General Report Serbia and Montenegro

Human Rights Situation

JUNE 2019

Country of Origin Information

This work is destined for general information, in service of
professional interest of all practitioners within asylum procedure in Romania.
This work does NOT analyze the merits of granting a form of international protection.

National Program
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

Project
Management of COI Usage and Research Processes
Contract no. ref: FAMI/17.03.02.2

Beneficiary
Romanian National Council for Refugees
Title: Ethnic groups in Montenegro
Source: European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/me/country-
introduction/montenegrocountryintro2.jpg/image_view_fullscreen, accessed 18 June 2019.

Title: Serbia – people

Source: Enciclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Serbia/People, accessed 18 June 2019.
 Note

This report has been translated and compiled in accordance with „Common EU Guidelines for
processing Country of Origin Information (2008) and „EASO Country of Origin Information
Report Methodology (2012). As a result, this report is based on some very carefully selected
sources of public information. All sources used are references sources compiled from specialty
reports and profile information and also press articles.

All information presented, concerning obvious facts, has been corroboratedly verified, excepting
general aspects. Offered information have been studied, evaluated and carefully analyzed in a
reasonable amount of time. Nonetheless, this document does not claim to be an exhaustive one,
in order to treat completely the humanitarian issue in the country of origin.

The main way of presenting information within this report is citation, used to convey exactly
what a source said, using the source’s own words. This technique is clearly marked by using
quotation marks. Whenever there are used other techniques, like summarizing or synthesizing,
this will be marked in a visible way.

If a certain event, person or organization is not included in this report, this fact doesn’t bring the
conclusion that the event did not take place or the person and the organization itself don’t exist.
This document does not present conclusions in analyzing the merits of granting any form of
protection, only partially contributing to forming the opinion of the decisive factor, along the
other procedural aspects and taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each case.

Information and opinions expressed does not reflect the official position of the General
Inspectorate for Immigration or of his partner in implementing the project AMIF/17.03.02.02 ̶
Management of COI Usage and Research Processes.
Romanian National Council for Refugees
Editorial committee
Contents

1. The union of Serbia and Montenegro ....................................................................................................... 4

2. Serbia-Montenegro relations now ............................................................................................................ 5
3. Political background in Serbia ................................................................................................................... 7
4. Kosovo latest approach............................................................................................................................. 8
5. Serbia – UE relationship ............................................................................................................................ 9
6. Human rights situation in Serbia – overview .......................................................................................... 11
7. Specific human rights abuses in Serbia ................................................................................................... 11
a. Religious freedom ............................................................................................................................... 11
b. Freedom of expression ....................................................................................................................... 11
c. Law enforcement agencies abuses ..................................................................................................... 12
d. Prison and Detention Center Conditions ............................................................................................ 12
e. Roma discrimination ........................................................................................................................... 13
f. Stateless Persons ................................................................................................................................. 13
g. Protection of refugees ........................................................................................................................ 13
h. Accountability for War Crimes ............................................................................................................ 14
i. LGBT Community.................................................................................................................................. 14
8. Political background in Montenegro....................................................................................................... 14
9. Human rights situation in Montenegro – overview ................................................................................ 15
10. Specific human rights abuses in Montenegro....................................................................................... 16
a. Religious freedom ............................................................................................................................... 16
b. Trafficking in persons .......................................................................................................................... 16
c. Freedom of expression ........................................................................................................................ 17
d. Torture and other cruel treatments ................................................................................................... 17
e. Fair public trial .................................................................................................................................... 17
f. Protection of refugees ......................................................................................................................... 17
1. The union of Serbia and Montenegro

„In April 1992, Serbia and Montenegro jointly proclaimed the formation of the FRY after the
former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) disintegrated in 1991.”1

„Throughout the 1990s, Slobodan Milosevic's Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) ruled the country
by virtue of its control over the country's security forces, financial and monetary institutions, and
the state-owned media. In 1997, an anti-Milosevic coalition of political forces came to power in
Montenegro. In 1999, NATO occupied one of the FRY's two autonomous provinces, Kosovo,
after a 78-day bombing campaign.”2 „Several hundred thousand individuals demonstrated
against the government of President Slobodan Milošević on October 5, 2000, and President
Milošević conceded defeat in the presidential election on October 6, 2000. The government of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) re-applied for membership in the United Nations (UN) on
October 27, 2000, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) was
admitted as a member of the UN on November 1, 2000. ”3

„March 14, 2002 — «Belgrade Agreement» (Agreement on Principles of Relations between

Serbia and Montenegro within the State Union) was signed, and witnessed by EU High
Representative Javier Solana. Despite the agreement, the complicated union arrangement did not
resolve significant political and structural differences between the two republics that contributed
to difficulties in integrating with the EU, a primary incentive for concluding the union agreement
in the first place. Brussels devised special arrangements for Serbia and Montenegro to overcome
these challenges and achieve further progress toward EU association. Nevertheless,
Montenegro’s leaders continued to pursue independence for the small republic.”4

„On February 4, 2003 the Yugoslav parliament adopted the Constitutional Charter of the State
Union of Serbia and Montenegro, marking the beginning of a new reformed state, replacing the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.”5

„Strategic decision of Montenegro in the Federal Union with Serbia is to gradually coordinate
system resolutions with the EU standards and system, in term of the stabilization and association
process, as well as with the relevant International organizations and institutions rules.

1
Freedom House, Freedom in the world 2003 – Yugoslavia, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
world/2003/yugoslavia, accessed on 13 June 2019.
2
Ibidem.
3
University of Central Arkansas, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-206), https://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-
project/europerussiacentral-asia-region/66-federal-republic-of-yugoslavia-1992-2006/ , accessed on 13 June 2019.
4
Julie Kim Specialist in International Relations Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Serbia and Montenegro
Union: Background and Pending Dissolution,
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/06/13/dissolution.pdf, accessed on 13 June 2019.
5
Nations Online. Serbia and Montenegro, https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/serbia_montenegro.htm,
accessed on 13 June 2019.
Montenegro and Serbia economic system harmonization in accordance to the Action plan of
harmonization on above mentioned principles has a very important place in the process of
creation of new systematical laws, and economic policy planning and realization in the next three
years.”6

„In mid-2004, EU members adopted a «twin track» policy that recognized Serbia and
Montenegro’s economic distinctions and differentiated EU approaches to them, including
different trade and customs regimes. Concurrently, the policy called for the preservation of
Serbia and Montenegro’s existence as a single state entity.” (...) „The EU pressed Serbia and
Montenegro to achieve greater harmonization of their economic, trade, and tariff policies.
However, lack of progress in harmonization, the uncertain political climate in Serbia, and
Serbia’s lack of full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) delayed further work on the Stabilization and Association Agreement SAA
feasibility study with Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 and early 2004.”7

„2005 February - Prime Minister Kostunica rejects suggestion from Montenegrin leaders that
Union of Serbia and Montenegro be ended early. 2006 June - Montenegro declares
independence. Serbia responds by declaring itself independent sovereign successor state to
Union of Serbia and Montenegro.”8

„Some 56 percent of voters in Montenegro voted in favor of independence in a referendum held

on May 21, 2006. The OSCE/ODIHR sent observers to monitor the referendum. The Council of
Europe (COE) sent observers to monitor the referendum. The State Union of the Republics of
Serbia and Montenegro was formally dissolved on June 3, 2006.”9

2. Serbia-Montenegro relations now

„Montenegro has continued to cooperate closely with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and
Serbia under the Sarajevo Declaration Process, which aims to find sustainable solutions for some
74 000 people who became refugees and displaced persons as a result of the armed conflicts in
ex-Yugoslavia during the 1990s. The construction, purchase of apartments and distribution of
construction material under the Regional Housing Programme (RHP) continued to progress well
throughout the country, while needs and interest for housing solutions in different municipalities

6
Government of Montenegro, Concept of the Economic Policy for the Year 2003,
http://www.gov.me/en/search/93190/28.html, accessed on 13 June 2019.
7
Julie Kim Specialist in International Relations Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Serbia and Montenegro
Union: Background and Pending Dissolution, see note 4.
8
BBC, Timeline: Serbia, last updated on 21 May 2012,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/5055726.stm, accessed on 13 June 2019.
9
University of Central Arkansas, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-206), see note 3.
still remain high. Challenges also remain with regard to ensuring that RHP beneficiaries have
sustainable livelihoods and are fully integrated into society.”10

„Relations with Serbia remained good. Political consultations between the two Ministries of
Foreign Affairs were held in May 2018. Several agreements on road and railway border
crossings were signed during the reporting period, among which the agreement on opening the
Cemerno-Granice common border crossing in August 2018. There have been no developments
on issues related to citizenship rights in the two countries. The demarcation of borders is still
pending.”11

„Reports on both countries were noticeably more negative than the year before. Serbia was
particularly criticized for the state of political criteria, while many old criticisms continue to
appear in yearly evaluations of Montenegro’s reforms, writes Vijesti.”12

