Believing introduction to international legal standards of procedures against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights as very important for monitoring situation of human rights in Montenegro, the Committee got acquainted with the Information on international legal procedures against Montenegro before the European Court Of Human Rights, submitted to the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms, in line with Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro, by the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights, by which seventh activity established by the Plan of activities of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms for 2013 is realized within the function of Control role of the Parliament.

Montenegrin representative before the European Court for Human Rights, Mr Zoran Pažin emphasized that Information on international legal procedures against Montenegro apart from statistical indicators contains recommendations for preventive cancellation of weaknesses within the legal system that may set in motion new applications against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights. Noting that the Parliament, apart from legislative, has very important oversight role over the work of other institutions of the system, Mr Pažin assessed as important that the committee dedicates attention to this issue. The representative said that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, performing monitoring of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, often requires the Member States to amend certain provisions in order to contribute to improvement of the level of respect of human rights and freedoms. He also listed the statistics on which the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg, according to the official records of the Registry, by the end of 2012 and in its work  849 applications filed against the state of Montenegro by natural and legal persons and non-governmental organizations, Pursuant to the Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees all legal entities under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe Member States the right to individual application to the European Court for Human Rights.

Index 2, 91 that represents number of cases (inflow) in 2012 per 10 000 citizens, as statistical parameter that is used by the European Court for Human Rights in its work, points that Montenegro is among states with high index of applications to the European Court for Human Rights per capita (average index of the Council of Europe Member States is 0, 79). Despite the fact that Montenegro is one of the countries with high number of cases before the European Court for Human Rights, there is a downward trend in the 2012, which can be observed with a dose of optimism. Mr Pažin said that the index, which indicates the number of cases against Montenegro for 2012, is significantly better compared to some countries in the region (Serbia, Croatia), but also in relation to certain EU Member States (Romania, Liechtenstein). Presenting statistics by year, he announced that in 2009 number of cases against Montenegro was 269, the 2010 305, 2011 314 cases and in 2012 180 cases while 2013 is promising downward trend of applications. In the opinion of Mr Pažin, it is, among other things, the result of better and more efficient functioning of the institutions in Montenegro, judiciary, as well as preventive action Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro.

It is encouraging the data that the European Court for Human Rights in relation to Montenegro of 377adopted judicial decisions, 350 applications against Montenegro were rejected as manifestly unfounded, rejected as unacceptable or removed from the list, while in 27 cases the European Court found a violation of at least one of the Convention rights that applications were related to.

Mr Pažin announced that out of 849 applications against Montenegro, 34 applications are at the stage of the trial before the European Court for Human Rights, in which legal issues are discussed, both admissibility of applications and procedural applications, and the issue of ground or the merits of the applications.

Compared to the 34 applications that are in the phase of trial, the applicants referred to the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in 29 cases, four cases of which are related to failure of final and enforceable court decision, and in 23 cases the applicants applications highlight delays in proceedings and, in this respect, emphasize the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, while in two cases the applicants refer to the violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal.

Applicants referred to the violation of the Article 13 to the Convention in 25 applications, which guarantees the right to effective legal remedy within the legal system at the national level.

In three cases applicants claimed violation of the right arising from the Article 14 to the Convention which prohibits discrimination in the implementation of Convention rights, while in one case violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 is expressed, which prohibits any form of discrimination in the implementation of the rights provided by the law of the Member States.

In seven cases the applicants have applied for, in their view, a breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, guaranteed by the Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, and seven cases relating to the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as prescribed under the Article 3 to the Convention, while in one case, the applicant alleges a breach of the right to the liberty and security of person, guaranteed by the Article 5 to the Convention. Higher number of cases relating to this issue is expected in the future, because it was similar in the countries of the region.

In one case, the applicant refers to the violation of the right to life under the Article 2 to the Convention.

The representative pointed out that the European Court for Human Rights in cases against Montenegro has not found any violation caused by discrimination on the basis of any personal characteristics so far.

