Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Commend Montenegro on Cooperation with the Western Balkans, Ask Questions on the Law on Compensation for Victims and Progress in Searches for Missing Persons
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Montenegro on additional information under article 29 (4) of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts commended the State party’s cooperation on enforced disappearance with authorities in the Western Balkans, while asking questions on the law on compensation for victims and progress in searches for missing persons.
Fidelis Kanyongolo, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, welcomed reported cooperation between the State Party and competent authorities in the Western Balkans on investigations into enforced disappearance.
Barbara Lochbihler, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked why the Law on Compensation for Victims of Crimes would only become applicable when Montenegro acceded to the European Union. She said that this prevented victims’ right to compensation being guaranteed in a timely manner.
Ms. Lochbihler also said that the number of persons being located by the State’s Commission on Missing Persons was very limited and the identification process was slow. Did the Commission have a strategy for searches, identifications and returns of remains to families?
Introducing the report, Damir Gutić, Minister of Social Welfare, Family Affairs and Demography and head of the delegation, said that, concerning support for witnesses and victims, agreements had been signed with the Prosecutor’s Offices of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Serbia and cooperation had also been initiated with the Republic of Croatia.
The delegation said the State party needed to align its laws with the European Union as part of the accession process. It was working to speed up obtaining a positive review of the Law on Compensation for Victims of Crimes from the European Commission. The adoption of the law was delayed, but victims could still initiate civil proceedings to seek compensation.
Regarding efforts to locate missing persons, Mr. Gutić said the Government’s Commission on Missing Persons was currently engaged in tracing 50 individuals who went missing during the armed conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Since 2021, the mortal remains of four individuals had been recovered and the identify of one victim confirmed.
The delegation added that the Commission did not have the authority to conduct investigations in other States’ territories, so required cooperation from States in the region. Montenegro actively participated in regional mechanisms, particularly in the work of the Group on Missing Persons, and organised regular meetings with officials from other States to ensure collaboration.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Gutić said the delegation welcomed the Committee’s questions and suggestions. Montenegro would serve as an example to countries in the region and apply best practices in fields such as searches for missing persons. The State hoped to reach its goal of European Union membership by 2028, and that the new laws devised in preparation for this would be beneficial to its citizens.
Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Chair, said in concluding remarks that the dialogue was an essential step in the Committee’s work to promote full implementation of the Convention in the State party. The Committee would continue exchanges with the State party to ensure implementation.
The delegation of Montenegro consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Social Welfare, Family Affairs and Demography; Ministry of Justice; Commission on Missing Persons; Supreme State Prosecutor's Office; and the Permanent Mission of Montenegro to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Montenegro at the end of its twenty-ninth session, which concludes on 2 October. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 23 September at 1 p.m. to hold a side event with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to mark the first anniversary of their joint statement on so-called “short term enforced disappearances”.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Montenegro on additional information under article 29 (4) of the Convention (CED/C/MNE/AI/1).
Presentation of Report
DAMIR GUTIĆ, Minister of Social Welfare, Family Affairs and Demography and head of the delegation, said Montenegro remained resolutely committed to the obligations arising from the Convention, as well as to the universal principles of human rights, the rule of law, and justice for victims. In recent years, measurable progress had been achieved, with a notable increase in legal activity. In 2024, 21 new cases were initiated, two indictments were filed, 30 cases were under consideration, 10 requests for international legal assistance in criminal matters were sent and seven were received. In the first half of 2025, 18 new cases were initiated, six of which were concluded, while 13 preliminary investigations and one investigation case remained ongoing. Indictments were filed in two of these cases. One request for international legal assistance in criminal matters was also sent and nine requests were received. Particularly significant was the verdict of the High Court in Podgorica from July 2025, which imposed a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for a war crime against the civilian population. This decision clearly sent the message that such crimes did not become subject to limitation and that justice was attainable. Seven cases concerning missing persons were also underway.
To ensure a continuous, proactive, and systematic approach to the prosecution of war crimes, the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office had adopted a Strategy for the Investigation of War Crimes for the period 2024–2027, with an initial action plan for 2024–2025. Special investigative teams had been established to reexamine complex and previously concluded proceedings, including the cases of Morinj, Bukovica, Kaluđerski Laz, and the Deportation case. Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code had made it possible to use evidence presented before international courts, which significantly contributed to the more efficient prosecution of perpetrators.
