Applications are now open for submission of investigative articles from the Western Balkans and Turkey for the annual EU Investigative Journalism Award. 

Investigative stories published from January 1 to December 31 2019 and related to freedom of expression, rule of law, transparency, abuse of power and fundamental rights, corruption and organised crime are welcome to apply. 

The award fund in Montenegro in 2020 (for achievements in 2019) is 10,000 EUR. The first prize will be 5,000 EUR, the second 3,000 EUR, and the third will be 2,000 EUR.

Individuals or groups of journalists are eligible to apply in all journalism forms (print, online, radio and TV) published or broadcast in the media in Montenegro in official, minority or international languages. 

Articles eligible for submission must appear in print, online, radio and TV media outlets during the 2019 calendar year.

EU Investigative Journalism Awards in the Western Balkans and Turkey aim to celebrate and promote the outstanding achievements of investigative journalists as well as improve the visibility of quality journalism in the Western Balkans and Turkey. 

The awards are a continuation of the ongoing regional EU Investigative Journalism Award in the Western Balkans and Turkey and part of the ongoing project ‘Strengthening Quality News and Independent Journalism in the Western Balkans and Turkey’, provided with the financial support of the European Union.

The project partners involved all have extensive expertise in the field of media freedom and have been recognised locally and internationally as strong independent media organisations. 

The jury for the EU Award comprises media experts, some of them from the project partners. Others are drawn from the extensive network projects that the partner members have, such as editors, members of academia and journalists with merits.

Deadline for the submission of application is March 5th, 2020. 

The awards will be given annually in all six Western Balkan countries and Turkey.

For more details, contact: assistantcincg@gmail.com

To download all necessary documents for Montenegro, click here 

Persistent insistence on restricting the right of journalists to protect their sources, along with imposing self-regulation on the state budget and the announced changes to the laws on data secrecy and free access to information, reflect the nature of the regime that produces a captive state.

What is so annoyingly troubling the Government, its bodies and editors that the draft law on the media is still not available to the public one week after it was approved by Prime Minister Markovic’s Cabinet? And, on the same day, after the session, despite the anathema by the Serbian Orthodox Church, a bill on the freedom of religion or belief and the legal position of religious communities appeared on the Government's website…

All the more so, as Minister Aleksandar Bogdanovic stated: "this was a fruit of the collaborative work in which representatives of the media community, civil society, academia, regulators and self-regulators, the Media Union, and representatives of state institutions participated"; plus a "broadest public debate" and a "three-fold monitoring by the Council of Europe's experts, along with three readings by the European Commission, all in order to comply with the highest international standards."

The formal explanation was that an editing of the text was necessary, which is ridiculous, since this regulation has been refined over a full year by the Ministry of Culture. It leaves us to speculate on a number of scenarios: either Prime Minister Dusko Markovic should fire the editors because of an unforgivable delay, or the proposal of the Ministry had to be totally decimated, or more softly, amended at the Cabinet session; or the awareness prevailed that those three rounds of control from Brussels had been bypassed and the media ignored, so time is now being bought to assess whether there would be a hands-twisting by the EU and how painful that could be. Judging by the Government and its caretakers of the media, the cause could be a minor mess-up, but betting on any option would be unrewarding.

For now, the public only has access to the version that the Ministry revealed in November, with which the opposition working group in the Electoral Reform Task Force has been operating and offering through amendments its own version. That Bogdanovic's product, in its key segments on media freedom and media support, is a premature baby when compared to the draft with which the broad public debate was initiated.

Admittedly, certain positive steps cannot be denied, such as the insistence on the transparency of media ownership, on the elaboration how due journalistic attention and journalistic conviction could facilitate acquittal in the court, and on the strengthening of the integrity and protection of journalists who refuse a task due to objections of conscience, as well as the throwing out of unnecessary definitions about journalists and editors, along with some sort of standardization of the procedure for online commentaries.

However, even with the latest available version, the Government continues with a tendency to restrict the right of journalists to preserve the identity of their sources. In the section “Rights, Obligations and Responsibilities in Information Spreading”, the keeping of sources was further relativized. Under the existing law, this right of journalists is inviolable and does not have to be revealed even to the court. Namely, the draft has introduced an obligation for a journalist to disclose a source if the court deemed it "necessary to protect national security interests, territorial integrity, protect health and detect criminal offenses penalised by five or more years of imprisonment." This, in creative interpretation typical for this region, means literally - everything. Even more, a novelty is inserted that the journalist would have to do it “at the prosecution’s request”, and that the decision would be made by the court. The ultimate consequence will certainly be further discouragement of the remaining scarce sources, just as has happened in the case of whistle-blowers, and making it more difficult for a journalist to work and publish in the public interest. If all this is viewed in the context of amendments to the Law on Data Protection and on Free Access to Information, the imminent impression is that an organized effort by the authorities is launched to limit the field for maneuvering by the media in the search for truth, which reflects the nature of the regime that produces a captive state.

The penal provisions do not foresee a sanction for a journalist who would invoke a conscientious objection and reject the prosecution's request or court order to disclose the source. This may mean that the penalties provided for in the Penal Code would apply. One such penalty, even under immunity, was experienced by MP Nebojsa Medojevic, who spent two months in prison. By decision of the Constitutional Court, the immunity will in the future protect parliamentary deputies from such measure. Journalists will remain without it.

Any invoking of European practice by law-makers in the concrete case should be challenged with a few elementary questions. If that obligation did not exist in a law passed 17 years ago, why should instruments with less freedom be introduced now? Or, which experience during that period has indicated that this right needs to be restricted.

In the meantime, the proposed provisions for establishment of a media pluralism fund, although sharply criticized for its small amount, excessive arbitrariness and intention to also fund from it the media self-regulation, with the initial idea being ​​to keep afloat the existing "state" self-regulatory organization, have been fertilized by additional regression.

The original idea of ​​the Government was to create a fund of 0.03 percent of GDP, to be allocated for projects of public interest in the proportion of 60 percent for the electronic media and 40 percent for the print media, after which five percent of the two sums would go for self-regulation, and additional five percent to the commissions entrusted to distribute the funds. According to the newest estimate of GDP of some five billion euros, this would mean that about 1.35 million would go for all media, while almost 11 times more, or 0.3 percent of the GDP amounting to 15 million euros, would be provided to the public service alone.

Almost everyone outside the Government demanded that the amount for this Media Fund be increased several times and that self-regulation be left to the media, including its funding, because the institute itself makes no sense if someone else provides money for it. Especially, if it is funded by the Government, with the latent danger for such bodies of becoming the scourge of the regime for "disobedient" media. We had such a collective self-regulation body in the past and it disintegrated a couple of years ago for precisely that reason.

The November proposal of the Ministry presented a new solution in which the percentage for the Fund would go up to 0.8%, but of the Current Budget, not the GDP. So, the ‘more’ became - significantly less. The Current Budget for next year (2020) is about one billion euros, which means that the Fund would amount to 800 thousand euros, minus ten percent for administration and self-regulation, which is not waived. With the ratio being 60:40, the electronic media could count on 432 thousand euros and the print media on 288 thousand euros. Instead of 15 times, the public service broadcaster would receive 18 times more of citizens' money than all other media combined. For the next year, in fact, it would be 15 million euros more, because other media can count on - zero euros. Namely, the transitional and final provisions provide for the Fund to be effective in 2021. Well, for whom survives ...

In line with the proclaimed effort to improve the overall environment before the next parliamentary elections, some opposition lawmakers also embarked on a media law-making effort. In relation to the Government's proposals, they have been better able to listen to the voice of the domestic public and the media. Thus, they simply transcribed the provision for protection of sources from the existing law, leaving this right of journalists inviolable. Under the influence of the media unions, they further the position of the journalist in the newsroom, eliminating the provision of his joint and several liability, together with the founder and editor-in-chief, to compensate for the damage caused by publishing a text or an article. They also envisaged advisory rights of editorial boards when selecting an editor-in-chief. They also propose protection, that is, a proper severance pay for the editor, if there is a change of ownership that implies a change in the editorial concept and policy.

Interestingly, both Government and these MPs have agreed that offensive online comments and hate speech should be removed after posting. Only the Government has now limited its earlier formulation of the deadline to 24 hours and the opposition to six hours. This could rejoice the portal owners who will not have to hire journalists to pre-authorize comments. This is also being harshly debated in Europe, where there are two different judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. However, this leaves the dilemma as to whether the editors of the online edition are privileged over others because they are not liable promptly for a finalised content. The question also remains when damage occurs to those offended, slandered, afflicted with hate speech - immediately, after 6h or 24 hours.

As for a future fund, the opposition lawmakers demanded that the amount be raised to 0.08% of GDP (around four million euros), with 47.5% to be equally distributed between electronic and print media, and 5% going to the so-called non-profit media. Self-regulation, which is only natural, would be the duty of the media. The idea is a noble one and probably cannot succeed because of the increase in the amount and the basic idea of ​​the Government to provide symbolic money "make a gesture measure, but do not finish the work".

There is also a paradox in this opposition’s fund proposal. They are, perhaps, concerned with improving the environment for the 2020 elections, while none of this about the fund will be valid in that year.

Whatever more the "editors" will have to do, it is hard to believe in the fruits of optimism.

By: Slavoljub Scekic

Montenegro is the only country in Europe (not counting Russia) in which there has never been a change of government in an election. Since 1945, it has been governed invariably by one and the same party - the Communist Party, which in 1990 changed its name to the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). Although the multiparty system was introduced at the time, the Berlin Wall has not been demolished here, because the entire system is tightly controlled by the DPS, more precisely by its leader, the longterm president Milo Đukanović and his family and friends, who seized power with support from Slobodan Milošević and have not released it since. On two occasions, he briefly withdrew from government functions, but remained in full control as DPS Chairman. Thus, real democratic elections in which the free will of the citizens would prevail have never been conducted in this country. The shortcomings of the electoral process are detailed in several international documents, including the OSCE / ODIHR report from the last presidential elections, which emphasizes the so-called institutional advantage enjoyed by the ruling party candidate. If one has an institutional advantage in elections, how can the opponents challenge him or her? Despite the monopolies, the Podgorica government is persistently supported in the West. On several occasions, when Europe’s longest-serving leader Đukanović was on the cliff-edge, his friends from Europe and the United States reached out to him to stop him falling. They usually justified this support for an essentially deeply authoritarian politician by pointing to a weak, disunited anti-Western alternative that would divert the country from its European path and to the threats coming from Russia.

Russia has been introduced into this narrative in recent years, especially since the 2016 elections, as allegedly trying to destabilize Montenegro, the youngest NATO member. This has been claimed even by some politicians from influential Western countries. The fact that Đukanović developed close relations with Moscow in the recent past and gave Putin’s oligarchs some strategic companies and the most beautiful real estate by the sea has been forgotten. The opposition in Montenegro has weaknesses. It is not well organized and is bitterly divided, but most opposition parties cannot be defined as predominantly pro-Russian and anti-Western. On the contrary, none of the parliamentary opposition parties calls into question the country’s accession to the European Union, and only parts of the Democratic Front are openly pro-Russian.

While the country is suffocating in corruption and crime, many offences remain unpunished, especially those whose perpetrators hold the highest positions. Two decades ago, the President himself was charged in Italy as a member of a criminal group that smuggled cigarettes between the two coasts of the Adriatic but his case was archived due to his sovereign immunity and thus never prosecuted. Narco-bosses, such as the infamous Šarić brothers, who have been tried in the neighbouring and several EU countries for smuggling huge amounts of hard drugs, are protected here and are freely doing business with the state and state officials, including the family of Milo Đukanović and the family’s bank in which they hold millions. The judiciary did not prosecute even overt abuses and electoral manipulations. After the “Recordings” and “Envelope” affairs, which clearly demonstrated that the ruling party was buying votes and offering state jobs ahead of elections, no high-ranking officials were held accountable, despite convincing evidence and appeals by the EU, which regularly demands in its reports that these affairs be resolved. Crimes and violence against investigative reporters in recent years have also gone unpunished. One reporter was murdered, another journalist was shot in the leg, explosive devices have been planted in their yards and several were brutally beaten, while a bomb shook the offices of the daily Vijesti, several of whose cars were set on fire. Not only were the perpetrators of these crimes never held accountable, but the dirty campaign against the free media which dared, but the dirty to report on the links between business, crime and politics, has become a constant in pro-government media outlets. Critical media have been accused of various crimes and their representatives of betraying the country and national interests, as during the peak years of Communism. This campaign against the media was often led personally by Đukanović, who depicted investigative journalists as “mice to be exterminated” and openly called for the arrest of the owners of the daily Vijesti and weekly Monitor. Because of all this, over the last decade Montenegro has fallen by more than 50 places on the Reporters Without Borders’ Media Freedom Index. In 2018, it was ranked a disastrous 104th, among the lowest in Europe. In the last 30 years, the middle class in Montenegro has been almost completely wiped out. According to UNDP research in Southeast Europe, the biggest gap between the rich and poor is to be found in Montenegro. About 30 percent of the country’s citizens are on or below the poverty line. At the same time, a small group associated with the authorities is enormously wealthy, and has taken over the wealth of the country in an untransparent privatization: factories, land, banks, hotels, real estate and so on. In this process, Đukanović and his family and closest friends turned out to be the most successful ‘entrepreneurs’. A few years ago, the distinguished British daily the Independent ranked him among the twenty richest politicians in the world, while Forbes estimated the wealth of the Đukanović family at over $ 160 million, marking the Montenegrin president as one of the richest persons in the country. This could be just part of his visible fortune, as some estimated that it could be worth more than $ 1 billion.

The average monthly salary in Montenegro is only 500 euros. According to unofficial estimates, from 1991 to 2015, some 140,000 people left the country of only 620,000 inhabitants, fleeing unemployment, poverty and unequal chances. Most of them emigrated to Germany. When that country further liberalizes its labour market next January, it is feared that emigration from Montenegro will further intensify. Montenegro’s economy is quite devastated by corruption and shady privatization. External debt has grown from about 28 percent of GDP in 2006 to an enormous 70 percent of GDP in 2018. According to independent economists, the loans were used mainly to stimulate consumption and for unreasonable projects. An example is the construction of a 40km motorway section from Podgorica to Kolašin financed by China that will cost more than one billion euros. According to international experts, this loan could make Montenegro dependent on Beijing because it is unclear how the weak Montenegrin economy can service the increasing debt.

When he came to power at the age of 27, Đukanović possessed nothing but a bachelor’s degree in economics, with rather poor average grades, but an excellent CV of a party soldier. He had been a member of the League of Communists since high school, climbing the power ladder with incredible speed. His brother Alexander (Aco) owns hundreds of thousands of square meters in the country’s best locations, along with office buildings, apartments and one of the largest banks in the country. Milo Đukanović’s government has extensively supported this bank, not only by depositing state funds in it, but also by bailing it out with tens of millions of euros during the financial crisis. His sister Ana, a lawyer, has become the exclusive attorney for foreign investors doing deals with the state. Đukanović’s family and its cronies and closest friends have taken over the state’s most valuable resources. The rest of the DPS party nomenklatura also enjoys the benefits. This summer, it was reported that millions of euros were spent exclusively on high-level officials’ apartments, many of whom have obtained grant funding for their purchase or renovation, which is in collision with the law.

This retrograde system is maintained by appointing to key positions ‘reliable’ individuals, who frequently do not meet either legal or professional requirements. Only recently, Vesna Medenica was elected as President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro for the third time, despite the constitutional limit of two terms for performing this important judicial function. The same thing happened earlier with former Montenegrin President Filip Vujanović, who was elected as president three times in a row, despite a restriction in the Constitution that clearly stipulates a maximum of two terms. Both Vujanović and Medenica are considered loyal party cadres close to Đukanović. Montenegro has been in the negotiation process with the European Union for seven years, but its prospects for membership are still hazy due to disrespect for the rule of law, although 2025 has been floated informally by some Brussels officials as the year of possible entry. If indeed this smallest of all former Yugoslav countries were then to be accepted in the Union, it would mean that the negotiation process took longer than it did for any new EU member to date. Clearly, the main barrier to joining the Union is the whole range of internal factors, many of which we have mentioned here.

Therefore, it is hard to believe that negotiations on Chapters 23 and 24 on the rule of law could be closed in the near future. Or, say, Chapter 27, on the issue of sustainable development and ecology, since nature and biodiversity, including in areas protected by UNESCO, such as the Tara Canyon, have been aggressively assaulted, while waste, toxic emissions and pollution have still not been addressed.

It is well known that the EU is tired of enlargement, that it is uncertain about its own future and that Brexit is making it look increasingly like Yugoslavia before the breakup. It is thus quite normal that in such a situation there is no particular enthusiasm for negotiations with Montenegro, as well as with other candidate and potential candidate countries.

But despite all this, under the Association and Accession Agreement, Brussels should at this stage play a more proactive role in transforming Montenegro into a functioning democracy, especially when it comes to the rule of law, economic reforms and nature protection. Instead, Brussels treats with considerable tolerance the brutal violations of law by official Podgorica, including its gross infringements of the country’s constitutional order, as in the case of the unlawful election of the Supreme Court president.

There was no adequate response from Brussels to a number of other breaches of the law. Last year, the management of Radio Television of Montenegro (RTCG), which sought to reform the broadcaster and make it a truly public service rather than a mere service of the DPS – was unlawfully dismissed. In that case too, the EU voiced only moderate criticism of this act in its regular report, and Montenegro continued to drop down the charts of media freedoms.

There was no decisive reaction from Brussels even when an insider, the businessman Duško Knežević, posted a video in January of this year, showing him handing over an envelope of about € 100,000 to the former Mayor of Podgorica and present member of DPS presidency Slavoljub Stijepović for the ruling party’s 2016 parliamentary election campaign – which would have constituted illegal campaign financing. Knežević, one of richest Montenegrins, has launched an entire campaign to release large amounts of compromising evidence against local authorities from London, where he took refuge from the Montenegrin public prosecution service, which has meanwhile raised financial misconduct charges against him. He has directly accused Đukanović of numerous illegal acts and has handed out to the media documents on Đukanović’s secret offshore and financial dealings. In the European Union governments would resign and fall for much less. In Montenegro, European officials have continued to cooperate with Đukanović, and many to openly support him, even though Đukanović in person and his nomenklatura are the main obstacles, not only to joining the EU, but to establishing a basic rule of law in the smallest of the post-Yugoslav states. Why does the West support such a regime, more specifically why do the EU countries do it?

Đukanović immediately recognized Kosovo, when requested by Brussels and Washington. He quickly implemented the necessary reforms in the military, and in 2017 Montenegro joined the NATO alliance. In addition, he established good relations with neighbours, primarily with Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, against whom he had fought in the 1990s. He apologized to Zagreb and Sarajevo for his acts during the breakup of Yugoslavia and the love affair with Milošević, but at the same time, no war crimes committed by Montenegrins have been fully prosecuted.

Đukanović has also established good ties with Serbia, whose rulers he had opposed when Montenegro was heading towards independence in 2006. Today the Montenegrin president, despite his confrontation with the local pro-Serbian parties and the Serbian Orthodox Church, maintains an exceptional relationship with Serbian President Vučić, with whom he shares many similarities in the way they govern their respective countries. Đukanović also imposed himself on the regional scene, with some experts even suggesting him as a mediator in the Prishtinë-Belgrade talks. He also has an intense and friendly communication with the Kosovo leadership. At the same time, the Montenegrin ruler imposed sanctions on Russia when the European Union did and began accusing Moscow of interfering in the country’s domestic affairs.

Thus, all that Đukanović did was to align the country’s foreign policy priorities with the interests of Brussels and Washington. In return, he got a free hand to do whatever he wants at home, to oppress and consolidate his own power, instead of reforming Montenegro and preparing it for EU accession.

Milka TADIĆ-MIJOVIĆ

In the first of a series of posts by investigative journalists and civil society activists working on exposing corruption in the Balkans, Milka Tadić Mijović (President, Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro) discusses impunity in Montenegro and the complicity of the West.

The High Court acquitted the defendants while the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court went even farther and ruled that no crime took place at all. Many years on, the government, in order to redeem itself, poured millions in the construction of new houses in Bukovica, to which no one returns except briefly, to vote in elections. Veselin Veljovic, the current director of National Police, was in the centre of the story as he was the chief of Pljevlja Police Department in the days of trouble. His role in the crimes has not been fully brought to light while his testimonies are controversial.

