President of the Council of the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica Vesna Kovačević submitted a written order to the Police Directorate with clear instructions to keep an eye on the former President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro 24 hours a day during the surveillance measure in the future Vesna Medenica"Vijesti" learns from several sources.
In the order, Judge Kovačević wrote instructions to the police, asking them, among other things, to "actively, i.e. 24 hours a day" monitor whether the former first lady of the judicial branch of government, after being sentenced in the first instance to a decade in prison for unlawful influence, complies with the court measure - a ban on leaving Kolašin.
This is the first time that a court in a high-profile case has delivered a written order with clear instructions to the police on how to create a surveillance plan, during the duration of the mild measure of restriction of freedom of movement, in order to ensure the presence of Vesna Medenica during the further conduct of the criminal proceedings, i.e. to minimize the possibility that she, after her son, will escape.
The instructions came in response to the decision of the Appellate Court panel, which should soon issue a position on whether to reverse the court's first-instance ruling and send Vesna Medenica to Spuž detention, as requested by the Special State Prosecutor's Office under urgent procedure, three days after the first-instance verdict was pronounced.
After the escape of Miloš Medenica, who escaped from house arrest on the eve of the verdict, the SDT assessed that there was a real danger and fear that Vesna Medenica would join her son during the escape, which is why they submitted an appeal to the second-instance court.
Despite the fact that this is an urgent proceeding, the decision of the Court of Appeal has not yet been made, due to new procedural delays in the defense of the former head of the judicial branch of government, similar to those seen during the long-running court process, which led to the first-instance decision being made only three years and three months after the indictment was filed.
The Higher Court in Podgorica announced that the lawyer's request Zdenko Tomanovića, that the decision be delivered to him exclusively via regular mail “represents an obvious obstruction”, with the explanation that this should not affect the procedural shortcomings, because Medenica and her other lawyer Zdravko Begović received the files properly so that the defendant's "right to defense was not violated."
"Vijesti"'s interlocutors also explained that the written court order arrived as the first concrete result of the meeting with the Prime Minister. Milojko Spajić, at which security and judicial leaders agreed on Monday that in the future the court and the Ministry of Justice will provide the police with written instructions on how and in what manner to supervise judicial measures in each individual case.
During the public controversy, it was precisely this practice in the court/PD relationship that the Director of the Police Administration requested. Lazar Scepanovic, which explained that the court is solely obliged to issue precise instructions to the police, by special order, on how and in what manner to execute court measures.
The Minister of Justice also announced such a possibility. Bojan Božović, who, after a meeting in the Government building, announced that the system is unique in its intention to cope with the challenges brought by complex court processes.
He announced that day that "the first results of these agreements will be visible in the coming days"...
House arrest - a dead letter
The fact that there are, at the very least, numerous unclear court decisions regarding the imposition of supervision measures - leaving the apartment, but also the decision to lift such a judicial restriction on movement, is best demonstrated by the example of the solution given to Rožajac. Enis Buck Kajević, accused of membership in a criminal organization, Such a measure was lifted just three months after the police informed the court that he had violated the measures three times in a few days.
The defendant Rožajac lives in the border hamlet of Kajevići, just 700 meters from the border with Serbia, but this, as well as the fact that the Police Department informed the court that he had violated the house arrest measure, did not lead to a more restrictive court decision.
This is not an isolated case, as "Vijesti", through its analysis of numerous decisions, has noticed the established court practice according to which defendants, despite numerous violations of supervision measures, do not suffer any more severe sanctions as long as they regularly attend court hearings.
A man from Nikšić is a kind of record holder in violating house arrest measures. Dino Abdic, who violated the court order 17 times, and then the members of the OKG are slightly behind him Momcilo Milic i Vukan Vujacic, who violated house arrest measures 13 times.
In all these cases, the police duly informed the court, but they never received feedback on whether a more restrictive measure of detention had been imposed on them.