Agreements had been signed with the Prosecutor’s Offices of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Serbia, concerning support for witnesses and victims, and cooperation had also been initiated with the Republic of Croatia. The exchange of evidence and experiences with the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in The Hague was ongoing and had been assessed as highly effective. In cooperation with the international mechanism, during 2024 and 2025, evidence was exchanged, joint training programmes were held, and prosecution working groups participated in relevant training sessions.
In June 2025, amendments to the Criminal Code were proposed introducing the criminal offence of “enforced disappearance” as an autonomous offence, in accordance with the Convention. A prison sentence of no less than five years was prescribed for any public official who detained, abducted, or otherwise deprived a person of liberty and concealed their disappearance. Harsher penalties were prescribed for aggravated cases, such as the disappearance of a child, a pregnant woman, or in cases involving death or the actions of an organised group. Furthermore, under these amendments, victims of war crimes and disappearances were now recognised as having the right to access support services, protection from intimidation and retaliation, information on the progress of proceedings, as well as the right to be accompanied by a trusted person. The families of victims were included in criminal proceedings, with the possibility to submit a civil claim for compensation.
In the field of reparations, Montenegro had taken an important step forward with the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Veterans’ and Disability Protection, which for the first time defined the status of a civilian victim of war in Montenegro. The law provided for monthly allowances for family members of civilian victims of war. Additionally, in 2025, the Government adopted conclusions recognising the need for one-off financial assistance in the amount of 100,000 euros for each of the 16 identified families of persons who lost their lives in the cases of Murino, Tuzi, Štrpci, and the deportation of refugees. The Supreme Court had commenced the development of Guidelines on Compensation for Victims, alongside a reform of victim support services, which would enhance practices in criminal proceedings. The Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, associated by-laws, and central registries guaranteed that no person could be deprived of liberty without this being properly documented and transparently recorded.
The Government’s Commission on Missing Persons was currently engaged in tracing a total of 50 individuals who went missing during the armed conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Since 2021, the mortal remains of four individuals had been recovered. In three cases from 2025, DNA identification was still ongoing, while in one case in 2024, the identity was confirmed and the remains were returned to the family. Montenegro actively participated in regional mechanisms, particularly in the work of the Group on Missing Persons. The Regional Database of Active Cases of Missing Persons, a unique platform that had been publicly accessible since 2022, stood as a model of successful regional cooperation.
The Commission maintained regular communication with the families of the missing at all stages of the process, from exhumation and identification to return and burial. Additionally, the Commission undertook and carried out the drafting of Guidelines for the Search for Missing Persons, a document based on the Convention that provided clear principles and procedures, ensuring that the search for each missing person was conducted in a coordinated, professional manner, with full respect for the rights of families.
Certain challenges persisted in the implementation of the Convention. The lack of complete documentation, the passage of time, and the limited capacities of institutions often impeded the progress of investigations. The Government’s priority remained the continuous enhancement of institutional capacities, the legislative framework, and regional cooperation mechanisms, to ensure thorough and effective implementation of the Convention, in partnership with civil society, international organisations, and the families of the missing.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee noted the proposal made in June 2025 to incorporate into the law of Montenegro the criminal offence of “enforced disappearance” as an autonomous offence, in accordance with the Convention. What measures had the State party taken since June 2025 to ensure that the proposal was enacted into law? When was the law expected to be enacted? Did the crimes referenced capture all those mentioned in the Convention, including refusing to acknowledge the depravation of liberty and concealing the fate of the victim? Did it cover all mitigating circumstances in the Convention, including where the perpetrator effectively contributed to bringing the disappeared person forward alive or made it possible to clarify cases of enforced disappearance or to identify other perpetrators? Did the State envisage amending article 125 of its Criminal Code to provide that the limitation period applicable to the offence of enforced disappearance commenced from the moment when the enforced disappearance ceased?
To what extent had the State implemented the Strategy for the Investigation of War Crimes for the period 2024–2027 and the initial action plan for 2024–2025? Were there examples of cases in which the Guidelines for the Search for Missing Persons had been expressly invoked or applied? Did the Guidelines reflect the Guiding Principles for the Search of Disappeared Persons adopted by the Committee?