Six persons were killed, two committed suicide as a consequence of abuse and torture while hundreds of Muslims were expelled and their houses looted. All that took place in the early 1990s. The authorities in Montenegro and its top officials are still not ready to face the past in the way that would show responsibility by bringing the guilty to justice.

A small number of those who were indicted by the prosecution were later acquitted in court. The judiciary went even that far as to rule that no crime took place. Contradicting testimonies failed to clarify the role of the current National Police Director Veselin Veljovic, who back then was heading the police department in Pljevlja. Veljovic claims that his actions were lawful.

As in other similar cases, the authorities tried to cover up the atrocities by throwing money around. Some €4.5 million have been invested to build 110 houses and about 60 additional facilities in the area over the recent years. Allegedly, the goal is to revitalise the area. However, only six families live there around the year. The government didn’t answer the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIN-CG) on whether it was pleased with the progress and results of the investment.

The representative of the Bukovica Association Jakup Durgut says that “the Government has accomplished nothing. The people have not returned. A number of them has yet to pick the keys to the new houses. Out of eight families who did return, two have left again. This people need support. The state has to guarantee the purchase of agricultural products and to maintain the roads. This ain’t place for living” Durgut told CIN-CG.

At the outset, there was an optimism, he says, but as time went on, the people realised that it was a waste of money. “I doubt that they have invested that much as they report. Many houses are still even without electricity. There is no transparency in this. It’s a lousy work.

In his book, Bukovica 1992-1995: Ethnic Cleansing, Crimes and Violence, the place is described as the only part in Montenegro which suffered ethnic cleansing in the 1990s. It states that in early 1992 twenty four villages were emptied of their population . From 1992 to 1995, six civilians were killed: Hajro Muslic (75), Ejub Muslic (28), Latif Bungur (87), Hilmo Drkenda (70), Dzafer Djogo (57) and Bijela Dzaka (70). Eleven men were abducted and taken to prison in Cajnice accross the border. Himzo Stovrag (67) and Hamed Bavcic (75) committed suicide after torture that they were subjected to. Almost the entire male population of the area was beaten up repeatedly. At least eight houses and the village mosque were burnt down and property looted. Other houses were destroyed as well. Some 125 families with 330 members were displaced.

Only the case of Dzafer Djogo, who worked on the maintenance of local roads ended up in court. However, the prosecutor labelled it as manslaughter, not a war crime. Majos Vreco was convicted while his accomplice Dragomir Krvavac was acquitted on insanity clause. The District Court in Bijelo Polje sentenced Vreco to 4.5 years in prison. Subsequently the High Court in Bijelo Polje increased the sentence to 14 years. Vreco served his sentence in Spuz Correctional Centre and in Foca Correctional Centre in Bosnia. While in prison, his sentence was reduced twice – the then Republic of Srpska President Nikola Poplasen reduced his sentence by ten months upon amnesty law and Montenegro's President Milo Djukanovic reduced his sentence by two years.

The mysterious role of police chief

“I don’t know how much he was personally involved, but he knew (what was going on) and he could have stopped it” says Durgut on the role of the then local police chief Veselin Veljovic. Allegations about Veljovic’s role in those events are contradictory, even though they come from the Bosniaks. Some witnesses in court said that Veljovic was leading the house searches. Durgut further quotes in his book a person who claimed that Veljovic had threatened to cut off his ears. On the other hand, in January 2006 after Veljovic was first time appointed director of National Police many raised concerns over his role in the Bukovica Case. Smail Hakija Ajanovic, the then chairman of the Pljevlja Islamic Community came to his rescue and said that Veljovic preserved peace and dignity of the people in Pljevlja and that no one else could have contributed more.

“Only lawful actions were taken to ensure stability, order and peace. The community was mixed thus particular efforts were made to preserve the multi-ethnic and religious harmony in the area“ is said in the reply of National Police to CIN-CG about Veljovic’s involvement back then. We sent questions to Director Veljovic on how he viewed his role in those events, whether he felt responsible for torture and expulsions, whether he personally took part in the same, whether he, as a policeman, found the perpetrators and whether the victims got justice. Instead of answering our specific questions we were referred to the letter of Ajanovic who, according to National Police, “denied the later attempts to tarnish the name and integrity of Police Director Veselin Veljovic as they were unfounded and malicious when it comes to the events in Bukovica. Ajanovic further explained the great contribution of the Veljovic-led police in preserving peace in those troublesome days”. The police reply ends with “Police Director Veselin Veljovic shared all his knowledge and findings in the court proceeding whereupon the defendants were acquitted of criminal responsibility”.

Veljovic was heading the police in Pljevlja from mid-October 1992 until the end of 1995. He testified in court in December 2010. He said that the proximity of Bosnia and Republic of Srpska and the raging hostilities in the area posed a security threat to both Muslims-Bosniaks and Orthodox. He also said that there were many paramilitary formations around, so the locals were rightfully concerned. The police had duty to keep things quite. He didn’t rule out a possibility of individual excesses on the part of police officers, but affirmed that the police was “a factor of stability, peace and order and it took action in search for illegal weapons hidden in houses or in relation to other criminal offences”.

“No police officer involved in those raids abused and mistreated the persons whose houses and facilities were searched, because none of the residents in Bukovica complained to me about the work and behaviour of the accused police officers ... It is clear to the police that SH hanged himself , but not out of fear or because he was petrified or beaten by the army and the police. He hanged himself for the reasons known to him only” said Veljovic in court.

Ramiz Sabanovic from the village of Klakorine gave his testimony to the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) which was published in HLC’s book on Bukovica. It contradicts Veljovic’s version of events. He said that in February 1993, a group of soldiers and police officers toured Muslim homes and harassed the population. He says that soldiers and police broke into his house, dragged his wife Hatidja by the hair and knocked her down to the floor while he was beaten in another room and asked to show his money. He held up a wad of dinars in the countervalue of some 3,000 Deutschmarks which he earned from the sale of livestock. The officer examined the money but did not take it.

“Then a soldier with a dog approached me, I think his name was Aco Malinic. He released the dog which jumped on my chest and completely shredded my clothes but he kept it on the leash just enough to stop him short of killing me. The stress I suffered is beyond words to describe. After this, my wife and I were forced to make the sign of the cross on us and sing Chetnik (Serbian nationalist) songs and lick the knife blade. Afterwards, they drove us out of the house and chased us to a nearby stream saying that we either surrender our money or get slaughtered with barbed wire”- says Sabanovic.

Regarding the role of the police chief, a well-known TV Vijesti journalist Sead Sadikovic, who made numerous reports and a film about Bukovica, told CIN-CG, with distinctive irony that “Nothing but God’s providence sent Veselin Veljovic to Bukovica in the early 1990s. After the army left he controlled the area and it was then that most people moved out and saved their lives. Today they are in Gorazde, Sarajevo, Vienna, New York. As the war was spilling from Bosnia over to Bukovica, Veljovic was aware that he could not protect the Bosniaks. Thus he expelled them, but those are not my words though. I will be more precise and cautious: He helped him to go to a safer and better place - to exile. So the Bukovica Muslims should be grateful to the present police director. Even if he mildly spanked someone while he searched the houses for alleged illegal weapons that was for their own good, he meant no harm whatsoever”.

 

The courts turn blind to war crimes

In December 2007, the High Prosecution Office in Bijelo Polje launched an investigation on five former Yugoslav Army soldiers: Radmilo Djukovic, Radisa Djukovic, Slobodan Cvetkovic, Djordje Gogic, Milorad Brkovic and two Montenegrin police officers: Slavisa Svrkota and Radoman Subaric. After three years they were indicted for war crimes and subsequently fully acquitted.

The prosecution accused them of inhumane treatment, torture and violence they committed against Muslims during the raids of their houses in search for alleged illegal weapons.

The indictment stated that “they were checking whether the people fought in the Bosnian Green Berets, whether they offered the Green Berets shelter and food supply. The accused caused severe suffering and posed a threat to the lives and integrity of victims, intimidated them so to force them out of their houses and cause all the Muslims to leave the area”. The policeman were accused that they drove Himzo Stovrag to hang himself to escape further abuse and torture.

[youtube v="YwFPY-Xlphc"]

The trial chamber at the Bijelo Polje High Court, presided by Judge Sefkija Decevic, acquitted them for lack of evidence. The court ruled that the Muslim community had left on its own because of the war in their proximity and not because of inhumane treatment on the part of the defendants. Serbs and Montenegrins left their homes as well. The ruling also says that some of the victims did not support the allegations of the indictment, while some spoke differently than in the investigation. It was also found that the army and the police acted “in accordance with the rules of service”, that the search of the houses was justified, because there were tips that weapons were hidden in some houses which were subsequently found, and their owners convicted of illegal possession of firearms.

The High Court concluded that no systematic or widespread attack on civilians had been proven, which is a prerequisite for the existence of a crime against humanity. The Appellate Court reversed the verdict two years later, acquitting the accused, but on the grounds that no crime at all was committed.

“The crime as presented in the indictment is not a crime, because it lacks one essential element - the rule of international law which the defendants broke“- as explained by Judges Radmila Mijuskovic, Milic Medjedovic and SvetlanaVujanovic . “The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which the Prosecutor relied in the Indictment, is not such an one, since the acts listed in the indictment were committed in 1992 and 1993, which was before the Rome Statute came into force (2002)” is further explained. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling in January 2013.

 

Sadikovic: They remake history with our tax money

Sadikovic says Bukovica research is one of the saddest he has done. “At first it was because of sad stories told by the victims. Then came the trial which was nothing but a farce. Lastly, the epilogue is tragicomic: “The victims come back and vote for their jailer, in all elections. They are won by a cottage in the middle of nowhere where they won’t bother to stay except on the very special ocassion- on the election day to give their vote to the former jailer” says Sadikovic.

Our tax money is used to re-write history, he says. Sadikovic’s film The Void shows people who come to Pljevlja from abroad to give their vote to Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) even though their families were tortured and abused by the same people who were in power then and now.

“The state planned to give away €4.5 million. Add the litigation costs and we arrive at €5-6 million of our tax money used to re-write biographies of those who ‘created the new Montenegro’”. This case will never be properly investigated as long as we have these guys in power” said Sadikovic.

