The appeal of lawyer Miroje Jovanović, defense attorney of Danilo Mandić, is rejected.

Lawyer Miroje Jovanović, defense attorney for Danilo Mandić, filed a complaint with the Ombudsman of TV Vijesti regarding a report that aired on May 3, 2026, on Vijesti at half past six.

The attachment discusses the court decision by which, due to the lack of reliable testimony, Mandić was sentenced to one year in prison in the first instance for confiscating a vehicle belonging to the Parliament of Montenegro.

After reviewing the allegations from the complaint by attorney Jovanović, the response from the TV Vijesti editorial office, and the attorney's supplementary complaint, the TV Vijesti Ombudsman has decided that there was no violation of the Code of Journalists of Montenegro in this case.

Installation:

In his complaint, lawyer Miroje Jovanović states that the report violated principle 1 of the Journalists' Code of Conduct, guideline 1.2, which refers to general standards and 1.2 - accuracy, as well as guideline for principle 9, which obliges journalists to respect the presumption of innocence when reporting on court proceedings, and not to prejudge the outcome of the court proceedings. In his complaint, Jovanović raised the issue of the fact that he, as Mandić's defense attorney, was not contacted, and the report published a statement by lawyer Veselin Radulović, stating that the interviewee "did not participate in the proceedings, did not have access to the files and is not in a position to provide a factual assessment of the case".

"Through the structure of the report, the selection and interpretation of information, an impression was created that goes beyond what emerges from the court proceedings, thus calling into question both his (Danil Mandic's) reputation and the presumption of innocence," the complaint states.

In his appeal, the lawyer also questioned the mention of the President of the Parliament of Montenegro, Andrija Mandić, Danilo's uncle, - "The mention of Andrija Mandić has no procedural justification, because he is not a party to the proceedings, nor is there a factual basis that would require his connection to the case."

In the response, the editorial staff of TV Vijesti explained that the focus of the report was on the testimonies of witnesses and their role in reaching the court's decision. They recalled that none of the witnesses could remember who shot the two Podgorica residents in the disputed case, and that the wife and godfather of one of the injured parties did not notice the injuries, even though he had a bullet in his leg. "We believe that it is legitimate to ask a journalistic question - who shot the injured parties, if it was not Danilo Mandić (according to the court's verdict)?", the response from the editorial staff of TV Vijesti states.

They also stated that the witness statements, which were part of the case, were contained in the explanation of the Basic Court's verdict, which was made public, and that their interlocutor, lawyer Radulović, as a legal expert, had every right to express his opinion on the credibility and significance of the witness statements for the case itself. As for the remark that a statement from the defense was not requested in these proceedings, we point out that the report dealt with the statements of the witnesses and not those of the accused Danilo Mandić, whose lawyer Jovanović is, and therefore we believe that it was not necessary to take his statement, TV Vijesti responded.

Since the court established and ruled that an official vehicle of the Parliament was used, even though Danilo Mandić is not employed by that institution, TV Vijesti believes that such a situation raises the issue of responsibility of those who dispose of those resources, including the Speaker of the Parliament and the uncle of the accused - Andrija Mandić.

"The report was not intended to prejudge guilt or question the presumption of innocence, but rather to point out certain illogicalities and inconsistencies in the witness statements, which were already the subject of consideration in the court proceedings. The report also clearly stated that the prosecution would only then make a statement on the possible existence of grounds for initiating proceedings for giving false testimony, thus providing the audience with complete and balanced information," TV Vijesti's response states.

In the amended complaint following the response from the TV Vijesti editorial board, lawyer Jovanović states that "in a democratic society, the authority of the judiciary stems precisely from its impartiality and guaranteed procedural rights and human rights in court proceedings, so it can be said that the authority of the judiciary in a democratic society is directly linked to the presumption of innocence."

The TV Vijesti Ombudsman did not find a violation of the presumption of innocence in the report. The report listed numerous controversies that accompanied this process and questioned the statements of witnesses in court. The choice of interlocutor, who is a legal expert and who expressed his doubts about the credibility of the witness's statements, is also not disputed.

The Ombudsman also believes that it is in the public interest to ask the prosecutor's office whether there is suspicion of the criminal offense of giving false testimony. With reference to the practice, listed in the attachment, which is also reflected in the case of a criminal complaint against a former judge suspected of giving false testimony in the proceedings against former President of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica.

In his appeal and supplement to the appeal, attorney Jovanović submitted numerous cases of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts relating to the violation of the presumption of innocence. However, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, the intention in the appeal to question everything that is presented to the public that did not happen in the courtroom is questionable. Since journalism should not be the official messenger of the judiciary, it is in the public interest to present a broader context and question the disputed facts.

The increased public interest in this case is also legitimate due to the fact that it concerns a verdict for the seizure of a vehicle of the Parliament of Montenegro from a relative of the Speaker of the Parliament. The lawyer states in the appeal: "As was evident from the beginning, the target and subject of these and similar comments is actually the president of the political party New Serbian Democracy Andrija Mandić, who is also the Speaker of the Parliament of Montenegro. This is the basis of both this report and the entire campaign, which is clearly pre-election, even though the elections have not even been called."

The Ombudsman assesses that precisely because of the political context, connections with the authorities, and the lack of an answer to the question of who wounded the two Podgorica residents, it is legitimate to ask journalistic questions about this, present a broader context, and question the first-instance court decision. And that the report complained of did not violate the Journalists' Code.