1. Introduction
1. The Parliamentary Assembly adopted in June 2012
Resolution 1890 (2012) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Montenegro,
in which the Assembly decided to pursue the monitoring procedure,
while encouraging Montenegro to make progress on five “key issues”,
namely the independence of the judiciary, the situation of the media,
the fight against corruption and organised crime, the rights of
minorities and the fight against discrimination, and the situation
of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
2. Mr Terry Leyden (Ireland, ALDE) was appointed co-rapporteur
by the Monitoring Committee on 27 February 2014, in place of Ms
Nursuna Memecan, who carried out the first fact-finding visit after
the adoption of 2012 resolution. We would like to thank our Turkish
colleague for her contribution in the monitoring procedure of Montenegro.
3. This report was prepared on the basis of the findings of three
visits carried out in the country: from 8 to 10 July 2013, we decided
to look at the Implementation of
Resolution 1890 (2012), to follow-up on the Assembly observation reports
of the parliamentary elections
(14 October 2012) and the presidential election (7 April 2013) and
to have focused discussions on the latest political developments,
the reform of the judiciary, the implementation of the anti-discrimination
law and the situation of refugees and IDPs.

Our visit of
April 2014 focused in the issues of the media and the fight against
corruption, with meetings in Budva. The visit organised on 17 and
18 November 2014, after the reception of the comments by the Montenegrin
delegation to the Assembly,

allowed us to discuss the latest
developments in the country and to make our final assessment. This
report addresses the recent developments in Montenegro and the progress
made in the field of rule of law, democracy and human rights, with
a special emphasis on the key areas identified by the Assembly in
its
Resolution 1890 (2012).
4. We would like to thank the two respective chairpersons of
the Montenegrin delegation, Mr Zoran Vukčević and Mr Predrag Sekulić,
who assisted in 2013 and 2014 in the preparation of this report
and the excellent preparation of our fact-finding visits. We would
also like to extend our thanks to the members of the Montenegrin
delegation to the Assembly and the Secretariat of the delegation.
We were able to meet the President of the Republic Mr Vujanović,
the Prime Minister Mr Đjukanović, the Speaker of the Parliament Mr Krivokapić,
the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, the Ministers
of the Interior, Human and Minorities’ Rights, Labour and Social
Affairs, the Montenegrin parliamentary delegation to Assembly, representatives
of political parties, the judicial authorities, the Ombudsman, representatives
of State agencies and of the Roma community, as well as representatives
of international organisations, the diplomatic community, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and the media. We appreciated the information
provided before and after our visits by the delegation of Montenegro
on the implementation of
Resolution
1890 (2012), based on the replies provided by ministers and law
enforcement agencies, in June 2013, October 2013, April 2014 and
November 2014, an initiative that proved to be very useful.
5. Finally, our co-operation with the international organisations
in Podgorica was excellent. We had fruitful meetings, notably with
Ambassador Mitja Drobnić, Head of the European Union Mission, Ambassador
Lubomir Kopaj, Head of the Mission of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to Montenegro, Rastislav Vrbensky,
United Nations Resident Co-ordinator to Montenegro, and Ms Indu Mohanda,
Representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) in Montenegro. We would like to thank them
for sharing their experiences.
2. Recent
developments
2.1. Regional and international
developments
6. Since June 2012, Montenegro has continued to work
closely with the Council of Europe. We were pleased to learn that
Montenegro ratified, on 12 February 2013, two additional protocols,
namely the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights
and Biomedicine concerning Biomedical Research (CETS No. 195) and
the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
concerning Genetic Testing for Health Purposes (CETS No. 203). It
also ratified, on 22 April 2013, the Council of Europe Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic
Violence (CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) and Protocol No.
15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms on 8 November 2013,
bringing
the number of ratified conventions to 87. Montenegro is also envisaging
signing and ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on the Counterfeiting
of Medical Products and Similar Crimes Involving Threats to Public
Health (CETS No. 211, “MEDICRIME Convention”)
. 
7. Noting that some reforms have still to be completed, “which
the Montenegrin authorities have committed themselves to achieve
under clear timetables”, the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe decided, on 3 April 2014, to discontinue the dialogue-based
regular stocktaking of co-operation and progress with the fulfilment
of statutory commitments and democratic processes,

“on the understanding
that the Montenegrin authorities will complete the reforms under
way with regard to the recommendations contained in document SG/Inf(2014)5,
as well as with regard to combating violence against women and domestic
violence, increasing women’s participation in politics, improving
the situation of persons with disabilities and addressing discrimination
against Roma”.

8. Montenegro launched membership talks with the European Union
in June 2012. So far, it has temporarily closed two chapters, 25
and 26, on Science and Research and on Education and Culture. The
Stabilisation and Association (SA) Council between the European
Union and Montenegro of 26 June 2013 encouraged Montenegro to ensure
that the reform momentum in the area of the judiciary and fundamental
rights is maintained and reiterated that Montenegro needed to pay
particular attention to the development of a solid track record
in the area of rule of law, in particular with regard to organised
crime and corruption, including at high level. It also stressed
the need to devote further efforts to ensure the accountability
and independence of the judiciary. It recalled that further efforts
were needed to strengthen capacity, accountability and integrity safeguards
within the judiciary.

In July 2013, Montenegro adopted
action plans on chapters 23 and 24, which will constitute opening
benchmarks and offer a range of measures aimed at reaching European
Union standards in the fields. On 18 December 2013, Montenegro opened
the negotiations on chapters 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights)
and 24 (justice, freedom and security).

As
a candidate country, Montenegro has aligned its foreign policy to
the positions of the European Union, which was reflected in the
sanctions applied to the Russian Federation after the annexation
of Crimea.
9. Montenegro has remained an active partner in the stabilisation
of the region. This was very much emphasised by the President of
the Republic, Mr Vujanović, who underlined the good relationships
established with all neighbouring countries, the active participation
of Montenegro in all regional initiatives, and reiterated the political
aspiration of Montenegrin authorities to integrate the European
Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). We congratulated
Mr Krivokapić, Speaker of the Montenegrin Parliament, on his election as
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE on 5 July 2013.
We also took note of an initiative launched by Mr Luksić, the Minister
of Foreign and European Affairs, to set up a “Western Balkans Six”
network that would group Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo
* 
(in compliance with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1244), “the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia”, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10. While EU integration is a subject of consensus, the accession
to NATO remains a controversial issue in Montenegro. The parliament
debated a law on the status of NATO forces in an emergency plenary
session in June 2014. NATO Secretary General Mr Rasmussen announced
on 24 June 2014 that Montenegro would not be invited to join the
organisation at a summit in September 2014. NATO would rather launch
“intensified and focused talks” to “assess at the latest by the
end of 2015 whether to invite Montenegro to join the alliance”.