The Committee welcomed the reported cooperation between the State Party and competent authorities in the Western Balkans but wished to receive more information regarding areas in which cooperation required further strengthening and procedural acceleration. What measures had been taken by the State Party and its regional partners to address any challenges that constrained the work of the Missing Persons Commission? The Committee appreciated that the State party was working with victims’ families. What activities had the families of the missing been allowed to undertake in searches for missing persons and organisation of commemorative events?
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that no action had been taken following the publication in 2022 of the draft law on amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, which included an amended definition of a victim, and the national strategy for the protection of victims (2025-2028) had not been enacted yet. What were the reasons for the delays and how would the State party adopt these measures in a timely manner? How did the State party intend to ensure participation of victims and civil society organizations in these processes? Were there plans to amend the Law on Free Legal Aid so that families of missing or disappeared persons would have the same access to legal aid as families of victims of war crimes, along clear and transparent criteria?
The State Party’s obligations from the Convention did not depend on its European Union membership. Why would the Law on Compensation for Victims of Crimes only become applicable on the day of accession of Montenegro to the European Union? This prevented the victims’ right to compensation being guaranteed in a timely manner. How could the State party ensure that access to compensation was granted in procedural and material terms without undue limitations of scope, such as exclusion of victims of past crimes? How did the State party ensure that all family members of disappeared persons were recognised as victims in line with the Convention? Sixteen families had received compensation. Was the Government looking into the plight of other victims’ families who were in similar situations, with valid evidence, to assist with compensation? How did the State ensure the rights of the families of disappeared persons whose fate had not yet been clarified?
How did the witness protection programme provide services for victims of enforced disappearances? Had there been an evaluation of the programme’s implementation, and did the State Party intent to adapt it? How did the State evaluate the capacities of victim support services in terms of procedure and staffing? How did it intend to guarantee the victims’ rights to reparation beyond monetary compensation, such as rehabilitation, psychosocial support, or guarantees of non-repetition, and ensure access to services in all regions of the State?
How would the State party ensure effective consultation of families of disappeared persons in the adoption and the implementation of the Guidelines for the Search for Missing Persons? The Commission on Missing Persons was searching for 50 cases as of June 2025. However, the number of persons being located and exhumations carried out was very limited and the identification process was slow. Did the Commission have a strategy and annual targets for searches, exhumations, identifications and returns of remains to families? What modern technologies were used to accelerate searches? Did the State Party see possibilities to increase regional collaboration?
There had been limited training for judges and prosecutors on enforced disappearances and war crimes. What was the curriculum for such training? How did the State Party plan to improve the quality and quantity of capacity? How would it ensure that the new Guidelines for the Search for Missing Persons were integrated in the training of all professions concerned? Would the State party address the Committee’s general comment one on enforced disappearances in the context of migration, in training on the Convention?
The office of the Ombudsman had “B” status accreditation under the Paris Principles. How had the 2016 recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation been followed-up and how did the Ombudsman work on the prevention of enforced disappearances? Did the State Party intend to set up a national human rights institution that would qualify for “A” status soon?
A Committee Expert asked about the extent to which the State provided care to the families of the 50 persons who were missing and supported their right to truth and information. What relationships did the State include in its definition of “family members” of victims?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the draft law on amendments to the Criminal Code had been submitted to the European Commission in June 2025 for review. If the Commission requested revisions of this law, these would be addressed. The draft law was fully aligned with the Convention. If a person had been detained unlawfully for more than 30 days and were in poor health, or when the victim was a child or a pregnant woman, the minimum penalty was eight years imprisonment; the penalty was higher when a group of persons was involved or when the victim had died.
Crimes against humanity, war crimes against civilians and abductions were addressed in the Criminal Code, with definitions that incorporated acts of deprivation of liberty.
The Criminal Code determined mitigating circumstances, bearing in mind the motive, the seriousness of the offence and certain personal circumstances of the perpetrator. Mitigating circumstances applied when perpetrators collaborated in efforts to free the person involved or identify their whereabouts. The statute of limitations applied for crimes of enforced disappearance from the date the offence occurred and was terminated with each procedural action.
The Strategy for the Protection of Victims had been prepared with the participation of stakeholders from the State, civil society and the Council of Europe. The Strategy covered the period from 2025 to 2029, and had an action plan for 2025 to 2027. It promoted the protection of victims and access to justice. Procedural guarantees were provided for victims in line with international standards. The Strategy aimed to align the normative framework in terms of the protection of the rights of victims, promoting access to justice and strengthening professional capacities in terms of victims’ rights. The public could provide submissions related to the Strategy.