He says that during his stay in Bukovica he was shocked to find out that both parties (victims and perpetrators) now behave as though nothing happened before.

“This is the key mistake! I’m afraid that it will happen. Those who learn not from history are doomed to repeat it. The remaining stigma prevents newer generations to learn from the past so to ensure that it never comes back. It’s funny when they say that the statute of limitations shall not apply to war crimes” concluded the well-known journalist.

In the interview with CIN-CG, lawyer Velija Muric said that Bukovica was “a war crime case that occurred in the area where no state of war was officially declared”.

“Many things were done so to de facto encourage the flight of the local population. The army and the police didn’t commit all the atrocities but they left the door open so that Bosniaks could easily fall prey to their local Serbian and Montenegrin neighbours. Some were found guilty of manslaughter but not of war crime against civilians and destruction of houses and mosques. Displacing the citizens of other ethnicity and faith, looting their property and killing innocent people is equal to genocide or ethnic cleansing” said Muric. He points our that a large number of Bosniaks fell prey to police brutality at the time.

“My objection to Montenegro is that it hasn’t investigated and identified those who either took part or failed to prevent the crimes in Bukovica. On the contrary, it happens that the responsible get promoted to high positions in the police. That will discourage anyone who contemplates to return. Without facing the past and dealing with the crime, things like investments in new houses for Bosniaks are absurd” concludes Muric.

Director of the Human Rights Action (HRA) Tea Gorjanc Prelevic points out that the Appellate Court’s ruling on the Bukovica Case is controversial. It’s a mistake that the court left the prosecutor’s indictment as it was and failed to convict the defendants for war crimes against civilians. The same, she recalls, was concluded by the European Commission’s legal expert Mauriyzio Salustro in the leaked report of December 2014 which was published by Vijesti.

Having analysed the Bukovica Case and the Deportation Case, Salustro concluded that the Appellate Court was completely wrong - that the defendants were not parties to the armed conflict and could not commit a war crime. The expert also found out that no war crimes case was launched by Montenegrin prosecutors. They only responded to criminal charges filed by individuals or institutions.

 

SPO PROBES EIGHT CASES

CIN-CG insisted to hear from the Special Prosecution Office (SPO) on the progress of their own War Crimes Investigation Strategy and the status of old and new cases. The reply was very short, just stating that they were still working on the cases.

The cases of Bukovica, Deportations and Kaludjerski Laz ended in acquittals. The Morinj Case ended with symbolic sentences. It’s a rule that only the lowest level soldiers get convicted. The prosecutors are now under renewed pressure from within and without so they launched investigations in four new cases.

According to the report of the Committee against Torture, the new cases are related to Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia and Croatia again (southern theatre of war- the area of Dubrovnik).

[youtube v="0uz2APaLzBk"]

WAITING FOR GOVERNMENTS TO ENDORSE REGIONAL WAR CRIMES COMMISSION (RECOM)

Natasa Kandic of Serbian Humanitarian Law Foundation believes that the victims’ families are still humiliated.

“The big problem in Montenegro is that no one is convicted of war crimes. Just a very few are on trial.  This trend is similar to other countries in the region” Kandic told CIN-CG.

The problem is, as she points out, that the EU no longer requires the candidate states to face their dark past. “If the candidate states are not conditioned to take some responsibility, at least to make thorough lists of all victims, how then do you expect the rule of law to take roots in the region. Corruption and organised crime are important, but so are the crimes of the past” she said.

However, the European Commission openly endorsed the Regional War Crimes Commission (RECOM) in April this year. The governments of Bosnia and Croatia do not wish to support this initiative for the time being. RECOM was founded in 2008 by civil society organisations with the aim of regional reconciliation. According to their data, 130,000 people were killed and went missing in the wars.

“The problem in the region is that you have had more less the same people in power since the time of wars. The countries which suffered the most now maintain the distance and refuse to take part in the regional register of all victims” Kandic said.

Maja BORIČIĆ

Montenegrin judiciary shifts the blame from Milosevic’s state policy of terror in Kosovo, whose main protagonists were convicted by the Hague Tribunal, to a private who allegedly spun out of control

The High Court in Podgorica convicted Vlado Zmajevic from Niksic, Montenegro to 14 years of prison for killing four civilians in the village of Zheger(Albanian)/Zegra (Serbian) in Kosovo during the war. However, the Montenegrin judiciary rebuffed the earlier findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague. Urged by the international community to produce results in the war crime cases and thereby fulfil at least something of Chapters 23 & 24 of the EU accession talks, the court in Montenegro indirectly exonerated the state policy of Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies which conducted a widespread campaign of persecution and terror against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. They ultimately had to stand trial in the Hague and ICTY convicted them to long-term prison.

CIN-CG investigation reveals that the Special Prosecution Office (SPO) also ignored the postulates in its own Strategy for Investigation of War Crimes. The experts believe the same. The Strategy emphasises that “the fight against war crimes impunity must be supported by more efficient investigations in accordance with international standards”.       

Goran Rodic, a lawyer with a great experience in the war crime proceedings, both in the Hague and in Montenegro, in the interview with CIN-CG points out to the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights which go against the conduct of the Montenegrin judiciary and which may eventually reverse the Montenegrin verdict. Furthermore, the survivors of the village of Zheger/Zegra who had to face the war horrors have not come to terms with the trial outcome. They separately filed the criminal charges citing the names of other persons who committed the crime that Zmajevic was convicted of. They insist on the justice for their killed neighbours.

Former volunteer of the 3rd Battalion of the 175th Infantry Brigade of the Army of Yugoslavia (VJ), Vlado Zmajevic, was declared guilty by the first instance court on 5 June 2019. The case was originally investigated by the Serbian authorities and then handed over to Montenegro since Zmajevic was a citizen of Montenegro. The SPO accused him of “killing four Albanian civilians”- Imer Kadriu, Milazim Idrizi, and the Haziri couple (Qazim and Qamile) and he was further accused of “looting their property”.

Zmajevic had previously fought in the battle of Vukovar, Croatia. He had various jobs in the past and earned himself a criminal record, with a long history of serious illnesses. After his Kosovo “exploits” and alleged escape from the neuropsychiatric ward in Nis, he returned to Niksic. According to his family members, he worked there as an activist of the ruling party in electoral campaigns. Asked about this, the Niksic branch of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) first announced that it would send reply and then referred the CIN-CG reporter to the party headquarters, which did not respond before the publication.

Initially, Zmajevic was charged for murder of seven civilians. The SPO stated that he was “of sound mind and discretion” despite extensive medical records that denied the SPO allegation. The witnesses proposed by the prosecution all agreed that Zmajevic was seriously ill. There was nothing else that they could agree on. When the indictment was filed, the SPO reduced the number of Zmajevic's “victims” to four. Defence lawyer Ljiljana Koldzic told CIN-CG that it was done due to embarrassment as “their Serbian counterparts only sent them a document of the Military Security Agency (VBA) and an empty file without a shred of evidence”.

Even for those four people, the evidence offered by the Serbian authorities is questionable and rather looks as a cover-up of what was really going on in Zheger/Zegra and the rest of Kosovo. Furthermore, the ballistic report that allegedly linked the killings to the weapon issued to Zmajevic “had gone missing” never to be found.

The Special Prosecutor proposed eight former soldiers and one reserve officer as witnesses. They were in the same unit with the accused. Allegedly two of them were first hand witnesses of Zmajevic’s crimes. Moreover the prosecutor presented Zmajevic’s confession before the military tribunal in Prishtina on 3 April 1999 (wherein he allegedly admitted “only three kills”) and a report of the Military Security Agency, which looked more like a communist-era political pamphlet on the fight against enemies of the people, designed to shield the generals who, nevertheless, eventually ended up in the Hague to stand trial for the crimes in Zheger/Zegra and other atrocities in Kosovo.

Reserve Lieutenant Danijel Colic claims that he saw Zmajevic firing three bullets at Imer Kadriu, a local shepherd, only “because he was a Shiptar” (derogatory for Albanians). However, no one else of those present saw such a thing, let alone confirmed it in court. Neither the lorry driver who was next to the lieutenant, nor the other soldiers saw it. Allegedly Zmajevic ordered a group of soldiers who were 500 metres away from the spot to remove the corpse. Armend Kadriu, the son of the deceased, in a statement given in Kosovo to the Montenegrin prosecutor on 16 January 2017, claims that his father had “four gunshot wounds and two stab wounds, presumably inflicted by knife”. In the video, which the former defence lawyer, the late Slavomir Bozovic, showed to CIN-CG journalist, Colic was visibly under stress during the hearing in Belgrade, squirming, as if he was tied up and trying to get free. He “could not remember anything” but he “adhered to his earlier statements”. He said he “did not report to the authorities the killing of Kadriu, but only that his two soldiers went missing” who were most likely busy with looting of Albanian houses. Lieutenant Colic also said that he had no control over the troops under his command.

The key witness of Serbian and Montenegrin prosecutors, Damir Novic, by his own admission, has a long history of psychiatric illnesses and  “swallows a handful of pills every day”. Novic was allegedly present when Zmajevic killed Milazim Idrizi and Qazim Haziri in the courtyard of the Haziri house and then inside the house he killed Qazim’s wife Qamile when “... he stood over her and took the combat knife that has that jagged blade and he struck her in the forehead with that knife ... and he shot her in the head comrade judge, he wouldn’t wait”. In his earlier statement, Novic claimed that Zmajevic had struck the unfortunate woman twenty times with the knife. This is reinforced by Zmajevic's “confession” back in 1999 before the military tribunal when Zmajevic reportedly said that after killing the two men in a house yard with his automatic rifle, he “pulled a knife from the belt and struck the woman twice in the head ... and then fired a bullet at her”. The SPO repeats it in the indictment stating that Zmajevic struck Qamila with a knife “twice in the head and then fired two shots, one in the stomach and another in the chest from his automatic rifle ... and thereby killed her”.