„Border cooperation with Serbia progressed significantly with the signature in August 2018 of
nine bilateral agreements concerning several international border crossing points and joint border
crossing points. There was no progress, however, on the closure of the 87 roads crossing the
border with Serbia without any official border crossing points. Both regional centres for police
cooperation in Trebinje and Plav are operational. The border demarcation agreement with
Kosovo came into force in June 2018.”13

„Officials and politicians in Serbia on Sunday condemned Podgorica’s decision to ban

ceremonies marking the 100th anniversary of the unification of Serbia and Montenegro. (...) The
decision was also condemned by the Serbian Defence Minister Aleksandar Vulin, who said it
was hard to explain that there are Montenegrin politicians who «speak in such ugly terms about
Serbia and the Serbian people, who make up a third [of the population] of Montenegro»,
newspaper Danas reported. (...) However Serbian organisations in Montenegro have said that
they are planning celebrations of the unification of Serbia and Montenegro across the country. 14

„Media in Serbia have accused the government of Montenegro of planning to «rob» the Serbian
Orthodox Church, SOC, of its assets, while Serbian officials warn that a proposed law on Church
property will worsen diplomatic relations. (...) At the centre of the row is a government-adopted

10
European Commission: Montenegro 2019 Report [SWD(2019) 217 final], 29 May 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/2010475/20190529-montenegro-report.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2019).
11
Ibidem.
12
European Western Balkans, Will Serbia and Montenegro open any new chapters this month?, 3 June 2019,
https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2019/06/03/will-serbia-montenegro-open-new-chapters-month/, accessed
29 June 2019.
13
European Commission: Montenegro 2019 Report, see note 10.
14
Balkan Insight, Serbian Officials Condemn Montenegro Unification Events Ban, 29 October 2018,
https://balkaninsight.com/2018/10/29/serbian-officials-ask-countermeasures-against-montenegro-10-29-2018/,
accessed 29 June 2019.
a draft law that includes compiling a register of all religious objects and sites formerly owned by
the independent kingdom of Montenegro before it became part of the Serb-dominated Kingdom
of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918. Under the new law, religious communities must show
evidence of their property rights to retain ownership of their property. The Serbian Orthodox
Church has accused the government of planning to confiscate its holdings. The government
denies planning to strip the Serbian Orthodox Church of its property. (...) The SOC is the largest
denomination in multi-ethnic Montenegro, but its relations with the pro-Western government
have always been poor. The government considers the Church hostile to the independence of the
country, and generally too pro-Serbian and pro-Russian. The Church accuses the government of
trying routinely to undermine it and strip the country of its Serbian heritage.”15

„Most of the Serbian citizens convicted last week of attempting to overthrow the Montenegrin
government have gone to Serbia while awaiting appeals to their first-instance sentences. (...) In
the first-instance verdict, the Higher Court in Montenegro last Thursday sentenced 13 people,
including two Russian military intelligence officers, eight Serbs and two Montenegrin opposition
leaders for to up to 15 years in prison for staging an attempted coup in 2016. Defence lawyers
said they would an appeal. They were found guilty of plotting to commit “terrorist acts” and
undermine the constitutional order of Montenegro during the parliamentary elections in October
2016 with a view to overthrowing the pro-Western government and preventing the country from
joining NATO. The defendants denied plotting a coup, calling it a government fabrication
designed to discredit the pro-Serbian and pro-Russian opposition parties.”16

3. Political background in Serbia

„Serbia is a parliamentary democracy with competitive multiparty elections, but in recent years
the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) has steadily eroded political rights and civil liberties,
putting pressure on independent media, the political opposition, and civil society organizations.
Despite these trends, the country has continued to move toward membership in the European
Union (EU). Serbia’s status declined from Free to Partly Free due to deterioration in the conduct
of elections, continued attempts by the government and allied media outlets to undermine
independent journalists through legal harassment and smear campaigns, and President

15
Balkan Insight, Montenegro Church Law Unites Serbia in Outrage, 17 June 2019,
https://balkaninsight.com/2019/06/17/montenegro-church-law-unites-serbia-in-outrage/, accessed on 22 June
2019.
16
Balkan Insight, NEWS Serbs Convicted in Montenegro Return Home Awaiting Appeals, 13 May 2019,
https://balkaninsight.com/2019/05/13/serbs-convicted-in-montenegro-return-home-awaiting-appeals/, accessed
on 22 June 2019.
Aleksandar Vučić’s de facto accumulation of executive powers that conflict with his
constitutional role.”17

„The Government that formed after the April 2016 elections stepped up the implementation of
structural reforms, broadening the focus to include social sector transformation. Although the
results of the spring 2017 presidential election led to a change in prime minister (as the
incumbent became Serbia’s new president), the Government experienced only minor changes,
enabling it to maintain an emphasis on reforming state administration, public finances, and the
economy, along with pursuing the European Union (EU) accession process. The ruling party’s
comfortable win in Belgrade’s local elections in March 2018 has maintained a continuity in the
strategic and policy framework. In the past five months, however, demonstrations against the
Government in over 100 cities and towns have shaken the unquestioned political dominance of
the ruling coalition.”18

„Under President Aleksandar Vučić and his government, many Serbians believe their country is
moving toward autocracy, amid reports of officials attempting to silence critics, influencing the
media, and placing pressure on voters. Such actions led Freedom House, an independent
organisation tracking freedom and democracy, to downgrade Serbia's national status last month
to "partly free". Vučić has so far rejected protesters' calls for his resignation, further exacerbating
anger when he said he would not agree to any demand, even «if there were five million of
you».”19

„Understanding the public’s dissatisfaction with the politicians expressed in the protests, the
opposition parties have pledged in writing that the government they will form if they win the
election will consist of widely accepted personalities, not involved in politics. Its term of office
will last one year, a period which will be used to promote the democratization of the country and
the reforms for the creation of a rule of law.”20

4. Kosovo latest approach

„The Serbian president is under immense pressure from inside Serbia and from Russia. Kosovo’s
100 per cent tariff on Serbian goods crippled his negotiating position. He was also recently
17
Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2019 - Serbia, 4 February 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2006457.html (accessed on 17 June 2019).
18
The World Bank, The World Bank in Serbia. Overview, last updated 12 April 2019,
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/serbia/overview, accessed on 17 June 2019.
19
Euronews, Serbian ruling party wants early elections after months of anti-government protests, 26 March 2019,
https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/26/serbian-ruling-party-wants-early-elections-after-months-of-anti-
government-protests, accessed on 16 June 2019.
20
IBNA (Independent Balkan News Agency), Political climate is heating up in Serbia, 07 February 2019,
https://balkaneu.com/political-climate-is-heating-up-in-serbia/, accessed on 17 June 2019.
criticised by the Serbian Orthodox clergy, denounced as a traitor if he contemplates recognising
Kosovar independence.”21

„Meanwhile, Serbia and Kosovo remain mired in animosity, unable to find a way for Belgrade to
recognize its former breakaway province in its current borders. A European Union-led and U.S.-
backed effort to broker a partition deal between the presidents of Serbia and Kosovo has just
fallen apart, sparking nationalist posturing and recriminations. Seizing on the savagery of the
1990s, ethnic Albanian members of parliament have accused Serbian forces of genocide, a
charge that Belgrade angrily rejects, castigating its adversaries in Pristina as «thugs» and
«criminals».”22

„One setback was the murder in January 2018 of Oliver Ivanović, an ethnic-Serb politician in
northern Kosovo. After he was gunned down, talks on normalising relations were further
postponed. Serbia's President Aleksandar Vucic called the killing «an act of terrorism». At the
end of that year, Kosovo raised customs duties on imports from Serbia to 100% after Belgrade
blocked Kosovo's bid to join Interpol. In addition to this, Kosovo decided to upgrade its security
force into an army, which Serbia sees as a potential threat that could trigger a military response
from Belgrade.”23

„Kosovo has slapped 100% customs tariffs on Serbian imports, blaming the government in
Belgrade for its latest failed bid to join international police organisation Interpol. Serbia
immediately warned that the decision would bring all trade to a halt and the EU said the decision
had to be revoked immediately.”24

5. Serbia – UE relationship

„Serbia – along with 5 other Western Balkans countries – was identified as a potential candidate
for EU membership during the Thessaloniki European Council summit in 2003. In 2008, a
European partnership for Serbia was adopted, setting out priorities for the country's membership
application, and in 2009 Serbia formally applied. In March 2012 Serbia was granted EU
candidate status. In September 2013 a Stabilisation and Association Agreement Search for
available translations of the preceding link between the EU and Serbia entered into force. In line
21
Emerging Europe, A new approach to Serbia and Kosovo, by Ben Hodges, 26 June 2019, https://emerging-
europe.com/voices/a-new-approach-to-serbia-and-kosovo/, accessed on 28 June 2019.
22
Foreign Policy, Serbia Needs Kosovo’s Respect, Not Its Land, by Edward P. Joseph, 21 May 2019,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/21/serbia-needs-kosovos-respect-not-its-land/, accessed on 18 June 2019.
23
Euronews, A history of tension: Serbia-Kosovo relations explained, 15 July 2019,
https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/28/a-history-of-tension-serbia-kosovo-relations-explained, accessed on 15
July 2019.
24
BBC, Kosovo hits Serbia with 100% trade tariffs amid Interpol row, 21 November 2018,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46287975, accessed on 15 June 219.
with the decision of the European Council in June 2013 to open accession negotiations with
Serbia, the Council adopted in December 2013 the negotiating framework and agreed to hold the
1st Intergovernmental Conference with Serbia in January 2014. On 21 January 2014, the 1st
Intergovernmental Conference Search for available translations of the preceding link took place,
signaling the formal start of Serbia's accession negotiations.”25

