Radulović: The case of the search of Dragiša Kljajević's house shows that this is a pattern, not an isolated incident

Lawyer Veselin Radulović assessed that the recent case of the search of the house of DNP councilor Dragiša Kljajević in Pljevlja confirms the existence of a pattern in the actions of security agencies, which he previously described as "vetting for human rights" - a process in which the resistance of civil rights to political needs, police PR and the injured vanities of officials is tested.

In his author's text on this case, he said that this example speaks of a broader systemic problem in which, instead of responsibility, space is often opened for political and institutional justifications.

We are publishing the text in its entirety: "It wasn't long ago that I wrote about the phenomenon I called "human rights vetting" - a process in which, in practice, the integrity of those in power is tested, but rather the resilience of civil rights to political needs, police PR, and the wounded vanities of officials.

A new case from Pljevlja has confirmed that the problem was not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior that is becoming increasingly visible. According to information provided by the police and the Minister of Interior, the search of the DNP councilor's house followed a report that was submitted to the police by mail, allegedly claiming that he was in possession of illegal weapons. The search was carried out, and the result was predictably devastating - nothing was found to confirm the allegations in the report.

What followed was perhaps even more interesting than the search itself.

Namely, for the first time we are witnessing a situation in which the top of the security sector is publicly justifying itself for a police operation. For the first time, Minister Šaranović felt the need to explain in detail how the search took place. For the first time, the police have publicly announced the circumstances that preceded the operation. The reason is obvious because this time the subject of the search was not an ordinary citizen, but a political official, and his political party also reacted.

This raises a question that citizens have been asking for years without an answer. How many similar searches have there been of people who did not have political protection? How many state raids on citizens' homes based on suspicious or false reports, unverified information, or notorious "operational findings"? How many times has nothing been found after such searches? And why did no one consider it necessary to explain to the public the legality of the action?

If we learn today that the entire action was initiated based on a report submitted by mail, and that at the same time the issue of criminal liability for possible false reporting is raised, then it is impossible to avoid the key question: what kind of verification was carried out before the state was asked to implement such a serious measure as a search of an apartment?

There are other important questions, such as on what basis did the prosecutor and judge conclude that there were legal conditions for a search? Would a search have been initiated and would the same prosecutor and judge have decided the same thing if someone had sent a report by mail that Lazar Šćepanović, Danilo Šaranović or Aleksa Bećić were in possession of illegal weapons? Neither the prosecutor nor the judge who acted knows the answer to the first question. Every citizen of Montenegro knows the answer to the second.

When nothing is found after a search of an apartment, the responsibility does not lie with the police chief who initiated the action. It does not lie with the prosecutor who gave the consent. Nor does it lie with the judge who issued the order. Instead, the public receives new announcements, new justifications, and new political messages.

And it is especially interesting that the very same people who are behind the illegal searches have been calling for vetting in the judiciary for years. Hardly a week goes by without new demands that judges and prosecutors be additionally checked, re-examined or “purged” of the alleged remnants of the old system. However, practice shows that the problem is not with those judges who reject unfounded police requests. The problem is precisely with those who approve such requests without sufficient critical scrutiny.

Therefore, the conclusion is increasingly being imposed that, before continuing with political campaigns against the judiciary as a whole, the issue of accountability should be raised within the top of the security sector and with judges and prosecutors who, without serious verification, serve as a flow-through boiler for security sector initiatives. Because, if searches are conducted based on information that later turns out to be completely unfounded, if nothing is found to justify the search, if no one is held accountable, and the only reaction of the system is to search for the person who filed the report, then it is clear where the problem lies.

Because of all of the above, this case is not just about one hearing in Pljevlja. It is about the state of the system. A system in which responsibility is almost always sought at the wrong address. A system in which judges who reject politically desirable requests are declared a problem, while judges who confirm them without question are considered desirable partners.

And that is why perhaps the greatest irony of today's Montenegro is not that such an incompetent top of the security sector constantly talks about vetting. The greatest irony is that each new case like this shows that vetting should start from the top of the security sector. Because their irresponsible actions have not only jeopardized the legality of an individual search. Their abuses have jeopardized the rights of all citizens.

And that is, in essence, what we have been seeing for some time now – continuous vetting for human rights," Radulović said.