The Police Directorate currently has 510 court-ordered supervision measures, and according to statistical data, 59 people are currently under house arrest, or those to whom the court has imposed a measure - a ban on leaving the apartment.
Almost half of the house arrests, according to court decisions, are supervised by officers of RCB "Centar" because there are 33 defendants in the Podgorica and Cetinje area, mostly members of criminal organizations, to whom the court has imposed a milder form of restriction of freedom.
UP data shows that currently 174 people, most of whom are in RCB Centar - 56, are being monitored by the police due to a court order - to leave their place of residence.
Violating measures 350 times, court sends four to Spuž
Statistical data from the Police Directorate show that police officers informed the courts as many as 350 times that defendants - 93 of them - were violating court supervision measures.
In only four cases, according to UP data, the court sent the defendants to detention after violating the measures.
In all cases where the court imposed a more restrictive measure, the defendants were not listed in police records as members of the OKG.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the measure of supervision of the ban on leaving the apartment, as well as other measures, is carried out by the police, which is obliged to ensure efficient and continuous implementation and take all actions to prevent its violation.
Article 166, paragraph 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the investigating judge or the presiding judge of the panel to examine every two months whether the judicial measure applied is necessary.
Under Article 169 of the CPC, the court may, at any time, order compliance with supervision measures and request a report from the Police Department, which is obliged to submit the report without delay.
The Police Directorate previously announced that the Higher Court in Podgorica did not request this report from the police in the case of the supervision measure - leaving the apartment for Miloš Medenica, which was imposed by the decision Kvs. No. 1011/25, on November 19 last year, by a panel chaired by judge Zoran Radovic.
"The Higher Court in Podgorica, at no time, in any act or letter, has requested a review of the surveillance measure or a report from the competent organizational unit of the Police Administration, in this case the Podgorica Security Department," the UP announced.
Miloš Medenica fled the night before January 28, 2026, when the criminal panel of Judge Vesna Kovačević announced the first-instance verdict against that criminal organization.
So far, none of the security and judicial functionaries have taken responsibility for Medenica's escape, but in public polemics they are exclusively shifting the blame onto each other.
The Prosecutor's Office did not disclose whether it had formed a case to determine who made an institutional oversight during the supervision of the court measure against Miloš Medenica, while the Ministry of Interior did not announce whether the Internal Control Department was investigating whether there were any illegal actions in the UP system, which was responsible for the plan and supervision of Medenica.
Miloš Medenica was sentenced to 10 years and two months, while his mother Vesna Medenica was sentenced in the first instance to a decade in prison for unlawful influence, but was acquitted for membership in a criminal organization.
The SDT announced an appeal against the first-instance decision.
House arrest - an illegal measure?
Several lawyers, from whom "Vijesti" sought explanations, explained that the courts are completely illegally issuing decisions on house arrest measures for defendants, for whom the most restrictive measure of detention in a closed institution has been abolished under Article 179, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the court has not even issued a first-instance decision three years after the indictment was filed.
They emphasized that this is a "gray zone" because there is a tacit agreement in the judiciary to use the provision of Article 166, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code - house arrest measures, with certain monitoring mechanisms, because this suits all parties in the proceedings because the time spent in home conditions is counted towards a possible prison sentence.
It is precisely because of this fact that the courts do not impose more restrictive measures on OKG members when they violate house arrest measures, and whose detention has been lifted because they have already spent three years in it since the indictment was filed, because such a court action would be completely illegal. That is why numerous notifications from the Police Department about violations of the measures have remained without a response from the court.
The President of the Higher Court in Podgorica, Zoran Radović, in his decision of November 19, 2025, when the panel imposed a measure on the defendant Miloš Medenica - a ban on leaving the apartment, wrote, among other things, that the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes between detention and supervision measures - leaving the apartment, because the latter measure can last until the verdict becomes final.
"Both measures have different legal application, purpose and intensity of restrictions on the right to freedom of movement, and therefore cannot be considered identical," the President of the High Court wrote in the decision.
Bonus video:
