The chief of police in Cetinje, Dalibor Šaban, testified that the local branch of the Ministry of Interior (MUP) failed to act on a negative assessment regarding Vuk Borilović, who is accused of committing a massacre in Medovina that resulted in the deaths of ten individuals, including two young boys. This revelation came during the trial of former MUP branch chief Oliviera Krivokapić, who faces charges related to her failure to initiate administrative proceedings to revoke Borilović’s firearm license.
During the trial, which took place on [insert date], Šaban disclosed that he had formally informed the MUP branch in Cetinje that a criminal complaint had been filed against Borilović for violent behavior. Furthermore, he noted that there had been recommendations to take action in accordance with the Law on Weapons. Šaban explained that despite the absence of a legal obligation to notify the branch, it was customary to do so.
In his testimony, Šaban confirmed that the issuance of a firearm license to someone with a history of violent behavior would indicate a failure to heed the negative assessment provided by the police. He elaborated that once the criminal complaint was filed, the conditions for initiating administrative proceedings for the temporary or permanent revocation of Borilović’s firearm license were met.
The tragic events unfolded in Medovina when Borilović allegedly used a firearm to carry out the mass shooting, an act that raised serious questions about the police’s response to previous violent incidents involving him.
In July 2021, Borilović was accused of several violent acts, including throwing stones at the home of Marko Lagator and damaging his vehicle with a metal rod. Following these incidents, Borilović faced a criminal complaint for violent behavior and property damage, as confirmed by the police. However, when the police searched his residence, they did not find any weapons.
Šaban acknowledged that he could not recall whether a search had been conducted in Borilović’s home during the investigation into his violent behavior. He emphasized that any weapon in legal possession should not be seized unless it was used in the commission of a crime. He noted, “In the case against Vuk Borilović for violent behavior, the weapon should have been subject to administrative proceedings, which was established during the investigation.”
When asked about the police’s actions in light of the administrative notice regarding Borilović, Šaban stated that the criminal complaint alone was sufficient for the police to take further action. He maintained that the complaint contained a significant structure of evidence, which warranted police intervention.
The trial raised significant concerns regarding the police’s handling of Borilović’s case. Krivokapić questioned Šaban on why no criminal charges were filed against her for not acting on the notification. Šaban responded that the police lacked operational data to justify taking action based on the notice.
Šaban also shared that he only revisited the events from July 2021 after the Medovina massacre occurred. He mentioned that he sought information related to the issuance of a firearm license to Borilović and was informed that a review process had been initiated but could not recall the outcome of that assessment.
Furthermore, when asked if any external influences had affected his decision-making regarding Borilović’s weapon possession, Šaban firmly denied any such claims. He stated, “I do not remember any operational information that would have prompted me to act differently regarding the weapon.”
As the trial continues, questions linger about the police’s decision-making and the protocols in place for handling violent offenders. The implications of the testimony highlight the need for a thorough investigation into the procedures followed by law enforcement in Cetinje and the accountability of those responsible for public safety.
