State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Human and Minority Rights Boris Marić he said that he expects the Parliament of Montenegro to elect the members of the Prosecutorial Council (PS) from among distinguished lawyers and the non-governmental sector (NGO) by the end of the month.
"Prolonging is not good. TS must be completed as soon as possible so that it can start working in full capacity and with full legitimacy, because very challenging things await it. Just to come up with a methodology for evaluating state prosecutors - that's already a huge question," he said in an interview with "Vijesta".
Marić said that he believes that it is the decision of the President of the Assembly Alekse Bečić on the declaration of six members of the TS - including him as a representative of the Ministry of Justice - the mandate of distinguished lawyers in that body has ended.
A little over a month ago, you were appointed State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Human and Minority Rights. This department, after the dismissal of Vladimir Leposavic from the ministerial position, is headed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Sergej Sekulović. What kind of situation did you find in the Ministry upon your arrival?
The condition is regular, but there is a lot of work to be done. Primarily, we had a serious backlog with obligations from the European integration process, which mostly relate to chapter 23.
Second, we have certain personnel difficulties. In some directorates, we have yet to appoint acting (acting) managers, and the challenge we are heading towards is the announcement of a competition for the selection of directors of the directorate in full capacity. After the first month, we noticed that it is necessary to make changes to the existing systematization, because the current one - apart from organizational challenges - is also problematic in terms of obligations from the negotiation process.
Another important thing we need to do is to strengthen judicial inspection. Now we have one judicial inspector and one officer who helps him. According to systematization, we should have five judicial inspectors. The recommendation of the European Commission (EC) is to further strengthen that service, which means that we need more than five inspectors. That service should be elevated to the level of the directorate for judicial inspection.
Although you come from the NGO sector, you have experience working in the executive branch - in 2016, you were the Minister of Labor in the so-called To the Government of Electoral Confidence. Many who joined that Government complained about the obstructions of the then cadres of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) in it. After the new appointment, did you face any obstacles, since some representatives of the ruling parties - as well as some members of the Government - claim that this is still happening?
A little time has passed for us to be able to assess whether there are concrete obstructions. What we have encountered is a seriously weakened personnel potential, so perhaps we can see it as a form of obstruction, which is not harmless. When the Ministry is left without ten people who are at the level of expert staff and when 18 people go on sick leave - 18 of them are about a fifth of the employees - this is certainly a form of serious obstruction...
As for the daily work, the officers are cooperative, finish their duties and try to do what they can.
The President of the Assembly, Aleksa Bečić, announced on Thursday, as he said, the new TS, in which, in addition to the five prosecutors, you are also a representative of the Ministry of Justice. Bečić stated that his decision automatically ended the mandate of the current convocation of that body, which is not the opinion of some legal experts, who say that the mandate of distinguished lawyers in TS still continues. What is your position on this issue - has a new TS been formed or do respected lawyers still have a mandate?
It is questionable how much I - from my position in the Ministry - should rule on the interpretation of a declarative norm of the State Prosecutor's Office Act. Especially in light of the fact that the Ministry, as its representative, proposed me as a member of the TS. We all know that the President of the Assembly made a decision to declare partial filling of the TS.
But he claims to have declared a new TS...
That is the new TS. But it is more than notoriety that it is not complete. The members who should be elected by the Assembly have not been elected.
We had a similar situation in 2014, only with the opposite set of actors - TS was proclaimed that year by the president of the state, and that was then Filip Vujanovic. Then the prosecutors were late in nominating their members, while the others were elected. Vujanović announced the composition of the TS, that is, who was elected, and said that the other members from the ranks of prosecutors will be announced later when they are elected by the Conference of State Prosecutors. That was the decision, and he then declared a new TS. And Bečić has now declared a new TS. Of course, there remains a legal dilemma in terms of the fact that it is a declaratory norm of the Law on State Prosecution...
That norm, i.e. Article 184 b of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, states that the mandate of the TS ends with the announcement of a new one elected in accordance with this law. Can this article be applied if the TS has not been fully elected, that is, if there are no distinguished lawyers in that body yet?
The very structure of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, in the part of the TS and the election of its members, is differentiated. You have separately prescribed procedures and rules for the selection of members from the ranks of prosecutors, for distinguished lawyers and representatives of NGOs. Theoretically, the President of the Assembly can, as appointments arrive, issue decrees. Finally, when it is finished, we can say that the TS is complete. However, TS can definitely work in a sense when it has a majority.
What can he do now?
The TS now has six members, and my opinion is that it should stop its work, in order to give the Assembly space to complete the procedure within a reasonable time and elect the missing members of the TS. Because this TS has its meaning only when all members are elected. Why? There are several reasons. First, he cannot have a constituent session until all are elected...
Do you think, therefore, that the mandate of distinguished lawyers in TS ended after Bečić's decision?
I think that the mandate of all members of the old TS has ended.
But that is not specified in the new law...
The aforementioned norm does not specify that. It does not specify by which act the TS is confirmed, that is, those members who were elected. She does not specify many things, such as how the constitutive session will be held, how the Acting Supreme State Prosecutor (VDT) will be elected - and it is said that he will be elected at the first constitutive session of the TS...
Should everything you state be specified by law?
Absolutely. I agree with that.
So does that mean that this law, the changes of which came into force in June, was not very well done?
We don't have any laws that are best done. Through systematization, we will propose - and we hope that we will find the Government's understanding - to organize an analytical department for norms in the Ministry, which will deal with the analysis of the application of regulations, with an emphasis on regulations in the judicial system. It will provide analyzes and direct amendments to the law, in order to remove ambiguities and close legal gaps. It would not be bad if there was such a body in the Assembly.
The Committee for Political System, Judiciary and Administration proposed, also on Thursday, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Institute of Alternatives, Stevo Muk, as a member of TS from the NGO, but we do not yet have the consent of the parties on candidates from the ranks of distinguished lawyers. Lawyer Nikola Bulatović, who was the defense attorney of one of the leaders of the Democratic Front (DF), Andrije Mandić, is disputed by the Democrats. Have you talked to party representatives about this issue?
I spoke with members of the Government who are in contact with party representatives. We concluded that everything must be done to reach a consensus on the fastest possible election of TS members from among lawyers. It must be days, not months.
When could that happen?
I expect responsibility and seriousness, and for it to be completed by the end of the month. Prolonging is not good. TS must be completed as soon as possible so that it can start working in full capacity and with full legitimacy, because very challenging things await it. Just to get to the methodology of evaluating state prosecutors - that is already a huge topic. The representatives of the Ministry spoke with the representatives of some international organizations, who are very willing to help us seriously in this work, but also to help the Prosecutor's Office financially. It would be extremely frivolous not to take advantage of those chances. If someone in the Assembly ignores it and leaves it to the truncated TS - that is already a serious waste of time.
The judiciary, like the TS, is also in the center of public attention these days. 23 judges have retired - including six judges of the Supreme Court - and more are expected to retire soon. Could this lead to a blockage of the court system?
I must first praise the decision of the Judicial Council, in terms of the fact that it respects constitutional and legal norms. This gave a chance to new personnel in the judiciary.
I do not think this will contribute to the blockage of the judicial system. He will continue to work, but the problem is the position of the Judicial Council. We need to open a parliamentary dialogue between the position and the opposition on this issue, and this must happen as soon as possible if we think that we are really serious about reforms in the judiciary. We need to fill the Judicial Council, and then it will not be a problem for the judicial system to begin the reform process more significantly.
You praised the Judicial Council, but should it have reacted sooner, given that representatives of some parties claimed that certain judges had acquired the conditions for retirement a few years ago?
It's a matter of interpretation. When we talk about pensions, we talk about individual rights. We cannot say that this group of judges should have retired. Maybe someone is, maybe someone isn't...
The Judicial Council must at this moment be praised for something it did well, because it affirmed respect for constitutional and legal norms. Were there any individual failings - I won't go into that. But they have shown the capacity to obey the law. In contrast to TS, which does not send a good message, despite the Constitution and the law.
TS requested a check of the mandatory provision of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office that prosecutors cease to function when they become eligible for a pension. The Constitutional Court has not yet given its opinion, but has asked the Government and the Assembly for an opinion on this. When will the government do it?
There are, which is indicative, two constitutional initiatives - one by the prosecutor's organization and the other by the representatives of the DPS. The Government and the Assembly should give their opinion and they must not use it to influence the Constitutional Court and its decision. As far as I know, the Constitutional Court has not passed any temporary measure. Therefore, until the Constitutional Court decides - whether or not you agree with some legal norms - you must respect them until it is decided otherwise. Most prosecutors know that much better than I do.
The government will give its opinion at the first subsequent sessions, at the end of this month or at the beginning of next month. We have preliminary opinions in the Ministry because I insisted on it.
Do you have accurate information on how many judges and prosecutors will be retired soon?
I don't have any. We have seen, when it comes to judges, the announcement of the Judicial Council. It is a serious number... But you have also seen that the procedures for filling vacant positions in the judiciary and prosecutor's office have started. There are ten candidates who have passed the procedures and who should be admitted to the basic state prosecutor's offices.
We are talking about the prosecution, the judiciary and the fight against crime, issues that are inseparable from the case of Svetozar Marović. Former Minister of Justice Leposavić and Deputy Prime Minister Dritan Abazović at the end of last year renewed the request to Serbia to extradite Marović. However, Serbia did nothing about it, and Abazović said a few days ago that the fact that Marović feels comfortable in another country devalues the state authorities of Montenegro. What else can the state do regarding Marović?
The Ministry of Justice did not receive a response from the competent authorities of Serbia regarding the request for the extradition of Marović from April 2019, the emergency request from June 2020 and the renewed request from December 2020. That is all the truth about the case.
Apart from the above, is it possible to do something else?
Difficult. If someone thinks that something else could be done, they could possibly go to the diplomatic level, where they would practically end diplomatic relations with Serbia, which I do not propose under any circumstances and I am a big opponent of that. That still doesn't lead to a solution...
The extradition mechanism is quite complicated. Let's be completely open about it. Serbia did not even take that first step - to arrest Mr. Marović and to place him in extradition custody. He would have the right to seek asylum, that procedure could last two years, and after that Serbia could decide whether to grant him asylum... We would then have some kind of procedure, something would happen... What what is happening now is the worst possible situation that compromises the legal systems of both Serbia and Montenegro. If Marović is such an important person that this is being done, then we - both in Serbia and in Montenegro - should take a good look at where we really are.
We will analyze the situation in UIKS
How do you assess the situation in UIKS? Recently, a group of detainees close to a criminal clan allegedly threatened to try to set fire to the facility's premises. Are you satisfied with the work of the UIKS director?
That institution, considering the challenges it faces, functions optimally. And the challenges are huge... I almost talked to the director (Milan Tomić). The conclusion we reached at the Ministry, analyzing that conversation, is that we will have information about the situation in UIKS at the next Government sessions. It will deal with several serious topics, such as the state of the prison itself. We have a problem because within the prison there are plots that were returned to their owners through restitution. We need to buy them out as soon as possible in order to complete that space.
Furthermore, we have a problem with some 50-70 prison guards who cannot be introduced into the system, because they constantly work under temporary contracts. We also have the problem of a rather serious debt of the judicial system according to UIKS, as well as the problem of "wild" construction around the prison. It's a big security issue.
One of the challenges is to get to the beginning of the implementation of the prison construction project in Mojkovac. The project documentation was stalled due to the covid crisis, now we are trying to speed up the process, to withdraw funds in order to start construction.
As for personnel issues, they are open.
Will a new director of UIKS be elected?
It depends on the results and on the reactions to the information that will be made. We will see after the analysis. No one is exempt from review of results and responsibility.
Journalists to be officials
Will the Ministry support the initiative of nine NGOs to amend the Criminal Code (CPC) in the part of toughening penalties for attacks on journalists?
Absolutely. If it had not been proposed, the Ministry would have done it. We will certainly make a constructive, professional and systemic contribution to improve the proposed norms. We are in the process of amending both the CC and the Criminal Procedure Law. As part of that, there will be journalists. Also, the status of journalists must be defined.
Should journalists have the status of officials?
I think it should. That is my personal opinion. With that being easy to say. One must first define who a journalist is - is it someone who has a Facebook page, etc. Another question is whether it suits journalists to be visible as officials. Does this endanger their security, how can they be given a certain amount of discretion... All these issues must be resolved.
Bonus video:
