The implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, Bigović v. Montenegro, could come under increased supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, it has been confirmed by several sources. Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG).
This would be a heavy blow for Montenegro, as it would mean that the institutions in Strasbourg assess that the state has not seriously implemented the judgment that established poor conditions of detention and violations of the right to liberty. For Montenegro, this would mean increased international pressure and a message that even after the ECHR judgment, the state has not shown that it can prevent people from being held in poor conditions and without a sufficiently convincing legal basis.
In the case of Bigović v. Montenegro, the ECtHR found a violation due to poor conditions of detention, as well as a violation due to the unlawfulness and insufficient reasoning of the extension of detention. The court noted in particular that two months had passed since the indictment was filed without any new decisions on the extension of detention, and that the domestic courts had not provided sufficient and relevant reasons for the continued deprivation of liberty. The judgment is still pending before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and is currently being held under standard supervision.
The Supreme Court recently put an end to the criminal proceedings for the murder of a police inspector. Slavoljub Šćekić and upheld the convictions of 30 years in prison Ljub Bigović and other defendants, but it did not erase the judicial trail that the state in the same case violated the rights of the defendants for years while they were in custody.
DON'T MISS IT
Representative of Montenegro before the court in Strasbourg Mirko Đuković confirmed to CIN-CG that it received a letter from the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR in late March, informing the Government of Montenegro of the possibility of considering the case of Bigović v. Montenegro in light of increased monitoring, especially considering the findings of the preliminary draft report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
The CPT has practically laid bare the scale of the problems in the Montenegrin detention system in its latest preliminary observations. Its findings also directly address one of the final benchmarks for Chapter 23, which requires Montenegro to reduce its detention population and increase the use of alternative measures. Instead, the CPT notes that detention remains a widely used measure, that detainees are held in appalling conditions, and that the state has failed to improve the situation despite years of warnings.
A possible transfer of the case to enhanced supervision, explains Đuković, would mean more intensive attention from the Committee of Ministers, more frequent reporting, and a stronger focus on specific measures taken by the state.
“Internationally, this could send an unfavorable signal, especially in a year in which Montenegro is seeking to close negotiation chapters 23 and 24. Such a decision would undoubtedly increase the attention and concern of partners in the European Union (EU) regarding the issues of the rule of law, detention conditions and the effective execution of the judgments of the European Court,” says the state representative before the Strasbourg court.
The Supreme Court (SC) told CIN-CG that the final criterion from Chapter 23 implies the consistent application of constitutional and convention standards, according to which detention must be a last and exceptional measure, which is determined only when the purpose of the proceedings cannot be achieved by more lenient measures.
The Supreme Court says that it will continue to contribute to the achievement of this benchmark through the harmonization of case law, monitoring the application of ECHR standards, and highlighting the need for detailed reasoning for detention decisions and consideration of alternative measures to ensure the presence of the defendant, including supervision, a ban on leaving the place of residence, bail, and other measures provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.
"The courts will do everything in their power, and primarily the High Court in Podgorica, as the most burdened court, to speed up the ongoing proceedings and make a decision within a reasonable time," the court, headed by the former state representative before the Strasbourg court, said. Valentina Pavlicic.
Deputy Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms Mirjana Radovic It also assesses that the key measures that Montenegro should take are to use detention exclusively as a measure of last resort, with mandatory consideration of alternative measures.
"At the same time, it is necessary to continue improving the conditions of stay in UIKS, including the development of meaningful and meaningful activities for detainees, strengthening the availability and quality of health care, as well as taking measures aimed at reducing overcrowding in detention units and prison capacities...", states Radović.
She points out that the most common complaints from detainees relate to overcrowding in cells, inadequate health care, and decisions by judicial authorities.
Radović recalls that the CPT, in addition to reducing the number of detainees and the time spent in detention, also called on the Montenegrin authorities to design and implement a comprehensive regime of structured out-of-cell activities for detainees (work, occupation, education, recreation and sports). She emphasizes that the European Court of Human Rights has already established that prisons must be organized in such a way as to ensure “respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties.”
