The Basic State Prosecutor’s Office (BSP) in Nikšić rejected the criminal complaint of police abuse against the minor A. C. from Nikšić, dating back to 2020, citing the statute of limitations. The BSP considers that the statute of limitations expired three years after the crime was committed. A.C.’s representative, attorney Dalibor Tomović, filed an objection stating that the statute of limitations was interrupted with each procedural action and that the absolute statute of limitations does not expire until 2026. In any case, this is yet another ineffective investigation of police abuse that does not reflect well on the Montenegrin prosecution.

The abuse occurred on May 13, 2020, in Nikšić, during a protest against the arrest of priests of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

To date, the police officers whom A. C. reported as having chased him during the protest, knocked him down, and kicked him in the mouth, back, and head have not been identified. Injuries to the head, as well as bruises on the chest and one thigh, were documented in the medical records.

A constitutional complaint regarding the ineffective investigation was filed in 2021, and the Constitutional Court has not yet made a decision. In those proceedings the victim was represented by lawyer Dalibor Tomović, within the Human Rights Action (HRA) program, which is financially supported by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (UNVFVT).

The complaint highlights that A. C. was not questioned until two months after filing the report, that video footage was not obtained, that only the medical documentation was examined and not the injuries on A. C., that the same state prosecutor handled both the case against A .C. for allegedly attacking police officers (for which he was given a disciplinary measure) and the case on his report against the police officer who abused him, and that the commanders of the police action were not timely questioned. Additionally, the BSP in Nikšić essentially delegated the identification of the perpetrators to the Police Administration, and there were concerns about the independence of the doctor who examined A.C. immediately after the incident. The Ombudsman, who dealt with this case, noted that the doctor did not record all the injuries, nor describe them, while being very detailed in describing the injuries observed on the police officer who claimed to have been injured by A.C. A.C.’s examination was conducted in the presence of two police officers, later joined by a third. The doctor neither attempted to conduct the examination without the presence of non-medical personnel, nor did he ask the police officers to leave, nor did he include the victim’s claim that the police officers had inflicted the injuries in his report.

HRA believes that the statute of limitations could not have expired because just last year, five witnesses were questioned, the last one on March 9, 2023, which are all actions that interrupt the statute of limitations.

However, in any case, the investigation conducted so far has proven to be ineffective by every criterion, and if it continues in the same way, it is unlikely to lead to results in the future either.

We will inform the Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković about this case and expect him to instruct the Higher State Prosecutor’s Office to review the actions taken in the case and take measures in accordance with European standards, as indicated by the Supreme State Prosecutor in the recent “Guidelines for the conduct of state prosecutors in cases where there is reasonable suspicion of a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.