“The case of the deportation of Bosnian and Herzegovinian refugees in 1992 remains one of the most serious unresolved issues in Montenegro’s process of dealing with the past. The judicial epilogue to date, marked by a disputed legal qualification, has left open questions of responsibility and failed to ensure full legal and social redress for the victims and their families,” it was emphasised at the third of seven educational webinars, this time dedicated to the “Deportation” case, organised today by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE).
In May 1992, the Montenegrin police unlawfully arrested at least 66 civilians of Muslim faith, aged between 18 and 66, who had sought refuge in Montenegro from the war already raging in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and handed them over as hostages to the Army of the Bosnian Serbs led by Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, to be used in the exchange of prisoners of war. All those deported from Herceg Novi on 27 May 1992 were killed shortly thereafter, while another group, deported on 25 May 1992, was sent to the Foča detention camp (KPD), from which only a few survived. The bodies of all victims deported from Herceg Novi have still not been found, nor is the exact location of their deaths reliably known. Additionally, at least 33 persons of Serb nationality from Bosnia and Herzegovina were also arrested and handed over to the Army of Republika Srpska for the purpose of mobilisation, and it remains unknown whether any of them were killed.
“The outcome of this case so far can be assessed as extremely inadequate and legally problematic,” emphasised activist Tamara Milaš, who led the webinar.
As she explained, the legal qualification of the events in the proceedings before the High Court in Podgorica is particularly contentious, where the conflict was characterised as non-international, which had direct implications for the application of international humanitarian law and criminal liability. “Such a qualification disregards the broader context of the international armed conflict on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the relevant period, as well as the fact that the Montenegrin police did not have the status of a party to the armed conflict within the meaning of international humanitarian law. The police acted as a state authority that deprived civilians of their liberty and handed them over to forces participating in the conflict. This approach narrowed the scope for establishing individual criminal responsibility and led to acquittals, thereby denying full legal and social redress to the victims and their families,” Milaš stated.
Milaš assessed that there has been no consistent and proactive willingness on the part of institutions to establish the full truth and accountability. “Although certain steps have been taken, including criminal proceedings and subsequent compensation payments to the victims’ families in civil proceedings, a decisive criminal justice response that would clarify all circumstances and potentially establish command responsibility has been lacking. Furthermore, no comprehensive institutional analysis has been conducted, nor has a broader social dialogue based on established facts been opened,” she noted.
“An effective and impartial criminal investigation, including the possibility of revisiting the legal qualification of the acts in light of international law and the jurisprudence of international courts, represents key steps towards justice and reconciliation,” Milaš underlined.
“Criminal justice is the cornerstone of any genuine process of transitional justice, as without the individualisation of responsibility there can be no full rehabilitation of victims. In addition, it is necessary to systematically foster a culture of remembrance, including the erection of an appropriate memorial, institutional commemoration of anniversaries, and the inclusion of this topic in educational and public policies,” Tamara Milaš concluded.
Participants also addressed the reparations procedure under Montenegrin legislation, which covered 66 families of victims. “Some victims did not accept the settlement, but continued proceedings before the Basic Court in Podgorica, as in the case of Alen Bajrović. There are also those who were not informed about the proceedings at the time they were initiated, as they were not residing in Montenegro, and who subsequently exercised this right,” Milaš explained.
This webinar represents a practical extension of the CCE manual “War Crimes of the 1990s in the Judgments of Montenegrin Judiciary”, enabling a deeper analysis and discussion of court judgments available in the publication “The Process of Dealing with the Past in Montenegro – the ‘Deportation’ Case.”
The aim of the webinar series is to provide the interested public with access to verified and validated information on war crimes through the analysis of court judgments, relevant evidence, testimonies, and the role of institutions. The next webinar will be led by lawyer Damir Suljević on 16 March 2026 and will focus on the “Zmajević” case.
The webinar series is implemented within the CCE project “Understanding the Past to Build Trust and Transitional Justice”, as part of the regional programme “EU Support to Confidence Building in the Western Balkans”, funded by the European Union and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The content of this webinar is the sole responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of CCE, the EU, or UNDP.
Maja Marinović, Programme Associate