The Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS) announced that the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office rejected their request to provide information on "the supervision carried out by the Special and Higher Prosecutor's Offices, as well as the acts accompanying the supervision in accordance with the Law and the established Supervision Plan for 2023."
"The internal supervision of the state prosecutor's offices is another type of control of the work of the entire prosecutorial organization. As the Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS) in previous years, among other things, dealt with this type of supervision as well as its application, we sent a Request for free access to information, 27.12.2023. in 2023 to the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office, in which we requested the submission of information on the 'surveillance carried out by the Special and Higher Prosecutor's Offices, as well as the acts that accompany the supervision in accordance with the Law and the established Supervision Plan for XNUMX'. We received a negative Decision," stated CEGAS .
For the first time, they add, in the explanation it is stated that the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office possesses information, for which the possibility of restricting access to information is prescribed, based on the Law on Free Access to Information.
"The aforementioned articles clearly state that access to information can be limited if it is in the interest of preventing the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of criminal offenses. The Supreme State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro took into account the fact that the prosecutor's office, in accordance with its powers, given to it by the Constitution and laws, it has very sensitive data in its possession, the publication of which would constitute a violation of the law and cause considerable damage to the rights and freedoms of the persons to whom the data refer.' In the explanation, it is further stated that 'the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office conducted a harm test and found that in the specific administrative matter the request is rejected for the reason that Article 14 paragraph 1 point 3 indent 3,4,5,7 of the Law on Free Access to Information the prescribed limitation of access to information, the requested information in its entirety, and that before the end of the procedure, harmful consequences could occur both for the authority that undertook the actions, other activities based on which evidence was collected through reconnaissance and investigation, and in relation to the persons against whom the actions were carried out...' ", states CEGAS.
They add, CEGAS also received a rejection decision from the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, where, on the same request for free access to information, they requested information on the supervision of basic state prosecutor's offices as well as the acts accompanying the supervision provided for in the Supervision Plan for 2023.
"In the explanation, it is stated, among other things, that access to information is limited because 'submitting the requested information would enable insight into the content of the actions taken in the pre-criminal and criminal proceedings, because the same can be initiated again if new facts and new evidence indicate it, until the onset of the statute of limitations prescribed by Article 124 and 125 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro'. This prosecutor's office also carried out a harm test, and determined that the disclosure of the requested information would significantly jeopardize the interest, i.e. cause harmful consequences," CEGAS announced.
The same case of refusal, as they state, followed from the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Bijelo Polje, and it was determined that "the information is of such a nature that the conditions prescribed by Article 17 of the Law on Free Access to Information have not been met, especially taking into account that the delivery of the requested information provided an insight into the content of actions undertaken in pre-criminal and criminal proceedings, for which the possibility of limitation is prescribed by the Law on Free Access to Information.''
"The Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS) is pleased by the fact that the VDT is starting to supervise, in the part of the internal control of the prosecutor's offices, if we take into account this problem from earlier years, especially when it comes to control over the earlier SDT, but it is also concerned about the rejecting Decision , where we see no reason for refusal, in the part of submitting the Supervision Plan for 2023, as well as the Decision on the exercise of supervision, without specifying specific cases and finding irregularities, with the protection of everything that must not be made available to the public for inspection, which is certainly , a method acceptable by law, must be found in the Report on the work of the Prosecutorial Council and the State Prosecutor's Office for the year 2023," the statement added.
CEGAS states that, in the earlier period, following the internal supervision of the state prosecutor's offices, they observed the absence of internal control among the prosecutor's offices, even though the law explicitly mandates it.
"From the fact that no one controlled the SDT, during the time of GST Katnić, and then also the significant absence of supervision in other prosecutor's offices. Responsibility for this type of loophole was absent. The SDT was first supervised for the year 2016, so it was only in 2021 started (January 29, 2021), by the decision of the acting VDT, which was changed twice during the same year due to personnel changes, with special reference to the supervision of the SDT," writes CEGAS.
They point out that, according to the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office at least once a year analyzes the work of state prosecutors' offices, "so it is clear what the backlog is".
According to data from the state prosecutor's office, the supervision of the higher state prosecutor's offices in Podgorica and Bijelo Polje was carried out in the fourth quarter of 2022, while the supervision of the SDT is still ongoing.
"As a reminder, according to the Report on the work of the Prosecutorial Council and the State Prosecutor's Office from 2022, we have information that the supervision of the SDT will be carried out for the period of 2017,2018,2019, 2020, 2021, 2021, which began in December XNUMX. and that the year XNUMX will be included in the supervision," adds CEGAS.
They said that this NGO, "in the interest and the public's right to know", will use the right to appeal to the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and Free Access to Information, "believing that by anonymizing the document, an answer to these requests could be given, as in earlier periods".
"We remind you that it is in the public interest, as well as in every other interest: reform of the prosecution, improvement of legal processes, change of legislation, strengthening of institutional cooperation, responsibility, improvement of training and education, as well as the role of civil society, and all this while increasing transparency, which will testify to us about with well-implemented reforms," concludes CEGAS.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
