"The judge in Danilovgrad told me that I shouldn't care who my lawyer is. They haven't informed me about the procedure for five months, they just tell me 'you will be summoned'. I'm so disappointed, it's all going too slowly...", she told the Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro and the Human Rights Action (CIN-CG/HRA) about her experience, one of 13 interviewed beneficiaries of free legal aid (BPP), explaining that she has not yet met her lawyer, and that she does not even know who is representing her in the procedure following a report of domestic violence.
Free legal aid can be used by people with low financial status, but also by all victims of torture, domestic violence, children without parental care, persons with disabilities, ... Amendments to the Law on Free Legal Aid from last year introduced a specialized approach to providing legal aid to particularly vulnerable groups. Victims of torture and crimes against sexual freedom, as well as children in proceedings for the protection of their rights, are enabled to exercise their right to BPP regardless of their financial status. The scope and type of legal actions that can be provided through this type of assistance have also been expanded.
However, the HRA report "Free Legal Aid in Montenegro: Progress, Challenges and Obstacles" indicates that even the latest amendments do not recognize relatives of those missing during armed conflicts as a separate category of beneficiaries, despite the recommendation of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances from 2018.
"It is stipulated that in proceedings involving children, victims of domestic violence and victims of crimes against sexual freedom, only lawyers with three years of work experience in the legal profession and who have undergone special training at the Judicial and Public Prosecutor's Training Center may be engaged," reads the HRA report, which was recently presented at the NGO's conference.
The HRA report also addresses the implementation of recommendations made to Montenegro by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, in her 2024 report, immediately before the amendments to the law came into force.
Satterthwaite recommended, among other things, mandatory specialization of lawyers in sensitive cases, especially those related to victims of domestic or partner violence, the establishment of oversight mechanisms and professional standards when providing BPP in cooperation with the Bar Association, and the introduction of suspension of lawyers from the list of providers of this type of assistance if they do not meet the prescribed standards.
"Although the law explicitly provides for the formation of special lists of lawyers for the specialized representation of victims of violence, human trafficking, crimes against sexual freedom and children, this legal obligation has not yet been implemented in practice. Courts continue to rely on a single list of the Bar Association, which contains all lawyers interested in providing BPP, without any records of the specialized knowledge of these lawyers," is one of the conclusions of the HRA report.
Judging by the statements of BPP beneficiaries, as well as experts from the conference, the amendments to the law, as well as numerous Satterthwaite recommendations, have not yet been implemented.
According to the experiences of beneficiaries, assigned lawyers, in most cases, delay these processes or are not sensitized and knowledgeable about the cases they are supposed to work on.
However, the HRA report also shows that the number of requests for replacement of lawyers is very small, only 1.25 percent, and that problems in communication with lawyers are actually rarely reported to the services responsible for BPP in basic courts.
The interviewed BPP beneficiaries say, in most cases, that they hesitate to ask for a change of lawyer, because they do not even know which lawyers are good or they hope that they will still receive some kind of help, considering that they do not have the money to pay for a lawyer themselves.
NGOs to get involved in providing BPP, torture victims to be included in specialization
The HRA report recalls the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur, and recommends, among other things, mandatory specialization of lawyers in representing victims of torture, specifying mechanisms for monitoring the provision of legal aid, as well as possible suspensions of lawyers who provide legal aid in particularly sensitive cases, and easing the conditions for obtaining legal aid for persons in poor financial circumstances.
Satterthwaite emphasized at the panel that it would be important for NGOs to be involved in providing BPP, as this has proven to be good practice in many countries. One of her recommendations, as well as that of many human rights organizations, which was not accepted by the amendments to the Law, is that the state should allow NGOs to provide BPP.