2.2. Recent developments
at national level
11. Since the adoption of
Resolution 1890 (2012), two elections at national level took place in Montenegro, namely
the parliamentary elections (14 October 2012) and the presidential
election (7 April 2013), both of which were observed by the Parliamentary
Assembly

and a limited observation mission
of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR). The conclusions and recommendations made by the ad hoc
observation committees in their reports of 14 October 2012 and 7 April
2013 have been discussed with the authorities and taken into account
in our work.
12. The Coalition for European Montenegro, led by Milo Đjukanović,
leader of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) – comprising
the DPS, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) (headed by the Speaker
of the Parliament Mr Krivokapić) and the Liberal Party (LP) – won
39 seats (46.33%) and was able to form a parliamentary majority
with the Bosniak Party (3 seats, 4.24% of the votes) and the Croatian
Civic Initiative (1 seat, 0.41% of the votes).
13. The opposition is composed of the Democratic Front (DF) –
a newly formed coalition grouping the Movement for Changes and the
New Serb Democracy party (20 seats, 23.19%) led by Mr Miodrag Lekić,
by the People’s Socialist Party (SNP) (9 seats, 11.24%), Positive
Montenegro (7 seats, 8.37%) and a coalition of Albanian parties
(Force for Unity – Forca per Bashkim (FZJ-FPB): New Democratic Power
– Forca per Bashkim and Perspective and the Citizens Initiative,
Democratic League in Montenegro, the Democratic Party and the Albanian
Alternative) (2 seats, 2.54%).
14. The newly elected parliament started work on 25 November 2012.
The new Rules of Procedure provides for the organisation of oversight
hearings on a more regular basis. An Anti-Corruption Committee,
in charge of supervising the work of the State bodies in the area
of the fight against organised crime and corruption, as well as
a European Integration Committee were set up.
15. The new government was elected on 4 December 2012. The government
is composed of 19 members and led by Prime Minister Mr Đjukanović.
The delegation indicated that 3 out of 18 members of the government are
members of minorities (16.66%): “The deputy Prime Minister is of
Bosniak ethnicity, the Minister and minority rights is of Muslim
ethnicity, and a Minister without portfolio is Croatian.”

16. On 7 April 2013, two candidates participated in the president
elections: Mr Filip Vujanović, outgoing President (DPS), and Mr
Miodrag Lekić, an independent candidate. Mr Vujanović was re-elected
President of the Republic with 51.21% of the votes (161 940 votes),
according to the State Electoral Commission. The turnout was 63.90%.
Mr Lekić contested the results, and requested the annulment of the
election results and the organisation of new elections. Considering
that the presidential election was a rigged election, the Democratic
Front decided to boycott the parliament. During the presidential
campaign, the opposition called for electoral reform, improved implementation
of the rule of law and a stronger fight against corruption.
17. In addition, the leak of tape recordings from a meeting of
the DPS, held in preparation for the 2012 early parliamentary elections,
was another political issue. In our previous information note, we
described the “audio recording” case:

DPS members allegedly
alluded to the possible abuse of State resources to get more voter support.
We note that the issue of possible abuse of State and administrative
resources was raised on several occasions by Parliamentary Assembly
election observers. It was also denounced by an NGO in a report published
in November 2012.

This
case was widely covered in the media after the daily newspaper
Dan published the transcripts of
the statement made by the DPS officials.

18. The Democratic Front challenged the results of the presidential
elections, expressed mistrust in the electoral processes and invoked
possible frauds. It decided to boycott the parliament. Negotiations
were launched between the majority and the opposition to bring the
parliamentary boycott by the Democratic Front to an end. The parliament
agreed to set up two working bodies to address these election-related
issues and amend the regulations:
18.1. On
24 June 2013, the parliament set up an “Inquiry Committee for the
purpose of collecting information and facts on the events relating
to the work of State authorities regarding publishing of audio recordings
and transcripts from the meetings of DPS authorities and bodies”,
with the support of the ruling DPS, which responded to all invitations
for hearings, including by the President of the DPS and the Prime
Minister, Mr Milo Đjukanović.
18.2. Further to our meetings in July 2013, we had the feeling
that this investigation committee had limited powers, no means to
apply sanctions and could only request the Prosecutor’s Office to
launch an investigation, provided they had collected sufficient
evidence. Given the sensitivity of the issue, we also felt that
the committee was quite polarised and would find it hard to reach
political conclusions. The committee eventually submitted a technical
report to the parliament on 31 July 2013, but without drawing any
political conclusions. At the same time,
ad
interim Chief Prosecutor Mr Veselin Vucković, who had launched
an investigation in 2013, informed us that 400 people had been interviewed
and 253 legal entities checked; 43 cases had been opened against
60 people and one legal entity; 12 people were indicted, 11 of them
sentenced; 21 indictments were turned down for lack of reasonable
evidence. This prosecution led the Basic Court in Pljevlja to impose
two suspended sentences, while 10 other people were acquitted.

18.3. On 31 May 2013, the parliament adopted a “Proposal for
the Conclusion on building trust in the electoral process”, leading
to the setting up of a “Working Group for building trust in the
election process”. This working group was mandated to consult the
public and entities interested in dealing with electoral issues
and propose amendments to the Law on Voter Registers, the Law on
Identity Card, the Law on Register of Temporary Residence, the Law
on Election of Councillors and MPs, the Law on Financing of Political
Parties and the Law on Montenegrin Citizenship, taking into account
its own observations and the OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations.
Further to our meeting with the working group (composed of six MPs
from the majority and six from the opposition appointed by the parliament)
in July 2013, we highlighted the constructive spirit that animated
this working group. The group worked on amendments to most of the
laws concerned, in co-operation with representatives of NGOs, and,
on an ad hoc basis, with the participation of representatives of
the Union of Municipalities of Montenegro.
19. Local elections took place on 25 May 2014 in 13 municipalities.
For the first time in these elections, following the 2014 amendments
to the Law on Election of Councillors and MPs, affirmative action
for minorities was introduced at local level. The ruling party,
the DPS, won the majority of votes in 11 municipalities, and the absolute
majority of votes in three of them. Five hundred domestic observers
from the NGO MANS (Network for affirmation of the non-governmental
sector) monitored the elections and reported hundreds of irregularities.

MANS announced that it would
submit more than 130 criminal complaints for offences against voting
rights. MANS accused the DPS of violating electoral law and of buying
ID cards from opposition supporters in order to prevent them from
voting.

Since then, the Head of MANS, Ms
Calović, has been subjected to a lot of criticism and was recently
targeted by a smear campaign in one media

,
violating her human dignity, which is unacceptable and should not
be left unpunished. This incident happened in a context that we
felt made life difficult for NGOs who perform oversight of public
action and publish critical reports. The substance of the information
must be discussed, but criticising the people who have presented
the information is not appropriate.
20. Despite a court ruling which banned the further publication
of the offensive material, the daily Informer repeatedly
continued this smear campaign, in clear breach of the law and the
ruling of the court, which prompted some parliamentarians to propose
the re-criminalisation of defamation. This, in our view, would be
a step backwards. We expect the authorities to take the necessary
legal steps to prevent any similar campaigns, not to condone in
any way such campaigns, and ensure that court sentences are fully
applied.
21. In the capital city of Podgorica, the two national ruling
parties, the Party of Democratic Socialists (DPS, 29 seats out of
59) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) together with Positive
Montenegro (5 seats) found it difficult to reach an agreement on
the candidate for the post of mayor. The opposition (Socialist People’s
party (SNP) and Democratic Front) had won 25 seats. An interim administration
was appointed to run the immediate business.

On 6 October 2014, the DPS and SDP
finally reached an agreement and elected Mr Slavoljub Stijepović
Mayor of the capital.
22. Finally, we should mention that both the President of the
Republic and the Prime Minister, Mr Đjukanović, stressed to us that
the development of the country’s economy was a priority for the
authorities. In particular Mr Đjukanović stressed that Montenegro’s
economy remains underdeveloped, and should be boosted by the development
of tourism projects on the coast, the construction of highways,
the construction of a new power plant and an undersea electricity
cable link with Italy, and a research project to explore oil and gas
resources. During our visits, the bankruptcy and the €300 million
debt of the Podgorica Aluminium Plant (KAP) – one of the country's
major exporters – and the activation of the financial guarantee
that had been provided by the State in 2005 in the framework of
a settlement agreement signed with the KAP, stirred heated debates
in the country.