When it comes to the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, he announced that it can isolate two groups of cases: cases relating to the old foreign currency savings and items regarding restitution. In connection with the old foreign currency savings he announced that so far it has not been established any violation of these rights by Montenegro, which, in his opinion, is the result of a well thought policy of the Government of Montenegro in this area. In connection with the restitution, he said that there are two cases against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, one of which is a petition of Diocese of Budimljansko - Nikšić Serbian Orthodox Church and eleven monasteries and churches of that religious organization against Montenegro for non-restitution of former church property that the European Court partially dismissed as manifestly unfounded, and in the second half as unacceptable. Another item that relates to restitution that is on-going and a number of items will be in the future in the procedure of the European Court of Justice for Human Rights.

Mr Pažin also presented to the members of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms Recommendations for preventive removal of weaknesses in the legal system, and that could be the reason for the new application against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights. This is because the court proceedings against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, through the factual and legal issues that are considered, they can point to the important indicators within the legal system of Montenegro for which there is a need for systematic improvement and thereby preventively eliminate weaknesses of the legal system.

As a serious problem within the legal system of Montenegro, Mr Pažin identifies the issue of efficiency of the constitutional complaint and worrying stance of the European Court for Human Rights on that occasion.

Pointing to the proceedings of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro on constitutional appeals in practice should be a national legal mechanism of prevention of international legal proceedings against Montenegro on applications by individuals, legal entities and individuals and non-governmental organizations, in accordance with the Article 34 of the European Convention, are submitted to  the European Court for Human Rights , Mr Pažin expressed concern that the statistics on the work of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro in the proceedings on constitutional complaints can disavow the system of human rights and freedoms at the national level, given that the European Court for Human Rights, acting in several cases against Montenegro noted that, for now, still can not accept the view that the constitutional complaint within the legal system of Montenegro is an effective remedy within the meaning of this term the European Court provides.

Noting that the principle of subsidiarity in international relations implies the obligation of Montenegro within the national legal system to provide protection of human rights and freedoms in accordance with the standards by which this protection is provided before the European Court for Human Rights, Mr Pažin said that all Council of Europe Member States should organize their legal systems so as to ensure real and effective protection of human rights and freedoms, with a key role in this regard in Montenegro should have the Constitutional Court, the institution of constitutional complaint.

According the assessment of the representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, it is necessary to take urgent organizational measures in the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, to strengthen capacities of this court for efficient making decisions on constitutional complaints of entities in Montenegro, as this legal remedy may be defined as efficient legal aid, in the sense that this term is given by the European Court. That would reduce the number of applications submitted to the European Court for Human Rights against Montenegro. 

In connection with the implementation of the Law on the protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time, the representative said that, in addition to the untimely execution of court decisions, a number of cases are related to the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by the Article 6 to the Convention. The representative stated that it points to the need to the full affirmation of remedies in the practice Montenegrin courts, requests to expedite the process (control application) and the complaint redress under the Law on the Protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time. This is because the European Court of Human Rights will only if the Law is properly implemented, take the view that it is an effective remedy within the meaning of the Article 13 to the Convention. Although the Law on the protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time, according to Mr Pasini, whit its solutions significantly complied with the international legal standards in this area, there is a need to raise awareness of the parties in court proceedings on the availability and effectiveness of prescribed remedies, as well as need for additional training of judges and, in particular, the President of the courts for the successful implementation of the Law in the case law. According to Mr Pažin there is a need to improve court statistics regarding the use of the remedy - the request to expedite the trial (control application), especially in terms of effective implementation of the decisions of the courts of issued by the President in favour of the control application. Therefore, it is necessary to keep statistics about the undertaking procedural actions.

By the analysis of the cases before national courts in proceedings that gave rise to the filing applications to the European Court for Human Rights against Montenegro, in terms of the procedural steps of submitting court documents that indicate the great importance for the duration of court proceedings the problem that has been observed is that the court couriers, in addition to the irresponsibility and lack of discipline also show some level of ignorance in the performance of procedural actions, especially when it comes to service of judicial documents under the rules of personal delivery, indicating the need for continued training of these individuals.

The Representative stated that it could be expected from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in respect of Montenegro, to direct its focus of interest to enforcement of judicial decisions of the national courts in the enforcement proceedings in the following period. Thus, it is important to create conditions for valuable implementation of the Law on Enforcement and Security of Claims and Law on Enforcement Officers, adopted with the aim of improving efficiency of judicial proceedings. The Representative thinks that the case backlog reduction before Montenegrin courts ((as noted by the international community in the EC Montenegro Progress Report), thus preventing any future international legal action before the European Court of Human Rights, to some extent may compromise a large number of unenforced judgements, but also other executive titles in exercising judicial proceedings which necessitates training of executive judges, officers and employees of the courts acting in executive matters, as well as future executers, according to the Law on Enforcement Officers.

According to Pažin, freedom of expression and media freedom, guaranteed by the Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, will be the focus of particular interest of Montenegrin European partners in the period to come. In two cases against Montenegro, the European Court of Human Rights founded violations of freedom of expression. The representative stated that, by analysing court cases before national courts relating to freedom of expression, he noted the inconsistency and wandering of Montenegrin courts jurisprudence in interpreting the differences between the presentation of value judgments in the public statements of individuals and groups in relation to the disclosure of the facts. According to the European Court, this difference in the practice is of crucial importance for establishing liability, especially in cases of non-pecuniary damages for breach of honour and reputation, while the biggest problem is the determination of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the national courts, in accordance with the goal, objective and reasons by which national courts are guided in deciding these claims.

The Representative concluded that it was necessary to improve the practice of national courts in this area in line with the European Court of Human Rights, in order to reconcile the need to eliminate each possible objection that could be related to the risk of suppressing the freedom of the media, which may result in inadequate practice of national courts, especially inadequate interpretation of the legal standard of "due journalistic care." On the other hand, prevention of abuse of freedom of expression in the media because of the potential serious consequences that may arise from time to honour, reputation, privacy rights or other rights of persons injured, the Representative perceives that an additional problem in this area can be a so-called "open space" as a result of decriminalization of defamation and insult, since it was not followed at the same time by the adoption of appropriate laws on civilly liability for violation of honour and reputation, and other personal rights, as the sequence of reform measures was present in some other European countries that have decriminalized defamation and insult.

The Representative assessed that the need for adoption of a special law on civil legal liability for the breach of honour and reputation, and other personal rights should be considered, thus he proposed to the Parliament, as a legislative organ, to get involved in the regulation of this legal vacuum. In addition, in his opinion, it is necessary to draw up and implement special training program of all judges who decide on claims for non-pecuniary damages for the violation of honour and reputation, and other personal rights, as in all other matters relating to media freedom.

Given that a significant number of international legal proceedings against Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights relating to administrative proceedings before the competent administrative authorities in Montenegro and administrative proceedings before the Administrative Court, Mr Pažin  announced that it was necessary to follow the guidelines provided by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommendations directed to  Member States on improving domestic remedies R (2004) 6 from 2004, as well as some other recommendations of international bodies, which recommends the introduction of national procedural laws possibilities reopening procedures in cases where the European Court of Human Rights founded a violation of any of the Convention rights.

With amendments to the procedural laws, Montenegro enabled that right to parties in civic and criminal court proceeding, but this right is not enabled in court proceedings before Administrative Court in administrative disputes, so the Representative recommended the need for amendments to the Law on Administrative Disputes , so this right to be guaranteed to application submitters.

Speaking of criminal legal matter, Mr Pažin commented enforcement custody as a measure for providing presence of defendant and the smooth conduct of the criminal proceedings, the application of Article 257, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the protection of the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial and the individual decisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Representative informed MPs, members of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms, that by the analysis of criminal cases which were the reason for applications submitting to the European Court of Human Rights against Montenegro, among others, the violation of Article 5 of the European Convention is highlighted, guaranteeing the right to freedom and security of a person, founded that it was necessary to point out that the courts should reconsider the practice in criminal cases during the criminal proceedings came to a deprivation of liberty or detention, shall be determined as a measure for ensuring the presence of the defendant and the smooth conduct of the criminal proceedings. In the opinion of the Representative, the legislative framework i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure in this section is harmonized to certain extent with the legal standards required by the European Convention, but it is necessary to examine the practice of national courts with regard to the frequency of determining and justification of imposing these measures, in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Reasoned decision on deprivation of liberty must not be reduced to the stereotypical prescribing of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without their factual and legal development in each case, Pažin emphasised.

In accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, detention is a measure expressed exceptionally and only when the legitimate aim cannot be achieved by any other measure, which must be clearly explained by the very decision on detention. It is a duty of all bodies participating in criminal proceedings and the authorities providing legal aid to proceed with particular urgency, if the defendant is in custody. Inadequate practice of detention has negative consequences in terms of overcrowding institutions for detainees’ accommodation, which can be legally significant in terms of potential violation of Article 3 of the European Convention, which guarantees freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The use of alternative measures for ensuring the presence of the defendant, in addition to reducing overcrowding detention units, it is also important for reducing the costs of the criminal proceedings.

Mr Pažin considers as necessary the Supreme Court of Montenegro, as the highest court in Montenegro, to access activities with a view to harmonize judicial practice in the application of detention in criminal proceedings, in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Pažin announced that the application of Article 257, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the powers and actions of the police during the inquest, including the authority to require that the provider of electronic communications so-called identity checking of telecommunications address, without court orders, raises the question of potential violation of Article 8 of the European Convention, guarantying the right to private life. Practice of the European Court of Human Rights requires clear and reliable legal mechanisms for preventing possible abuses in the application of police powers in violation of the right to private life under Article 8 of the Convention, as well as an effective remedy in the event of such a breach. In addition, there is a question what happens with the personal date, collected in the manner stipulated by the Article 257, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a situation where the criminal proceedings against person that data were collected about is not initiated, and in such a case these persons would never have learned that their personal data were processed nor they would be able to protect their legal interests in regard with this. Nevertheless, the question is in which manner and how long these data are kept and in which manner they are destroyed, since according to international legal standard, especially the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in line with Article 8 of the Convention, these data cannot be secretly kept. Citing the cases against Great Britain and France in this area, the Representative said that it was necessary to consider the need for amending the Code of Criminal Procedure in this section, by introducing provisions for so-called identity checking of telecommunication address, that is interpreted in practice as access to listings of phone calls and records of the base station movement, and requires prior approval of the investigation.

Speaking of the right to a fair trial and the specific decisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Pažin stated that some concepts and criminal procedural mechanisms of the Code of Criminal Procedure radically changed the previous concept of the criminal proceedings in Montenegro, by the introduction of so-called criminal investigation which  raised the issue of compatibility of these decisions with Article 6 of the European Convention, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial and the very rich jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in this area.

In view of Article 6 of the European Convention and its potential violations, procedural and legal status of the defendant may be debatable in a situation when the other party (state prosecutor) manages inquest and conducts an investigation, and an effective remedy to protect their legal interests during the proceedings is not available to defiant. He stated that he was against the regulation that legal aid (appeal) is not permitted for the decision on investigation ordered by the State Prosecutor (command), nor the defendant has the right to object to an indictment by the State Prosecutor. He pointed out that investigation was not a required stage of the criminal proceedings, as the prosecutor can raise and direct indictment on the basis of data collected in the pre-trial investigation, thus inducing that the public prosecutor and the defendant had no legal ability to use effective legal aid under Article 13 of the European Convention, which would require the competent authority to review the factual and legal basis of charges. In addition to the right to an effective aid under Article 13 of the Convention, this normative decision and its application in practice can be controversial in terms of the "right to equality of arms", as one of the attributes of a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention.   Representative of Montenegro to the European Court of Human Rights stated that from the aspect of the "right to equality of arms" in criminal proceedings, provisions of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code is also relevant, but it does not address the situation of rejection of exhibited proposals of the defendant during the investigation, although the plaintiff in accordance with the concept of criminal investigation, shall take into account and examine the facts, both those that incriminate the defendant, and those in his favour. For the evaluation of (non) compliance with the conditions for the realization of the principle of "equality of arms" in criminal proceedings, as the attribute of fairness in terms of Article 6 of the European Convention, of the provisions of Article 291, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 291 is legally significant, allowing that possibility to a plaintiff and the victim, but not the defendant which is left only the possibility of legal challenges to the legal question of jurisdiction of the court, and not the other issues of factual and the legal basis of accusation

With that regard, the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights believes that the possibility of amending the Law on Criminal Proceedings should be considered, with a view to promote right to effective legal means from the Article 13 of the European Convention in relation to procedural and legal status of the defendant, as well as “the right to equality of arms”, as an attribute of fairness of trial from the Article 6 of the European Convention.

MPs, members of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms, and Mr Predrag Sekulić, PhD, who, in accordance with the Article 67 paragraph 2 of the Parliament of Montenegro, attended the sitting on behalf of Delegation of the Parliament of Montenegro to PACE, voiced pleasure over the fact that the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, upon the request of Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms, delivered the Information on international legal proceedings against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, emphasising that it is very important for the MPs to familiarise themselves with the actual data in this field. They assessed the Information as a very quality one, full of content and significant for the future activities, both of the Parliament of Montenegro and of other state authorities.

MPs posed numerous questions to the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, such as:

- What is the kind of relation does the state have toward the Office of the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, how many people work in the Office and whether the adequate administrative, professional and financial capacities needed for normal work and operations had been provided?

- Citing that the offices of the Representatives of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia have the official websites where the important information on their work can be found, as well as rulings of the European Court for Human Rights, they wanted to know why the Office of the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights does not have its website, citing that such thing would be very important, both for presentation of the work of the Representative, and informing the citizens on this field and the manner of addressing the European Court for Human Rights?

Citing that it was clear that the mechanism for constitutional appeal is still not effective, which is also the opinion of the European Court for Human Rights, a question was posed not only on the capacities at the disposal of the Constitutional Court, but it was also pointed out that it was necessary to analyse both its practice and actual acting and operating.

- What are the financial effects so far of the rulings of the European Court for Human Rights against Montenegro, what can be expected in that field in the following period and whether it would be more efficient and more rational to invest a larger amount of financial means for the work of the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, education of judges, prosecutors and other persons employed in Justice, in order to indirectly contribute to decrease of the number of cases against Montenegro and rulings due to which Montenegro would have to pay certain financial means?

- What, according to the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, had caused the decrease of cases against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights in 2012?

- What are the expectations of the Representative regarding the cases against Montenegro, and which relate to the restitution, bearing in mind that this is one of the more significant problems that a large number of citizens faces, and the fact that this process is conducted at varying rates in the north, the south and in the central region of Montenegro, and that it could last even up to 26 years?

Additionally, the MPs asked the Representative to present the parallel practice of the countries in the region with regard to the restitutions, if such data is available to him.

Citing that it had been a pleasure to hear that there had been no cases against Montenegro due to discrimination, a question was posed on what kind of practice the European Court for Human Rights has with regard to the cases in which the citizens wish to complain about the state due to discrimination and whether it is a fact the Anti-discrimination Law had been adopted in Montenegro a few years back and the fact that the citizens do not address the European Court for Human Rights to protect their rights is because they had not been informed enough on their rights.

- What are the reasons due to which, in 350 court rulings, the European Court for Human Rights had denied a complaint against Montenegro as obviously unfounded, rejected it as unacceptable or deleted it from the list?

- What is the opinion of the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights in relation to rationalisation of the judicial network in Montenegro, whether or not this could jeopardise the right of citizens to court access and whether certain citizens, especially the ones from smaller towns where the basic court could be abolished, could be discriminated against in relation to the rest of the population of Montenegro?

Mr Pažin answered the key questions in accordance with the available time and announced that he is at the MPs’ disposal for a more detailed data and information at his disposal, in accordance to their specific interests.