The problem with those allegations is the post-mortem record of the Gjilan Police Department with attached photographic report, all made on 31 March 1999 and signed by five authorised officials. It shows that late Qamile had no knife wounds, as described by Prosecutor Lidija Vukcevic, her witness Novic and Zmajevic himself in his “confession”. Moreover, there was neither the gunshot wound in the chest area which the prosecutor added in her indictment nor the gunshot wound in the head as the key witness claimed. There was only a gunshot wound in the upper right hip and traces of blood around her right ear without further explanation of what had caused it. Had Zmajevic struck the woman in the forehead with his knife even once, as the prosecution claimed, the photograph of the unfortunate woman would have been largely different. The post-mortem report also describes the location of the killed Milazim and Qazim and the distance between them, as well as the location wherefrom it was fired at them. All that rebuts the testimony of Novic. Other witnesses either knew nothing or heard something from Novic. The military authorities in Leskovac pressed charges for the aforementioned killings against all those former soldiers who later turned up as “witnesses”. The court in Serbia then quietly dismissed the case and focused on Zmajevic only as he was a Montenegrin citizen.

What really happened in Zheger/Zegra at the end of March 1999?

The Special Prosecution Office claims that the crime occurred “during an armed conflict between members of an armed military organisation, the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and members of the Yugoslav Army”, and that Zmajevic spun out of control and killed civilians who did not participate in the hostilities.

The Hague Tribunal (ICTY) gives a completely different description of the events in the final ruling of 23 January 2014 against Milosevic’s Kosovo Commissioner Nikola Sainovic, Generals Nebojsa Pavkovic, Vladimir Lazarevic and Sreten Lukic for crimes committed against Kosovo Albanians in 1999, including the one in Zheger/Zegra. Sainovic was sentenced to 18 years, Pavkovic (Third Army commander) to 22, Lukic (chief of Kosovo MUP staff) to 20, and Lazarevic (chief of the Pristina Corps staff) to 14 years in prison. The Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber's ruling that in Zheger/Zegra “the Yugoslav Army and the Ministry of Interior (MUP), along with other irregular forces, expelled Kosovo Albanians from the village either directly or by threats, with beatings and killings, creating an atmosphere of fear”, whereby the accused in the case committed “deportation as a crime against humanity; other inhumane acts (forcible transfer) as a crime against humanity”. The Hague tribunal found that there was no KLA presence in the area at the time, which was often used as a pretext for the terror campaign against the majority Albanian population.

The KLA war logs record no presence in the area, let alone clashes with the army and the police. The only KLA member from the village and a former Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) officer, Agim Ramadani, fought at Koshare border post at the time and he fell there on 11 April 1999. A prosecution witness in the Hague Qamil Shabani from Zheger/Zegra said in the Tribunal that “paramilitary forces, with the help of local Serbs, went to some of the houses in this village looking for prominent locals to kill them” which was a standard form and prelude to mass ethnic cleansing. The Hague Tribunal found that the crime was pre-meditated and planned at the highest level. Moreover, according to many witnesses, the terror campaign was preceded by systematic racketeering of the population at the hands of local police and party officials of Milosevic’s SPS as the Zhegrans had a large and well-off diaspora in Switzerland.

During the Hague trial, Generals Pavkovic and Lazarevic each attributed to himself the merit of arresting Zmajevic and six others and sentencing them to long prison terms (allegedly Zmajevic was sentenced to 20 years) and referred to the aforesaid carefully crafted military intelligence report (VBA Official Note VP 1037 Nis No. K-470 dated 23 April 2005), which was also admitted by the Montenegrins into evidence. The Hague dismissed their allegations and evidence as untrue.

Now apart from the Hague Tribunal, on 14 February 2006, Zheger/Zegra residents pressed criminal charges before the Gjilan Prosecution Office. They listed the following names as the orchestra of death: Zheger/Zegra Community Centre chairman Momcilo Mihailovic, local police deputy chief Milan Milenkovic, Serbian Radical Party (SRS) official Pera Stojanovic and high inspector of the state security department (RDB) in Gjilan Sinisa Pavic. The Zhegrans claim that those individuals “updated and completed the kill lists with persons of note, political officials, intellectuals, teachers, persons with deep patriotic and national feelings...”. The Zhegrans also gave the names of people who, according to them, directly executed the prominent locals, including those that Zmajevic was accused of, so to force and scare the population to flee to Macedonia. They are a reserve police officer at the local police station Stanko Petkovic, the brother of the aforementioned Seselj's SRS official Rade Stojanovic and member of the Gjilan State Security Department Jovan Stojanovic - all from Zheger/Zegra.

The Montenegrin court and prosecution refused to invite the local signatories to testify in court. Other motions by the defence lawyer to summon the locals who testified in the Hague and to admit the final verdicts of the Tribunal into the case file were rebuffed as well.

“Everything was rejected without an explanation. They just said ‘not accepted’”. The presiding judge went that far as to warn me that he would no longer allow me to mention the Hague verdict on pretence that it was irrelevant. Lo and behold, it’s quite the opposite because the persons were convicted precisely for the events in the village of Zheger/Zegra,” said lawyer Koldzic in the interview with CIN-CG.

The SPO proposed, and the court accepted, to invite only the families of the victims as witnesses on the Kosovo Albanian side. Nevertheless all of them save one were in Switzerland during the war and had no first hand knowledge of the crimes. It’s worth noting the statement of Muhadin Haziri, the son of the late Qazim and Qamile, given on 16 January 2017 in Kosovo before the Montenegrin prosecutor. He said that his cousin Fitim (whom Zmajevic allegedly pursued and broke into the house of the Haziris and killed his parents and uncle there) told him that he - Fitim, the Haziri couple and his uncle Milazim were taken to the police station before the massacre and interrogated. They were released, he says, only after Qazim Haziri had given a thousand German marks to the investigators. Later, the same persons from the police station appeared in front of the house of the Haziris (two of them) and one of them killed his parents and uncle. This is in line with what the Zhegrans claimed (before the Gjilan District Prosecutor) that powerful Serbs in the area targeted more prominent people, extorted money, drafted lists of those who ought to be killed and then sent police and security officers, who knew where to find them, to finish with them. Qamil Shabani told the same thing in his testimony before the Hague Tribunal.

The Haziris were a distinguished family. Milazim Idrizi, a local professor was a man of honour as well. The school in Zheger/Zegra is named after him. Furthermore Tahir Tahiri, the local leader of Rugova's Democratic Alliance of Kosovo (LDK) was killed. The reputable Ukshini couple suffered the same fate. Zmajevic was also charged for the last three kills at the beginning of the investigation. Altogether 13 people were killed in the village.

It is hard to believe that Zmajevic, who previously lived in Zrenjanin and had never been to Zheger/Zegra before, knew who the most prominent and wealthiest people were in the village and where they lived. It is even less likely that local police, secret service (RDB) and Socialist Party chiefs would allow him to racketeer people before they do so. The Hague Tribunal found, as stated in its final verdict, that the top Serbian authorities had planned to conduct a campaign of terror and expulsion of the population. Thus freelancers like Zmajevic would not have a chance to act solo, except on the sidelines to pick up any valuables left after police and state security “swept the ground”.

At best, Zmajevic could have been tried for looting and destruction of property together with other “witnesses” who said that they were not stealing anything but only collecting valuables by the roads that the expelled Albanians had thrown off.

The Serbian state authorities wanted to reduce the state sponsored crime of deportation, killings and robbery to the excesses of a sick man from Niksic, while the Montenegrin counterparts helped them to look so. On the other hand Montenegro pays lip service to Euro-Atlantic values, the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

Rodic: Only “Small Fish” Get Convicted   

Podgorica-based lawyer Goran Rodic, in the interview with CIN-CG, expressed his astonishment at the Montenegrin judiciary’s approach to the Zmajevic case. “If the defence presents evidence to substantiate its allegations and points out that the same were admitted in the Hague and if the final verdict, the case files and the witnesses in the Tribunal are relevant to the case in Montenegro then such proposals are justified. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the accused must be allowed to present evidence and witnesses that go in his favour. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of Montenegro and the regular courts indicate that the accused has the right to do so. On those grounds the verdict can be successfuly appealed- when the accused is denied his rights either entirely or in part during the proceeding” Rodic said to CIN-CG. It is “general impression in the public” that Montenegro’s judiciary prosecutes and convicts only “small fish” for war crimes, while “big fish” get away, says lawyer Goran Rodic. However, according to him, there are certain limitations when it comes to thorough and successful investigations. The events took place long time ago hence it is hard to reconstruct them, witnesses pass away etc.

Jovo MARTINOVIĆ

Montenegrin court recognised the crime of deportations in the ruling on damage claims but the judges acquitted those who had taken part in the arrests and deportations of victims. The judges also protected the command chain and the country’s officials, under excuse that Montenegro was not a party to the conflict in Bosnia. The civil sector demands justice and coming to terms with the past.

 

“It’s tough to grow up without a father and not to know the whereabouts of his remains”

Alen Bajrovic recalls dramatic morning scenes in May 1992 in Herceg Novi. He was a five-year old but the memory of the event still haunts him:
“Men in uniforms arrived. They were not paramilitaries but two members of the National Police of Montenegro. My sister of seven and half years and myself were there. They told my father that he had to go with them! And that was it- the end”.

Osmo Bajrovic fled the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina hoping to find refuge for his family and himself in Montenegro. However, he was arrested, deported back and never heard of since. He was one of many dozens sent to death. The Montenegrin authorities are yet to deal with its role in the past.

The then prime minister and now president Milo Djukanovic and the then president Momir Bulatovic in their statements to CIN-CG exonerated themselves and blamed an unknown third party. On the other hand the civil sector keeps stressing that each country should finally accept responsibility for the crimes committed and stop humiliation of war victims and their families.  

Montenegrin police arrested in May 1992 at least 66 Bosnian Muslims who had fled to Montenegro from the war in Bosnia. They were sent back as hostages to the forces under Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, allegedly to have them exchanged for Serbian prisoners of war. They were deported from Herceg Novi on 25 May 1992 and sent to the concentration camp in Foca, Bosnia. Only a few survived. On 27 May another group was handed over. Subsequently it came out that they were killed.

Their bodies have never been recovered. The place(s) where they perished is unknown and the perpetrators there have never been found, let alone prosecuted. It’s been 27 years since.   

