Amnesty and pardon have so far not been approached in a sufficiently serious and systematic manner, despite the fact that these institutions carry a strong political connotation. Despite frequent promises made during election years, there is a lack of clear and consistent political will to initiate a substantive reform of the amnesty and pardon system.

These were the key messages from a panel organized as part of our conference “From Mass Releases to Targeted Interventions – Amnesty and Pardon in Montenegro.”

Professor of Criminal Law, Prof. Dr. Vesna Ratković, pointed out that information systems in the field of the judiciary have serious shortcomings when it comes to data extraction and accessibility.

“This is not merely a methodological difficulty, but an established practice in which statistical data and their availability practically do not exist, despite the process of digitalization,” Ratković said.

Speaking about amnesty, Ratković emphasized that it is a collective measure with extensive effects, which as a rule applies to a large number of persons.

“By contrast, the act of pardon is an individual, reconstructive administrative act, which does not affect only the person who is pardoned, but also has broader social implications,” Ratković explained.

She stressed that the pardon procedure is not judicial but administrative, and that courts do not participate in this process; rather, it is conducted by the Ministry of Justice.

In her view, “the courts complete their role by issuing a final judgment, and their additional involvement in the pardon procedure would represent an unnecessary administrative burden.”

“In my opinion, this is a task for the Ministry of Justice,” she stated.

Ratković reminded that pardon is a discretionary right of the President of the state, based on the principle of expediency, that is, an assessment of appropriateness and the existence of conditions for granting a pardon, and that the legal and political aspects of this institution cannot be observed separately.

“Both amnesty and pardon have a strong political connotation, where the ‘beneficiaries’ are not only those who receive amnesty or pardon, but also those who make these decisions,” Ratković emphasized.

She assessed that both institutions should be applied very restrictively.

She also pointed out that expectations and reminders from convicted persons regarding previous promises are already appearing in the public sphere, and that although the current proposal for amnesty has not been adopted, it is not excluded that a new one will soon be prepared.

Legal Advisor to the President of Montenegro, Ivan Šikmanović, stated that under the Constitution, the President of Montenegro is competent to grant pardons.

“In the reporting period, what is noticeable is an increase in the number of applications for pardon,” Šikmanović said, recalling that President Milatović assumed office on May 21, 2023.

He noted that over the past two and a half years, a total of 134 applications for pardon have been submitted, of which 124 were rejected, ten were approved, and six applications are currently under consideration.

“In the first phase, the Ministry of Justice receives and processes applications in accordance with Article 11 of the Law on Pardon, and is obliged to obtain all relevant information that may be significant for decision-making,” Šikmanović recalled.

As he explained, this includes data on committed criminal offenses, imposed sentences, final judgments, as well as social and other circumstances related to the applicants.

“After analyzing and evaluating all collected information, the Minister of Justice submits a proposed decision to the President of Montenegro, together with complete documentation, which is then considered by the President’s Cabinet,” Šikmanović said.

He explained that once the application is received by the President’s Cabinet, an authorized official verifies its completeness and formal correctness, and if necessary, additional clarifications or documentation are requested through official communication with the Ministry of Justice.

Šikmanović emphasized that the next step is the consideration of the application by a commission that was recently formally established within the President’s Cabinet.

“The commission consists of the Head of the President’s Service and several advisors from areas that may be relevant for decision-making in specific cases. The commission reviews all aspects of the application based on the information provided by the Ministry of Justice and gives its opinion to the President, who ultimately makes the final decision,” Šikmanović explained.

CEGAS representative Boris Marić said that he has the impression that the systems of amnesty and pardon “have not been addressed seriously or systematically enough, and that there is no clear political will to enter into reform of this process.”

Marić assessed that in practice, amnesty laws are adopted too frequently and without a strategic approach, while the pardon procedure has been weakened by excluding the role of courts, thereby disrupting constitutional balance and further burdening the perception of judicial independence.

“When amnesty or pardon procedures are initiated, there are almost no adequate explanations as to why the process is being launched, whether systemically or in individual cases, which seriously undermines public trust,” Marić said.

According to him, greater transparency of procedures, especially through clear and publicly available explanations of decisions, could significantly contribute to strengthening citizens’ trust in institutions.

“One of the first measures that could be introduced, although it is currently not provided for by law, is to make pardon requests publicly available. This would significantly enhance the transparency of the process,” Marić said.

He warned that an increase in pardon requests is recorded ahead of election cycles, which indicates a belief that the political context can influence the outcome of such procedures, and that preventive action is therefore necessary.

“The linkage of legal institutions must be clear and consistent. Commuting a short prison sentence into a suspended sentence may be an acceptable solution, but only with a complete, precise, and publicly available explanation,” Marić concluded.

Attorney Veselin Radulović reminded that the institutions of amnesty and pardon are most often viewed as expressions of state mercy toward convicted or accused persons, but warned that such “corrections of law,” coming from other branches of government, inevitably leave consequences on the work of those who rendered judgments in these cases—both judges and prosecutors.

“In a situation where there is an extremely lenient penal policy, combined with frequent adoption of amnesty laws and a significant number of pardon decisions, an impression is created that the state’s response to crime is not what it should be,” Radulović said.

He assessed that such an environment is the result of political decisions, and that responsibility lies primarily with decision-makers, because “convicted persons already count, at the moment the sentence is imposed, on the fact that the punishment will not be final and that they will not serve it in full.”

As he explained, there is an assumption that the sentence will be converted into conditional release, shortened by one third due to good behavior in prison—which, according to him, happens almost regularly in practice—and then followed by expectations that Parliament will adopt a new amnesty law, further reducing the sentence by 20 to 25 percent.

“When all these factors are added together, especially in cases of organized crime and corruption, the conclusion is that even a formally lenient penal policy is not actually implemented in full, but that sentences are significantly reduced and mitigated, which, in my assessment, never produces good effects,” Radulović stated.

Such practice, he concluded, leaves a strong impression in the public that the efforts of the judiciary are being undermined and that the message of the fight against crime is being relativized.

Journalist Zoran Radulović pointed out that the issue of amnesty is addressed less today than before, and that statistics themselves indicate a certain stagnation, but without clear explanations.

“Whether this is due to a lack of candidates or the absence of complete records. Precisely for this reason, it is not possible to compare who was pardoned and who was not, how many repeat

offenders are among those amnestied, nor to assess the real effects of such decisions,” Radulović said.

“It is particularly problematic that in Montenegro, individuals convicted of serious criminal offenses have been pardoned—from bribery and police violence, through organizing cigarette smuggling, to violence against women—during periods when institutions publicly declared a fight against organized crime, corruption, and gender-based violence,” he said.

“When individual cases are examined, it becomes clear that the issue of amnesty is far more complex and substantive than what mere statistics show,” Radulović emphasized, adding that precisely these cases opened space for serious investigative journalism stories, but without visible social impact.

Speaking about the role of the media, Radulović concluded that they can play a significant role, but can also have a negative effect if these topics are misused by reducing them to daily political issues rather than matters of public interest, which, in his assessment, is a frequent practice.

The conference is part of the project “Support to Montenegro’s EU Integration – for an Independent and Professional Judiciary as a Key Prerequisite!”, implemented in cooperation with the Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) and the Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS), funded by the European Union and co-financed by the Ministry of Public Administration of Montenegro.