MONTENEGRO 113

A policeman maintains order during a pro-independence rally in Podgorica, ahead of the 21 May 2006 referendum in the Republic of Montenegro. © OSCE/Gunnarsdottir

The dominating issue in Montenegro Expectations that Montenegrin author- in 2006 was the country’s future status - ities would channel their energies to long- independence from the union with Serbia, awaited reforms after the status issue was an issue that diverted attention from ur- solved were not fulfilled. Although the gen- gently needed reforms in many sectors of eral and local elections again required public life such as the economy, the judi- much attention, the slow pace of other po- cial system, and social security. In addition, litical processes relating to human rights authorities failed to make decisive efforts protection was unreasonable and unjusti- to fight widespread organized crime and fied. In the same vein, the formation of the corruption. new government was prolonged and the The international community, and es- process of creating a new constitution for pecially the European Union (EU) and the Montenegro was slowed down. Council of Europe’s Venice Commission The slow progress made in the estab- were involved in the decision-making lishment of new institutions and the adop- process over Montenegro’s status. The ref- tion of a new constitution was partly attrib- erendum held on 21 May favored inde- utable to the fact that most opposition par- pendence, a decision that was confirmed ties that had promoted the idea of a joint by a declaration passed by the parliament state with Serbia did not formally recognize on 3 June.1 The newly re-established state the results of the referendum and embar- became a member of the OSCE, the UN ked to obstruct the reorganization process. and other international intergovernmental Some of them, for example the Serbian organizations, which gave Montenegrin au- People’s Party and the part of the opposi- thorities new, full competences, but also tion that still followed the “Greater Serbia” responsibilities with regard to human rights project, openly proclaimed that they still protection. aimed at making Montenegro part of a

This chapter was researched and written by the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee (MHC). 114 MONTENEGRO union with Serbia. All opposition parties, claimed that resources of Montenegrin however, later participated in the general state institutions were used to promote and local elections. the pro-independence campaign. While in the pre-referendum era Serbia was in many ways directly involved in the Elections governing of Montenegro, its strategy after The 10 September parliamentary and independence was - as defined by Serbia’s local elections enjoyed a special character new constitution - that as the “mother in that the parliament elected was respon- state” of all Serbs its obligation was to take sible for adopting the constitution of the care of Serbs no matter where they lived. independent Montenegro. According to This attitude went so far as to make some observers (including the Montenegrin Hel- Serbian politicians promise to grant Serbian sinki Committee, MHC) the elections were citizenship to all Montenegrin citizens who held in a democratic atmosphere and declared themselves Serbs. without significant irregularities. However, some legal provisions of Referendum and elections election legislation were not in compliance Referendum with international standards: for example, On 21 May a referendum on the sta- as the voters only voted for a party list, not tus of Montenegro was held. It was partly an individual candidate, the law allowed based on the Law on Referendum on Sta- party leaders to select their deputies for te and Legal Status of the Republic of parliament. The victor of the elections was the co- Montenegro, which prescribed a threshold alition of the Democratic Party of Socialists of 55% of all valid votes as the qualified and the Social Democratic Party, who won majority necessary for a decision to re-es- the absolute majority. The coalition gov- tablish independence and to be recog- ernment formed later included also other nized by the international community. The parties, for example parties promoting the law was an outcome of the international rights of ethnic Albanians and Croatians. community’s cooperation. Independence was established with a Torture, ill-treatment and police narrow margin of 55.5% of the vote, while misconduct 44.5% voted against it. According to both local and interna- The MHC received many reports of al- tional observers, the referendum process leged torture or other inhuman or degrad- was carried out in a peaceful, correct and ing treatment or punishment. democratic manner, and generally accord- ◆ In the most prominent case, a group ing to international standards; the minor ir- of 14 ethnic Albanians were arrested on 9 regularities reported did not influence the September during a police operation result. The only notable issue that was crit- called “Eagle’s Flight” and charged with icized by many was the 55-percent thresh- criminal association, terrorism and illegal old demanded by the EU, a requirement possession of weapons and explosive ma- that had never been applied to any other terials. Later, two of them were released elections in Europe. While the proponents but at the same time another two Alba- of independence charged Serbia - and par- nians were arrested for the same activities. ticularly the Serbian army’s secret service At a press conference to announce the ar- and the Serbian Orthodox Church - with il- rests police made a show of weapons and legitimate interference in the election cam- explosive materials allegedly discovered paign, the opponents of independence during the operation. The incident gained

