Members of the Democratic Party of Socialists and Social Democrats, including Predrag Boskovic, Budimir Apprentice, Suad Numanović, Sanja Vlahovic, Ivan Brajović, Damir Sehovic, Dragica Sekulić, Osman Nurkovic, Suzana Pribilović, Drazen Milickovic, Jelena Radonjic, and Aleksandar Jovićević, were acquitted of allegations that they misused their official roles as members of the Housing Commission of the Government of Montenegro.

The initial verdict in the “Apartments” case was delivered by the presiding judge, Vesna Kovačević.

Before the panel in the Podgorica Higher Court, officials from the DPS and SD were accused of colluding to abuse their official positions while serving on the Housing Commission from 2016 to 2020.

Kovačević elaborated on the panel’s decision to acquit the defendants, noting that the key documents submitted by the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SDT) were merely copies of copies and lacked certification.

The court concluded that such documents lack evidentiary value since their authenticity and integrity could not be confirmed, which contradicts Article 355 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

What does the explanation state?

“During proceedings, the court found, and the accused did not dispute, that at the time they were implicated in the criminal act of official position abuse under Article 416, paragraph 3, in conjunction with paragraph 1, Article 23, paragraph . and 49, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, their actions were as follows. The accused Bošković, as the President of the Housing Commission, alongside the other defendants, operated under the provisions of the Decision regarding the criteria for addressing the housing needs of officials when managing housing issues for the individuals listed in the indictment.

“The accused acknowledge they made decisions regarding housing issues for officials, asserting compliance with Article 28, Article 30, and Article 30a of the Decision governing these needs, albeit without recalling specific details about which officials received funds, when, and the amounts involved. They claim this is reasonable given their limited personal acquaintance with many of these individuals and the volume of requests over time. Nevertheless, they do not dispute that the individuals in the indictment received funding for their housing needs, a fact which remained uncontested throughout the trial. They maintain that their decisions adhered to prior Conclusions set forth by the Government of Montenegro, which were binding.

“The documents presented as evidence by the SDT were rejected; applications for housing from public officials—including judges and prosecutors—were submitted to the Housing Commission, which held sessions to review them and then forwarded initiatives to the Government of Montenegro for approval. The Government then adopted Conclusions referring to Articles 28, 30, and 30a of the Decision, detailing how each applicant’s housing issues would be addressed. The third paragraph of the Conclusion stated that the Housing Commission was responsible for making decisions on housing needs in accordance with Article 28.

“Article 28 indicates that the Commission can make decisions as per its jurisdiction during sessions and adopt acts such as decisions, conclusions, and resolutions. Article 30, paragraph 1, clarifies that the Commission may fulfill individual officials’ housing needs without public announcement, in line with the law, while Article 30a stipulates that the Commission may act with Government consent, which entrenches that without such authorization, housing matters cannot be resolved per Articles 12 and 12a of the Decisions in question. The regulation governing the Government mandates that it establish permanent bodies to assess Government issues and ensure proposals align with Government positions.

“In addition, Article 7 of the Government’s Rules of Procedure articulates that a Government member is required to participate in the operational bodies appointed to enhance their effectiveness, further implying that the accused were obligated to act per the Government’s Conclusions.

“The court concluded that applicable directives or positions determined by the Government must be followed by the Housing Commission, which served as a working body. The SDT provided only copies of documents which have no evidentiary standing as they could not be confirmed as authentic or original.

“The absence of original documents significantly impacted the case. The SDT, as publicly stated, sought to obtain original documentation from various governmental bodies but found none existed. In criminal procedure, legitimate evidence must be original or certified, hence, the courtroom deemed the submitted copies insufficient for a factually grounded ruling.

“The SDT’s reliance on unverified copies led to substantial violations of the accused’s right to a fair trial, as these copies cannot independently establish factual veracity without reviewing originals.

“The court firmly maintains that only original documents or certified duplicates hold value in criminal proceedings. The existence of unverified copies raises concerns regarding their authenticity, leading to potential misrepresentation of evidence.

“Each erroneous reliance on such copies undermines the justice process and infringes upon the rights of the accused, ultimately leading to an acquittal in light of insufficient evidence, pivoting on the principle of in dubio pro reo,” noted Judge Vesna Kovačević in the rationale behind the initial verdict.

After three years, the SDT identified suspicions of criminal acts

“The court also weighed the SDT’s claims regarding the Law on Maintenance of Residential Buildings, indicating that the housing needs of judges and prosecutors must align with acts from the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council. However, as both judges and prosecutors submitted requests to the Commission to secure resources under the decisions for officials, the Commission advanced initiatives that the Government ultimately approved, directing the Commission accordingly. The SDT previously determined that there was no basis for charges, emphasizing lawful decisions made by the accused. The discrepancy between interpretations by judges, prosecutors, and the defendants—who operated under Government mandates—raises questions about the clarity of legality surrounding their actions and decisions,” the verdict rationale concludes.

News