Acting on the complaint regarding the violation of Principle III of the Journalists' Code and the non-publication of a response to the article “Young man suspected of raping a dog,” published on 2 April 2025 on the Pobjeda portal, the Complaints Commission of the Media Council for Self-Regulation issues the following decision:
The Complaints Commission, upon reviewing the case, determined that in this particular case there was no violation of the right to correction and response, in accordance with the Journalists' Code and the Media Law. Principle 3.1 of the Journalists' Code prescribes the obligation of the media to respect and ensure the right to correction and response in line with legal regulations, guaranteeing the protection of individuals’ rights to compensation for damages caused by the publication of incorrect or incomplete information. Article 65 of the Media Law precisely defines the circumstances under which the media are not obliged to publish a correction or response, including situations where the requester fails to provide necessary identification data, such as full name, address, ID card number, or the name and seat of a legal entity. This legal framework aims to prevent abuse of the right to correction and response and to ensure that media publish corrections and responses only when conditions for source verification are met.
The Journalists' Code and the Media Law clearly prescribe the conditions and procedures for exercising the right to correction and response, requiring the media to act in accordance with the principles of professional responsibility and editorial diligence. Publishing corrections and responses from unidentified or anonymous submitters would be contrary to fundamental principles of journalistic ethics and could jeopardize the media's credibility and legal certainty for all parties involved.
Media outlets are obligated, in order to preserve the integrity of information and protect the rights of all participants in public communication, to ensure that sources of information are reliable and identified, thus guaranteeing the accuracy and credibility of published content.
Explanation
The Media Council for Self-Regulation received an anonymous complaint from a citizen of Cetinje because she was not allowed to publish a response to the article “Young man suspected of raping a dog,” which was published on the Pobjeda portal on 2 April of this year. The Media Council knows the complainant’s full name but will not disclose it due to her request for anonymity.
The complaint states, among other things:
“Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing regarding the inaccurate article published on the Pobjeda portal on 02.04 about a young man from Cetinje. The article is unverified, contains false information and very harsh epithets that have nothing to do with the truth and are unsupported by evidence.
I do not know who is behind the article, as it is unsigned, nor where they got the information, but in any case, this cannot be a journalist, but someone lacking humanity who did not verify or hear statements from all sides, services on both ends, and the family, and insults the profession of true journalists.
Since the Center for Social Work of the Cetinje Municipality and the Cetinje Police did not find it appropriate to deny these untruths, I feel the need and have a moral and human obligation to tell the real truth.
I am the person who witnessed and recorded the video. There is no 'monstrous act,' 'rape,' or 'abuse' of the animal in the footage. I decided to write an email to Pobjeda's editorial office from a fake profile upon the Police’s recommendation, because I want to remain anonymous so I wouldn’t receive threatening messages on social networks and become a target of various people hiding behind fake names and associations.
On 05.04, I wrote extensively to Pobjeda's editorial office at
The Media Council for Self-Regulation contacted Pobjeda’s editorial office for a statement regarding this complaint. Pobjeda’s response is quoted in full:
“In response to the anonymous citizen who claims to be the author of the footage submitted to competent authorities, Pobjeda replies that anonymous reactions cannot be published. On 5 April, Pobjeda received an unsigned email from
Since in journalism we must be guided by facts, the Media Law, and the Journalists' Ethical Code, we believe we were not obliged to publish this reaction for several reasons.
The first is anonymity.
The second is that Pobjeda did not publish any sentence that this reaction denies or disputes.
The third is that publishing such a reaction alone would lead to a violation of the law and the code. What citizens can say or think can be published in the media to clarify a situation may represent a problem for journalists and lead them into unethical conduct.
Such a reaction additionally targets the person who, according to Pobjeda's sources, was suspected of committing the criminal offense of animal abuse. Pobjeda did not publish any personal data—no name, surname, initials, address, health status, or anything that would indicate the suspect who was reported by submitting the controversial footage to authorities. Respecting professional and ethical journalistic standards, we find that publishing such a reaction would violate them.
If there are provisions in the Media Law or the Journalists' Ethical Code of Montenegro that would oblige us to publish such a reaction, please point them out and explain so that we may continue to perform our work professionally and ethically. We believe that what the person sending the complaint considers her moral and human obligation cannot be published by Pobjeda, as we are obliged to report on events important to the public, such as potential criminal acts, not on personal feelings someone owes to another.
We consider that Pobjeda was not obliged to publish this complaint related solely to the right to publish a reaction for the stated reasons. Explanation of other qualifications given in this reaction goes beyond the scope of this complaint.”
When reviewing this complaint, the Commission considered the complainant's position and Pobjeda’s editorial stance. The Complaints Commission was already familiar with the context of the events in Cetinje and the text published by Pobjeda from a previous complaint.
Regarding the publication of corrections and responses, both the Journalists' Code and the Media Law are very clear. Principle 3.1 of the Journalists' Code states: “All media must respect and ensure the application of the right to correction and the right to reply in accordance with the law…”
Article 65 of the Media Law, which defines the publication of corrections and responses, specifies cases when the media are not obliged to publish a correction or response. Among others, paragraph 6 states: “The media is not obliged to publish a correction or response if the person submitting the request has not provided their full name, surname, address, or ID card number, or the name or seat of the legal entity.”
Therefore, the law and the Code are very clear regarding publishing corrections and responses to certain media texts. Moreover, media would behave irresponsibly if they published texts from unknown persons or unknown sources. To publish verified and accurate information, the media must know the source of the information.
Based on all the above, the Complaints Commission concluded that in this case there was no violation of the Code principle relating to the publication of corrections and responses.
Complaints and Monitoring Commission:
Aneta Spaić
Sonja Drobac
Danilo Burzan
Branko Vojičić
Ranko Vujović
