Montenegrin citizens should know that despite the Law on Ratification of the Agreement between Montenegro and Serbia on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, Montenegro has been denied answers to an endless series of questions about whether a certain person – a Montenegrin citizen is on the voter list of Serbia, whether he is a citizen of Serbia and since when, said the president of the State Election Commission (SEC), Aleksa Ivanović, for Fenjer TV.
On April 13 this year, CeMI, analyzing the available voters, determined that 2,691 voters residing in another country were registered in Herceg Novi, which represents more than ten percent of the electorate of that municipality.
A certain number of registered voters in the voter list of Montenegro, due to the fact that they have dual citizenship, is also registered in the voter list of Serbia. According to one of the founders of the KOD organization, Srdjan Peric, and a number of members of the Government are among them.
The President of the SEC also emphasized that several non-governmental organizations have determined that the fate of Montenegro is resolved with a certain number of people with dual citizenship, who by force of law cannot take the fate of Montenegro into their own hands.
Having in mind the stated constitutional provisions, the State Election Commission firmly stands on the position that the principle of equality and exercise of the right to vote in Montenegro has been violated by citizens of another state, and that the undoubted public interest of the state of Montenegro is to determine the number of citizens of other states that vote in Montenegro. The principle of the rule of law, i.e. that a citizen who behaves in accordance with the order of his own state has realistic expectations that the state will react against illegal behavior in a timely manner through institutions that take care of the legality of the election process”, Ivanović is clear.
He points out that Montenegro has been denied answers by the relevant authorities of the Republic of Serbia, regarding the submission of data requested by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Montenegro.
“Why and how Montenegro could not achieve public interest in finding out who are the voters in Montenegro and elsewhere, arranging the voter list, as it was denied answers by the relevant authorities of Serbia, in terms of providing data that is sought by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Montenegro for many years? Montenegrin citizens should know that despite the Law on Ratification of the Agreement between Montenegro and Serbia on Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, Montenegro has been denied answers to an endless series of questions about whether a certain person – a Montenegrin citizen is registered to vote in Serbia, whether he is a citizen of Serbia and since when,” said Ivanovic.
He was clear in his assessment that public authorities can in a certain part “enter” the private sphere of an individual, but only if such interference is based on regulations, as well as on the appropriate and predominant private or public interest.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks to the basics of the right to protection of personal data. Thus, the right to privacy is not absolute, but protection is provided only from “arbitrary interference” by others. This means that natural and legal persons, and especially public authorities, may in a certain part “enter” the private sphere of an individual, but only if such interference is based on regulations, as well as on the appropriate and predominant private or public interest.
“Having in mind the above, we believe that the State Election Commission acted in accordance with the Constitution, law and conventions of international law in the verification process. This action of the Commission was not aimed at violating human freedoms and rights and regulations governing the protection of personal data, but on the contrary, was aimed at protecting the constitutionality, legality of the election process, protection of the constitutional principle of non-discrimination and the right to equality before the Constitution and the law, as well as the obligation to “take care of the legal conduct of elections, which is prescribed by the State Election Commission in accordance with Article 32 paragraph 1 item 1 of the Law on Election of Councilors and Deputies”, the SEC President is clear.
Ivanovic assessed that the government, which derives from the illegally conducted election process, has no legality or legitimacy, and that therefore the public interest is to protect the legality of the election process.
“At the same time, we note that the government arising from the illegally conducted election process has no legality or legitimacy and therefore the public interest in conducting actions to protect the legality of the election process has priority over the protection of personal data because these rights do not have the character of absolute rights and facts that the Constitution of Montenegro prescribes. It is not possible to establish or recognize a government that does not result from the freely expressed will of the citizens in democratic elections, in accordance with the law,” said Ivanovic.
As he said, the Assembly is now asking for a “prison” for those who informed the public about the problem of dual citizenship.
“We are in a situation where members of parliament are demanding legal consequences for those who have discovered the problem of dual citizenship. In particular, they demand as they claim, that illegality has been established illegally. If we take into account the current situation and the division of society, I can't even guess what would happen to the “actors of detecting illegality” in the case of a more active showdown. I do not anticipate clashes like in neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the situation in which we find ourselves in Montenegro today is anything but a safe zone for critics of illegality in our country,” he suggests.
The biggest sin that the illegality was submitted to the Ministry of the Interior
Ivanovic stands firmly behind his position that the absolute untruth is what was heard during the parliamentary session.
“The untruth is what was heard during the assembly session. I did not have any personal data that was checked. I can even claim that the other members of the commission did not have an insight into that either. Is it the biggest sin that this illegality was submitted to the Ministry of the Interior in a very precise way – the envelope read ‘Minister in the Hands’? If it is noteworthy that the level of respect for the rule of law in a country is measured by prayerful morality, how do those who stated in parliament today that I personally processed that data feel? Is there any political morality?” Ivanovic asked.
He assessed that a more rigid position has not been heard for a long time than yesterday in the Parliament, and refuting such a position, he offers as evidence the documentation of the minutes from the session, as well as the testimonies of the members of the commission. Ivanovic also emphasized that he calmly welcomes the decision of the Assembly.
“I have not heard a more rigid position for a long time than today in the Parliament. In order to refute what was said today, I offer as evidence the documentation of the minutes from the session and the testimony of the members, and the decision of the Assembly, as I have stated so far, I hear quite calmly. Even calmer than before, because I want to give an answer to the prosecution, because it is based on evidence,” said Ivanovic.
After the disclosure of all this information, the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information – Supervision Department was sent the initiative to initiate the supervision procedure, as stated, due to suspicion of illegal processing of personal data from the voter list for the municipality of Herceg Novi by the State Election Commission in such a way that the unique identification number of each voter was checked electronically through the voter lists of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.