Deputies of the parliamentary majority proposed a law on amnesty, which provides for the release from serving a quarter of the prison sentence of persons who have been legally convicted of criminal offenses prescribed by the laws of Montenegro and those who have been convicted by a foreign judgment that is executed in Montenegro.
Persons who, on the date of entry into force of this law, were sentenced to a three-month prison sentence for criminal acts attributed to the laws of Montenegro, and who have not started serving their sentence, the sentence is replaced by a suspended sentence.
"At the same time, the imposed prison sentence is taken as fixed and it is determined that it will not be carried out if the convicted person does not commit a new criminal offense within two years," says the proposed law on amnesty, which is in the parliamentary procedure.
As stated, for persons who are serving a sentence, it is suspended, and the remaining part is replaced by a suspended sentence, so that the rest of the sentence is considered established and it is determined that it will not be carried out if the convicted person commits a new criminal offense within two years.
The amnesty does not apply to persons convicted of the criminal offense of war crimes against civilians from the Criminal Code of the FRY or against civilians and human trafficking from the Criminal Code of Montenegro, as well as for crimes against humanity and other goods protected by international law.
"The amnesty does not apply to persons who have been legally convicted of the criminal offense of rape, forced sexual intercourse or illegal fornication, sexual intercourse or illegal fornication against a helpless person, a child, with a minor, illicit sexual acts, mediation in prostitution, showing pornographic material to children and production and possession of child pornography," the proposed law says.
The fulfillment of the conditions for amnesty is decided by the basic court, which is competent to send the sentenced person to serve a prison sentence.
An appeal against the decision on amnesty can be filed with the higher court within three days of its receipt.
The Institute for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions is obliged to inform the competent court, within 24 hours of the entry into force of this law, about the convicted persons who are serving a prison sentence and are subject to amnesty.
The law on amnesty was proposed by Miodrag Radunović, Genci Nimanbegu, Mićo Orlandić, Adrijan Vuksanović, Ervin Ibrahimović, Andrija Popović, Jovanka Laličić, Miloš Nikolić, Danijel Živković, Željko Aprcović.
They state in their explanation that during the adoption of the previous law, the citizens of Montenegro who signed and supported the Draft Law on Amnesty "wanted it to be adopted originally, as it was written".
"However, the proposed law was followed by amendments, and the law as originally proposed was never voted on," say the members of the parliamentary majority.
As stated, in this way, all convicted persons who were denied amnesty by the amendments were placed in an unequal position compared to other convicts and this law was extremely discriminatory towards persons who, due to the amendments, were not covered by the Amnesty Law.
"With this proposal, we want to avoid discrimination, so that no one's right to amnesty is restricted. It is a legal act of mercy that grants alienated persons certain benefits, and it must apply to all persons, except for those criminal acts that are exempt, in the opinion of the proponent," the explanation says.
In three months, the sentence would be shortened for his son Miloš Marović, who has avoided going to prison for more than a year.
All those convicted in corruption cases would also be imprisoned for a quarter of the time.
The last amnesty was adopted four years ago, but the amendments omitted certain groups of criminal acts.
Even the amnesty adopted in 2010 did not include anyone who was convicted of a criminal offense under Article 144 - aggravated murder, which is why those convicted of attempted aggravated murder or their accomplices were left out.
After the adoption of such a law, convicts protested because the sentence was not reduced for those convicted of a crime in which there were no victims, but it was for those convicted of murder.
Bonus video:
