"Purity": The court is under pressure

Podgorica company "Čistoća" reacted to the answer of journalist Damira Kalač:

"'Afterthought', as the journalist Damira Kalač calls the response of Čistoća, who again appears with unfounded attacks on our society, is a legal response to the text in accordance with Article 48 of the Law on Media. Fortunately for our society, 'News' respects the binding legal provision and enables the public not to be misled, into which they may be led by previous texts. The public has the right to hear both sides, and then form an opinion on any socially important issue.

However, what we see in practice is tendentious writing with words that have a clear judgmental and hostile character towards Purity. Regardless of what the journalist's goal is and what her motives are, there are only two epilogues - the first is to put pressure on the court for ongoing proceedings, and the second is to create a bad image of our society in the public eye. The court is under the challenge of objectively observing the parties in the proceedings because of such texts that are released publicly.

In particular, the executive director of Čistoca was not legally convicted of mobbing, as the journalist claims. Simply, such information that is released to the public is not true, because Andrija Čađenović was not a party to that procedure, nor is the decision legally binding or enforceable according to him. Čađenović was labeled as a "mobber" in the lawsuit, but he was not tried nor was he convicted, as the journalist states.

In addition, the use of the term 'convicted' is wrong and to the detriment of this person, because persons are convicted in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the journalist claims in the text that Čađenović is a convict, which is not true, because he has never committed any criminal act. Does the journalist understand that in this article she called the leader of our society a convict and what consequences this has for our society and him personally, let's hope she will take it into account. In the belief that the appointed person will act in a way to objectively inform the public, and not to act as a representative of one party in the proceedings, we conclude the response in question", concludes "Čistoća" in the response.