. At the end of 2018, the Constitutional Court issued a temporary measure suspending the execution of the court decisions until a final decision is made, and then in September 2019, it repealed the disputed provisions of the CPC that allowed for the imprisonment of witnesses who refuse to testify.
The norm by which it was possible to order the detention of witnesses was applied in a very small number of cases, and Medojević and Knežević were among the few according to which it was implemented in practice.
"The best way to show how this situation was resolved is the fact that part of that legal provision in the Criminal Procedure Code still mentions imprisonment in the context of filing an appeal, but the possibility for the court to imprison a witness who refuses to testify has been abolished," said one of the lawyers.
They point out that, while it is important for the court to have a way to obtain the facts in every case, such a solution is particularly evident in organized crime cases, where witnesses are often under pressure or threats.
"Because it may happen that bribed witnesses, or just scared, do not want to give evidence, and the court can only impose a fine of one thousand euros, which is lower than one average monthly net salary at this time. That the Constitutional Court's decision to abolish the possibility of putting a witness in prison if he refuses to testify was political, not legal, is best demonstrated by the fact that in neighboring Croatia, which is a member of the EU, the court has the option of imposing a fine of over 6.000 euros and putting a witness in prison for up to a month. Slovenia, also as a member of the EU, in addition to imposing a fine, also has the option of imprisoning a witness who refuses to testify," one of the legal experts told "Vijesti".
The "old" law provided for imprisonment of up to two months
Before the abolition of the provision on "imprisoning" witnesses, the CPC provided that a witness who refuses to testify without a legal reason can be fined up to €1.000, and if he continues to refuse - he can be imprisoned until he agrees to testify, the need for his testimony ceases, or the proceedings are concluded, but for a maximum of two months.
Although the Constitutional Court repealed the section on imprisonment, the current CPC still contains a provision that an appeal against a decision on a fine or imprisonment is decided by the panel referred to in Article 24, paragraph 7, whereby an appeal against a decision on imprisonment does not postpone execution.
Bonus video:
