Olivera Krivokapić, the former head of the Cetinje Branch for Administrative and Internal Affairs, has raised concerns about why the Cetinje police did not alert the prosecutor’s office regarding Vuk Borilović’s possession of firearms.

Krivokapić’s comments come in response to an indictment from the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office (ODT) in Cetinje against her.

On March 11, the Cetinje Basic State Prosecutor’s Office announced that they filed charges in relation to the mass shooting that occurred in the Medovina neighborhood in 2022 against Krivokapić, who was responsible for overseeing administrative proceedings, for failing to fulfill her duties properly.

On August 12, 2022, Vuk Borilović killed ten individuals, including two children, and injured six others before he was killed.

According to the ODT, the allegations of negligence stem from the “failure to initiate administrative actions to confiscate weapons from an individual, V.B., from Cetinje, in accordance with the Law on Weapons.”

“These are serious issues that cannot be overlooked. Thus far, no one has demanded answers, likely assuming, as I did, that the Cetinje prosecutor’s office and police would conduct their duties diligently and responsibly,” remarked Krivokapić.

“I question why the prosecution, which I learned received notification that the Cetinje Police Department had been issued a verdict involving Vuk Borilović, did not investigate whether the police forwarded this to the Administrative Affairs, Citizenship, and Foreigners Branch, and if not, why? If a search warrant was issued, was it executed or did it end up ignored? If the possible search did not uncover the weapon known to be in Borilović’s possession, did they explore whether it might have been hidden?” she continued.

She further inquired why the prosecution did not seek Borilović’s detention, particularly in instances of violent behavior where the risk of reoffending exists.

“Why was there no investigation into Vuk Borilović’s weapons ownership? Why did the Cetinje Police not inform the prosecution? Why did they fail to provide legally required data to the Administrative Affairs, Citizenship and Foreigners Branch, especially knowing an official note needed to be submitted detailing potential misuse of weapons?” said Krivokapić.

She testified that both the prosecution and the Cetinje Military Police have carried out searches and seized firearms even when criminal charges were dismissed, a fact the branch was made aware of.

She questioned whether such actions contribute to the legal system’s integrity and the public’s safety and security.

“Is this the manner in which legality and professionalism are upheld? I believe they ought to be familiar with their duties and established practices. The branches responsible for administrative affairs, citizenship, and foreigners must initiate proceedings in line with the law; they do not handle operational data or law enforcement issues,” Krivokapić stated.

She noted that the police should have acted within their authority to temporarily confiscate weapons in cases of violent behavior.

“Isn’t the fundamental role of the police to safeguard citizens’ safety and avert crimes? Why does the prosecution believe that the branch should have acted outside its legal scope?” she queried.

Krivokapić emphasized that the Law on Weapons, like all Montenegro laws, is part of the country’s unified legal framework which the prosecution must understand.

“It seems evident to me that there is a clear collaboration between the prosecution and the police in this case. I am curious how they would manage other proceedings if there were suspicions of violent criminal behavior,” she added.

She concluded that the Administrative Affairs, Citizenship, and Aliens Branch acted within legal bounds.

“Why wasn’t the branch informed by those in possession of crucial information? The answer is straightforward – concealment. They cannot claim ignorance of the law because they must be aware of it. Given their inability to recognize issues plaguing their operations, I have noticed them. Some may argue that this is hindsight, yet it is essential to emphasize that all pertinent facts requiring time should be established with diligence and responsibility,” Krivokapić summarized.

News