Podgorica, (MINA) - An independent, professional and efficient judiciary must be recognized as a shared interest of the government, the opposition, judicial institutions and citizens, it was assessed in the analysis of the Center for Democratic Transition (CDT), as well as that no reform can be successful without clear political will and essential changes.

 

The analysis, authored by lawyer Sinisa Gazivoda, was prepared as part of the dialogue initiated by the CDT in cooperation with the Damar Institute on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Montenegro’s independence.

 

“At first glance, the comparison between the judiciary at the beginning of the reform process and today could probably be best described by the French saying “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (the more it changes, the more it stays the same)”, the analysis reads.

 

It adds that this could be said especially if the comparison is made from the point of view that is most important to citizens – length of court proceedings, trust in the judiciary, the perception of the judiciary’s resistance to corruption, political and other influence.

 

“Nevertheless, upon closer inspection, numerous extremely important changes have taken place in the reform process so far”, the document reads.

 

The analysis states that, from the declaration of Montenegro’s intention to join the EU, the acquisition of the candidate status in 2010 and the start of accession negotiations in June 2012 until today, the judicial reform has largely been planned and implemented as part of the framework of meeting the criteria for EU membership.

 

It is recalled that at that time the election of the President of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Council.

 

“A qualified majority has been introduced for the election of the Constitutional Court judges and the Supreme State Prosecutor, the composition of the Judicial Council was also changed so that the members of the Parliament of Montenegro are no longer members of the Council, while the number of distinguished lawyers elected by the Parliament by a qualified majority, has increased”, the analysis of the judicial reform reads.

 

It further notes that the election of state prosecutors, except for the Supreme State Prosecutor, has been fully transferred to the jurisdiction of the Prosecutorial Council.

 

It is estimated that the political changes that took place in the summer of 2020 and their specific consequences cannot be excluded even from the briefest contextualization of judicial reform.

 

“These changes contributed to the strengthening accountability in the system and led to several prominent judiciary representatives now being tried, some of whom had been the key figures of the judicial reform process, although the presumption of innocence still applies to all individuals whose proceedings are ongoing”, the analysis reads.

 

However, as stated, the fact that some of them moved from key positions within the judiciary and law enforcement institutions to being tried indicates tectonic upheavals and changes within the judicial sector.