"NGOs often represent the first point of contact with persons in need of legal support, especially among vulnerable and marginalized groups, including victims of violence, persons deprived of their liberty, asylum seekers, Roma, persons with disabilities and others. In this sense, in addition to expanding the geographical and thematic availability of services - especially in environments where state institutions are not present or are difficult to reach - this measure would enable a higher degree of specialization and quality in the provision of legal aid, thanks to the expertise and long-standing experience of NGOs in working with particularly vulnerable beneficiaries," the HRA report states.
The UN Special Rapporteur emphasized that the specialization of lawyers is also crucial for these cases, as is the responsibility for providing quality assistance.
"I noticed a sense of pride in lawyers who are trained to work with people who have survived trauma. Such training should be made available to everyone, because you never know when a lawyer may find themselves in a situation where they have to represent a traumatized victim, even without free legal aid. The training should be organized in cooperation with NGOs that specialize in this, and trauma victims should be included to talk about their experiences, because gaining knowledge firsthand is unbeatable."
She pointed out that it would be useful to have data on how many lawyers avoid calls to provide BPP, and to establish criteria for removing lawyers from the list.
Bojana Malović from HRA confirmed that the specialization of lawyers for such cases has not yet been implemented in practice. "It is expected to be implemented in early 2026, and it is certainly an omission that torture victims are not included in the specialization," Malović explained.
She adds that it is concerning that courts are not respecting the legal obligation to request removal from the list of lawyers who are not doing their job properly. "There were nine approved requests to change lawyers due to dissatisfaction with the service provided, and none were delegated to the Bar Association," she points out.
The President of the Basic Court in Podgorica, Željka Jovović, pointed out that parties often subjectively view the actions of lawyers, and that in most cases this is not an objective criticism of their work. However, she stressed that measures should be applied to those who do not do their job properly. "I insist on deleting lawyers who do not want to provide free legal aid," said Jovović.
The Vice President of the Bar Association, Aleksandar Đurišić, also believes that it is necessary to update the list of lawyers who provide free legal aid, as he is concerned about the testimonies of dissatisfied clients. "We created the lists of lawyers believing that those who are motivated will come forward," Đurišić explained.
Some of the beneficiaries would like to have been able to choose their own lawyer through the BPP, but they all agree that it should not be just someone first on the Chamber's list, but someone who is specialized and who would have more sensitivity for such procedures.
Lawyer Veselin Radulović reminded that the essence of free legal aid is that the injured parties receive quality legal protection. However, he warned of potential abuses if the beneficiaries of free legal aid were to choose their own lawyers, as there were cases when the accused chose ex officio lawyers. “Some colleagues taught their clients to cancel their powers of attorney so that they would not have to pay them personally, and then instructed them to choose them as ex officio lawyers,” Radulović explained.
Similar problems are highlighted by the HRA report, which states that courts reported that defendants sought only prominent lawyers who were often unavailable or unwilling to take on additional cases, causing delays and the need for reappointments. "Similar dynamics in the free legal aid system would undermine its efficiency and fairness, especially if 'popular' lawyers became overburdened, while others remained under-engaged," the Basic Court in Bar said.
Inappropriate statements, delaying the process and asking for money
Most of the interviewed beneficiaries received help because they reported domestic violence, and several of them said that when they spoke to them, lawyers made inappropriate statements, such as "you can't be like that, it's a man after all, you talk a lot...".
Some beneficiaries have not been able to see their lawyer for months, and he has been delaying the drafting of a lawsuit or criminal report. One beneficiary even claims that the lawyer is asking her for money. Out of 13, only four said they were satisfied with the lawyer assigned to them.
One beneficiary whose child is a victim of peer violence says that she got a lawyer in April, but that he has not yet drafted a lawsuit, nor has she been able to meet with him. She expected the lawyer to be someone knowledgeable, informed, and someone who knows how to handle such cases, however, so far all she has received from the lawyer is persuasion that she should not even sue.
"I told him that it was his job to draft a lawsuit and call me to meet so I could come to him, but that hasn't happened yet," she points out.
