Podgorica, (MINA) – Milos Medenica, convicted in the first instance, did not escape due to the actions of the Police Administration, but because of ineffective legislation, said Chief of Police Lazar Scepanovic, adding that all individuals who had contact with Medenica in late January have been identified.

Scepanovic made these remarks at the joint session of the Security and Defense Committee and the Political System, Judiciary and Administration Committee, which held a joint control hearing of Scepanovic, Minister of Internal Affairs Danilo Saranovic and Minister of Justice Bojan Bozovic.

The National Security Agency (ANB) representative Sanja Raicevic attended the session instead of director Ivica Janovic, while Podgorica High Court President Zoran Radovic did not attend the hearing.

Scepanovic assessed that the Judicial Council should initiate disciplinary proceedings, against Radovic over the statements made in a TV show, in which Radovic said that Scepanovic should be banned from interpreting the law and legal norms.

He said that supervision measures are not custody nor a punishment, and that violating it does not constitute a criminal offense or a misdemeanor.

“Nor does it have any consequences from the aspect of police authority when a person is found in violation of that measure”, stated Scepanovic, adding that the role of the police is to monitor compliance and inform the court.

He said that nearly 90 individuals were released because courts failed to deliver first-instance verdicts, stating that failure to deliver verdicts within legal deadlines is a violation of the law.

“Milos Medenica did not flee because of the Police Administration, this person violated the supervision measure and escaped due to ineffective legislation”, Scepanovic claims.

He said that the official forensic analysis carried out by the Police Administration determined that the videos in which Medenica addresses the public were AI generated.

According to Scepanovic, the police conducted 15 periodic checks, and each time found Medenica in his place of residence.

“If there was a procedural flight risk, the court could have immediately ordered the police to act invasively including 24-hour surveillance, with clearly defined tasks”, Scepanovic said.

He further added that all individuals that were in contact with Medenica on 27 and 28 January were identified and that their names were submitted to the prosecution.

When asked if these individuals were brought in, he responded that those identified were brought in and interviewed. 

“There were two phases of assistance, the first was has been disclosed, while in the second he was assisted by members of an organzied criminal group”, said Scepanovic.

Speaking about Serbia’s failure to extradite Svetozar Marovic to Montenegro, Scepanovic claims that a senior official of the Serbian Government told him during a symposium that Marovic’s non-extradition was a result of a political agreement between the two countries.

“If this is denied, I will disclosed the name of the person who told me that this was an agreement between high-profile decision-makers not to extradite Marovic to Montenegro”, said Scepanovic.

Minister Saranovic said that they repeatedly indicated the need of amending the outdated Criminal Procedure Code, stating that the Police Administration recorded 351 violations of surveillance measures and duly notified courts, but that court reacted only in four cases.

He noted that some judges deliver verdicts within six months, while others fail to do so in three years.

“Three years is 36 months, and if the first-instance verdict against Medenica had been handed down in the 36th month, he would be in the Directorate for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (UIKS) now”, said Saranovic.

Minister Bozovic said that at the initiative of the Bureau for Operational Coordination of Intelligence and Security Sector, through the work of the working group tasked with drafting the amendments to the Criminal Code, they proposed the introduction of a new criminal offense “Violation of Surveillance Measures”.

“Given that the new criminal offense raised certain skepticism among criminal law experts who believed it should not be a separate criminal offense, we decided that it should remain a draft, and seek an opinion from the European Commission (EC) experts”, said Bozovic.