The Criminal Code defined victims as persons who had suffered physical or mental pain from unlawful acts. A draft law developed in May this year broadened the definition of victims to cover spouses, siblings, adopters and adoptees of victims. The scope of persons entitled to free legal aid had been broadened in 2024 to cover victims of torture and sexual violence, and children in proceedings related to child rights. Future amendments to the law on legal aid would consider broadening the scope of beneficiaries to cover victims of enforced disappearance and missing persons.
The draft law on damages was in line with relevant European Union legislation. This law would enter into force when the State party entered the European Union, but victims could currently file civil claims for compensation.
The police administration was implementing the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture related to upholding the rights of persons deprived of liberty. It was ensuring these persons’ access to medical doctors and attorneys, and to information on the reasons for their arrest, from the movement of deprivation of liberty. No person could be deprived of liberty without official records of their identity and the date of the detention. The legal framework did not leave room for secret detentions or enforced disappearance.
All victims of war crimes were guaranteed access to justice, compensation and reparation. In civil proceedings, courts applied the law on obligations and the civil proceedings law to regulate redress measures. In the deportation case, compensation of over four million euros had been provided. There were 103 cases in which final proceedings had been reached.
Guidelines on the Search for Missing Persons were adopted in July 2025. They promoted the right of victims’ families to information. Exhumations and identifications were carried out with the use of modern technologies, and exhumed remains of victims were passed on to families. Families of missing persons were allowed to participate in all stages of the search process. They provided DNA samples for the verification of identity and were provided with administrative and other forms of support. Joint commemorations of victims of armed conflicts in the area of former Yugoslavia were held in September 2022.
The Commission on Missing Persons did not have the authority to conduct investigations in other States’ territories, so required cooperation from States in the region. Family members, including children, spouses, step-parents and step-children could enjoy the benefits envisaged under the law for victims.
In 2024, the State party concluded three agreements related to criminal proceedings with the prosecutors’ office in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and two with Croatia. Signatories agreed to cooperate in providing aid and support to victims, exchange information, and participate in joint activities. The Supreme Court had initiated the drafting of guidelines on the provision of support services to victims, which it hoped would be finalised by the end of the year. A department had been set up within the Court that was specialised in providing support, including transport and legal aid, to victims from other States. Support services attached to High Courts and prosecutors’ offices were available across the country.
Procedural protection measures included protected rooms for victims to provide their testimony and voice changing devices. The Government had allocated premises that would be adapted to provide procedural protection measures. The State party planned to increase the number of prosecutors in the Special State Prosecutors’ Office to 20.
The State party had adopted recommendations related to training sessions for stakeholders on the Convention. The centre for judicial education was currently working on developing educational materials on enforced disappearance, which would be used in training courses provided online once a year. The training would also cover missing persons and the rights of victims. The Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office would carry out training programmes on strengthening accountability, the rights of victims, and war crimes in various regions. The Office would consider introducing training on the rights of migrants.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked whether there were measures that could be taken to expedite the process to adopt the legal amendment on compensation that had been submitted to the European Union. Which offences included the refusal to acknowledge depravation of liberty or reveal the whereabouts of a detainee? At what point did Montenegrin law regard the consequences of an enforced disappearance to have occurred? Did the proposed legal amendment address the requirements of article 8(1) of the Convention? Was there alignment between the Guidelines on the Search for Missing Persons and the Committee’s Guiding Principles, particularly regarding the need for investigations to be carried out independently and impartially?
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked whether there was training for professions other than members of the judiciary on enforced disappearance. Were there possibilities for more capacity building? How could the State party increase regional collaboration? The Law on Compensation for Victims of Crimes was a good law but would be implemented only when Montenegro joined the European Union. Could it not be implemented before then? Had people responded to the public call for information related to the national strategy for the protection of victims?
What made it difficult to determine the exact number of victims of enforced disappearance? Some 1.5 million euros had been awarded to victims of war crimes, but only two of the cases in which compensation had been granted involved victims of enforced disappearance. Why was this? What compensation had been provided to victims of enforced disappearance? How many victims of enforced disappearance would benefit from the 1.6 million euros that the Government planned to provide in future compensation?
