Centre for Civic Education (CCE), in analyzing the annual reports of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, notes that a significant number of recommendations issued by this institution remain unimplemented – between 20% and 25% annually – often without any clear explanation as to why the competent authorities ignore them. This raises questions about the attitude of institutions toward the protection of human rights, as well as the need for a broader public debate on the actual reach and authority of the Protector’s institution.
According to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, after conducting a procedure, the Protector issues an opinion on whether a violation of rights has occurred and, when a violation is established, issues a recommendation on the measures that should be taken to remedy it.
Although the Ombudsman’s recommendations are not enforceable in the same way as court decisions, they are important because, among other things, they serve as a test of institutions’ willingness to acknowledge a failure, remedy the consequences of a rights violation, or at least publicly and substantively explain why they are acting differently. The problem arises when recommendations are ignored, without accountability and without any explanation as to why they are not being implemented.
CCE does not proceed from the assumption that all decisions of the Protector are necessarily indisputable or that they should not be critically examined. On the contrary, we recently publicly criticized one of the Protector’s opinions, which we considered not to be in line with human rights standards. However, it is an entirely different matter when institutions systematically ignore recommendations, particularly in cases concerning the most vulnerable categories of society.
According to the Protector’s Annual Report for 2025, a total of 381 recommendations were issued to state bodies and institutions. Of these, 159 recommendations were complied with, 71 were not complied with, 118 are being implemented continuously, the deadline for implementing 32 recommendations has not yet expired, while one recommendation was partially complied with.
The Annual Report for 2024 recorded 451 recommendations, of which 110 were not complied with, amounting to almost one quarter, while 127 were complied with, 30 partially complied with, 12 are being implemented continuously, and the deadline for implementing 58 recommendations had not yet expired. Among the unimplemented recommendations are those relating to children with disabilities and developmental difficulties, persons with disabilities, and citizens whose basic livelihood rights are at risk.
For example, during 2024, the Ministry of Health and the then Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare failed to act on a recommendation concerning the improvement of intersectoral cooperation in the exchange of information about children with disabilities and developmental difficulties. The same report also records the case of a woman with a 90% disability who, for a prolonged period, was unable to exercise her right to an allowance for care and assistance by another person, despite her serious health condition and threatened livelihood. In that case, the Public Institution Centre for Social Work Podgorica and the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare failed to comply with the Protector’s recommendations concerning the assessment of her situation and ensuring the functioning of the social-medical commission. When institutions ignore such recommendations, the consequences are not merely procedural, as they directly affect the dignity and livelihood of certain citizens.
The problem of non-compliance with the Protector’s recommendations is not limited only to the executive branch, as demonstrated by the case of the Basic Court in Kotor, recorded in the Protector’s 2025 Report. This case concerned the excessive length of civil proceedings and a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The Protector’s recommendation that the court urgently undertake procedural actions to conclude the main hearing and issue a decision was not implemented. It is highly concerning when the judiciary ignores the recommendations of an institution with which, in practice, it should form a common shield for citizens against institutional inefficiency, violations of rights, and legal uncertainty.
CCE believes that this requires a serious public debate on the position and effects of the work of the institution of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms. The right to criticize or question the Ombudsman’s decisions cannot automatically mean the right of institutions to ignore them without explanation and without consequences.
Rozana Vuljaj, Project Assistant