From the department managed by the minister Bojan Božović They point out to CIN-CG that Montenegro has taken the CPT's observations extremely seriously as an important instrument for improving existing standards and practices, and that the activities of the Ministry of Justice and the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions in the future will relate to strengthening the spatial capacities of the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions and amending the normative framework.
Courts violate the right to liberty
The Constitutional Court of Montenegro (CC) frequently finds violations of the right to liberty in detention cases, and the number of detainees is growing. According to CIN-CG, around 65 percent of detainees are currently in Spuž, compared to 35 percent of those serving prison sentences.
According to the judgments analyzed by CIN-CG, out of 387 decisions from 2020 to 2026, the Constitutional Court found that regular courts violated the right to liberty in 103 cases.
According to these decisions, detention is extended in a pattern, courts are late in monitoring detention and deciding on appeals, milder alternative measures are not seriously considered, and in some cases people remain behind bars even after the legal basis has expired.
The most drastic examples are cases in which the US found unlawful deprivation of liberty after the expiration of extradition detention, detention lasting several years, and appeal proceedings so slow that the right to urgent detention review practically loses its meaning.
The decisions of the Constitutional Court also reveal a worrying trend: the same names and the same types of violations keep coming back. The same complainants repeatedly receive protection from the Constitutional Court due to the same or very similar failures of the regular courts. This means that even after several interventions by the Constitutional Court, the regular courts do not change their essential approach, and judges do not bear any special responsibility when the Constitutional Court establishes unlawful detention. The current rules on the evaluation of judges do not provide for a reduction in the grade, disciplinary proceedings, or any other sanction for a violation of the right to liberty.
The decisions of the Constitutional Court conclude that regular courts almost assume detention. In some cases, the Constitutional Court practically registers in its judgments a serial rewriting of reasons, with findings that detention was maintained “automatically”, and not as a measure of last resort that must be constantly reviewed.
Of particular note is the way in which the courts explain the alleged risk of flight. The Constitutional Court reiterates from decision to decision that it is not enough to state the gravity of the offense, the amount of the threatened sentence, foreign connections, or the fact that someone has traveled abroad. The risk of flight must be specific and related to that person: their job, family, behavior, previous relationship with the authorities, and the possibility of securing the purpose of the proceedings with milder measures.
In one case, the US sided with a woman who turned herself in to the police, even though she had purchased a plane ticket to travel abroad. Regular courts have tried to turn this into an argument for the risk of flight, but the US assessed that such behavior speaks more of cooperation with the authorities than of an intention to escape. This is one of the more striking examples of how facts that are in favor of a suspect can be turned against him in domestic practice.
In addition to the weak reasoning of the regular courts, in several cases the Constitutional Court even finds that the person should not have been in detention. In one case it was found that the applicant was unlawfully deprived of his liberty from 17 to 29 April 2025, after the maximum period of extradition detention had expired.
In extradition cases, the US has sought a serious and urgent review of the legality of continued detention, the statute of limitations, the conditions of extradition, and the risk of torture or unfair trial in the requesting state. In one case, the US ordered the High Court to decide immediately on the justification for continued extradition detention, while in another case it overturned a decision regarding extradition to China, citing serious allegations of the risk of torture and forced confessions.
Through several decisions, the US sends the same message: bail, a ban on leaving the place of residence, reporting to the police, and confiscation of travel documents are not embellishments in the law, but real alternatives that the court must seriously consider.
Several cases also point out that an appeal against detention in Montenegro often exists only formally, i.e. that the Court of Appeal took too long to decide on the appeal, which makes the right to urgent judicial review of freedom an empty formula. Even more alarming are cases in which the courts failed to review detention at all within the prescribed time limit. The Constitutional Court thus found that, for example, the Basic Court in Podgorica decided on the extension of detention only ten days after the deadline had expired.
In several cases, it was also determined that detention lasted so long that it no longer appeared to be a procedural measure, but rather a punishment before a final verdict.
The Supreme Court told CIN-CG that they are aware of the findings of the Constitutional Court, and that they are considering forming a Working Group to develop guidelines for high-quality and individualized reasoning for decisions on ordering and extending detention.