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OSCE REGION IHF REPORT 2007 MONTENEGRO 115 considerable media coverage due to its vic in November publicly declared that his timing just ahead of the general election, policy of favoring the Serbian Orthodox and therefore had important political impli- Church lie in his “obligation” to respect the cations. The MHC, which investigated the internal rules of that church. case after being alerted three hours after the arrests, established that the police had Intentional destruction of cultural used disproportional and illegal force heritage3 against some of the arrested persons and Intentional destruction of cultural her- their family members, and at least a num- itage and the absence of governmental re- ber of them during arrest and investigation. action to prevent this was part of the gov- The detainees demanded an independent ernment’s policy vis-à-vis religions. The investigation into their case, however, only long-standing problem of preservation of an internal police investigation was initiat- tangible and intangible cultural heritage - ed and that happened only after the case much of which was related to Montenegrin had garnered international attention. The religious sites and traditions - persisted prosecutor then also paid interest in the and the new government showed no ca- case - the process was pending at year’s pacity or political will to solve it. end. The police insisted that they had used The issue of systematic and deliberate legal force. destruction of Montenegrin cultural her- itage dates back to early 1990s. Since Freedom of religion and the right to then, for example, the archeological sites cultural heritage of Doclea, Martinicka Gradina, and Zlatica - The right to freedom of religion or be- all of major importance to Montenegrin lief continued to be violated. Both legal culture - have been largely destroyed, and regulations and practices fell short of inter- the Serbian Orthodox Church has contin- national standards, and the situation wors- ued to gain sole ownership rights of some ened toward the end of 2006, after the re- church buildings from the early Christian establishment of independence. period without solid legal and cultural ba- The Law on Legal Position of Religious sis for property rights. The most serious Communities adopted in 1977 (during the case, however, was the damage caused by communist era) was not in line with inter- a Serbian army helicopter to an unex- national standards. In addition, the author- plored archeological site on the top of the ities continued to grant the Serbian Ortho- Rumija mountain in June 2005 and the dox Church a privileged status reminiscent erection of a Serbian Orthodox church of that of an official state church, citing its building on the site - both acts violated na- “special legal status” but failing to point out tional and international law (including UN- on which provisions such status was based ESCO conventions) and were perceived as on. Other religious communities, particu- serious insults by Montenegrins against larly the Montenegrin Orthodox Church their cultural heritage. While there was an and its priests and believers, were in a official decision from a government agency clearly discriminatory position.2 This special to remove the Serbian church building, the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church was decision was not implemented. reflected in all sectors of life, including in According to the MHC, the Serbian legal cases in which it was involved: judg- Orthodox Church in Montenegro, and pos- ments against the church were not execut- sibly also official Serbian governmental ed while those in its favor were. What is bodies, were involved in many incidents of more, Montenegrin president Filip Vujano- destruction of cultural heritage, with the in-

IHF REPORT 2007 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OSCE REGION 116 MONTENEGRO tention of destroying evidence of the his- ipation in the so-called Herceg Novi case. toric continuity of Montenegrin traditions The case dates back to 1991 when at least and identity and an attempt of forced as- 83 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, similation of Montenegrins into Serbian 49 of them Muslims, were forcibly re- culture. turned by Montenegro to a region in Bos- nia controlled by Radovan Karadcic’s International humanitarian law troops. Most of the returned Muslims were On a positive note, the chief prosecu- reportedly killed. The investigation into the tor of the International Criminal Tribunal for case was still ongoing at year’s end and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Carla Del there was criticism that progress was in- Ponte stated that Montenegrin officials’ co- tentionally obstructed by Montenegrin au- operation with the tribunal was satisfactory thorities. A number of family members of in 2006. In addition, some progress was the deported persons initiated civil pro- made in cooperation with the neighboring ceedings for compensation for damage. countries, particularly with Croatia, in pros- While some first instance decisions were ecuting war crimes due to an agreement reached in 2006, no final sentences were between chief state prosecutors to pursue pronounced and criticism was voiced that such cases in national courts. Neverthe- these trials were unreasonably prolonged. less, while several war crime trials contin- The so-called Kaludjerski Laz case in- ued during the year, Montenegro failed to volved the killing between March and May completely fulfill its obligations to investi- 1999 of 20 Albanian civilians in Kaludjerski gate war crimes and indict their perpetra- Laz, some of them while crossing the bor- tors in national courts. der between Kosovo and Montenegro. The ◆ The state prosecutor brought criminal civil proceedings for compensation were at charges against six persons who were an initial stage and, pending police investi- high-ranking Montenegrin police officers in gation, no decision was met by the end of the 1990s because of their alleged partic- 2006 on possible criminal proceeding.

SOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: ➧ Montenegrin Helsinki Committee, e-mail: [email protected]

Other organizations: ➧ Center for Monitoring (CEMI), at www.cemi.cg.yu ➧ Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM), at www.cedem.cg.yu ➧ Center for Democratic Transition (CDT), www.cdt.org ➧ Amnesty International, at www.amnesty.org

Endnotes 1 Decision on Proclamation of Independence of the Republic of Montenegro and the Declaration of the Independent Republic of Montenegro. 2 The privileged status of the Serbian Orthodox Church dates back to 1920 when Aleksandar Karadjordjevic, by a decree, established this church from many independ-

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OSCE REGION IHF REPORT 2007 MONTENEGRO 117

ent Orthodox Churches, among which was the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. In 1993, Montenegrin Orthodox believers re-established the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, but all church building and other property officially remained in the possession of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Members of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church still cannot access the churches that once belonged to them. 3 For details on this issue, see IHF, Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2006 (Events of 2005), at www.ihf-hr.org/documents/ doc_summary.php? sec_id=3&d_id=4255.

IHF REPORT 2007 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OSCE REGION