3. Rule of law
3.1. The independence
of the judiciary (key issue)
23. The adoption of constitutional amendments to de-politicise
the judiciary was an accession requirement, and one of the “key
issues” identified by the Assembly in its
Resolution 1890 (2012). It was also a strong requirement from the European
Commission to start the European Union accession negotiations. The Montenegrin
authorities had decided to submit new draft constitutional amendments
related to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme State Prosecutor
and the Judicial Council to the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) in May 2013. At its 14 June 2013
meeting, the Venice Commission authorised the rapporteurs to send
the draft opinion

to the Montenegrin authorities prior
to its adoption during the October 2013 plenary session of the Venice
Commission.
24. During our fact-finding visit in July 2013, we discussed these
draft amendments with the highest judicial authorities. While the
President of the Judicial Council supported the proposed amendments,
the President and Vice-President of the Constitutional Court were
much more cautious and expressed strong doubts, especially about
the proposal related to the selection of five of the judges of the
Constitutional Court after an open competition, which was considered
as “expedient”, would leave room for manoeuvre between political
parties and would transform the Constitutional Court into a partisan
body. They considered that these new constitutional amendments would
destabilise the Constitutional Court, affect the mandates of incumbent judges
and jeopardise legal certainty.
25. On 31 July 2013, the main political parties, with the exception
of the opposition party Democratic Front, adopted the constitutional
amendments that complied with most of the recommendations of the
Venice Commission. We welcomed this much-awaited adoption, which
should contribute to the de-politicisation process of the judiciary.
The new constitutional provisions introduce qualified majorities
for the election of the judges of the Constitutional court, the
Supreme State Prosecutor, members of the Judicial Council, while putting
in place anti-deadlock mechanisms. The amendments read as follows
(excerpts):
“In the first round
of voting by two-third majority and in the second by three-fifth
majority of all members of the Parliament, after at least one month,
the Parliament shall elect and remove from office judges of the
Constitutional Court, the Supreme State Prosecutor and four members
of the Judicial Council from among eminent jurists.”
“In the first round of voting, the Parliament shall elect
the Supreme State Prosecutor upon proposal of the Prosecutorial
Council. If the proposed candidate does not acquire the required
majority, in the second round of voting, the Parliament shall elect
the Supreme State Prosecutor from among all candidates who meet
the legal requirements.”
“The President of the Supreme Court shall be elected and
removed from office by the Judicial Council, by the two-third majority,
upon proposal of the General session of the Supreme Court”
“The President of the Judicial Council shall be elected
by the Judicial Council from amongst its members who are not judicial
officials, by the two-third majority of members of the Judicial
Council.”
“The Judicial Council shall be composed of the president
and nine members. The members shall be the President of the Supreme
Court, four members from out of judges that shall be elected and
released from duty by the Conference of Judges, four members from
out of reputable lawyers that shall be elected and released from
duty by the Parliament and the Minister responsible for judicial
affairs.”
26. On 24 September 2013, the parliament adopted, within the 45-day
period from the date of promulgation of the amendments, the first
required amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council, the Law
on Courts, the Law on the Public Prosecution Office, and the Law
on the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, to harmonise these laws
with the newly adopted constitutional amendments.

27. We expected the new appointment procedure of the Supreme State
Prosecutor, deriving from the constitutional changes of July 2013
in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations, to secure
a stronger, more independent prosecutor leadership. An election
was organised in spring 2014. None of the four proposed candidates
managed to reach either the two-thirds majority in the first round
or the required three-fifths majority in the second round. Instead
of launching a new tender (as prescribed by the Constitution), the parliament
decided, pertaining to the provisions of its own Rules of Procedure,
to organise a third round of elections (while we were in Podgorica,
in April 2014), which was also unsuccessful. This procedure was challenged
in the meantime by the NGO Human Rights Action (HRA). The Constitutional
Court ruled, on 23 July 2014, that the provisions of the Rules of
Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro on election of the Supreme
State Prosecutor were not in conformity with the Constitution.

28. After the parliament failed to find a consensual candidate
who would qualify to become the Supreme State Prosecutor in April
2014, Ivica Stanković was elected Supreme State Prosecutor on 7
October 2014 in the second voting round (with a three-fifths majority).
29. The HRA also has warned about the continuing practice of electing
heads of the judiciary in an unconstitutional manner, pointing out
that the election for the President of the Supreme Court, which
was on-going in August 2014, was conducted under the provisions
of the Law on the Judicial Council that contravened the Constitution
and prompted the HRA to lodge another constitutional complaint to
review the constitutionality of provisions of the Judicial Council
Act on election and dismissal of the President of the Supreme Court.

In the
meantime, the Judicial Council proceeded with the election, and
on 26 July 2014 re-appointed as President of the Supreme Court Ms
Medenica, who is no longer chairing the Judicial Council.

30. The authorities were preparing the Law on the Judicial Council,
the Law on Courts, Law on the Rights and Duties of Judge, the Law
on the Public Prosecution Office, and the Law on the Constitutional
Court of Montenegro that needed to be further amended to comply
with the requirements in the framework of the negotiations of chapter
23 of the European Union negotiations. The Venice Commission adopted
in October 2014 an opinion on the draft law on the Constitutional
Court,

and adopted
its opinion on these four other draft laws at its 12-13 December
2014 meeting.
31. We also welcome the intention of the authorities to amend
and improve the Law on Legal Free Aid, which is currently being
examined by the parliament.
32. While the constitutional amendments related to the judiciary
represent progress towards the fulfilment of our requirements, it
remains of utmost importance that the Law on the Judicial Council,
the Law on Courts, the Law on the Public Prosecution Office, and
the Law on the Constitutional Court of Montenegro are fully in line with
Council of Europe standards. We welcome the co-operation of the
Montenegrin authorities to review the adoption of these laws in
full compliance with all Venice Commission recommendations, and
their effective implementation is essential to ensure that the judiciary
can work in an independent manner. They should be further scrutinised
in the framework of the proposed post-monitoring dialogue with Montenegro.
3.2. The fight against
corruption and organised crime (key issue)
33. We stressed that effective anti-corruption laws and
practices are essential to secure the rule of law and that concrete
results need to be delivered to root out corruption that remains
widespread and deeply rooted. A number of cases were brought to
our attention,

also in the city of Budva (that we
visited in April 2014).
34. We were informed about the amendments to the Criminal Code
and Criminal Procedure Code in August 2013, which vested larger
investigative competences in the State Supreme Prosecutor and Special
Prosecutor on Corruption and Organised Crime. A special IT system
would be developed to enable the Special Prosecutor to have direct
access to databases from the different State agencies. However,
this would take time and funds.
35. We welcome the ongoing steps taken by the authorities to further
comply with the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption
(GRECO). According to the latest Transparency International report
on the perception of corruption, published on 3 December 2014,

Montenegro is in 76th position with
a corruption perception index of 42. However, we believe that implementation
of the legislation is essential. All State institutions should be
designed and equipped to prevent, detect and sanction corruption.
36. Montenegro’s track record in the fight against corruption
is often pointed out: few high-level cases have been prosecuted
to the final stage. Some sentences delivered by courts of first
instance were invalidated by higher courts on procedural grounds.
In Budva, the Mayor, Lazar Rađjenović, was arrested in March 2014
on suspicion of abuse of office, together with Aleksandar Ticić,
the privatisation adviser to Prime Minister Milo Đjukanović, and
Jelica Petričević, the Deputy Director of Prva Bank.

Some interlocutors however raised
the question as to whether these arrests might have been prompted
by an internal feud between two factions within the DPS party.
37. We understand that Montenegro has engaged in several reforms
of its anti-corruption policies at the request of the European Commission.
The draft Law on Prevention of Corruption, the Directorate for Anti-Corruption
Initiative and the Commission for Prevention of Conflict of Interest
should be merged into an Agency for the Prevention of Corruption,
which should be operational as of 2016. This new Agency should also
take over the competences of the State Election Commission for control
of the financing of political parties and election campaigns and
be responsible for the handling of whistle-blower complaints and
whistle-blower protection, as well as for the application of the
law on lobbying.
38. The drafting of the Law on the Special State Prosecutor's
Office is in progress and was reviewed by the Venice Commission.
This Law should improve the competences, independence and organisational
structure of the Special Prosecutor for dealing with cases of organised
crime and corruption. It remains to be seen how the Special Prosecutor
will work with the Supreme State Prosecutor.
39. The draft Law on the Special Public Prosecutor's Office for
the Fight against Corruption and Organised Crime was sent to the
Venice Commission, which adopted its opinions on 12 and 13 December
2014.