„13-12-2016: The fourth Intergovernmental Conference sees the opening of another two
negotiating chapters: 5 – dealing with public procurement and 25 – dealing with science and
research which was closed immediately

27-02-2017: Serbia opens two chapters at the Intergovernmental Conference: Chapter 20 –

Enterprise and Industrial Policy – and Chapter 26 – Education and Culture. The latter was
provisionally closed the same day.

20-06-2017: Serbia opens another two chapters at the Sixth Intergovernmental Conference in
Luxembourg: Chapter 7 – Intellectual Property and Chapter 29 – Customs Union.

11-12-2017: Another two chapters opened at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels:

Chapter 6 – Company Law, and Chapter 30 – External Relations.

6-2-2018: The European Commission adopted a strategy for ‘A credible enlargement perspective
for and enhanced EU engagement with the Western Balkans’

10-12-2018: The Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels saw the opening of another two
chapters: 17 – Economic and Monetary Policy and 18 – Statistics

27-06-2019: The Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels saw the opening of Chapter 9 –

Financial Services”26

„Serbia’s accession to the EU in 2025 seems unrealistic, given its slow pace of progress, though
not entirely impossible, civil society representatives have said but warned that neither Belgrade
nor Brussels were trying very hard. Just over a year since the EU adopted a Strategy for the
Western Balkans, which vaguely mentioned 2025 as a potential year of Serbia’s and

25
European Commission, European Neighbourhood Policy And Enlargement Negotiations. Serbia,
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/serbia_en, accessed
on 17 June 2019.
26
The Delegation of the European Union (EU) to the Republic of Serbia, Milestones in EU – Serbia relations,
http://europa.rs/serbia-and-the-eu/milestones/?lang=en, accessed on 18 June 2019.
Montenegro’s accession, the assessment is that all the objections listed in the Strategy – captured
state, bilateral disputes and dysfunctional market economy – are still present in the region.”27

6. Human rights situation in Serbia – overview

„There was little improvement in human rights protection in Serbia in 2018. War crimes
prosecutions in domestic courts progressed slowly and lacked necessary political support. The
asylum system remained flawed and conditions for asylum seekers failed to improve. The
situation for journalists remained precarious, including attacks, threats, and lawsuits for reporting
on sensitive issues.”28

7. Specific human rights abuses in Serbia

a. Religious freedom

„Jehovah’s Witnesses reported two incidents of physical assault and two instances of verbal
death threats against their members and said prosecutors failed to respond adequately to the
incidents. Protestants said persons frequently branded their religious groups as “sects,” which
has a very strong negative connotation in the Serbian language. One Protestant group said its
members sometimes hid their religious affiliation for fear of discrimination. Many smaller or
nontraditional religious groups reported low-level public bias or discrimination against their
members without citing specific examples. A Baptist group said religious documentaries critical
of Protestant groups occasionally played on conservative television stations but did not cite
specific examples. Anti-Semitic literature was available in some bookstores, and the Jewish
community reported one incident of pro-Nazi graffiti at a public park in Belgrade.”29

b. Freedom of expression

„Media freedoms continued to deteriorate, with the closure of some of the few remaining
independent print outlets, such as Novine Vranjske, and continuing financial pressure on outlets
that fail to support the government or at least tone down their criticism. Journalist associations
reported an increase in the number of attacks on journalists, including cases of physical attacks,

27
EURACTIV, Serbia in the EU in 2025 – mission (im)possible, By Julija Simić, 5 April 2019,
https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/serbia-in-the-eu-in-2025-mission-impossible/, accessed on
15 June 2019.
28
HRW – Human Rights Watch: World Report 2019 - Serbia/Kosovo, 17 January 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2002219.html (accessed on 17 June 2019).
29
USDOS – US Department of State: 2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Serbia, 21 June 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2011064.html (accessed on 17 June 2019).
as well as organized harangues by tabloids close to the ruling party following revelations of
government corruption by investigative journalists.”30

