The chief of police in Cetinje, Dalibor Šaban, disclosed significant procedural failures regarding firearm regulation during a trial linked to the tragic mass shooting in Medovina. During the proceedings against former police chief Olivera Krivokapić, who is charged with negligence, Šaban confirmed that a criminal complaint against Vuk Borilović for violent behavior had been filed prior to the massacre, which resulted in the deaths of ten individuals, including two young boys, Marko and Mašan Martinović.
Šaban’s testimony revealed that the police branch was informed about Borilović’s violent tendencies and the existence of a criminal complaint, yet no administrative action was taken to revoke his firearm license. He noted that this lack of action was improper given that Borilović possessed a firearm legally, yet had been reported for violent behavior that met the criteria for immediate intervention under the Law on Weapons.
The police chief indicated that he had communicated the complaint to the Cetinje branch of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP) but acknowledged that sending such notifications was not legally mandated. He stated, “While it was a practice to inform the branch, it was not required by law.” The implication was clear: had the police acted on the complaint, the tragic events in Medovina might have been prevented.
During the trial, Krivokapić questioned why she had not been charged for failing to act on the notification regarding Borilović. In response, Šaban explained, “The police did not possess operational data to indicate that nothing was done in accordance with the notification.” He emphasized that if the police had received definitive evidence of Borilović’s ongoing violent behavior, they would have escalated the matter to the prosecution.
Šaban also identified Aleksandar Đaković, another police officer in Cetinje, as a contact person for handling Borilović’s case. He recounted that the knowledge of Borilović’s violent actions, including an incident where he threw stones at a neighbor’s house and damaged a vehicle with a metal rod in July 2021, should have prompted a more rigorous investigation into his firearm possession.
Despite the police’s previous engagement with Borilović’s violent actions, Šaban could not confirm whether a search of his residence was conducted at the time of the July incident. He stated, “I do not recall if a search was performed, and if it was, the weapon was well hidden.” This lack of clarity raises questions about the thoroughness of law enforcement’s response to prior allegations against Borilović.
The police chief further elaborated on the criteria for confiscating firearms, explaining that only in cases where the weapon is directly linked to a criminal act can law enforcement proceed with seizure. He stated that Borilović’s firearm should have been the subject of an administrative process, which was neglected during the initial investigations.
As the trial continued, the courtroom was filled with tension as Krivokapić pressed Šaban for answers regarding the police’s decision-making process leading up to the massacre. She specifically inquired why a criminal complaint against her was not filed for failing to act on Borilović’s case. Šaban reiterated that operational data was not available to justify any further action at that time.
The aftermath of the Medovina massacre has prompted widespread scrutiny of the police procedures in Montenegro, particularly regarding their handling of individuals with known histories of violent behavior. The trial has not only spotlighted the individual actions of the police and their adherence to legal protocols but has also raised critical questions about systemic issues within the Montenegrin criminal justice system.
As the case unfolds, the impact of these revelations on public trust in law enforcement remains to be seen. The ongoing investigation into the circumstances surrounding both Borilović’s actions and the police’s failure to act adequately underscores the need for accountability and reform in the handling of firearms and violent offenders in Montenegro.