For the time being, it remained
unclear for many of our interlocutors whether the Supreme State
Prosecutor would supervise the work of the Special Public Prosecutor
for Corruption and Organised Crime, and whether he would have full
access to the files dealt with by the Special Public Prosecutor.
40. A draft Law on Confiscation of Assets Acquired from Criminal
Activity is also in preparation. It should improve the conduct of
financial investigations and the exchange of experience at regional
and international level, considering that the assets acquired from
crime are often sent to other countries.

41. A draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Prevention of Conflict
of Interest should strengthen limitations in the exercise of public
functions, define the content of reports on income and assets, and
prescribe other measures that will enable more effective detection
and sanctioning of cases of conflict of interest.

42. In this respect, we believe that the parliament should play
a key role in promoting the fight against corruption. An “anti-corruption
committee”, composed of eight members from the majority and five
from the opposition, was established by the parliament in 2012.
During our last visit, we had an exchange of views with its Chairperson
and members. This committee organised consultative hearings on the
“Telekom” affair

on
6 February 2013 and urged the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office
to send an urgent appeal to the US administration to send all necessary
information, which was still awaited by the newly elected Supreme
Public Prosecutor in November 2014; a consultative hearing on the
audio-recording affair on 11 December 2013, which was adjourned
because the acting Supreme State Prosecutor left the meeting; a
consultative hearing on 30 December 2013 regarding the purchase
of the motel “Zlatica” with the adjoining land to resolve the issue
of accommodation of the special and specific unit of the Police
Administration, which was terminated due to the absence of the acting
Supreme State Prosecutor;

or,
more recently, a hearing on “Multimillion contracts for legal and
consulting services paid by the Electric Power Company of Montenegro”,
following a complaint lodged by representatives of civil society,
the material collected was sent to the Supreme State Prosecutor, who,
within 30 days, were to submit to the Anti-Corruption Committee
information on the material.

43. Representatives of civil society, however, regretted that
the anti-corruption committee may remain a weak instance due to
its structure and lack of clear jurisdiction, failing to deliver
concrete outcomes from governmental and judicial mechanisms in terms
of changing problematic policies and practices.

We
therefore invite the Montenegrin Parliament to reinforce the legal
means provided to the committee to strengthen its oversight role
and its capacity to have an impact on the fight against corruption.
We can only encourage the Montenegrin Parliament to further take
advantage of the recently created Parliamentary Assembly anti-corruption
platform,

which could provide a useful forum
for the exchange of good practices.
44. One particular issue addressed by NGOs was the decision taken
in August 2013 to remove the unique, 13-digit birth number from
tax administration and real estate administration registers. NGOs
stressed that this ID number was an effective tool for investigating
the real ownership of assets or investments in companies that present
a conflict of interest for politicians and State officials and for
identifying alleged wrongdoings. It enabled citizens to have access
to information on the assets of public figures and people connected
to them.

45. While the authorities invoked the protection of personal data,
the parliamentary anti-corruption committee organised a consultative
hearing on 27 December 2013. It concluded that “for the purposes
of researching events and organised crime and corruption, which
is the job of investigative journalists and some NGOs, the availability
of the data that has been removed is very important, and that means
that personal identification numbers of the owners of companies
or real estate have to be accessible”. The committee pointed out
the mutual incompatibility of a number of laws (on Personal Data
Protection Law, Free Access to Information, Business Enterprises,
Tax Administration, State Surveying and Cadastre) as related to
the level of public disclosure of information, including web publishing
of personal identification numbers, and decided to set up a working
group to address this issue.

46. As regards the fight against money laundering, we should note
the adoption of the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and
Financing of Terrorism on 25 July 2014, notably to comply with the
recommendations issued by the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation
of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism
(MONEYVAL).
3.3. Other developments
47. During our visits, we took note of the latest developments
regarding the judiciary, in particular the reduction of the backlog
of court cases,

the
setting up of a national remedy in case of lengthy procedures in 2010
(67 claims were registered in 2013), the trainings of judges, the
attention paid to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights,
and the monitoring of the work of the courts by 14 NGOs, taking
into account that 150 000 new judicial cases involving 300 000 people
(that is half of the Montenegrin population) were initiated each
year.

48. The issue of war crimes remains open. We refer to the latest
report of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights further
to his visit in March 2014

where
he called on the authorities to end impunity for the most serious
wartime crimes and provide effective remedies for the victims. The
authorities stated that all war crime cases (Morinj, Deportation,
Bukovica, Štrpci) had been resolved in a legal manner, except the
case of “Kaluđerski laz”, which had ongoing appellate proceedings.
They mentioned that 11 final verdicts for damages to the victims
of war crimes were rendered. A court settlement was agreed in 42
cases, all related to the Deportation case.
In
13 cases before Montenegrin courts, the claim for damages to victims
of war crimes was finally rejected. Some human rights defenders
that we met, however, regretted the poor level of indictment which
had led to these court decisions. We would like here to echo their
concerns, and the position of the Commissioner for Human Rights,
by recalling that rendering justice in the case of war crimes is essential
to foster reconciliation in the country and the region as a whole.
4. Democracy
4.1. Electoral legislation
49. A number of electoral issues were discussed with
our interlocutors. The government, the opposition and the non-governmental
sector launched an initiative to task the Ministry of the Interior
with the management of the electoral rolls, given the Ministry’s
advanced IT system. Mr Rasko Konjević, Minister of the Interior,
recalled that citizens must have a biometric ID to be able to vote.
While the law was passed in 2008, 25 000 citizens still had no such
ID in 2013. New information campaigns should be launched. Mobile
teams have been set up by the Ministry of the Interior to collect
biometric data in the field.
50. We have encouraged the Montenegrin Parliament to pursue this
work, and to address all the issues that have been identified on
several occasions by the Assembly’s ad hoc committees on the observation
of elections. These improvements should ensure an electoral process
free from misuse of State and administrative resources, ensure that
no pressure and intimidation is employed against teachers and public civil
servants to vote for the candidate backed by the parties in power,
increase transparency in the funding of political parties and of
the election campaign by fully implementing the GRECO recommendations

and strengthen the role of
the State Election Commission (SEC), improve the quality of the
voters register and guarantee the right of universal suffrage for
all citizens of Montenegro without the 24-month residence requirement.

51. Further to the activities of the “working group for building
trust in the election process” (see above), a number of changes
were made to the electoral legislation: on 17 February 2014, the
parliament adopted the Law
on the Voter Register, the Law on Amendments to the Law on Financing
of Political Parties, the Law on Amendments to the Law on Identity
Card and the Law on Local Self-Government.
52. The new law on the funding of political parties was intended
to address the problem of the misuse of administrative resources,
following the “audio-recording” affair. It stipulates that State
institutions on the whole territory shall not deliver social benefits
or recruit any staff during an election period. Many interlocutors, including
the President of the Republic, acknowledged that this new law hampers
the proper functioning of the State and needs fine-tuning. Another
provision foresees that the electrical supply company publishes
the names of debtors before and after elections, and the name of
all beneficiaries of social aid should be published, which may raise
concern about the protection of personal data. The capacity of the
SEC to supervise the implementation of this law was also questioned.
53. The Constitutional Court, however, struck out some provisions
of the Law on the Financing Political Parties and Election Campaigns
in May 2014. A working group, chaired by MP Draginja Vuksanović,
was entrusted with reviewing, with the active and constructive participation
of NGOs, the working version of the Law on Funding of Political
Parties and Election Campaigns prepared by the government. The working
group completed its work on 17 November 2014.
54. We expect the Law on Funding of Political Parties and Election
Campaigns to strictly regulate the use of administrative resources
during electoral campaigns, which is essential to ensure that all
political parties are on a level playing field in a country that
has not experienced political alternatives in the past 25 years,
and where 40% of employees work for the State.
55. On 21 March 2014, the parliament adopted the Law on Amendments
to the Law on Election of Councillors and MPs, which was not reviewed
by the Venice Commission, we have learnt, and which introduces some
new provisions:

55.1. One of these provisions concerns
the appointment of the President of the SEC, who will be elected
by the parliament by a majority vote of the total number of MPs,
at the proposal of the Administrative Committee after public announcement.
The SEC will consist of a president and 10 standing members, plus
one authorised representative of each of the submitters of the electoral
lists. The law now gives the possibility of appointing a deputy
from among the other minority groups as a substitute to a permanent
SEC member, appointed as a representative of a political party or
electoral list, in order to allow for representation of members
of minority groups or national communities. On the basis of a vacancy
notice and at the proposal of the Administrative Committee, one
representative of civil society, the NGO sector and universities,
who is an expert on electoral legislation, will be elected to the
SEC.
55.2. On 7 October 2014, the parliament elected Budimir Šaranović
Head of the SEC, Vlado Dedović member of the SEC designated among
civil society representatives, the non-governmental sector and universities,
as well as the nine other members of the SEC.

55.3. The law changes the composition of the municipal election
commissions, consisting of a president and four standing members,
and one authorised representative of each of the submitters of the
electoral lists. It is also stipulated that the Ministry of the
Interior is obliged to keep voter registers and to send a notice
about elections to all voters. It is envisaged that an electronic
device for identification of voters be used at polling stations,
and certain provisions on housebound voting have been amended. We
were informed that €200 000 had been allocated to provide the necessary equipment
and software for the electronic registration of voters.
55.4. A working version of the electronic voter register was
prepared by the Minister of the Interior at the end of October 2014.
It was the opposition that requested that the electronic identification
of voters be in place before the local elections in Herceg Novi
in December 2014.

55.5. Other provisions concern the electoral lists: the number
of signatures necessary for establishing the list for the election
of councillors and MPs is reduced from 1% to 0.8% of voters in the
constituency; the support of at least 150 voters is enough to determine
the electoral lists of political parties or groups of voters representing
minority groups or minority communities.
56. We congratulate the parliament on its efforts to improve trust
in the electoral processes and address a number of issues raised
these past months. We believe that such trust is essential for the
good and stable functioning of democracy. Therefore, we encourage
the authorities to review the implementation of these laws, allocate
sufficient financial resources to ensure the proper functioning
of the SEC, and redress possible shortcomings that could affect
the normal lives of many citizens and the proper functioning of
public services.
4.2. The situation of
the media (key issue)
57. In our previous report, we looked at the situation
of the media. During our last visits, we expressed our concerns
about repeated attacks against journalists or media property that
remained unsolved. We also stressed that, in a democratic society
it is unacceptable that journalists, in particular investigative
journalists, are subjected to direct or indirect threats. The issue
of the freedom of the media was again discussed in 2014 with the
authorities. In this respect, we took into consideration the findings
of the Commissioner for Human Rights, following his visit to the
country in March 2014.

58. Violence and threats against journalists are still of great
concern. Official data indicated that 52 cases were registered from
2004 until February 2014 in which representatives of media or their
property were subjected to physical attacks or serious threats.

Thirty-two
cases were resolved. The NGO Human Rights Action provided us with
detailed reports on 30 cases from 2004 to January 2014, related
to threats, stoning of premises, destruction of property, beatings,
planting of explosives and the murders of Duško Jovanović, Chief Editor
of the daily
Dan, in 2004,
and Srđan Vojičić, bodyguard of the assaulted writer Jevrem Brković,
in 2006.

Many cases remain unsolved.
59. We therefore welcome the setting up, in December 2013, of
a “Commission for Monitoring the Actions of the Competent Authorities
in the Investigation of Cases of Threats and Violence Against Journalists, Assassinations
of Journalists and Attacks on Media Property” composed of 11 members

and
chaired by the Deputy Editor of
Dan,
Mr Nikola Marković. This positive move will help to render justice
and could help restore trust and confidence between investigative
journalists and the authorities. This Commission will hopefully
shed light on some unsolved murders and attacks – in particular
the assassination of Duško Jovanović – and generally restore the
confidence and trust of society in their institutions. We noted
that recently, following the impetus given by the Commission, two
cases were solved: two people were arrested in relation to the explosion in
front of the
Vijesti building on 23 December
2013, and six people were arrested following the attack of a journalist
in Nikšić. We met representatives of the Commission a second time
in November 2014. We trust that it will be able to continue to press
for the remaining cases to be resolved, despite the diverging opinions
of the representatives from the different stakeholders on the output
of this Commission. Echoing the call of the Commissioner for Human
Rights, we consider that the authorities should show zero tolerance
to violence and threats against journalists. We take note, with
satisfaction, that no new attacks have occurred since January 2014.
60. We noted that the use of the term “media mafia” by an opposition
MP during a parliamentary debate in the presence of the Prime Minister
had stirred much debate among journalists. The authorities later
denied that this term was intended to mean investigative journalists
and stressed that these words were taken out of context and misinterpreted.

It
was quite obvious, however, that the journalists we met perceived
this expression as an attempt to target investigative journalists
and as a possible way of legitimising new threats and new attacks
targeting journalists, who could been seen, by some, as misleadingly
depicted as “mafia members”.
61. During our visits, we recalled that it is the responsibility
of the authorities to create the necessary space for journalists
to work freely and to strengthen self-regulatory bodies. It is also
a shared responsibility of the authorities and journalists to further
improve ethics in this still highly polarised media scene. The authorities stressed
that they took the decision to decriminalise defamation in 2012.
However they complained that some journalists failed to work in
line with ethical standards.

We encouraged the authorities to
strengthen the self-regulatory bodies that should deal with ethics
in journalism. For the time being, there are three distinct (and divided)
self-regulatory bodies: the Media Council for Self-Regulation (18
members), the Self-Regulatory Council for Local Press and Periodicals
(22 members), grouping print media outlets and local electronic
media, and the Press Council, established at the end of May 2012
by the dailies
Vijesti and
Dan and the weekly
Monitor and included in the register
of NGOs on 6 August 2012.

In its “Action Plan for Monitoring
Implementation of Recommendations from the European Commission”,
the government plans to fund the Media Council and Self-Regulatory
Council. However, during our visit in November 2014, there were
concerns that this public funding might not be secured in 2015.
This is essential to ensure that the regulatory bodies can be encouraged
and perform the professional work expected of them.
62. In this regard, we welcome the initiative taken by the OSCE
Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović, to organise,
in Vienna on 13 October 2014, a round table with representatives
of various Montenegrin media (
Pobjeda,
Dan,
Vijesti,
Dnevne novine,
Monitor and Portal analitika), and
with the support of the Montenegrin authorities. At this meeting,
media representatives agreed to reconsider the professional code
of ethics, as a first step towards improving media self-regulation
in the country, and on the key principles on which media self-regulation
should be based.

We
hope that this initiative will prove to be fruitful. The Council
of Europe should be ready to assist.
63. Public advertisement in the media was also discussed. The
independent media considered that the situation was unbalanced and
that the public and pro-governmental media – and the still State-owned
media, Pobjeda, which should finally be privatised – benefited most
from public advertisement, which was used as a tool to exert economic
pressure on critical media. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of Information, Mr Lazović, recognised that there are no strict
rules governing the distribution of public advertisement in the media,
however advertisements were mostly published in the three main printed
media.

He
also stressed the need to ensure diversification of the media in
a highly competitive environment.
5. Human rights
5.1. The rights of minorities
and the fight against discrimination (key issue)
5.1.1. Legal framework
64. During our visits to Montenegro, we focused discussions
on the fight against discrimination, in particular against the Roma
and the lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community,
with Mr Suad Numanović, Minister of Human and Minority Rights, Mr Jovan
Kojićić, Secretary of the Anti-Discrimination Council and Advisor
to the Prime Minister for Human Rights and Protection against Discrimination,
and Mr Šućko Baković, Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (Ombudsman),
as well as with NGOs.
65. A working group, which comprised representatives of the Ombudsman’s
Office, the Committee for Human Rights and Freedoms, relevant State
institutions, the European Commission, the OSCE and the non-governmental
sector had been set up to prepare amendments to the 2010 anti-discrimination
law and the 2011 ombudsman law (see below), in order to take into
account the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the European
Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) to address both
direct and indirect discrimination.

66. The 2010 Anti-Discrimination Law was amended in 26 March 2014.
New forms of discrimination, such as harassment, sexual harassment,
racial discrimination and hate speech, are proscribed. It introduces
the promotion of equality as a tool to prevent discrimination, and
allows “situation testing”, whereby a lawsuit can be filed by a
person who intends to directly test the implementation of the anti-discrimination
rules. It addresses the issue of “coerced” segregation [against
Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian (RAE)] raised by ECRI.

It
prescribes deadlines to introduce a lawsuit from the date of the
recognition of discrimination (from 1 to 3 years).

5.1.2. The situation of
the LGBT community
67. On the proposal of the Anti-Discrimination Council,
Montenegro adopted a “Strategy for Improving the Quality of Life
of LGBT Persons 2013-2018”, along with the 2013 Action Plan. This
comprehensive strategy should lead to a number of legislative changes
to improve the protection of the rights of LGBT people. It is also aimed
at giving a strong signal of the government’s willingness to pursue
its commitments in this area.
68. Compared to the findings of the Assembly in previous years,
we note that the authorities are attempting to be more supportive
of the LGBT community. The newly created campaign group called “Queer
Montenegro” stressed the excellent co-operation set up with the
police. The NGO Forum Progress organised its first “Seaside parade”
in Budva on 24 July 2013. A number of State officials backed the
event. The police ensured the protection of the demonstrators.
69. The organiser of the second (Gay) Pride parade in the capital
– planned for late June 2014 – decided to postpone it until autumn
2014 for security reasons, following consultations with the police.
The Parade took place on 2 November 2014, organised by the NGO Queer
Montenegro in the presence and with the support of the Minister
for Human and Minority Rights, Mr Numanović, the Minister of the
Interior, Mr Raško Konjević, and the Mayor of Podgorica, Mr Stijepović,
and representatives of the international community. This Parade
was organised under the slogan “Traditionally Proud” and demanded
the respect of the rights of the LGBT population. It was attended
by 200 people, under the protection of 1 800 police and took place
without major incident.

We congratulate the authorities
for ensuring the peaceful organisation of three parades in the past year
and a half.
70. However, the LGBT community still faces difficult times: during
the 2013 Budva “Seaside Parade”, there were violent clashes between
the police and anti-gay protesters”,

who chanted homophobic slogans such
as “kill the gays”. We firmly condemn these violent clashes, as
well as the publication of fake obituaries announcing the “death”
of Zdravko Cimbaljević, Director of Forum Progress. He eventually
went to Canada where he was granted asylum. Unfortunately such violent
events show that awareness-raising and educational programmes must
remain a priority to secure human rights for all.
71. Finally, human rights defenders regretted that only one criminal
charge was brought against unidentified people for serious bodily
harm, for throwing stones at police officers during the parade in
Podgorica in 2013, while the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office explained
that it did not conduct a criminal prosecution “because it was determined
that there was no criminal offence that can be prosecuted
ex officio” and that “none of the participants
in the parade reported physical assault at the premises of the local
police unit”.

After the organisation of the Parade
in Podgorica in November 2014, criminal charges were brought against
two juveniles, who were acting alone according to the organisers
of the Parade.
72. The representatives of the LGBT community consider that the
legal framework pertaining to the rights of LGBT people can be considered
satisfactory, but it has still to be fully implemented. The response
by the State Prosecution Office to threats and attacks are not always
consistent. We therefore welcome the signature of a Memorandum of
Understanding in March 2014 by the Supreme Court of Montenegro and
the NGO LGBT Forum Progress, which should strengthen and enhance
the capacities of judges to better understand the human rights of
LGBT people and international standards related to sexual orientation
and gender identity.

73. LGBT NGOs continue to seek access to equal rights for the
LGBT community. At the same time, many interlocutors stressed that
Montenegro is a traditional society, and we understand that promoting
and enhancing LGBT rights requires time and patience. This means
that, despite the progress noted and the political will of the authorities,
a lot still remains to be done to ensure freedom of assembly. We
now expect resolute action from the police and the judiciary to
prosecute and punish the perpetrators of violence and hate speech.
5.1.3. Gender equality
74. In the field of gender equality, we were informed
by Suad Numanović, Minister of Human and Minority Rights, that an
action plan for gender equality was adopted in 2013. The fight against
violence against women, economic empowerment of women and representation
of women in politics are among the priorities addressed by the authorities.
75. We welcomed the amendment made to the Law on Election of Councillors
and MPs on 21 March 2014, which introduces the “zip system” in the
electoral lists, whereby at least 30%, and one in every fourth candidate, should
be a representative of the less-represented gender on the list;
which should, in the current context, ensure a better participation
of women in parliament (women currently represent 17.8% of MPs).
This is a positive step.

76. Concerning violence against women, we congratulate Montenegro
for ratifying, on 22 April 2013, the Council of Europe Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic
Violence (CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) which entered into
force on 1 August 2014. We welcome the activities carried out by
the Political Women's Club for the fight against domestic violence,
which prepared a publication on “Violence in the family – my rights”
in co-operation with the NGO sector.