When speaking on the decreasing of the number of applications before the European Court for Human Rights, the Representative recalled that, in compliance with the criteria and procedures, the process of election of a Montenegrin judge in European Court for Human Rights lasted for a very long time, after which the elected legists in the Secretariat of the Court and the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights. Even though the citizens of Montenegro had the right to submit applications to the European Court for Human Rights since March 2004, at the time the Serbia and Montenegro existed as a country, the European Court for Human Rights, in accordance with its rules of procedure, had not taken into consideration the submitted cases from Montenegro, until the procedure of appointing the judge and the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights had been completed. This could be one of the reasons why the number of cases against Montenegro had been higher in the beginning. Additionally, he thinks that one of the causes of decrease in the number of cases against Montenegro may also be increase of effectiveness of judicial authorities, because the backlog in courts had been significantly reduced, and the largest number of cases before the European Court for Human Rights referred to violation of right to trial within a reasonable time. Apart from the judiciary authorities, contribution by other institutions is significant, especially of the Ombudsman of Montenegro and civil sector which contributed greatly to have the issues of protection of human right and freedoms resolve at the national level.

With regard to the cases relating to restitution, the Representative stated that a number of applications are in the stage of preliminary registration before the European Court for Human Rights, however, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the data due to which those cases are in the stage of preliminary registration are not disclosed to him, nor any other subject, until the Government of the state against which the complaint had been submitted is notified.

Mr Pažin pointed out that he is particularly satisfied with the fact that the European Court for Human Rights did not concluded any systematic, structural violation of rights under the legal order of Montenegro, but there only individual cases, of which the Report of the President of the European Court for Human Rights is witness.

The Representative stated that, according to his belief and experience so far, the citizens of Montenegro are still not familiar with the procedure regarding the rights they are entitled to complain about, citing that the citizens may only complain regarding violation of rights enshrined in the European Convention of the Human Rights and freedoms, which does not include a wide corpus of economic, social and cultural rights. He considers that the reason why, in 350 court rulings, the European Court for Human Rights had denied an appeal against Montenegro as obviously unfounded, rejected it as unacceptable or deleted it from the list.

With regard to discrimination, the Representative pointed out that the European Convention does not offer definition of the term “discrimination”, but the European Court in its practice defines discrimination that is “treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations”, and clarified that there are applications by the citizens, legal persons and NGOs where there are claims that the violation of rights on the basis of discrimination had occurred, but the European Court had not established or explicitly stated that there had been no violation.

With regard to the reform of judicial network, the Representative reckons that this issue should be approached with special sensibility, with maximum dedication, taking care of finance, as well as geographic, climate and other characteristics of Montenegro, which makes it necessary to develop a multidisciplinary approach and consider all aspects in order to provide access to court for every citizen of Montenegro.

After familiarising with the Information, speech of the Representative and discussions held on this topic, the Committee has decided to draft a Report on consideration of Information on international legal proceedings against Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights with proposal for conclusion and submit it to the Collegium of the President of the Parliament for further procedure, as well as the Representative of Montenegro before the European Court for Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, as a line ministry for this area, Ombudsman of Montenegro and Delegation of the Parliament of Montenegro to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms has unanimously adopted:

- Report on the Study Visit of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms of the Parliament of Montenegro to the Committee on Human and National Minority Rights of the Croatian Parliament and Other Relevant Institutions dealing with Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities of the Republic of Croatia, held on 20th and 21st March 2013;

- Information on participation of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms representatives at the Public debate on Draft Strategy for Improving the Quality of Life of LGBT People, for the period 2013-2018, held on 26th February 2013;

- Information from the Meeting of the Chairperson of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms of the Parliament of Montenegro Dr Halil Duković and member of the Committee MP Ljiljana Đurašković with the Professor Mr Eduard Roig, representative of SIGMA, held on 27th February 2013, in Podgorica;

- Information on participation of representatives of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms at the Expert debate: “Human Rights in Montenegro - from the referendum to the start of negotiations with the European Union”, organized by the Parliament of Montenegro and NGO “Civic Alliance”, under the auspices of the USAID, within the programme of Effective Management, held on 4th March 2013;

-Information from the Meeting of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms with representatives of the NGO Federation of Associations of Parents of Children and Youth with Developmental Disabilities “Our Initiative”, held on 15th March 2013;

- Information on participation of the Chairperson of the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms Dr Halil Duković at the promotion of the Report on Abuse of Children via the Internet, held on 12th April 2013, in Podgorica.