According to data from the Judicial Council (JC) report for last year, out of 2865 criminal and misdemeanor proceedings for acts of domestic violence, only 114 injured parties requested BPP – which is only 3.9 percent.
The director of the Women's Rights Center (WRC), Maja Raičević, pointed out that a greater number of victims of violence turn to their organization than to the courts, which may also mean greater trust. She states that the WRC has been developing a "one stop shop" system for years, in which beneficiaries are provided with all types of services in one place - from legal and psychological support, to escorting them as a confidential person and helping them communicate with institutions.
"We have three lawyers at the Center (two women and one man) who provide free legal aid, they are specialized and have been trained for years to work with victims of violence. When we organized the first specialized training for lawyers, more than 10 years ago, about 40 lawyers completed the training, but after the training, only two lawyers stood out with enough sensitivity and motivation to represent victims. Simply put, these issues cannot be dealt with by people who have misogynistic and patriarchal attitudes towards women. Attitudes are key when it comes to providing quality free legal aid and understanding the position and rights of victims," Raičević emphasized.
The President of the Basic Court in Podgorica, Željka Jovović, points to the low number of applications for free legal aid, but also to problems with hiring lawyers. She explains that the service already knows which lawyers in practice refuse to accept free legal aid cases, but, despite this, they have to call them due to regulations. This creates additional difficulties, because when you have an hour to decide on the application, and you have to call a dozen lawyers who you know will not accept the case, the procedure is unnecessarily slowed down. Therefore, Jovović believes that it would be useful to clean up the list of lawyers and to keep only those who really want to provide this type of legal aid.
Raičević also believes that not everyone should be on the list of lawyers for BPP, but only those who truly have knowledge and sensitivity for these topics.
"Victims should not be expected to request a replacement lawyer. Supervision of the work of lawyers must be effective, but in a way that does not expose victims to additional procedures and stress," she said.
Mira Saveljić from the Women's Safe House added that the lists of lawyers must be cleared as soon as possible, and that many of them refuse to work on domestic violence cases.
Both representatives of women's organizations testified that they were approached by BPP beneficiaries who claimed that their lawyers asked them for money to provide this type of assistance, which is paid for by the state.
This is confirmed by one of the interviewed BPP beneficiaries who reported domestic violence, and she states that the assigned lawyer first told her that he was not guilty, and that he later asked her for money.
"I contacted the BPP Service, however, he continued to ask me for money," she claims.
They find out about BPP through friends, instead of from authorities.
Of the nine beneficiaries who reported domestic violence, six said that the police had not told them that they had the right to BPP. The beneficiary from Ulcinj claims that she only learned about her right to BPP during the trial.
Also, most of them are not informed that they have the right to BPP in the accompanying procedures that most often follow after reporting violence, such as divorce, division of property, non-payment of alimony, after they receive a final judgment that they were victims of domestic violence.
One beneficiary emphasized that no one explained to her that a police report was sufficient for her to submit a request for BPP.
Attorney Đurišić proposed that detailed information about the BPP be displayed in a visible place in each Security Department, so that users are informed in a timely manner.
On the positive side, almost all interviewed beneficiaries praised the court staff and were relatively satisfied with the speed with which they were assigned a lawyer. One beneficiary stated that it would be good if there were more employees at the Free Legal Aid Service in Podgorica.
Eight of them requested free legal aid at the Basic Court in Podgorica. One in Kotor, two in Pljevlja and two in Ulcinj.
Considering that these are social cases, oncology patients, people with disabilities or victims of violence, the general impression is that the procedures for providing assistance should be more efficient, and that communication between courts, lawyers and BPP beneficiaries should be improved, is one of the conclusions from the HRA conference.
One of the recommendations is to ensure that all police officers provide victims of domestic violence, torture victims and children with information about the right to free legal aid upon their first encounter.
It remains to be seen whether the system will truly provide quality access to justice for legal aid beneficiaries, especially for vulnerable and marginalized groups.
The text is taken from Human Rights Action website
Bonus video:
