On February 21 of this year, the Constitutional Court of Montenegro determined that police officers had abused the minor A.C. during the 2020 protests in Nikšić, and that the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Nikšić had failed to fulfill its obligation to effectively investigate the case. It was concluded that there had been a violation of the human right to be free from torture, both materially and procedurally.

The Human Rights Action (HRA) expects the Supreme State Prosecutor, Milorad Marković, to urgently ensure an effective investigation and bring to justice the police officers who tortured A.C., considering that the case has remained unresolved for nearly five years, despite the Ombudsman’s opinion from September 2020 and now, the decision of the Constitutional Court in February 2025.

We appeal for the Supreme State Prosecutor to appoint another state prosecutor to handle this case, as the Constitutional Court found that State Prosecutor Vjera Mićunović had acted ineffectively, and that she even attempted to suspend the proceedings entirely by declaring the case as time-barred, despite there being no grounds for such an action.

We also demand that those responsible for this ineffective investigation be held accountable.

The abuse took place on May 13, 2020, in Nikšić, during protests against the arrest of clergy from the Serbian Orthodox Church.

On May 17, 2020, A.C. filed a criminal complaint against police officers from the Nikšić Police Department for the crimes of abuse and torture (Article 166a and 167 of the Criminal Code), stating that four days earlier, he had been tortured by police officers on the street and in a police vehicle (“paddy wagon”). At the time, he was 16 years old.

The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro (Ombudsman) concluded in September 2020 that the police officers had violated the minor A.C.’s right to dignity and inviolability of person through inhuman and degrading treatment.

To date, neither the Police Directorate nor the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Nikšić have identified the police officers that A.C. reported chasing him during the protest, then knocking him down and kicking him in the mouth, back, and head.

However, the Constitutional Court concluded that there are indications “beyond a reasonable doubt” that police officers Marko Kosović and Ratko Delibašić had abused A.C. Additionally, regarding the victim’s claims that he was abused in the police vehicle, it was definitively established that police officers Dalibor Knežević, Željko Vujačić, Marko Kosović, and Ratko Delibašić were in the vehicle. It was determined that Knežević was driving, Vujačić was in the passenger seat, while Kosović and Delibašić were seated behind them, having placed A.C. in the back row of the vehicle. All of these officers testified that none of them acted unlawfully toward A.C.

The Constitutional Court emphasized that the state prosecutor’s office should not have relied solely on the report from the Police Directorate, as the institution could not be considered independent in this context, since its officers were suspected of the abuse. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that the state prosecutor’s office had unjustifiably accepted the Police Directorate’s claim that identification of the suspects was not possible due to protective equipment (helmets and visors), as such an explanation did not justify the failure to take appropriate measures to identify the perpetrators.

Regarding the actions of the State Prosecutor’s Office, the Constitutional Court found that the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Nikšić failed to fulfill its obligation to protect the material and procedural aspects of the right to be free from torture and failed to promptly act on the complaint against the police officers. This was because State Prosecutors, first Vesna Krivokapić (until June 2021) and later Vjera Mićunović, took four years to make a decision on the complaint (from May 17, 2020, to June 3, 2024), despite the legal deadline for such a decision being one month. Mićunović suspended investigative actions on June 3, 2024, wrongly concluding that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had expired. However, after a complaint from A.C.’s legal representative, the case was returned to her for further action.

It was also concluded that the investigation, which has lasted almost five years, did not meet the standards of thoroughness, independence, or urgency, and it has not led to the identification or punishment of the police officers nor has it been conducted in the best interests of the minor. The Constitutional Court criticized the prosecutor’s office for not timely requesting video surveillance footage from surrounding buildings, waiting instead for a year, when it was already clear that the footage had been destroyed, and for not taking identification measures (visual or vocal recognition) despite the need for them.

The Constitutional Court ordered the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Nikšić to urgently take actions to identify the perpetrators and to notify the Court of the results within three months. It also recommended that the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office of Montenegro take appropriate actions within its jurisdiction to ensure that the investigation, after five years, leads to the identification and prosecution of the perpetrators.

The Constitutional Court emphasized that the victim is entitled to compensation from the state for the actions of the police officers, as the aim of their actions was not only to inflict physical pain but also to humiliate him and instill a sense of fear and inferiority. The complainant is also entitled to compensation due to the ineffective investigation by the Police Directorate and the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Nikšić.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court also violated the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as it decided on the constitutional complaint only after three years and nine months. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights found in several cases that delays of such magnitude represent a violation of the human right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and determined that Montenegro must compensate the applicants for the damage caused.

HRA reminds that the state has the right to seek reimbursement for damages caused by state prosecutors who act intentionally or through gross negligence (Article 102 of the Law on State Prosecutors). There will be no change in practice and the rule of law will not be achieved until state prosecutors and police officers responsible for ineffective investigations are held personally accountable for their omissions.