A wall of state silence over manipulations of SKY evidence
More than a month after ETV’s investigative team published information about possible irregularities and manipulations involving messages from the SKY ECC application, Chief Special Prosecutor Vladimir Novović still has no answers for the public. Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković reacted with only a single sentence, while the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Valentina Pavličić, says she has no authority to influence ongoing cases
By analyzing indictments and orders to conduct investigations, ETV’s investigative team revealed disturbing irregularities in cases handled by the Special State Prosecutor’s Office more than a month ago, pointing to possible abuses.
As reported by Television E and Portal ETV, as many as twelve SKY messages of identical content, date, and time were inserted into a case concerning cigarette smuggling through the Ecuadorian port of Guayaquil, while simultaneously appearing in an investigation into cocaine smuggling, also from Ecuador?!
NO REACTION FROM THE SSPO
Journalists from our media outlet also uncovered manipulation of the content of a Europol Intelligence Document delivered to Predrag Šuković, head of the Special Police Department, and from there forwarded to the head of the Special State Prosecutor’s Office Vladimir Novović.
What is particularly intriguing is that the original Europol documents do not mention the name of Podgorica businessman Aleksandar Mijajlović, nor the nickname „Aco“, which later mysteriously appears in prosecutorial files, replacing Europol’s information about a person nicknamed „Miki“ and „New Miki“ (translated from „Novi Miki“).
All of this raises suspicion that someone - either within the Special Police Department or the Special State Prosecutor’s Office - subsequently altered or supplemented the original Europol data.
However, apart from persistent silence lasting more than a month, there has been no reaction from the Special State Prosecutor’s Office to Television E’s questions.
Nor did Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković answer the key question: he responded to four questions with a single sentence.
WHEN AN ANSWER IS NOT AN ANSWER
- We remind you that the cases you mention in your questions are pending before the competent court. All proposed evidence, including the cited messages, will be assessed by the court in accordance with the law, and a decision will be made - the office of the Supreme State Prosecutor Marković replied.
In reality: one bureaucratically worded sentence, devoid of substance!
Even after a follow-up email - in which we reiterated that the same messages appear as evidence in multiple cases, one of which is still under investigation by the Special Prosecutor’s Office - no response was provided.
While prosecutors largely remain silent, the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Valentina Pavličić submitted a detailed written response, citing the Constitution and laws.
She recalled that judicial authority is independent, and that judges are autonomous in exercising their judicial function and rule exclusively on the basis of the Constitution and the law, which excludes any interference in judicial decision-making in specific cases.
LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
- The President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro has no authority to act or in any way influence individual cases pending before Montenegrin courts - Pavličić’s response states.
She emphasized that, in order to preserve the integrity of proceedings and impartiality, she has no legal authority to comment on individual cases.
- The President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro also has no legal authority to review confirmed indictments, analyze individual cases, or assess the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings before lower courts. The assessment of evidence and the rendering of decisions based on evidence presented in court proceedings fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of judicial panels before which the cases are pending - the response to Television E states.
QUESTIONS BLOWN „INTO THE WIND“
Will you request that the indictments in question be reviewed again? Do you believe that such conduct may have violated the defendants’ right to a fair trial, both by the Special State Prosecutor’s Office and by the judges who confirmed the indictments?
To these questions from TV E, the President of the High Court in Podgorica Zoran Radović persistently avoided responding.
Unlike Montenegrin institutions, which remain silent on questions about the misuse of SKY communications, lawyers across Europe have for years warned that SKY cannot serve as valid evidence if its authenticity is disputed.
THE QUESTION OF TRIAL FAIRNESS
Dutch lawyer Justus Reizinger emphasizes that the defense must have full opportunity to verify the legality of how such evidence was obtained.
- As defense attorneys in criminal proceedings, we must be able not only to verify the reliability of incriminating evidence, but also to determine how it was obtained and processed, whether this was done in accordance with the law, and whether it constitutes lawful evidence at all - Reizinger said in a statement to ETV.
He stresses that this must be assessed in accordance with the national legislation of the states from which the citizens indicted on the basis of SKY messages originate.
- We must be able to examine legality in accordance with the national legislation of all states involved. If these questions of legality cannot be adequately reviewed, that means there is no possibility of a fair trial, and such evidence would have to be excluded - Reizinger concludes.
While competent institutions shift responsibility among themselves, the key question remains unanswered: were the disputed evidence lawfully obtained and used?
State silence and the absence of reaction call into question the defendants’ right to a fair trial, and at the same time undermine public trust in the judicial system.