Miloš Vukčević, a prominent lawyer in Montenegro, has raised significant concerns regarding the use of data from the “Sky” messaging application as evidence in court. He argues that, unlike some European countries where such data has been utilized as valid proof, Montenegro lacks the necessary legal framework and technical resources to authenticate these communications.
Vukčević emphasized that Montenegrin courts and defense teams do not have access to the original digital files, metadata, or a secure chain of custody for the “Sky” data. This absence of access impedes the verification of the legality and authenticity of the evidence presented, rendering it unreliable. He stated that the material submitted to Montenegrin courts does not meet the standards outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code (ZKP), the Law on Electronic Documents, or European judicial practices.
According to Vukčević, “Sky” messages should be regarded as unverified secondary versions rather than solid evidence capable of withstanding forensic scrutiny. He noted that while certain European nations have successfully utilized “Sky” data as proof, this is contingent on having comprehensive digital forensic documentation and a clear chain of evidence preservation. In Montenegro, such standards are not met, meaning the data cannot be deemed legitimate.
In response to questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the data, Vukčević highlighted that in countries like France and Belgium, where servers were seized and decrypted, there are guarantees based on official digital forensics. He criticized Montenegro’s approach, stating that the original material and a chain of custody have not been provided, and that independent forensic verification is not possible. Consequently, the defense cannot assess the integrity of the data, leaving the court without a basis for determining the authenticity of the messages.
The lawyer further elaborated on the criteria for proving authenticity, indicating that “Sky” data can only be validated through digital forensic expertise, which must include original hash values, metadata, server logs, evidence of collection methods, and an uninterrupted chain of custody. He pointed out that none of these elements are currently accessible to either the courts or the defense in Montenegro.
Vukčević reiterated that the “Sky” data fails to meet the requirements set forth in the Law on Electronic Documents, which demands that electronic documents be verifiable, authentic, complete, and from identifiable sources. He noted that countries using such data as evidence possess original digital material and documentation of the seizure, a luxury that Montenegro does not have.
He also expressed skepticism about the potential for “Sky” data to serve as reliable evidence in Montenegrin court procedures. Although it could be valid in countries with original and verifiable data, the current inability to confirm how the data was obtained, whether the acquisition was lawful, or to conduct independent forensic checks means that the data cannot hold full evidential weight.
In a past ruling, the Supreme Court of Montenegro acknowledged the use of encrypted “Sky” communication as potential evidence. Nevertheless, Vukčević contends that, according to procedural legislation, European Court of Justice standards, and the Law on Electronic Documents, “Sky” communication essentially cannot serve as evidence in Montenegro. He underlined that the lack of transparency regarding the acquisition method and the absence of original digital files or integrity proof means that any purported evidence is merely operational information lacking legal standing.
Vukčević concluded by stressing that the key issue lies in the unknown method of data acquisition. In cases involving “Sky” materials, the defense is not granted access to verify how the data was collected, whether it adhered to domestic and international regulations, or whether there was a judicial order in the country that allegedly gathered the data. Given these limitations, he firmly believes that the evidence is, by definition, unlawful and that the Supreme Court’s ruling will not withstand scrutiny.
The ongoing debate underscores the complexities surrounding digital evidence and the necessity for a robust legal framework to ensure that such data can be reliably used in judicial proceedings. As Montenegro navigates these challenges, the question of whether “Sky” communication can be deemed legitimate evidence remains unresolved.