„A number of critical journalists and outlets faced smear campaigns, punitive tax inspections,
and other forms of pressure in 2018. According to NUNS, there were 102 media freedom
violations against journalists during the year. They included physical assaults, though most
incidents involved aggressive rhetoric and other forms of pressure or intimidation.”31

„Private discussion is generally free and vibrant, but a pattern of retribution against high-profile
critics of the government has contributed to an increasingly hostile environment for free
expression and open debate.”32

c. Law enforcement agencies abuses

„The CPT’s delegation received a significant number of allegations of physical ill-treatment of

detained persons by police officers, notably in larger urban areas. The physical ill-treatment
alleged consisted of slaps, punches, kicks and truncheon blows, strikes with various non-standard
objects (such as baseball bats) and also several claims of criminal suspects being subjected to
shocks from electrical discharge devices at the time of apprehension or during questioning. The
intended purpose of the ill-treatment was apparently to coerce suspects to admit to certain
offences or to punish them. The report refers to a number of cases where the CPT’s delegation
gathered medical evidence and other documentation which were consistent with the allegations
of ill-treatment made by detained persons.”33

d. Prison and Detention Center Conditions

„Many prisons and detention centers did not meet international standards. Physical Conditions:
Prison conditions were harsh due to overcrowding, physical abuse, unsanitary conditions, and

30
Freedom House: Nations in Transit 2018 - Serbia, 11 April 2018,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/1429215.html (accessed on 18 June 2019).
31
Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2019 - Serbia, 4 February 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2006457.html (accessed on 18 June 2019).
32
Ibidem.
33
Council of Europe, Report to the Government of Serbia on the visit to Serbia carried out by the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
from 31 May to 7 June 2017, Strasbourg, 21 June 2018,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1436999/1226_1530263659_2018-21-inf-eng-docx.pdf, accessed 17 June
2019.
inadequate medical care. (...) Administration: Authorities conducted proper investigations of
credible allegations of mistreatment.”34

e. Roma discrimination

„Roma families in Belgrade continued to live in informal settlements. They were denied access
to social and economic rights, including health, education, water and sanitation, and were at risk
of forced eviction. Some 44 of over 100 Roma families forcibly evicted in 2012 were still living
in containers awaiting resettlement; planned apartments for 22 families were not due to be
completed until February 2019; by November, two of the remaining families due to be moved to
villages north of Belgrade had been rehoused.”35

f. Stateless Persons

„Poverty, social marginalization, lack of information, cumbersome and lengthy bureaucratic

procedures, difficulty in obtaining documents, the lack of an officially recognized residence, and
the lack of birth registration limited the ability of those at risk of statelessness to gain nationality.
According to UNHCR an estimated 2,200 persons, primarily Roma, Balkan Egyptians, and
Ashkali, were at risk of statelessness in the country; approximately 300 of these remained
without birth registration. The country has laws and procedures that afford the opportunity for
late birth registration and residence registration as well as the opportunity to gain nationality.
Children whose parents lacked personal documents (identification cards) could not, however, be
registered into birth registry books immediately after birth, creating new cases of persons at risk
of statelessness.”36

g. Protection of refugees

„Refugees and migrants were trapped in the country; those trying to enter the EU via Hungary
and Croatia were repeatedly and violently returned to Serbia. In January, up to 1,800 refugees
and migrants were still living in abandoned warehouses, often in sub-zero temperatures. By May,
they had all been evicted and transferred to government-run centres, where conditions were
inadequate and overcrowded. There were continued obstacles and delays in registering,
interviewing and providing identification for asylum-seekers. By August, out of 151 asylum

34
USDOS – US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018 - Serbia, 13 March 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2004288.html (accessed on 21 June 2019).
35
AI – Amnesty International: Amnesty International Report 2017/18 - The State of the World's Human Rights -
Serbia, 22 February 2018, https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/1425640.html (accessed on 22 June 2019).
36
USDOS – US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018 - Serbia, see note 34.
applications that were received, two were accepted and 28 rejected; 121 asylum applications
were being processed.”37

