Krivokapić sentenced to six months of house arrest, Pejaković acquitted of charges

Retired Chief of the Cetinje Branch for Civil Status and Personal Documents Olivera Krivokapić (66) has been sentenced to six months of house arrest, while an employee of this regional unit, Marko Pejaković (54), was acquitted of charges of abuse of office in connection with the issuance of permits for the acquisition and possession of firearms, according to a decision of the Basic Court in Cetinje.

They were charged in the case concerning the issuance of a permit for the acquisition and possession of firearms to Vuk Borilović, who on August 12, 2022, killed ten people, including two children.

Authority over the decision

As stated in the ruling published on the court’s website, Krivokapić had functional authority over the decision, the legal power to decide on the rights and obligations of the applicant, as well as the duty to ensure the legality of the procedure and the proper application of substantive law.

- The Court finds that the defendant, despite these obligations, made decisions in a situation where the legally prescribed conditions were not met - the Basic Court stated.

The evidence shows that, when issuing approval for the acquisition of firearms, as well as documents for the possession and carrying of weapons, the legally required checks under the Law on Weapons were not conducted.

- One of the general conditions for issuing approval for the acquisition of category B firearms to a natural person is that there are no circumstances indicating that the weapon could be misused, particularly the use of alcohol, drugs or other psychoactive substances, disturbed family relations, conflicts with the environment, aggressive behavior, as well as other behavioral disorders, or disciplinary violations of hunting or sport shooting regulations - the ruling states.

The same regulation, as noted, prescribes that in order to determine whether such circumstances exist, a police officer is authorized to request and collect data and information about the applicant. A formal record must be made of the collected information and submitted to the Ministry, and it must contain detailed statements supported by facts that clearly confirm its content.

- The Court particularly emphasizes that such irregularities constitute a substantive, not merely formal deviation from the law, which calls into question the very purpose and legality of the procedure. Therefore, the Court concludes that the defendant’s decisions were clearly unlawful - the statement said.

Attitude toward the offense

The Court, as stated, particularly assessed Krivokapić’s subjective attitude toward the offense and found that she acted with direct intent.

- Given her position and work experience, she had to be aware of the legal conditions for issuing approvals for the acquisition of firearms and documents for their possession and carrying. Therefore, she was aware that those conditions were not met in the specific applications. She was also aware that she was making decisions without the legally required procedure, and despite that, she chose to approve the applications – the ruling states.

When determining the type and severity of the sentence, the Court considered all mitigating and aggravating circumstances under the Criminal Code of Montenegro. As mitigating circumstances, it took into account that she is of advanced age, a family person, and previously of unblemished conduct, as confirmed by her criminal record extract, while no aggravating circumstances were found.

No authority to decide

In deciding on Pejaković, the Court stated that he held the position of independent clerk, whose duties included receiving applications, delivering documents, performing administrative tasks related to cases, and carrying out other tasks upon the instruction of a superior.

- He performed tasks related to receiving applications and administrative processing of cases, without the authority to decide on the merits of the applications or to influence the content or outcome of decisions. His role was strictly technical and operational, within a clearly defined hierarchical structure - the Basic Court in Cetinje stated.

The Court found that it was not proven that Pejaković had the authority to independently assess whether legal conditions were met, nor that he had any supervisory role regarding the legality of decisions made by his superior.

- The Court emphasizes that the criminal offense of abuse of office cannot be based on mere formal participation in an official act, but requires active or passive conduct that has a decisive impact on the occurrence of consequences. This was not proven in this case, nor can criminal liability be based on presumed actions, but rather on clearly defined authority and a concrete failure to exercise that authority - the statement concluded.