Nine police and security officials in Montenegro stood the trial for the deportations into certain death. All of them were acquitted- the then head of national secret service (SDB) Bosko Bojovic, the head of police force Milisav Markovic, Herceg Novi SDB chief Radoje Radunovic, an SDB agent Dusko Bakrac, Ulcinj SDB chief Bozidar Stojovic, Herceg Novi Police Department chief Milorad Ivanovic, a Herceg-Novi police department official Milorad Sljivancanin, Bar Police Department chief Branko Bujic and Ulcinj Police Department chief Sreten Glendza.  

On the other hand, Montenegro paid millions of euros of damages in 2008 to the families of the killed, after 4 years of litigation over unlawful action of Montenegro’s security forces. Thereby the state indirectly confessed the crime.

However, the government and its institutions have remained deaf to other similar cases like the torture of  POWs in Morinj, ethnic expulsions in Bukovica, the massacre of fleeing Kosovo civilians in Kaludjerski Laz etc.

The Court Ruled Police Action Unlawful

The investigation on the deportations was launched in February 2006 and prosecutor Lidija Vukcevic signed the indictment in January 2009. The accused were charged for war crime- illegal arrest of 79 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their extradition to the Republic of Srpska. The Podgorica High Court explained in its not-guilty verdict (all defendants) that the refugees were unlawfully arrested and handed over as hostages. Furthermore, the same was determined by the ICTY in the Krnojelac Case (former chief of the prison camp in Foca). However the High Court in Podgorica acquitted the defendants of the charges of war crime against civilians with explanation that the defendants were “not a party to the conflict in BH nor were they in the service of a party to the conflict in BH”.

“The activities of the defendants and the order (for deportation) were unlawful from the international law vantage point of view. Nonetheless, it has not been proven that the defendants, then members of the Ministry of Interior (MUP), were a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) forces, or in the service of any party to the conflict and thereby actively involved in the armed conflict which, in that case, would have obliged them to abide by the rules of international law”. This is stated in the verdict exposition by the trial chamber made of judges Milenka Zizic, Ratka Cupic and Dragica Vukovic. The verdict was upheld by the Appellate Court.

The European Union expert, Italian prosecutor and international judge Maurizio Salustro, in the report on prosecution of war crimes in Montenegro (which was published by Vijesti), points out that the aforesaid interpretation is wrong and unheard of in international humanitarian law and practice. Similar opinion was reiterated in the recent panel of the Human Rights Action (HRA) and the Center for Civic Education (CCE) in Podgorica. Professor of international law Nebojsa Vucinic pointed out at the panel that "the factual situation was in conflict with the verdict".

"This standard (of the Montenegrin court) does not exist in international law. If that were the case, then civilians could not commit a war crime, which is absurd " he concluded. 

The verdict referred to the order of the then Interior Minister late Pavle Bulatovic in the form of telegram, which was withdrawn after a few days. It was ordered to comply with the request of the Ministry of Interior (MUP) of Republic of Srpska and arrest the Muslims who had arrived from Bosnia and Herzegovina and send them back in order to have them exchanged for Serbian POWs. Furthermore, the order also contained instructions to return Bosnian nationals of Serbian ethnic background liable to conscription. So a number of them was sent back but there are no details on what became of them afterwards. 

The court also found that all the refugees were unlawfully arrested as no detention records and official notes were made. Consequently the Montenegrin police had no authority to comply with the request from the police in Bosnia. 

Eventually it was revealed that Pavle Bulatovic had issued the deportation order. However he was already long dead. He was assassinated on 7 February 2000 in a restaurant owned by Rad Football Club in Banjica, Belgrade. He died as rump Yugoslavia’s minister of defence. His murder was never solved. 

Milo Djukanovic and Momir Bulatovic in their statements to CIN-CG, do not consider themselves responsible for the war crimes of the 90s. On the contrary, they take credit for surpressing the war crimes.

While Djukanovic stressed that the the crimes “were orchestrated by the military and political circles of the then federal authorities” Bulatovic points out that none other but himself stopped the deportations as soon as he learned about them.

Momir Bulatovic further added in his interview with CIN-CG that the telegram (which authorised the deportations) was not signed by Pavle Bulatovic but by a person who is “currently high up in the police force”. He wouldn’t say anything beyond. He said that he presented a document in court which showed that the aforesaid person had signed the list (of deportees) and that the document was discovered in Rozaje and subsequently declared confidential. He wouldn’t show the document to CIN-CG saying that he kept it “in Belgrade”. The document is not mentioned in the verdict exposition though.

“The crime took place on 27 May 1992, on the very same day when it was decided that we should cease to enforce the laws of Yugoslavia. I ordered to halt the operation. It was a political abuse and the abuse of the federal regulations in the wake of the vacuum back then. That was a tragic mistake, but not on the part of the accused” concluded the former head of state.   

CIN-CG asked President Milo Djukanovic whether he felt personally responsible for the deportations (as he was the prime minister at the time), whether the case was properly investigated, justice served and what he thought of how Montenegro dealt with its troublesome past and war crimes committed by its citizens. 

The then PM Djukanovic pointed out that he had already repeatedly condemned the deportations and “every act of persecution, killing and other inhuman treatment towards persons of other faith and/or ethnicity which happened upon the dissolution of Yugoslavia”.

“Even while the war was raging in the region which, for a long time, pushed us off our natural track towards the European Union, the intention of Montenegro was clear- to totally steer away from those destructive politics which were in swing on pretence of saving the old union. I remind you that Montenegro took in refugees from all parts of the former Yugoslavia and at one point the refugees made up a fifth of Montenegro’s population which was a unique example. Nevertheless we had prudence to succeed in preserving the multi-ethnic and multi-faith harmony in Montenegro which was under threat back in those years” explained Djukanovic also referring to the war in 1999. when Montenegro accepted some 100,000 Kosovo Albanian refugees.

He emphasised that the damage had already been done and that no verdict or search for perpetrators of individual acts can undone it “although it’s our duty indeed to serve the justice...Those who initiated and encouraged such a destruction ultimately ended up in court. Our country has compensated the families of the victims upon final court decisions which altogether ruled €5,714,656,20 for damages” said Djukanovic in his reply to CIN-CG. He has no objection to the courts.

He further stated that the indictments and the subsequent verdicts spoke enough on the resolve of the state to enforce justice against all odds and to preserve its integrity and the legacy of anti-fascism and multi-ethnicity. “We carry on and the Special Prosecution Office has four cases that it works on where Montenegrin citizens are suspected perpetrators”. He says that Montenegro continues to cooperate with the International Residual Mechanism which succeeded the Hague Tribunal and the parties recently signed the Memorandum of Understanding.

The European Union in its Montenegro Progress Report, on the other hand, points out that not a single case of war crimes since 2016 has been opened while four cases remained in the preliminary investigation phase.

“Montenegro needs to further increase its efforts to fight impunity for war crimes by applying a proactive approach to effectively investigate, prosecute, try and punish war crimes in line with international standards, and also to prioritise such cases“ say the EU report.

Djukanovic in his statement to CIN-CG holds that Montenegro successfully dealt with its troublesome past primarily by distancing from the destructive politics of the time. He then said that the key to reconciliation was to acknowledge the past and reject the ideologies of nationalism.

“We have to learn from those unpleasant examples so that no one ever brings us to a situation where those acts would be possible. On the contrary, we should strive together to preserve the century old multi-ethnic harmony in Montenegro” concluded the President of Montenegro.

Professor Milan Popovic, journalist Esad Kocan and a member of parliament Koca Pavlovic pressed criminal charges against Milo Djukanovic and the then Prosecutor General Ranka Carapic in May 2012. They were suspected of the war crime of deportations and abetting the perpetrators to evade justice. They submitted a statement of Momir Bulatovic given before the High Court in Podgorica in 2010 where he confessed that the thing was “a mistake of the government”.

The Prosecution Office rejected the charges in 2014 without any explanation save two words- no basis.

The Strasbourg Court- a last resort for justice

A group of mothers, daughters and sisters of the victims lodged a motion before the European Court of Human Rights in 2013 with the 2015 addendum. They blame Montenegro for failing to provide justice and for having had no respect for human right to life and prevention of torture. They conclude that Montenegro’s courts supported the overall cover up and playing down the crime of deportation. The courts further failed to rectify the flaws in the indictment and thus acquitted all defendants by appealing to non-existent legal standard.

“It’s a historical fact that the Prime Minister of Montenegro (Djukanovic) in 2015 is the same person who occupied the post back in 1992 when the crime took place. Moreover he has remained in the top posts almost without a break ever since. This fact points that the judges and prosecutors were biased and unprofessional in their work having been elected under the auspices of the ruling party” is said in the motion which Human Right Action (HRA) director Tea Gorjanc Prelevic lodged on behalf of the families of the victims.

It is also stated that the investigation had a number of flaws as the prosecutors bypassed the top government officials who had ordered the deportation or must have had knowledge of the same.

“The complainants claim that the government violated the torture ban since it didn’t provide the information about the family members who perished. The complainants recovered the bodies of only two victims who had been deported to the prison in Foca. The bodies of the other four deported from Herceg Novi on 27 May 1992 have never been recovered. There are no reliable information on the whereabouts of their remains and how they perished in the area under the Republic of Srpska control in Bosnia and Herzegovina” says Prelevic.

In her statement to CIN-CG Prelevic said that the court in Strasbourg sent the inquiry to Montenegro after four years.

“The government gave the opinion, it disputed the Court’s jurisdiction and the contents of the motion. Bosnia also gave its opinion recently as an intervener in the proceeding. It supported and further backed up the allegations of the complainants, especially in the historical context and in regard to the Republic of Srpska authorities to which Montenegro had handed over the Bosnian refugees” says Prelevic.

The complainants seek no damage payments from the Strasbourg Court. They solely seek to address the responsibility of Montenegro.

“Even if only one of the complainants succeeds in the endeavour, the verdict will be a victory of all those who care about the justice for the 1992 deportation victims. I hope that the European Court of Human Rights will assert its jurisdiction over the case and rule that the Montenegrin courts incorrectly applied the international law and the basic logic, and that the investigation was not complete” states Prelevic.

Prelevic believes that the Strasbourg verdict could have a great impact in this present world which has to deal with floods of refugees. “Non-refoulment is one of the basic rules of the international law whereby it is forbidden to deport a person to the country where he/she could face death or torture, which was unfortunately the case with the 1992 deportation victims”.

