Custody as a rule and not an exemption produces damaging consequences

Centre for Civic Education (CCE) in the paper “Illegal deprivation of liberty – custody as a rule instead of being an exception” provides data series leading to the conclusion that it is necessary to, with increased precaution and profound assessment of circumstances, propose custody as a measure of ensuring the presence of the defendant in the proceeding, i.e. it is necessary to use more alternative measures. The practice of deprivation of liberty, which is a significant number of cases proves to be unfounded and hence produces multiple harmful consequences, is a matter of concern. »

The Law on Academic Integrity an important step forward, but it is necessary to prescribe the responsibility of mentors

The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) welcomes the fact that the Government of Montenegro adopted the Proposal of the Law on Academic Integrity. This is a unique legal text not only in the region but wider as well, and it represents a response to the practice that the CCE had pointed out for years advocating for more efficient legislative and institutional framework.

The Law introduces series of substantial provisions in whose drafting the CCE took part within membership in Working group, and we will continue to monitor its implementation.

However, we note with regret that the opportunity to adequately regulate important issue on the liability of mentor, when it comes to plagiarism, was missed. And exactly that would give to this law a stronger preventive character. »

Why is the Prosecution hiding unlawfulness at the Faculty of Philosophy of UoM?

Centre for Civic Education (CCE) finds as difficult to understand that the Basic State Prosecution in Niksic did not find the basis for initiating proceedings, based on the criminal charges filed by the CCE against persons responsible for unlawful conduct in the operations of the Faculty of Philosophy of University of Montenegro (UoM).

For a reason unknown to the CCE, Prosecutor’s Office took more than three years to make such a decision, although the deadline for acting on charge is three months, and due to the complexity of the case may be six months, which is why the principle of timely decision-making has been violated. It is also worth noting that the notice of Basic State Prosecution in Niksic regarding the dismissal of the criminal charge traveled from Niksic to Podgorica for almost three months or as much as it was realistically necessary for the Prosecutor’s Office to decide on the merits of the criminal charge. »