Over the past 20 years, the presidents of Montenegro have decided on a total of 2,610 applications for pardon, of which 516 were granted. However, there are still no clearly prescribed decision-making criteria, nor is there an obligation to explain why certain final criminal sentences were remitted, reduced or commuted, according to the findings of the publication by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE), An Act of Mercy or an Unexplained Privilege – Presidential Pardons in Montenegro 2006–2026, authored by Rozana Vuljaj.
During his two and a half terms in office, Filip Vujanović granted 483 out of 2,146 applications, Milo Đukanović granted 21 out of 299 during his single term, while Jakov Milatović has so far granted 12 out of 165 applications during his current term. The year 2012 stands out in particular, with as many as 142 applications granted – more than during Milo Đukanović’s full term and Jakov Milatović’s term to date combined. The share of granted applications declined from 22.5% during Filip Vujanović’s tenure to approximately 7% during the terms of Milo Đukanović and Jakov Milatović.
However, the key issue is not who was pardoned or how many applications were granted, but the fact that the decision-making procedure is not sufficiently regulated by law. Although the President exercises this power on the basis of the Constitution of Montenegro, the Criminal Code and the Law on Pardons, the applicable legislation does not define clear criteria for assessing the merits of applications, nor does it require the President to provide reasons for decisions granting pardons.
The analysis identifies three key shortcomings in the system: the absence of clearly prescribed criteria, the lack of an obligation to provide reasons for decisions, and incomplete information on whether pardons were granted in accordance with the proposal of the Ministry of Justice. Although annual overviews of the number and structure of pardons are published, they do not explain why a particular application was granted. Consequently, citizens cannot determine whether the decisive factors were humanitarian or health-related reasons, family circumstances, the conduct of the convicted person, the degree of their rehabilitation, or other criteria.
CCE does not call into question the President’s constitutional authority to grant pardons. However, a pardon is not merely an act of mercy towards a convicted person, but also an intervention in the consequences of a final court judgment. The analysis also shows that pardons did not concern only less serious criminal offences, but also violence, abuse of office, domestic violence, unlawful possession of weapons, drug-related offences and serious offences against road traffic safety. When a pardon concerns socially sensitive criminal offences and no clear explanation is provided, this may weaken both the deterrent effect and public confidence in the judiciary, undermine the position of victims and create the impression of privileged treatment.
The publication is further enhanced by a comparative overview of the systems in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania and Germany. The comparison shows that most of the countries analysed retain pardoning as a presidential power, but link it to stronger institutional oversight and a higher degree of transparency. Serbia and Slovenia provide for a stronger role for the courts at the preliminary stage, while Slovenia also includes the opinion of the prosecution service. Croatia publishes pardon decisions in the official gazette and explicitly protects the rights of third parties, Albania maintains a public register of applications, while in Germany this power is institutionally more narrowly defined.
As a systemic solution, CCE proposes amendments to the Law on Pardons that would introduce clear decision-making criteria and an obligation to publish reasoned decisions, strengthen the role of the Ministry of Justice, and establish either a prohibition or stricter conditions for granting pardons in cases involving the most serious criminal offences. Consideration should also be given to abolishing the possibility of exemption from criminal prosecution through a pardon, in order to prevent interference with the jurisdiction of the judiciary before a final court decision has been rendered. In addition, CCE recommends that, even before the law is amended, the President of Montenegro introduce the practice of publishing a brief explanation for every decision granting a pardon, while protecting personal and sensitive data. Annual overviews should also include the main reasons for decisions granting pardons and information on whether the decision was consistent with the proposal of the Ministry of Justice.
Presidential discretion may exist, but it must not be unlimited, unexplained or beyond scrutiny. Only through clear criteria, institutional oversight and publicly reasoned decisions can a pardon remain a justified act of mercy rather than become a privilege whose rationale is unknown to the public. Therefore, CCE expects the Office of the President of Montenegro, the Government of Montenegro and the Ministry of Justice to give serious consideration to these recommendations, so that the pardon system may be regulated and applied in a more transparent and accountable manner.
Milica Borozan, Project Assistant