Tamara Milas of the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) in the interview for CIN-CG points out that in nearly all judicial proceedings for war crimes, including the deportations, it has become clear that the Montenegrin judiciary is not mindful of the victim’s suffering and that the judiciary is liable to political pressure so to stultify the proceedings.

“The Montenegrin authorities try to ‘engineer an oblivion’ in the place of justice” concluded Milas. The war crime cases would have ended up in archives long time ago if it were’t for the EU accession talks and Chapter 23 which forced the Prosecution Office to adopt the War Crimes Investigation Strategy she explained.

“The Strategy envisages to fight the war crimes impunity through efficient investigation, prosecution and punishment in accordance with international standards. It’s been four years since the adoption of the Strategy and no progress has been made in the application of international humanitarian law and standards whereby they could rectify the errors of the past in regard to the proceedings and verdicts” says Milas. The reparations mean more than just paying the damages. It’s about criminal justice, the culture of remembering, apology, monuments and genuine efforts to make sure that those crimes never ever happen again.

The NGOs try for years to garner support of the authorities to build a monument to the victims of deportations in Herceg Novi and to have the authorities finally apologise for the crime and get them to provide a full list of victims and recover their remains. Not a single initiative has been endorsed.

“The justice will be served only if the guilty are convicted and the families are given the remains of their beloved ones. Thus at least we can have a grave to go to and pay respect” concludes Alen Bajrovic.

The Bajrovics fight in court for already 12 years

The Bajrovics are the only family which refused to settle with the government over damage payment in 2008 and continue to fight in court over indemnification.

“We wouldn’t settle without knowing about our father’s resting place and other details. When I look back, everything appears to be a farce, cover up and fairy tales. In essence, I can’t hope for anything as I know that there is neither will nor desire (to resolve the issue). The same people who were in power back then are still in power now. A leopard can’t change its spots” concludes junior Bajrovic.    

The Bajrovics pressed charges in March 2007 over the death of their father who had supported the family. After four years the court partly endorsed the damage claim. The High Court upheld the ruling of €20,000 for each surviving family member but it overturned the first instance verdict in regard to long-term support. The Supreme Court changed the verdict in 2013 and awarded extra €5,000 to each family member while the support claim was returned to the first instance court for retrial.  

Moreover CIN-CG recently found out that the High Court concluded in its last ruling that the support claim cannot be based on the average monthly salary but on the last pay check of Osmo Bajrovic in 1992. However, the court continued to change its mind and the last “solution” is to base the support amount on the lowest sustenance- which by law is merely €70.

Maja BORICIC

Ovaj članak je dio projekta “Tranziciona pravda i ratni zločini u Crnoj Gori – istina ili izazov?”, koji realizuje Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG), a uz finansijsku podršku Evropske unije kroz program “Aktivizam civilnog sektora za pomirenje u regionu bivše Jugoslavije – podrška REKOM-u“.

Stavovi izraženi u ovom članku ne odražavaju nužno stavove EU niti organizacija koje sprovode projekat “Aktivizam civilnog sektora za pomirenje u regionu bivše Jugoslavije – podrška REKOM-u“.

While Montenegro’s judiciary appeals to functional immunity of prosecutors and judges when criticised for lousy work, the experts believe it’s about time to pay attention to the cases which have dearly cost the state treasury. However they admit that personal responsibility followed by resignation is still something unthinkable.

No one in Montenegro’s judiciary is held responsible for botched investigations and failed indictments in the Kalic and the Saric cases. The members of those families are fully acquitted of drug money laundering but no prosecutor offered resignation. Moreover, some prosecutors were even promoted upon the fiasco of their indictments - the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) reveals.

Prosecutor Hasan Lukac, whose indictment against the Kalic Family proved to be a dismal failure, was subsequently promoted and joined the Council of Prosecutors which controls the work of other prosecutors. Former Special Prosecutor Djurdjina Nina Ivanovic, who dismally failed in the Saric Case is now reinstated as Deputy Prosecutor General.

There is no political will to cope with the consequences of those and similar cases, Moreover those who are supposed to oversee the work of judiciary don’t feel any urge to do their job. On the other hand, the judiciary is always ready to claim its functional immunity as defined by the constitution and the laws. Furthermore the judiciary resorts to statistics to show that all is well.

Prosecutor General Ivica Stankovic boasts about 90% of confirmed indictments and the same number of convictions. He snubs any concern about the damages that the state treasury will have to pay because of “just a few” acquittals.

Prime Minister Dusko Markovic claims that his government is not responsible for the work of judges and prosecutors. The huge expenses that the tax payers will have to cover for are a consequence of “independent judiciary” and in his words “those acquittals are a sign of good quality of the system and not the anomaly thereof”.

“This government is one of the players in the overall judiciary reform and is certainly interested to keep the expenses down, including those of court proceedings, and I believe that we will take care of that in the future” said Markovic in the Parliament at the end of April while answering the question of MP Aleksandar Damjanovic. He didn’t explain how he intends to do it.

Justice minister Zoran Pazin has ignored the issue for months. As usual, his ministry wouldn’t bother to answer the questions sent by CIN-CG. We asked whether anyone would stand scrutiny and whether the minister himself felt responsible for those developments.

Former minister of justice and now a lawyer, Dragan Soc believes that impunity for sloppy work, ignorance and laziness in the government and among the prosecutors speaks for itself about the state of the society which is unable to deal with such issues.

“Simply, we are too opportunistic to say to someone- you are lousy in what you are doing so leave and find another job. When it comes to private sector we are utterly merciless but when it comes to government employees we are super merciful. When Montenegrins become fully aware that their country belongs to them and that the public servants are meant to truly serve the country and the people then the things will start to change. Until then we will rather put up with anything that comes our way” said Soc in the interview with CIN-CG.

“We remind you that the indictments, in the cases you refer to in your inquiry, were confirmed by the court. Thereby it was deemed that there was a reasonable doubt that the defendants had committed the offences that they were accused of. At the same time we remind you that the head of Prosecution Office and the state prosecutors are granted functional immunity by the Constitution of Montenegro. That means that the state prosecutors cannot be held accountable for their opinions or decisions while they occupy their office unless they commit a crime” – is what the office of Ivica Stankovic replied to CIN-CG.   

The failure to prove beyond the reasonable doubt will cost the tax payers millions of euros but that is no big deal to the Council of Prosecutors which also appeals to the Constitution and the functional immunity granted to the prosecutors.

The Supreme Court also points out to the functional immunity saying that no judge can be responsible for his/her opinion or voting on guilty or not unless the judge has committed a criminal offence.

“Confirmation of indictment is not the same as conviction because the main trial would be meaningless in that case” replied to CIN-CG the office of Vesna Medenica, the president of Supreme Court.

CIN-CG received no reply from the Judicial Council which is supposed to oversee the work of judges. The questions were identical to those sent to the Council of Prosecutors on whether there should be responsibility for the lousy work in the judiciary, was anyone disciplined and how come there is neither personal responsibility nor resignations.

How to Get Rid of Danglers and Incompetent 

Our interlocutors agree that holding bad judges and prosecutors personally responsible would be the right solution. However, personal responsibility is not something which is practised here.

“A government employee can properly behave only when his/her earnings are down because of lousy work and laziness. It’s not difficult at all to enforce personal responsibility. It suffices to analyse the cases which the government has lost and the amount of damages that have to be paid. If the responsible would be charged even a fraction of those damages many of them would be begging for bread” stressed Soc.

Sergej Sekulovic, as a jurist and an analyst, believes that there’s certain discrepancy between the system of evaluation on one hand and accountability and promotion on the other. That’s something that we yet have to deal with.

“Anyway, personal responsibility and subsequent resignation is something that doesn’t exist here. It’s pretty complicated to charge the prosecutors for the damage. In that case the incompetence would have to be paired with dishonesty or perhaps to overlap with criminal responsibility” said Sekulovic.

We asked the judiciary if any system of personal responsibility could be established for the damages that the tax payers have to cover for. We further asked if new criteria for re-election of judges and prosecutors could be introduced in the cases of those who mess up. There was no reply to our questions.

Our interlocutors believe that general re-election could be a double-edged sword.

“It would be hard to distinguish between political expediency and real desire to improve the system. It could work in the context of a stable political system with well meaning and honest ruling elite bent on dealing with dysfunctional judiciary” assessed Sekulovic.

On the other hand, Dragan Soc points out that there is no need for the total re-election and that “danglers and incompetent should leave”.

“As I said before, we should rid ourselves of opportunism and false solidarity at work. We ought to establish clear criteria for assessment of everyone’s work along with rewards and disciplines, depending on success” said the former justice minister.

Growing number of complaints but to no avail 

The judicial officials and the prime minister stress that only the Judicial Council and the Council of Prosecutors are entitled to control and assess the work of judges and prosecutors. The Council of Prosecutors launched only one disciplinary action in three years (2015-2017). The culprit was a district prosecutor who failed to report his assets and income. Consequently his salary was reduced by 20% for the span of three months. Last year three other prosecutors were disciplined alike for the same reason.

The Council of Prosecutors is not much bothered about the growing number of complaints against the prosecutors. Nearly all the complaints are rebuffed. In 2015 only four complaints were lodged over the unlawful work of prosecutors. No wonder, the complaints were rejected. In 2016 there were 39 complaints of which only 4 were accepted by the Council. Then in 2017 the number of complaints rose to 94 and combined with those that were not dealt with before, there were altogether 109 cases reviewed and only 7 complaints accepted. Last year, 97 complaints for unlawful work of prosecutors arrived. Nonetheless the Council found time to review only 53 and three only were accepted.

The Council of Prosecutors told CIN-CG that among the accepted complaints most of them had to do with late response of the prosecutors thus the Council asked them to promptly take action and to inform the Council of the same.

“The late responses of the state prosecutors did not cause the statute of limitations to set in. They neither impeded the due proceeding nor caused other inconveniences. Thus, even though the complaints were justified there was no ground for the Council of Prosecutors to call upon Article 110 of the Law on State Prosecutor so to consider a proposition for disciplinary action” says the Council in its reply.

The Council of Prosecutors states that in the last four years there was not a single breach of the code of ethics. However one prosecutor is currently on trial for usury.