h. Accountability for War Crimes

„War crimes prosecutions remained hampered due to a lack of political will, adequate resources,
and weak witness support mechanisms. Few high-ranking officials implicated in serious wartime
abuses have been held to account in Serbian courts. By August 2018, 11 war crimes cases were
still at investigation stage and 19 were pending before Serbian courts. The Office of Serbia’s
War Crimes Prosecutor issued two new indictments during the same period. In the first eight
months of 2018, first instance courts delivered no judgments in war crimes cases. The appeals
court acquitted six persons and returned one case to the first instance court for retrial. Since the
establishment of the War Crimes Prosecutor in 2003, 44 final judgments have been issued, 74
people convicted, and 50 acquitted. The first trials in Serbia for war crimes in Srebrenica
restarted in November 2017 after being plagued by delays. Eight Bosnian Serb former police
officers resident in Serbia were charged with the killing in a warehouse of more than 1,300
Bosniak civilians from Srebrenica in July 1995. In June, a witness quit the trial, stating he
received threats despite having a protected identity.”38

i. LGBT Community

„According to NGOs, activists, and independent institutions, discrimination against members of

the LGBTI community continued. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality found that
LGBTI persons seldom reported instances of violence and discrimination because they lacked
trust in relevant institutions, and feared stigmatization and secondary victimization. Data
available from a number of research papers and reports indicated that homophobia and
transphobia were deeply rooted in society.”39

8. Political background in Montenegro

„Montenegro is a mixed parliamentary and presidential republic with a multiparty political

system. Voters choose both the president and the unicameral parliament through popular
elections. The president nominates, and the parliament approves, the prime minister. The
observation mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) stated that the 2016

37
AI: Amnesty International Report 2017/18 - The State of the World's Human Rights - Serbia, see note 35.
38
HRW – Human Rights Watch: World Report 2019 - Serbia/Kosovo, see note 28.
39
USDOS – US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018 - Serbia, see note 34.
parliamentary elections were conducted in a competitive environment and fundamental freedoms
were generally respected. The opposition coalition did not accept the election results and began a
continuing boycott of parliament, although all but two parties have since returned. On April 15,
Milo Djukanovic, president of the Democratic Party of Socialists, was elected president of the
country, winning approximately 54 percent of the vote in the first round. This is his second term
as president, having additionally served six terms as prime minister. The OSCE/ODIHR, the
European Parliament delegation, and the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly noted the
April 15 election proceeded in an orderly manner but had a few minor irregularities that did not
affect the outcome. Despite opposition protests, elections were generally considered free and
fair.”40

„While voters are generally free to express their political choices, extensive patronage systems
and widespread corruption encourage loyalty to the ruling party, which has been in power for
nearly three decades. Many members of the ruling party have alleged ties to organized crime,
further cementing the DPS’s grip on power. Both public-sector employers, and private-sector
employers with links to the state, pressure employees to vote for the ruling coalition.
Marginalized populations, such as the Roma, have been mobilized by the DPS through vote-
buying schemes.”41

9. Human rights situation in Montenegro – overview

„On fundamental rights, Montenegro further aligned its legislation with EU standards. The
capacity of the Ombudsman office and the National Preventive Mechanism has improved, but
more efforts are still needed in strengthening the institutional framework and effective protection
of human rights. Montenegro needs to ensure that adequate institutional mechanisms are in place
to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination. Implementation of the legislation remains
weak and institutional capacity on human rights needs to be increased. The Roma and Egyptians
minority remains the most vulnerable and most discriminated community. Gender-based
violence and violence against children remain issues of serious concern.”42

„Human rights issues included corruption; trafficking in persons; attacks on journalists; and
crimes involving violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI)
persons. Impunity remained a problem, since the government did not punish officials who
committed human rights abuses.”43

40
USDOS – US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018 - Montenegro, see note 40.
41
Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2019 - Montenegro, 4 February 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2008217.html (accessed on 29 June 2019).
42
European Commission: Montenegro 2019 Report, see note 10.
43
USDOS – US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018 - Montenegro, see note 40.
10. Specific human rights abuses in Montenegro

a. Religious freedom

„On August 19, for the ninth year in a row, police banned members of both the MOC
(Montenegrin Orthodox Church) and SOC (Serbian Orthodox Church) from celebrating the
transfiguration of Christ at the Church of Christ the Transfiguration at Ivanova Korita, citing
concerns over potential clashes. The SOC controls the site, which is near the seat of the MOC in
the historical capital of Cetinje. The MOC said the ban constituted a violation of members’ basic
human rights and requested state authorities allow MOC priests to practice in SOC-controlled
Orthodox churches and monasteries. The SOC stated that by preventing the services from taking
place in the church, police were attacking the centuries-old canonical order and church property
rights, and were toying with the deepest feelings of Orthodox believers. Religious groups,
especially the SOC, continued to say the law regulating their legal status was outdated and
inadequate, particularly in regards to property, as it was drafted during the time of the former
Yugoslavia. For the third consecutive year, the government said it was revising a draft of a new
law on religious communities. By year’s end, the government had not completed the draft.”44