5.1.4. Situation of the
minorities
77. The Minister of Human and Minority Rights indicated
that amendments to the 2004 law on the protection of minority rights,
the 2010 law on minorities and the law on the national minority
councils were in preparation. These amendments should better regulate
national minority councils and ensure equal distribution of the
funds allocated to minorities.
78. A law on religious communities was under preparation and should
be reviewed by the Venice Commission. So far, bilateral agreements
were signed between the State and the Vatican, as well as the Jewish
and the Islamic communities. The new law should replace the 1977
law and better regulate relations between the State and the religious
communities. The issue of the properties of religious communities
should be addressed in a separate law.
79. The Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament
was amended in 2011 to ensure authentic and proportionate representation
of minorities. It was applied for the first time during the 2012 parliamentary
elections. Pro memoria, this
revised Law decreased both the number of signatures necessary for
the ratification of electoral lists (namely 1 000 signatures from
registered voters instead of 1% of the total number of voters; 300 signatures
for specific minorities representing up to 2% of the total population)
and the threshold for the allocation of seats to minority electoral
lists (0.7% of valid votes for the minorities and minority national
community and 0.35% for the Croatian minority, compared to the 3%
threshold for non-minority lists).
80. During our discussions in July 2013, the SNP representatives
emphasised that they want Article 45 of the Constitution, which
stipulates the 24-month residence requirement to have the right
to vote, to be amended. The representative of the Bosniak party
wanted minorities to be better represented in State institutions
and that it becomes a constitutional requirement. The Croatian Civic
Initiative regretted that minorities were not involved in the European
Union negotiations and urged the organisation of a round table on
the new law on minorities which is under preparation. The Democratic
Party (representing the Albanians) deplored that the new electoral law
deprived the Albanians of their special constituency, bringing down
the number of their MPs from four to two and insisted on education
in Albanian, and representation in public institutions reflecting
the proportion of their group in the population. In addition, FORCA
stressed the need to have an organic law on defining minorities,
the need to have more space in public media and strengthening of
competencies of the municipalities run by minorities.
81. Concerning the situation of the Roma, we welcomed the adoption
of the Strategy for improving the position of Roma and Egyptians
in Montenegro 2012-2016 in April 2012, and of an action plan for
2012. Mr Isen Gaši, President of the National Council of Roma of
Montenegro, indicated that there are currently 6 000 Roma living
in Montenegro, and 2 000 displaced Roma and Egyptians. He stated
that 70% of the domiciled Roma lived in rather good conditions.
2 200 Roma children are enrolled in schools. However, 700 to 800
Roma children are not registered, and thus cannot go to school.
82. Much attention is still devoted to the situation of the displaced
Roma that fled Kosovo in the late 1990s and settled down in Montenegro
(see below). The Minister of Human and Minority rights conceded
that the domiciled Roma suffered from this process, even though
there is an increase in the school enrolment rate and employment
rate and better access to social rights. We note with satisfaction
that, for the first time, the Strategy includes provisions to tackle
forced and underage marriages of Roma and Egyptian women, and violence against
women. On 1 July 2013, Montenegro took over the annual chairmanship
of the Decade of Roma Inclusion from Croatia. Montenegro intends
to reinforce its activities to further support the integration of
Roma.
5.1.5. The Ombudsman
83. The amendments to the 2010 Anti-Discrimination Law
defined the competencies and authority of the Protector of Human
Rights and Freedoms (Ombudsman) of Montenegro with regard to discrimination.
84. The Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (Ombudsman)
was adopted in 2011 and amended on 18 July 2014. The new law provides
for the selection of candidates for the Ombudsman by the President
of the Republic after consulting scientific and technical institutions
and representatives of civil society organisations. It provides
that the Ombudsman be received without delay, and upon his/her request,
by the highest authorities and heads of all organs. The Ombudsman
institution has become the mechanism for the prevention of torture
under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the
mechanism of protection against discrimination under the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. The Ombudsman
will be able to visit bodies, institution or organisations where
people are deprived of their liberty or people with limited movement
are accommodated, make recommendations to the competent bodies,
institutions and organisations with the aim of improving the treatment
of those people, provide opinions about proposals for laws and other
regulations for the protection and promotion of human rights and
freedoms of prisoners and people with limited movement.
85. The Ombudsman, his/her deputy, advisors and members of the
working body of the institution will have complete and unlimited
access to all facilities and all necessary documents for activities
directed to the prevention of torture, without limitation and regardless
of the degree of secrecy. A new clause provides for permanent protection
of people employed in the institution of the Protector (immunity)
against any sanctions or adverse consequences they could potentially
suffer due to their positions or to recommendations they might give.

86. We understand that the Ombudsman should have a better financial
position after the adoption of the 2014 law and more competence
for the management of his/her staff members. However, several of
our interlocutors raised the issue of the human and financial resources
of the Ombudsman and his/her ability to carry out these tasks. It
is therefore essential that the Montenegrin authorities seek the
expertise of the Council of Europe to ensure that the competencies
and resources of the Ombudsman, as defined in the amended law, are
sufficient for this institution to work as an independent and efficient
body.
5.1.6. The situation of
refugees and IDPs (key issue)
87. In September 2014, there were 6 587 IDPs and refugees
(5 742 IDPs from Kosovo

and 845 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Croatia resided in Montenegro

).
The number of families who wish to return voluntarily to their country
of origin remains low,

despite
a seemingly slowly increasing tendency.

The Montenegrin
authorities point to the lack of available land and housing solutions,
along with general boundary conditions for reintegration, which
continue to affect the prospects for sustainable voluntary return
to Kosovo.
88. In its
Resolution
1890 (2012), the Assembly, further to the revision of the Law on
Foreigners, called on the Montenegrin authorities to facilitate
the granting of a legal status and of a temporary or permanent residence
permit for refugees and IDPs still living in Montenegro and to find
a suitable way to resolve those cases of people facing statelessness
when proper identification documents are no longer available or
cannot be obtained for registration. The 2011 Law on Foreigners
prescribed that displaced and internally displaced persons may submit
a request to obtain the status of foreigners with permanent residence
by 31 December 2012. On 28 May 2013,
the Parliament of Montenegro adopted the Law on Amendments to the
Law on Foreigners, extending the deadline to 31 December 2013. The
parliament again extended this deadline to 31 December 2014 after
adopting amendments to the law amending the Law on Foreigners, on
23 December 2013. In April 2014, 3 400 IDPs and refugees had not
yet filed a request to regulate their legal status (compared to
4 800 in September 2013

).
The parliament prolonged, for the fourth time, the deadline for
submitting requests for temporary or permanent residence permits
by displaced persons and IDPs (until 31 December 2014). Since 2011,
the authorities remain committed to either integrating the refugees
by granting them the status of foreigner with permanent residence,
or to facilitating their voluntary return to their place of origin.
89. We are aware of the efforts undertaken by the authorities
and the UNHCR to help IDPs and refugees to get ID papers in their
country of origin,

though
it remains a problem. We had been informed that in 2013 steps were
taken by the authorities of Montenegro and Kosovo to allow a mobile
team from Kosovo, with the proper technical equipment, to provide
biometric ID cards to IDPs. By the beginning of October 2014, four
mobile teams from Kosovo visited the Konik camps and Montenegrin
towns where refugees are accommodated and interviewed 332 people
who had applied for documents.

We
encourage the Montenegrin authorities, together with the UNHCR,
to pursue this action, which will further ease the situation of
a number of IDPs, and reduce the number of people without a legal
status.
90. We were also informed that IDPs and refugees who stay in Montenegro,
until acquiring the status of foreigner with permanent residence
in line with the Law on Foreigners, shall have, until 30 June 2015,
the same rights as Montenegrin citizens, including the right to
work and the right of unemployment insurance in accordance with
the regulations in the field of labour and employment (with some
exceptions linked to Montenegrin citizenship). However, they still
face difficulties in accessing the labour market, as they cannot
be recruited by public administrations or companies.
91. We noted, with satisfaction, that close to 90% of the children
residing in the Konik camps attend school.

The entry
into force of the amendments to the General Law on Education in
August 2013, enabling people with the status of foreigner with permanent
residence to work as teachers in educational institutions in Montenegro,
is to be welcomed.
92. Despite the efforts made by the authorities to facilitate
access to documents in the countries of origin and despite the decrease
of administrative fees, the identification process remains expensive
for IDPs (the average fees amount to between €100 and €170 per person)
and complex, including for newborn babies with refugee or IDP parents.
We were informed that the Montenegrin Government, together with
the European Union delegation and the UNHCR, would continue to co-operate
with the countries of origin through the Working Group on Civil
Documents under the Belgrade Initiative, in order to lower the fees
for identity documents.

93. The UNHCR advocates the adoption of a law on subsequent birth
certificate for people that would ensure universal registration.

In 2013, 98 requests
for subsequent registration of people born outside health facilities had
been submitted by the NGO Law Center, 45 cases being successfully
completed. More requests for subsequent registration were to be
processed by the UNCHR and the Law Center in 2014.

