Police officers without insignia humiliated the family

The officers of the Police Administration (UP) behaved humiliatingly towards the members of the family whose home they searched, thereby violating the European Convention on Human Rights, said the Deputy Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms Zdenka Perović.

Previously, in April, UP Director Veselin Veljović claimed to the Council for Citizen Control of Police Work that the search of MK's home was done in accordance with the Law and that it took place with maximum respect from all present.

His home was searched in the early hours of the morning at the end of January in a police operation in Zeta, and he complained to the protector's office about abuse, which he linked to discrimination based on political affiliation, nationality and religion.

"The large number of police officers involved in the performance of the task (16), and the fact that a certain number belonged to a special unit, that they approached the action with automatic weapons, lit lasers, without identification marks, indicates that the way the action was carried out and the actions of the police officers were the opposite in the manner determined by the Law", reads the opinion of the Deputy Protector.

The deputy protector writes that she understands that certain operational knowledge may require that an operation be marked as high risk, which requires certain tactical measures such as a search at night or in the early morning hours, with a large number of members of the special unit...

However, in this case, the institution, headed by Veljović, did not state the reasons for this approach, nor did it submit documentation that would explain the reasons for this way of searching the house.

"The facts that are known - that this is a person who has not been convicted, against whom no criminal proceedings are being conducted and who has not been marked as a 'person of security interest', leads to the conclusion that the search was carried out in a manner disproportionate to the expected situation on the ground, unnecessarily excessively harsh" , assesses Perović.

The opinion points out that his children were in the house, one of whom is a minor, and that the officials had to have this information at their disposal when planning the search.

The attached medical documentation indicates that the complainant and his family members were exposed to psychological stress, which caused them to feel fear, anxiety and helplessness, which qualifies as humiliating treatment in terms of Article 3 of the European Convention.

Perović notes that the presence of children in such police operations can lead to long-term problems and harmful consequences for the children's health and psyche, so when planning them, it is necessary to take into account the protection of the best interests of the child, adjust the way the operation is carried out and take the necessary protective measures.

It is added that the UP did not deal with the remarks of the complainant's lawyer, which he made on the minutes of the search, especially on the claims about the possible use of physical force against the complainant's son.

On this occasion, the deputy protector points out that it is the duty of the UP to investigate every allegation of violent behavior by civil servants.

In this case, the absence of medical documentation about the possible consequences of the described violent act, and the fact that the complainant's son did not consult a doctor, does not support the credibility of this allegation.

However, Perović believes that it is unacceptable that the UP did not take measures and actions in order to process this allegation, which in the end, in the absence of evidence, would probably absolve the members of the police of suspicion, which in these circumstances remains.

In this regard, the deputy protector notes that consistent application of the Criminal Procedure Act and regular audio-visual recording of search operations would have a positive effect on officers to consistently implement legal provisions, and on the other hand, such documentation would also protect officers from inaccurate and arbitrary claims that acted illegally.

Most of the police officers who took part in the search did not have markings on their uniforms on the basis of which their identity can be determined, which, the deputy protector points out, is inadmissible and in contradiction with the Regulation on uniforms, rank insignia and weapons of police officers, which was previously the protector and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment indicated in their recommendations.

In addition to the fact that the police did not give any reasons for the way in which they approached the search, the deputy protector adds that the required items were not found either - only one 7,65 mm caliber bullet, for a small-sized pistol, the so-called. pocket weapons, additionally does not justify actions that are not fully in accordance with the Law and the order of the Court.

In relation to the part of the complaint that refers to abuse, which the applicant linked to discrimination based on political affiliation, nationality and religion, the office of the protector formed a separate case, on which it will take a separate position.

Perović made several recommendations to the Police Directorate, i.e. the Podgorica Security Center.

Among them is to examine the entire behavior of the police officers during the search, especially towards the complainant's son, and take measures and actions with the aim of identifying, prosecuting and possibly punishing the official.

Also, that in future activities, which include searches of rooms where children are located, police officers should take all measures to protect them, as well as consider the possibility of regular audiovisual recording.

What did the police director say then?

Veljović claims that the search took place correctly and with maximum respect for all present, and that MK and witnesses are aware of the right to object to the actions of police officers.

"In the record of the search of the apartment and other premises, which was duly signed by the owner of the apartment and by the witness, no objection to the work of the police officers was recorded, while the legal representative made certain remarks that the basic state prosecutor was aware of," he wrote. Veljović in response to the Council for Citizen Control of Police Work.