CDT: An independent, professional and efficient judiciary must be understood as a common interest of the government, the opposition...

An independent, professional and efficient judiciary must be understood as a common interest of the government, the opposition, judicial institutions and citizens, as assessed in an analysis by the Center for Democratic Transition (CDT), which stated that no reform will be successful without clear political will and substantial changes.

The analysis written by lawyer Siniša Gazivoda was prepared as part of the dialogue that CDT is launching with the Damar Institute on the occasion of marking 20 years of independence of Montenegro.

The analysis recalls that the judicial reform in Montenegro began in 2000 with the adoption of the Judicial Reform Project by the then Government of the Republic of Montenegro.

"At first glance, a comparison of how the judiciary looked at the beginning of the reform and how it looks now could probably be best described by the French saying - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (the more it changes, the more it stays the same)," the analysis reads.

It is stated that this could be said especially if the comparison is made from the angle that is most important to citizens - the length of proceedings, trust in the judiciary, perception of the judiciary's resistance to corruption, political and other influence.

"However, upon closer inspection, numerous extremely important changes have also occurred in the reform so far," the document states.

The analysis states that, since the declaration of intention to join the European Union (EU), the acquisition of candidate status for membership in 2010, and the start of accession negotiations in June 2012, until today, judicial reform has largely been planned and implemented as part of the process of fulfilling the criteria for EU membership.

"More specifically, since the opening of negotiations for Chapter 23 - Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, and to some extent for the negotiating Chapter 24 - Justice, Freedom and Security in December 2013, the reform concept has been implemented, more or less successfully, in the context of negotiations," the analysis adds.

The document states that in June 2013, the Government adopted action plans for Chapters 23 and 24, and then in July of that year, the Parliament adopted Amendments to the Constitution of Montenegro, which also introduced significant changes regarding the judiciary.

It is recalled that at that time the election of the President of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Council.

"A qualified majority has been prescribed for the election of judges of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme State Prosecutor, the structure of the Judicial Council has been changed in such a way that several deputies in the Parliament of Montenegro are not members of the Judicial Council, but the number of reputable lawyers who, in accordance with the changes, are elected by the Parliament by a qualified majority has been increased," the analysis of the judicial reform states.

It is stated that the selection of state prosecutors, except for the Supreme State Prosecutor, has been fully transferred to the jurisdiction of the Prosecutorial Council.

It is assessed that the political changes from the summer of 2020 and their certain repercussions cannot be omitted from even the briefest contextualization of judicial reform.

The CDT analysis states that the reforms that followed also affected the staffing of judicial institutions.

"These changes have contributed to strengthening accountability in the system and have led to the fact that very prominent representatives of the judiciary, some of whom were also the bearers of the judicial reform itself, are currently on trial, although the presumption of innocence still applies to all persons whose proceedings are still ongoing," the analysis states.

However, as stated, the fact that some of them have moved from leading positions in the judiciary and law enforcement to the docks in any case points to tectonic tremors and changes in the judicial sector.

The analysis assesses that these cases represent perhaps the greatest challenge for the judiciary in its history.

"Courts must demonstrate that they are impartial and independent of both the individuals they are trying, and of the political centers of power that expect this or that outcome of the proceedings, as well as of the expectations of the general public, and in doing so, ensure the right to a fair trial for all defendants," the analysis states.

The document states that the procedure itself must be conducted within a reasonable time, both for the sake of the rights of the defendants and for the efficient administration of justice.

It is emphasized that no reform will be successful without clear political will and basic social consensus and substantial, not just formal, changes.

"An independent, professional and efficient judiciary must be understood as a common interest of all - the government, the opposition, judicial institutions and citizens," concludes the analysis of judicial reform from the restoration of independence to the present day.