On the other hand,
the authorities stressed that they had put every possible measure
in place to facilitate transportation and registration. They feared
that some IDPs refrain from seeking ID documents and to register
in order to have access to the social rights provided by both their
countries of origin and of residence.
94. The Minister of Labour informed us that, further to an agreement
with the UNHCR, refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
would no longer be considered as refugees in 2015.
95. During the July 2013 visit, and again in November 2014, thanks
to the assistance provided by the UNHCR Representative and officers
in Montenegro, the co-rapporteurs visited Camp Konik I (38 huts,
214 families, 1 156 people) and Camp Konik II (56 huts, 67 families,
316 people)

in the suburbs of Podgorica, which
had been visited by the previous Assembly rapporteurs in 2012.

A series of projects launched by
the authorities to upgrade the accommodation continue, such as the
Regional Process of Sarajevo and the “Pilot Project Konik Camp”
(construction of 120 residential units), launched in March 2013
and managed by the Council of Europe Development Bank, the European
Union’s Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) project 2011
project on “The identification of durable solutions for internally
displaced persons and residents of Konik camp”, the “National Housing
Programme for the most vulnerable refugees and displaced persons”
to resolve housing issues and provide 1 177 housing units for about
6 000 people in 13 municipalities, and the financial or in-kind
contributions of national donors (in particular the German NGO Help,
the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation, and the United
States

). In October 2014, the Montenegrin authorities
and the Council of Europe Development Bank signed a grant agreement
worth €9.9 million to build housing units for 120 families in Podgorica
and a senior home in Pljevlja for 68 elderly people. Regional housing
programmes will provide housing for displaced persons with 907 housing
units as well as by supplying construction material for 120 housing
units and the construction of 60 prefabricated houses. The government
expects to complete this process by 2016 and to be able to close
all collective centres by then.

96. We believe that the Montenegrin authorities have steadily
tried to find durable solutions for IDPs and refugees. Until September
2014, 11 569 displaced persons and IDPs had applied for the status
of foreigner with permanent residence, out of which 10 284 cases
were resolved, while 1 285 were still being resolved; 556 IDPs had
applied for the status of foreigner with temporary residence, out
of which 402 cases were resolved, while 154 were still being resolved.

This means that over 70% of the 16 000 IDPs
and refugees still registered in Montenegro have applied for a legal
status, and we encourage the Montenegrin authorities, with the support of
the UNHCR and neighbouring authorities, to further facilitate the
applications lodged by refugees and IDPs to obtain a legal status
by 31 December 2014.
97. The issue of a possible risk of statelessness remains open.
A public notice was published by the Ministry of the Interior from
22 September until 22 November 2014 urging all people who believe
they have no citizenship of any State, or do not have access to
citizenship, to apply for Montenegrin citizenship.

In
this respect, we welcome the ratification of the 1961
United
Nations Convention for the reduction of statelessness by Montenegro in October 2013.
98. During our contacts with the UNHCR, we also discussed the
situation of asylum seekers. As Montenegro is becoming an attractive
country, bordering an European Union country (Croatia) and further
moving toward European Union integration, the number of asylum seekers
is on the rise (1 066 requests registered in 2013, compared to 10
in 2010). Between 2007 and 2014, more than 6 300 requests for asylum
were submitted. Eleven people were granted protection by the authorities.
An Asylum Centre with a capacity of 65 people was opened in February
2014, with a possibility of increasing the capacity to 100 people.
It should primarily host the most vulnerable asylum seekers (women,
pregnant women and children).

The
asylum system also needs to be built up by the authorities. In this
respect, we were informed by the authorities that an inter-ministerial working
group had been formed to draft a new Law on Asylum as well as secondary
legislation, and that the establishment of electronic records of
asylum seekers with basic information is planned for December 2014.

6. Conclusions
99. During our visits in July 2013, April 2014 and November
2014, we could observe the steady, pro-European commitment of Montenegro
to comply with Council of Europe standards and European Union requirements
with regard to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Montenegro
has made great progress in fulfilling its commitments and obligations.
100. We welcome the continuous efforts of the Montenegrin authorities
to further promote the fight against discrimination. We acknowledge
that a number of positive steps have been taken to secure the rights
of assembly of the LGBT community, and encourage the authorities
to pursue their awareness-raising action to increase the level of
tolerance of society. The recent amendments to the Law on the Ombudsman
should increase the competencies, capacities and financial independence
of this institution, which should strengthen the protection of human
rights. We also look forward to the improvements under preparation
in the field of the protection of minorities, which should further
consolidate the peaceful co-existence of all minorities living in Montenegro.
Continued attention still needs to be devoted to the Roma community.
101. We would like to thank the Montenegrin authorities, in co-operation
with the UNHCR and the international community, for their continuous
efforts to host and/or integrate refugees and IDPs. The revised Law
on Foreigners facilitated access to a permanent or temporary residence
permit, even though administrative and financial difficulties remain.
We therefore urge the Montenegrin authorities to continue their efforts
to assist the 3 400 IDPs and refugees who still do not have ID papers
and will be considered as illegals on Montenegrin territory by the
end of December 2014.
102. While praising the Montenegrin authorities for the progress
made, we would like to point out some essential issues that need
to be further addressed:
102.1. The
adoption of the long-awaited constitutional amendments to the judiciary
in July 2013 represents substantial progress. However, a number
of laws related to the courts, the rights and duties of judges and
the Judicial Council, the Constitutional Court and the Public Prosecution
Office still need to be amended to fully comply with all Venice
Commission recommendations and Council of Europe standards and we
will need to follow these developments. This is a prerequisite to
restore the people’s confidence in their judicial system and ensure
the independence of the judiciary. We strongly encourage the Montenegrin
authorities to continue to work closely with the Venice Commission
and take into account its recommendations.
102.2. The “working group for building trust in the election
process”, established in 2013, allowed political parties to conduct
a constructive dialogue and propose amendments to a number of important laws
pertaining to the electoral processes. We regret however that the
Venice Commission was not consulted on this important legislation.
Trust in the electoral process needs to be built at all levels, including
at the local level and more attention should be paid to the implementation
of the laws by local authorities and local politicians.
102.3. A new law on the prevention of corruption should reform
the structures in charge of combating corruption and organised crime.
We note that, as of 2016, the future Agency for the Prevention of Corruption
will have an essential role to play in controlling the implementation
of the law on the funding of political parties and in many other
fields. Its capacities ought to be strengthened. We also need to ensure
that the Special Prosecutor, whose competencies and relationship
with the (now democratically elected) State Supreme Prosecutor are
regulated in a separate law, will have all the necessary guarantees
to work in an independent way, without political interference.
102.4. In the field of the media, the setting up of the “Commission
for Monitoring Actions of Competent Authorities in the Investigation
of Cases of Threats and Violence Against Journalists, Assassinations
of Journalists and Attacks on Media Property” is an encouraging
sign and should contribute to solving a number of cases of attacks
and threats against journalists. However, this might not be sufficient
to create a media-friendly working environment. It is high time
the issue of self-regulation was addressed, to ensure that the profession
practises ethical journalism and sanctions violations of the code
of ethics of journalists.
103. To conclude, in the light of the progress made since 2012
by Montenegro, and of its renewed commitment to continuing the reform
process in the framework of the European Union accession negotiations, we
are in a position to propose the closing of the monitoring procedure
and to engage in a post-monitoring dialogue in line with
Resolution 2018 (2014), adopted in October 2014 by the Assembly. Thus, we will
require that the Montenegrin authorities complete, by the end of
2017, a series of reforms in the fields of building trust in the
electoral process, strengthening the independence of the judiciary,
enhancing the fight against corruption and organised crime and improving
the situation of the media. Should the Montenegrin authorities fail
to meet the above-mentioned commitments by the end of 2017, the
Monitoring Committee should examine whether Montenegro should be
returned to the full monitoring procedure.