TWO COURT VERDICTS, SAME INCIDENT, OPPOSITE EPILOGUES

While the Basic Court in Berane acquitted Danko Femić, despite his own admission that he confiscated the cameras and demanded the deletion of the photos, the same court a day later sentenced Nikola Raičević and Milić Ralević to six months of house arrest each for the identical crime: coercion to the detriment of the photojournalist Pejović. Diametrically opposed court conclusions about what constitutes a criminal act of coercion and how punishable that act is, undoubtedly send confusing signals about the principles of dispensing justice.

This kind of legal inconsistency is not only a procedural failure, but it can undermine public confidence in the judiciary and send the message that the protection of journalists depends on chance, not on the rule of law.

Montenegro is in the final phase of negotiations on accession to the European Union. Chapters 23 and 24, which cover the rule of law, freedom of expression and protection of fundamental rights, represent the core of that process and are the subject of the most intense European scrutiny. The European Commission and the relevant EU institutions consistently emphasize that measurable results in the area of ​​safety of journalists and the prosecution of attacks on media workers are not a recommendation, but one of the main conditions.

In this context, the outcome in the Femić case is not only a "domestic" judicial problem. It is a visible signal to Brussels about how truly capable and willing Montenegrin institutions are to protect media freedom. The European Commission's annual reports on Montenegro have been recording concerns about impunity in cases of attacks on journalists for years.

Media freedom is not a peripheral issue in the process of European integration. Press freedom indices, which are carefully monitored by European institutions, measure exactly these outcomes - whether attackers of journalists are held accountable in court, whether prosecutions prosecute decisively, whether institutions protect or passively observe.

The Media Council especially draws attention to several aspects that remain without an adequate institutional response.

The trial in the Raičević-Ralević case was marked by a series of delays due to the absence of the accused and their lawyers, as well as requests for the judge's disqualification. Such a pattern must be the subject of a systemic response by the prosecution and the courts, not tolerance.

From the testimony of the journalists before the court, it is confirmed that they worked legally and without any formal ban on photography, and that the clergy they approached in order to calm the situation, were not willing to intervene. The question of the responsibility of those who used the atmosphere to legitimize violence remains an open question, which, it seems, was not the subject of a serious investigation.

Three journalists testified that two police officers in plainclothes were present during the entire incident and did not take any action. This dimension of the case remains institutionally unillumined and unexplained.

The Media Council for Self-Regulation calls on the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Berane to consider all available legal mechanisms in the Femić case, including an appeal against the acquittal. We invite the Supreme State Prosecutor to review the systematic pattern of prosecuting attacks on journalists. We invite the Judicial Council to seriously address the issue of consistency in the application of law in cases concerning media freedom.

Montenegro cannot at the same time express commitment to European values ​​and tolerate an environment in which journalists are physically attacked while performing work of public interest, and their attackers remain without adequate legal sanctions.

Media Council for Self-Regulation