WORLD NEWS FOR MONTENEGRO DIASPORA
Choose language:
Author: M. J. Gdnus
The Police Directorate violated the right to the inviolability of physical integrity from the Constitution of Montenegro and the right to life from the European Convention on Human Rights of Nataša (35), Marko (8), and Mašan Martinović (10), who were killed by mass murderer Vuk Borilović on August 12, 2022, in Cetinje – this is the conclusion of the opinion issued by the Protector of Human Rights.
In the document signed by Deputy Ombudsman Mirjana Radović, it is stated that the Police Directorate violated the right to the inviolability of physical integrity from Article 28, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Montenegro and, by analogy, the right to life from Article 2 of the Convention, by failing to undertake preventive measures to protect the life of the daughter and grandchildren of the complainant, Vesna Pejović.
Complaint
The complainant pointed to the tragedy that struck her family, when on August 12, 2022, in the Medovina neighborhood of Cetinje, Borilović killed ten people, including her daughter Nataša and Nataša’s minor children Marko and Mašan, in their family home, and wounded six people.
She believes that the police officers did not act in a timely manner to prevent the tragedy.
“She emphasizes and firmly claims that the allegations that the killer was armed to the teeth were never investigated, nor were any steps taken to disarm him, or to determine who should have done so. She questions who is responsible for the fact that he had weapons legally in his possession, who allowed him to obtain them, and why. She states that she and her husband had further knowledge related to this tragedy, and that they are aware – considering the fact that on that day, members of the Intervention Unit from Nikšić, who were stationed in front of the Cetinje Monastery, refused to assist one of the wounded victims – that they still haven’t received that footage.
She adds that the police did not react adequately, because if they had, at least the number of victims would have been smaller, that their response was slow and disorganized, and that she never received information about all the omissions made by the acting police officers and command staff, which were evidently made, as the perpetrator had enough time to carry out a massacre of unimaginable proportions,” the document states.
Pejović further emphasizes in her complaint that every attempt to conceal the truth feels like she is losing her loved ones all over again.
“She believes that the Prosecutor’s Office did not conduct an effective investigation, nor did it establish all the circumstances that led to this tragedy, and that she and her husband had additional knowledge that was not investigated, and that not all the evidence was collected, including the audio recording of the final minutes of her daughter’s and grandchildren’s lives,” the document continues.
Regulatory Framework
The Ombudsman’s Office clarified that the right to life under the Convention contains two material obligations – a general obligation to protect the right to life by law and to prohibit intentional deprivation of life, limited by a list of exceptions.
This article also contains a procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation into alleged violations of its material aspect. In a broader sense, this positive obligation has two aspects:
(a) the duty to provide a regulatory framework and
(b) the duty to undertake preventive operational measures.
For this reason, the Ombudsman examined the complaint from the aspect of the right to life, as part of the right to psychological and physical integrity protected under Article 28 of the Constitution of Montenegro and, analogously, Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to the actions of the Police Directorate and the State Prosecutor’s Office.
They explained that their assessment is based on whether the Police Directorate acted in accordance with the requirements of the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention – specifically, whether the duty to provide a regulatory framework and the duty to take preventive operational measures were fulfilled, i.e., whether the Police Directorate did everything that could reasonably have been expected to avoid a real and immediate risk to the lives of the victims that it knew or should have known about.
They established that a regulatory framework, in terms of the right to life, exists.
However, in undertaking preventive measures, the Ombudsman’s Office identified failures.
