The Financial Landscape of Medical Experts in Montenegrin Criminal Proceedings
In 2023, a significant portion of the funds allocated for expert opinions in Montenegrin criminal proceedings was concentrated among a select group of medical experts. The Prosecutorial Council (PC) disbursed just over €543,000 for expert opinions, with four individuals—Nemanja Radojević, Miodrag Šoć, Krsto Nikolić, and Ivana Curović—collectively receiving around €170,000. Radojević emerged as the highest earner, taking home more than €50,000 for his services.
Disparities in Earnings Among Experts
While Radojević led the pack, another medical expert, Željko Golubović, also made a notable income from his engagements with Montenegrin courts, earning approximately €40,000 between 2023 and the first half of 2024. Following closely behind him was Radojević, who garnered around €30,000 during the same period. The financial dynamics reveal a stark contrast in how different experts are compensated for their contributions to the judicial process.
Experts are also compensated through court executions, a process that further benefited Radojević. In the first half of 2024, he received an astonishing €75,000 from a total of €78,000 allocated for expert fees through public bailiffs. This situation arose partly due to Radojević’s proactive approach in filing lawsuits for unpaid fees, which resulted in him receiving significantly increased amounts from the state.
The Implications of Expert Selection
The data, obtained through the Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) and the Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS), raises questions about the selection process of court experts. Marija Popović Kalezić, the director of CEGAS, expressed concern over the repeated selection of the same experts, suggesting that this practice not only reflects a lack of diversity in expert engagement but also raises issues of accountability and transparency within the judicial system.
Popović Kalezić highlighted the need for a more rigorous selection process, emphasizing that the judiciary’s reliance on a small pool of experts could lead to biases and inefficiencies. The 2023 report from the Prosecutorial Council indicated that a staggering 5,822 expert opinions were conducted, predominantly in the fields of medicine and forensic medicine, yet the same individuals were repeatedly chosen.
The Role of the Clinical Center of Montenegro
A critical aspect of this issue lies with the Clinical Center of Montenegro (KCCG), which has been criticized for its lack of oversight regarding the hours experts spend on court-related work. The absence of records raises concerns about the potential misuse of state resources, as experts may be utilizing facilities and time meant for public service to conduct private business.
Despite repeated inquiries, KCCG has not provided clarity on how it manages the time and resources of its employed experts. This lack of transparency further complicates the relationship between state institutions and the experts they engage.
The Underutilization of Available Experts
An alarming statistic from CEGAS indicates that more than 65% of registered experts were never hired in 2023. The Law on Court Experts stipulates that courts should appoint experts based on their qualifications and the complexity of cases. However, the reality suggests a failure to diversify expert engagement, leading to potential monopolies over expert testimony.
Popović Kalezić pointed out that while some fields may have a limited number of qualified experts, the consistent selection of the same individuals in other areas raises questions about fairness and impartiality. The judiciary’s tendency to favor familiar experts can stifle opportunities for others and perpetuate a cycle of dependency.
Accountability and Reform
The current landscape of expert engagement in Montenegro’s judicial system is fraught with challenges, including inadequate oversight, lack of accountability, and a failure to implement necessary reforms. The Ministry of Justice has acknowledged the need for improvements, particularly in the areas of disciplinary responsibility and the equitable distribution of work among experts.
Proposed amendments to the Law on Court Experts aim to address these shortcomings, with a focus on enhancing transparency and ensuring that expert opinions are delivered in a timely manner. The Ministry has committed to strengthening the system of accountability for judicial professionals, including expert witnesses.
Conclusion
The financial and operational dynamics surrounding medical experts in Montenegrin criminal proceedings highlight significant issues within the judicial system. The concentration of earnings among a few individuals, coupled with the underutilization of a broader pool of experts, raises concerns about fairness, accountability, and the overall integrity of the judicial process. As Montenegro moves forward, it is imperative that reforms are implemented to ensure a more equitable and efficient system that serves the interests of justice and the public.