State „omertà“ over prosecutorial manipulation of Sky messages
The Special State Prosecutor’s Office remained silent for days, and the SSPO spokesperson refused to answer an ETV journalist’s question regarding the case of identical inserted 12 sentences appearing in multiple indictments. The Prosecutorial Council claims that it is not within its competence to review the work of prosecutors. Lawyer Marko Radović points out that he has encountered in practice the so-called transfer of messages from one case to another, while security analyst Nikola Janjušević emphasizes that the Special State Prosecutor’s Office should have provided an official response or public explanation following investigative reports by Television E.
While finishing his speech before journalists, satisfied with the conviction of Vesna and Miloš Medenica, Special Prosecutor Vukas Radonjić was still taken aback when an ETV journalist tried to ask him about the manipulation of Sky messages.
ESCAPE FROM ANSWERS
„Can you tell us about the 12 sentences from Sky…“ The journalist didn’t finish the sentence, as Radonjić shook his head, turned his back, and quickly walked away.
Obviously, as soon as he heard the number 12, the spokesperson of the Special Prosecutor’s Office knew that he should avoid the Television E journalist. As everyone in the Special State Prosecutor’s Office is avoiding answering questions from our media outlet for days about possible prosecutorial abuses in the case of investigations and indictments against Podgorica businessman Aleksandar Mijajlović.
In several investigative reports, the journalistic team of Television E revealed that special prosecutors used identical 12 sentences in three prosecutorial acts and two investigations - cocaine smuggling and cigarette trafficking from Ecuador.
Comparative analysis also revealed that special prosecutors or investigators from the Special Police Department arbitrarily changed nicknames, that is, the identities of people who conducted Sky correspondence. At the same time, the investigation showed that the Europol intelligence document was altered to redirect the indictment toward Podgorica businessman Mijajlović, as well as some other people targeted by the SSPO.
The prosecutorial silence in response to official inquiries from ETV and the avoidance of direct questions further raises suspicion that there were manipulations of Sky messages, and thus an abuse of official authority.
JANJUŠEVIĆ: THE SSPO MUST EXPLAIN
-I think the Special State Prosecutor’s Office must answer these questions and state in its announcement whether the claims of the journalistic investigation are true and, if they are not true, explain how they appeared both in the Order to Conduct the Investigation and in another indictment. Also, why are illogicalities, errors, and omissions - said security analyst and former assistant director of the police, Nikola Janjušević.
It cannot be ruled out that, in this specific case it is not about mistakes but about a clear motive of special prosecutors – that in cases where they do not have solid evidence against persons they label as organizers of criminal groups, they are ready to create evidence themselves by altering existing ones, just as they did in the cases against businessman Aleksandar Mijajlović.
Janjušević notes that ETV, in its investigative series, precisely explained how the same 12 Sky messages were repeated in different indictments.
- All of this can be an oversight, a mistake, but it can also be - intent. It is definitely impossible to connect two different cases in this way, Sky communication about cocaine smuggling from Ecuador, and identical Sky communication related to cocaine smuggling, also from Ecuador - says Janjušević.
REPETITION OF INSERTED SKY MESSAGES
Lawyer Marko Radović notes that, based on his experience, this is not the first time that the same messages have appeared in different cases.
- It is known to me, as a defense lawyer in numerous cases where indictments are based on Sky material that - similar things happen. I cannot say identical, but I am the defense counsel of a defendant who experienced a situation where the same messages – not the same set of messages, but literally the same two messages – were used as evidence for four criminal offenses in two criminal proceedings - Radović emphasizes.
He notes that in another case, when the indictment was under review, he tried to problematize the issue of identical Sky messages in different cases – but without results.
PROSECUTORIAL COUNCIL AND SUPREME COURT WITHOUT COMMENT
In response to an inquiry from Television E, the Prosecutorial Council briefly stated that they do not deal with reviewing prosecutorial work in that way. They emphasized that, we quote, “they derive their powers through mechanisms of disciplinary and ethical responsibility, as well as giving opinions on complaints about the work of state prosecutors.”
The Supreme Court also did not feel the need to reconsider the decision to extend Mijajlović’s detention, based on an indictment in which Sky messages from another prosecutorial case were inserted.
ETV informed EUROPOL about the conduct of special prosecutors, but this police organization told us that it is not within their jurisdiction to comment on possible abuses of operational data.
RADOVIĆ: RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGES
Legal experts remind that prosecutors, just like lawyers, are only a party in the proceedings and that in such cases responsibility also lies with the judges of the High Court, who, according to them, too easily confirm even disputed indictments.
- I see the problem precisely in the fact that the court, through its conduct, in a sense affirms such conduct of the prosecution. The problem is that until the trial, that is, the presentation of Sky material as evidence at the main hearing, you literally have a situation where courts almost do not read that communication, accepting everything that the prosecution states as evidence derived from Sky?! Detentions are ordered, reasonable suspicion is accepted both in the procedure of ordering and later in the procedure of extending detention - Radović points out.
Janjušević also emphasizes that judicial confirmation is of the greatest importance for the credibility of the process.
- Confirmation of an indictment is a very important institution in criminal law. So far, it has been done lightly in some cases. I hope that in the coming period judges will read indictments much more seriously, if we want the rule of law and fair proceedings - Janjušević concludes.
However, questions of responsibility – or rather irresponsibility – will, it seems, continue to be raised only by journalists, independent lawyers, and independent experts, because this case is just another confirmation that functions and positions are more important than the rule of law and respect for human rights and freedoms.
The ETV team will continue to investigate and publish evidence that may, perhaps, help them to see clearly.