The Judicial Council initiated four disciplinary actions in the last four years while in 2015 there were three reprimands for lousy work and in one case, back in 2017, the salary was reduced by 20% in the span of three months. There were 67 complaints for the breach of the code of ethics in the last four year. Only five complaints were accepted.

NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR WRONG PROPERTY APPRAISAL

The Special Prosecution Office didn’t reply to our question on whether the property appraisal of the Kalic Family would be investigated as a criminal offence.

The government temporarily seized the property of the Kalics in the summer of  2011. The Property Administration ordered the property appraisal which was carried out by Podgorica-based “Geotech”. The appraisal put the value at €28,667,161. However, several experts told CIN-CG that the property valuation was bloated. Back in 2011 the investment boom was over in Montenegro and the Kalic property value stood bellow €8,000,000.

CIN-CG finds out that the bloated property value is the main pillar of the Kalic damage claim. The overall sum could reach €10,000,000 after the litigations are over. The court experts will use that appraisal to ascertain the damage which will be paid by the government after five years of the state administered property.

DAMAGE CLAIMS SUCK UP MILLIONS

The government earned merely €16,500 in the last three year from the sales of permanently seized property upon final court verdicts. On the other hand, just in the Kalic Case and the Saric Case the government had to return the temporarily administered property valued at over €40,000,000 and to face huge damage claims. The Kalics lodged eight damage claims before the Rozaje District Court. They want €8,000,000 as a compensation of damage. There are two more claims lodged this year for more than €1.000,000 in damages. The first instance court in Rozaje approved €3,000,000 in altogether 5 cases. The Bijelo Polje High Court is yet to deliberate on the appeals. There are two more litigations in the Podgorica District Court over damages to the Kalic’s apartment of 192m² and their Hummer vehicle which the National Police “donated” to the Special Anti-terrorist Unit. There is another litigation before the Kotor District Court over the family’s apartment in Saint Stephen while another litigation is in progress in Ulcinj over damage to the family's land and buildings there.

It’s likely that the damage claims of the Kalic Family are just the beginning of the state budget’s woes. The same pattern will be followed by the Saric Family after the indictments related to money laundering and narcotics were finally rejected by the courts.

Maja BORICIC

The medieval fortified town of Kotor in Montenegro risks losing UNESCO world  heritage site ranking as the rivers of tourists gush out of cruise ships and flow through the gates of the old town. Environmentalists and experts sound alarm bells for the Bay of Kotor’s delicate ecosystem.

Dusan Varda recalls strolling through the old town of Kotor one late autumn evening last year. “There was almost no one out except impeccably dressed waiters in empty luxurious restaurants – that was common perception of Kotor in off-season,” he said, lamenting the new outfit of the old walled city and its Venetian palaces nestled in the Bay of Kotor, a unique fjord in this part of Europe. “I feel nostalgia for the old days Kotor, of 5, 10, 20 years ago,” Varda said.

Kotor appears abandoned in off-season. However everything braces up for the spring and the summer when the cruise ships arrive, disgorging thousands of tourists. Each tourist spends on average €40 per day.

Mr Varda is director of the Mediterranean Centre for Environmental Monitoring (MedCEM) based in Montenegro’s port city of Bar. He is concerned with the environmental situation in the bay. It’s not just tourists who disembark from the cruise ships.

Even though Kotor’s treasury is filled up with new revenues the environmentalists and field experts say that the authorities are blind to the side effects – noise, air and sea pollution.

Kotor ranks third in the Mediterranean when it comes to cruise ship visits. Only Venice and Dubrovnik are ahead of it. However, such influx of tourists drove out the local residents.

In the interviews for Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) the concerned called upon authorities to urgently assess the environmental impact of cruise ships and regulate their traffic in the Bay of Kotor by restricting access to certain areas.

Western countries “realised their mistakes in tourism industry long time ago” and banned cruise ships from entering the protected areas, said Varda.

As something to start with, he said, Kotor should follow Dubrovnik’s example. The authorities introduced quotas on cruise ships docking there.

“The problem in Montenegro is so called ad hoc tourism” he told BIRN & CIN-CG. “We cannot afford to sit and await the total collapse of natural and human resources in the area before taking action and imposing restrictions”.

Monitoring is “insufficient”

Over the past five years, roughly 2,000 visits of cruise ships brought more than two million tourists to Kotor’s medieval walls and ramparts.

Cruise-ship tourism accounts to some 2% of global tourism industry. Nonetheless, it has become far more important in Montenegro. In 2007, cruise ships accounted to 4% of tourism which quickly rose to 29% in 2016.

Nevertheless, the impact of those floating hotels, mega yachts and sailing boats on the Bay of Kotor (colloquially- Bocca) has never been properly studied- say experts of Kotor-based Institute of Marine Biology (IMB).

Vesna Macic, a senior scientific associate at the Institute, told BIRN & CIN-CG that the monitoring carried out by Montenegro’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was “insufficient”. EPA replied BIRN & CIN-CG inquiry saying that “potential points of tension have been identified but no further analyses has been done”. The agency’s 2016 environmental report cited “possible sea pollution by waste water, solid waste, air pollution (primarily by acidifying agents) and noise”. Cruise ships were listed among greatest threats due to enormous loads of fuel which could wreak havoc in case of accident. While the traffic is on the rise so is the danger of accidents.

The Port of Kotor reports that at times up to three cruise ships are docked in the port staying up to 12 hours each. The Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MORT) and the Regional Action Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) commissioned a study on marine biodiversity of the area in 2014. The study considers the cruise ships in the Bay of Kotor a threat to its biodiversity. “Huge cruise ships in the bay affect fishing as they cut and destroy the fishing nets on their trajectories.The marine life is also at risk because of cleaning agents and waste water discharged from the ships” the study says. The study recommends further regulation of cruise ships in the bay and the zones of restriction where no ship anchoring is allowed.

Furthermore, they pose a threat to seabeds of flowering sea grass (Posidonia oceanica) and protected sea grass species such as Cymodocea nodosa which absorbs carbon dioxide.

Dobrota, a residential area on the city’s outskirts, is recognised in the study as the only place in the bay with colonies of flowering sea grass and is home to Pinna nobilis, commonly known as the noble pen shell which is highly sensitive to pollution.

Noise and air pollution

It is not only the sea that is at risk. Ross Klein, a Canada-based professor and cruise industry expert, says that one docking of a cruise ship releases more pollutants into the air than 2,000 cars and lorries in the whole year.

Marine mammals are especially vulnerable. ASCOBANS, an organisation involved in protection of small whales in the Baltics, the NE Atlantic, the Irish Sea and the North Sea, concluded in 2009 that low-frequency noise in the sea doubles every ten years, starting from 1950. Hearing is primary sense for orientation and communication of mammals.

A study in Croatia found out that some species of dolphin, disturbed by the noise of ships, spend less and less time in search for food and partners thus becoming more recluse. A similar study “should be commissioned for the Bay of Kotor asap,” said Macic, “because the underwater noise has intensified and become more frequent”.

Organic, non-organic and solid waste discharged from cruise ships is another problem.

The US Environmental Agency estimates that each passenger produces from 2.6 to 3.5 kg of waste every day. The waste stored on cruise ships contains a hazardous mix of cleaning agents, paint and medical waste. Its discharge is prohibited in the Mediterranean within 15 nautical miles from the shore. Nevertheless experts warn about difficult enforcement of the regulation. The problem becomes worse in the summer months when the sea temperatures are high, winds are low and water circulation slows down. Furthermore the coastal populations grow exponentially.

Invasive species

Ballast water is seen as another threat to marine ecosystems. In 2013, the Geneva-based International Maritime Organisation (IMO) recognised the impact of ballast water used by big ships to maintain stability, as an environmental threat on the global level. Biologists warn that a cubic meter of ballast water sucked in one port and discharged in another – may contain up to 10,000 sea organisms.

A study made in 2006 in neighbouring Croatia found out that around 2.5 million tons of ballast water were discharged into the sea, introducing 113 new species of sea organisms into the local ecosystem. Certain invasive species multiply without control, suppressing and destroying the autochthonous species. In Croatia, the intruders include the red algae, which is particularly harmful to the Adriatic's biodiversity.

No assessment of the impact of ballast water has ever been done in Montenegro.The Environmental Protection Agency said it expected new analyses about the ballast water in Montenegro’s part of the Adriatic.

UNESCO has warned that  “a large number” of cruise and freight ships in the Kotor area is putting at risk the city’s credentials as a world heritage site. The site covers not just the medieval town but the nature and landscapes around too.

“It’s not possible to maintain a balance between mass tourism and environmental protection” said Varda.“One must subjugate the other. Unfortunately, there is a growing fascination with mass tourism and growing [tourism] figures in Montenegro, while nobody mentions the long-term quality and sustainability of the said tourism.”

(Un)protected marine areas

Montenegro is one of a few Mediterranean countries without a single protected marine area. Chapter 27 of the European Union accession talks mandates the existence of at least one.

“For decades, protected marine areas have been recognised across the world as the most efficient way to preserve the marine ecosystems“ Varda said. EPA says it plans to establish one protected zone through a project launched last year worth almost $1.8 million. “Preparations are under way for almost a decade” said Varda.

“Given the current planning, in less than three years we hope to have the first marine protected area established in the vicinity of Katic, an island off the shore of Petrovac, from Platamuni towards the Bay of Traste, in the areas of Ratac and Zukotrlica, Stari Ulcinj and Valdanos”.

Floating palace

The largest cruise ships that have docked in the Bay of Kotor are the Majestic Princess and the Royal Princess, each 330 metres long and accommodating 3,500 passengers and 1,500 crew members.

The Port of Kotor records visits throughout the year, not only in the summer months. The cruise ships Regina della Pace, Artemis and Athens traditionally open cruising season in the Bay of Kotor in early January, and close it on or around New Year’s Eve.

Few complaints

Despite heavy traffic in the bay, only four complaints have been lodged to the Maritime Safety Authority in regard to cruise ships in the Bay of Kotor. The objections are related to pollution.

BIRN & CIN-CG tried to find out from the authorities if any cruise ship has ever faced sanctions during its stay in the bay and the grounds thereof.  The Port of Kotor, the Safety and Security Inspection of Kotor and the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs simply ignored our inquiry.

Matija OTAŠEVIĆ