"It is particularly insisted that the reasons for detention cannot be abstract and generic, but must be specifically related to the circumstances of each individual case," the Supreme Court states.
The Supreme Court also emphasizes that before ordering or extending detention, each court must carefully examine whether the purpose of detention can be achieved with a more lenient measure. The court also assesses that all courts must treat detention cases as particularly urgent, and that amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code should be urgently implemented to strengthen procedural guarantees and protect the human rights of detainees.
The decisions of the Constitutional Court, says the representative of Montenegro before the court in Strasbourg, in which constitutional appeals were accepted, indicate certain weaknesses in individual cases.
"These weaknesses most often relate to situations in which the reasoning of the disputed decisions of regular courts did not provide sufficiently clear, convincing and individualized reasons for the extension of detention, or in which the courts did not fully comply with procedural obligations. The Constitutional Court has also found in some cases that complete, sufficient and relevant reasons for the refusal of bail were not provided," Đuković points out.
The Police Directorate (PD) told CIN-CG that the electronic surveillance system for enforcing supervision measures, as an alternative to detention, is not yet fully operational, although the Ministry of Justice developed software for electronic monitoring back in 2017.
They say that public procurement for software, devices and cameras has been launched, and the purchase of at least 50 devices for police needs is planned.
The UP claims that electronic surveillance would allow for more precise control of surveillance measures and reduce the need for detention.
More than 80 percent of communicated complaints are due to violations of the right to a fair trial
The European Court of Human Rights, in the period from 2020 to May 5, 2026, communicated with the office of the representative of Montenegro before the court in Strasbourg, 141 applications against Montenegro, of which 118 cases related to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, i.e. the right to a fair trial, including cases related to the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions, according to Đuković.
Đuković points out that Montenegro is currently considered one of the more successful member states of the Council of Europe when it comes to implementing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
“At the moment, only one case is under enhanced supervision, the so-called Radoja Dakić case group, which has entered the final phase of execution and for which we expect the supervision to be closed next year. In addition, Montenegro currently has five cases under standard supervision, three of which are expected to be closed by the end of the year,” said Đuković, adding that transferring any of these cases to enhanced supervision would send the wrong signal to international partners.
According to the Office of the Ombudsman, the biggest challenges currently relate to the insufficient spatial and technical capacities of prison and detention units and the need for further harmonization of court practice in detention cases.
The Council of Europe Report on Montenegro, Sector for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, from March 2026, lists the violation of the right to liberty, police abuse, the effectiveness of investigations, the length of proceedings and the failure to enforce final judgments as the main problems in Montenegro.
The report mentions cases in which court decisions in favor of the applicants have not yet been enforced, as well as the inefficient conduct of related administrative proceedings. For Montenegro, it mentions poor detention conditions and the very violation of the right to liberty in the Bigović case.
Among the main unresolved issues are ill-treatment by the police and the lack of effective investigation. The report also mentions the uneven practice of domestic courts in civil proceedings against the state for compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to ill-treatment. Among the unresolved issues is the excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
According to the latest Montenegro Profile, published in January 2026, the European Court of Human Rights considered 112 applications against Montenegro in 2025, of which 109 were declared inadmissible or removed from the list, while it issued three judgments and found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in all three.
While last year three verdicts were issued in which a violation was found, in 2024 that number was significantly higher - a total of nine verdicts.
"However, the fact that violations of the same convention rights continue to be identified confirms that key problems, especially regarding the length of proceedings and the failure to enforce court decisions, have not been systematically eliminated," the Ombudsman's report for 2025 states.
These patterns of behavior, the Ombudsman's office claims, indicate a systemic problem in exercising citizens' right to decision-making within a reasonable time.
"Reasons such as overload or lack of staff cannot be a justification for inefficient action, because the state has an obligation to ensure adequate organization and functioning of the administration in order to exercise rights within a reasonable time," the Ombudsman's office says in a report.
Europe treats detention as a measure of last resort, not first.
Comparative European practice shows that the problem of excessive use of detention is not solved only by expanding prison capacity, but above all by changing judicial practice and seriously applying alternative measures. The European Commission also emphasized in one of its 2022 recommendations on the rights of suspects and defendants in detention that pre-trial detention should be used as a measure of last resort, that its justification must be regularly reviewed and that, whenever possible, preference must be given to milder measures.