b. Trafficking in persons

„As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in
Montenegro, and traffickers exploit victims from Montenegro abroad. Victims of sex trafficking
identified in Montenegro are primarily women and girls from Montenegro, neighboring Balkan
countries, and, to a lesser extent, other countries in Eastern Europe. Traffickers exploit victims in
hospitality facilities, bars, restaurants, nightclubs, and cafes. Children, particularly Romani,
Ashkali, and Balkan Egyptian children, are subjected to forced begging. Romani girls from
Montenegro reportedly have been sold into marriages in Romani communities in Montenegro
and, to a lesser extent, in Albania, Germany, and Kosovo, and forced into domestic servitude.
Migrants from neighboring countries are vulnerable to forced labor, particularly during the
summer tourism season. International organized criminal groups subject some Montenegrin
women and girls to sex trafficking in other Balkan countries.”45

44
USDOS – US Department of State: 2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Montenegro, 21 June 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2011112.html (accessed on 22 June 2019).
45
USDOS – US Department of State: 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report: Montenegro, 20 June 2019,
https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2010866.html (accessed on 22 June 2019),
c. Freedom of expression

„Montenegro has achieved some level of preparation on freedom of expression, but no progress
was made in the reporting period. There have been very limited developments regarding
investigations into cases of violence against journalists. Recent political interference in the
national public broadcaster Council and the Agency for Electronic Media are a matter of serious
concern. The media scene remains highly polarised and challenges in understanding the role of
free media persists. Self-regulatory mechanisms remain weak.”46

d. Torture and other cruel treatments

„While the constitution and law prohibit such practices, there were reports of beatings, with
some based on LGBTI identity, in prisons and detention centers across the country. The
government prosecuted some police officers and prison guards accused of overstepping their
authority, but there were delays in the court proceedings. Nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) noted that a number of police officers found to be responsible for violating the rules of
their service, including cases of excessive use of force, remained on duty.”47

e. Fair public trial

„The constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, but some NGOs, international
organizations, and legal experts asserted that political pressure and corruption influenced
prosecutors and judges. The process of appointing judges and prosecutors remained somewhat
politicized, although the law provides for a prosecutorial council to select prosecutors. (...)
Inadequate funding and a lack of organization continued to hamper the effectiveness of the
courts. The law provides for plea bargaining, which is available for all crimes except war crimes
and those related to terrorism. (...) While the judiciary endeavored to hold criminal trials
publicly, it often did not do so due to a shortage of proper facilities. The shortage also affected
the timeliness of trials. Systemic weaknesses, such as political influence and prolonged
procedures, diminished public confidence in the efficiency and impartiality of the judiciary.”48

f. Protection of refugees

„Of 2,346 asylum applications, 2,079 interviews were scheduled, and 44 were held. Observers
noted that attention and readiness to address the increased mixed flow of migrants remained

46
European Commission: Montenegro 2019 Report, see note 10.
47
USDOS – US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018 - Montenegro, see note 40.
48
Ibidem.
focused on border control aspects, as evidenced by the sharp rise in the number of migrants
pushed back from the Montenegrin boarder during the year. The Ministry of Interior confirmed it
attempted to deter migrants from entering by using patrols and noted that young men who saw
the patrols often lost their nerve and went back to the other side of the border from which they
had come.”49

49
Ibidem.
This document is a product of the General Inspectorate for Immigration in partnership with the Romanian
National Council for Refugees by the grant contract FAMI / 17.03.02.02 – Management of COI Usage
and Research Processes – Romanian National Council for Refugees.

Editorial Team Editorial Team

General Inspectorate for Immigration Asylum Romanian National Council for Refugees
and Integration Directorate International
Protection and Asylum Procedures Service COORDINATOR:
Lavinia TEIOȘANU – COI Researcher
SUPERVISION:
COMPILER AND EDITOR:
Mircea BABĂU – Director DAI
Lavinia TEIOȘANU – COI Researcher
Noelia MARTINEZ – ROCCORD
NATIONAL EXPERT: Volunteer
Felix DAVID

This paper is published, serving the professional interests of all parties involved in the asylum procedure
in Romania. Using the information contained herein shall be made by citing sources basic and only in
conjunction with other relevant data. Title of the paper will not be quoted without explicit consent of the
issuer.

www.portal-ito.ro

ASYLUM AND INTEGRATION DIRECTORATE

Str. TUDOR GOCIU nr.24A, Bucureşti, Sector 4

ROMANIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES

Str. VIESPARILOR nr. 19, etaj 2, Bucureşti, Sector 2