A Committee Expert asked whether the State party intended to use an absence procedure to determine when to consider the 50 persons who were missing as deceased. This would allow these persons’ relatives to obtain inheritance. What had been done to assist these persons and their families? After how long was a missing person presumed to be deceased? What was the maximum sentence handed down when there were aggravating circumstances in cases of enforced disappearance?
Another Committee Expert asked what happened when perpetrators of crimes of enforced disappearance were groups of persons? Was the minimum sentence for these persons five years imprisonment? In which court cases were witness protection measures applied? Why were there eight vacant positions in the Special Prosecutors’ office investigating cases of enforced disappearance? Was there a lack of trust in prosecutors that discouraged people from taking up these positions? How were vacancies announced?
One Committee Expert called on the State party to clarify the reforms to legislation on how international evidence was handled domestically.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said it needed to align its laws with the European Union. It was working to expedite the process of obtaining a positive review of the law on compensation from the European Commission. The adoption of the law on damages was delayed, but victims could still initiate civil proceedings to seek compensation.
The Criminal Code addressed liability for persons who refused to declare the whereabouts of a person. The statute of limitations varied depending on the length of imprisonment imposed for the offence. Criminal prosecution could not be undertaken more than 25 years after an offence that carried a punishment of long-term imprisonment, while the statute of limitations was five years for offences with an imprisonment penalty exceeding three years.
Eight years’ imprisonment was the maximum penalty for an ordinary crime of enforced disappearance, while for cases with aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty was 20 years’ imprisonment. Mitigating circumstances were considered by judges when determining the penalty for the crime. Persons who acted with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the State in carrying out the offence were also held accountable, including when the offence was carried out by a group of persons.
Witness protection measures also included the use of pseudonyms and technology to hide persons’ identities, as well as economic, psychological and legal aid. These measures were provided when the State determined that the witness could be put at risk if their identity was revealed.
Prosecutors’ work required dedication and personal sacrifices, which was one reason why there had been limited applications for open positions. The State party had increased prosecutors’ salaries to encourage applications.
In addition to members of the judiciary, police and Ministry of Justice officials had attended training sessions on enforced disappearance. The State would work with international partners to organise training on enforced disappearance at the regional level.
The criminal offence of enforced disappearance had not been prescribed, so the State party was not able to identify the two cases referenced by the Committee. The 1.6 million euros referred to was provided to the 16 families of victims of enforced disappearance identified by the State.
The Commission on Missing Persons specifically dealt with missing persons related to conflict in the area of the former Yugoslavia. The State party planned to actively participate in regional bodies, such as the Group for Missing Persons, and would organise regular meetings with officials from other States to ensure collaboration.
Amendments to the law on veterans and disability protection regulated the benefits provided to the families of missing persons. The State party had paid a one-time allowance to victims’ families in the Štrpci case amounting to 1,000 euros each.
The State party intended to adopt a law that would strengthen the Ombudsperson in line with the Paris Principles by the end of the year. There was no need to establish a new national human rights institution.
Challenges were posed to searches for missing persons by political decisions made by other countries; Montenegro was not obstructing regional efforts to investigate missing persons. Increased cooperation would lead to an increased number of judgements and indictments. Executive authorities were working to support the judiciary’s efforts to carry out investigations. The State party was working to foster trust in its institutions, which would help increase the proficiency of investigations.
The legal system included a mechanism for declaring missing persons as dead, which required circumstances suggesting their death.
Closing Statements
DAMIR GUTIĆ, Minister of Social Welfare, Family Affairs and Demography and head of the delegation, said the delegation welcomed the Committee’s questions and suggestions. The State party hoped to meet the requirements of the European Commission. It was aligning many laws with those of the European Union, and hoped to reach its goal of European Union membership by 2028. Montenegro would serve as an example to countries in the region and apply best practices in fields such as searches for missing persons. All the laws it had devised to meet the criteria for joining the European Union would be applied when the State entered the Union. The State party was hopeful that these new laws would be beneficial to its citizens. It was thankful to international partners and civil society for their support.
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue was an essential step in the Committee’s work to promote full implementation of the Convention in the State party. The Committee would draft concluding observations based on the issues discussed. It would continue exchanges with the State party to ensure implementation of the Convention in Montenegro. The State party could always count on the Committee’s support.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED25.010E