This approach is visible in several European systems. In Finland, according to the Prison and Probation Service, two alternatives to detention have been introduced since the beginning of 2019: an enhanced travel ban and house arrest.
The German Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a judge may suspend the execution of a detention order if the purpose of the proceedings can be achieved by less severe measures, in particular when the risk of flight can be reduced by an obligation to report to the competent authorities, a restriction of movement, an order not to leave the place of residence without permission, or bail.
Similarly, the French Code of Criminal Procedure assumes that detention is an exception and can only be ordered if the objectives of the proceedings cannot be achieved by judicial supervision or by house arrest with electronic monitoring. Judicial supervision may include a ban on leaving a certain area, an obligation to stay at a certain address, a ban on going to certain places, periodic reporting to the competent authorities, a ban on contact with certain persons, the surrender of documents and bail. The French system also provides for house arrest with electronic monitoring, which can be ordered ex officio or at the request of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted, if he or she faces a prison sentence of at least two years or a more severe penalty.
The Croatian Criminal Procedure Code also provides that, when circumstances exist for detention, the authorities must opt for one or more precautionary measures if they can achieve the same purpose.
The Dutch model is particularly important for cases where the risk of flight is linked to a foreign country. Since 2013, the country has implemented rules that allow EU citizens to be detained in their own country, rather than awaiting trial in another country. This shows that even foreign connections do not automatically lead to the conclusion that detention is the only possible measure.
These examples are important for Montenegro, as they show that the European standard does not only imply better prison conditions or the construction of new capacities, but also that courts truly treat detention as a measure of last resort. Montenegro should align its practice with these European examples as soon as possible, as one of the final benchmarks for Chapter 23 is to reduce the prison and detention population, increase the use of alternative measures to detention, improve prison conditions and gradually align with CPT standards.
Ministry announces construction of new facilities and changes to regulations
The construction of the new Pre-Trial Prison in Podgorica will begin by the end of this year, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced.
"The Directorate for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions planned to expand the accommodation capacity in the Short Sentence Prison through the construction of new accommodation facilities, and work will begin during the current year."
Four new facilities are being built at the Directorate for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions: a Special Health Institution, a Multifunctional Facility, an Open-Type Prison and a Registration Office, and the Ministry of Justice announces that the work is expected to be completed by the end of this year, with the facilities being functional by the end of 2027.
Through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, the Ministry of Justice will, they say, ensure the improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings, with a special emphasis on the length of detention and restrictions on detainees' contact with the outside world, after receiving a positive opinion from the European Commission.
They add that the drafting of the Rulebook on Amendments to the Rulebook on the Detailed Method of Enforcement of Detention is underway. It is also emphasized that in February this year, the Minister of Justice formed a working team to draft the Instructions on the Application of Supervision Measures.
A working team has been formed to execute the verdict.
In mid-April this year, the Ministry of Justice formed a Working Team to develop an Action Plan for the execution of the judgment in the case of Bigović v. Montenegro.
Representative Đuković points out that the Office, with the help of a working team, will submit a report to the Council of Europe by the end of this month with detailed information and analysis that should provide the Committee of Ministers with sufficient confidence to keep the case under standard supervision.
The Supreme Court told CIN-CG that they have delegated their representative as a member of the Working Team, and that this body will advocate that the verdict not be placed under increased supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, so that it does not reflect on the international reputation of Montenegro and its institutions.
The Supreme Court believes that any increased supervision should not be viewed solely as a sanction, but also as a mechanism that should contribute to more efficient implementation of the Convention standards.
After the Bigović verdict, the Supreme Court points out, case law has further emphasized the need for individualized justification of detention reasons, substantial control over the duration of detention, and more serious consideration of alternative measures.
The Ombudsman's office, which is also part of the Team, concludes that the fact that the execution of this judgment is still under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe indicates that international bodies do not view the aforementioned problems as an isolated case, but as an issue that requires a systemic response from the state.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
