23.06.2026. 5:41 p.m
The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro determined that Radio and Television of Montenegro (RTCG) did not satisfactorily ensure the full and effective exercise of rights Aleksandar Milatović to the answer, after the text published on the RTCG portal about the election of two new members of the Council of RTV Podgorica.
In the opinion of the Deputy Protector Tatjana Radović Todorovićdated June 19, it is stated that RTCG published a certain correction, but not Milatović’s reply in the form in which it was submitted. The Protector assessed that in that case it is not enough to formally announce the correction, but the key question is whether the complainant was enabled to effectively exercise the right to reply.
“The right to reply, in the opinion of the defender, must be real and effective, and not only formally enabled. Its purpose is to enable the public to get acquainted with the facts, explanations and attitudes of the persons to whom the published information relates, so that they can form a complete picture of the issue in question,” the opinion states.
The proceedings before the protector were initiated based on Milatović’s complaint. He claimed that, after the publication of the text on the RTCG portal, he was not able to fully and effectively exercise his right to reply and correction. The disputed text was published on February 13, under the title “Procedure for the election of two new members of the Council of RTV Podgorica: And the non-governmental organization of the founder of ‘Vijesti’ proposed a candidate”.
In the first text, the author claimed that, among the organizations that supported one of the candidates, was the “Civil Initiative ‘Save Sinjajevina’, in which the authorized person is Aleksandar Milatović…”
After he submitted a request for a correction in accordance with the Media Act, emphasizing that he did not support any candidate, that sentence was deleted from the text, and a few hours later, instead of Milatović’s answer, the editors published a short correction, with an apology to him, the readers and GI “Save Sinjajevina”.
The Protector specifically pointed out that RTCG did not comment on the allegations in the complaint, even though the editors were asked to do so on February 26, and then urgently on April 21.
“Even after the sent emergency, the RTCG did not submit a statement on the allegations in the complaint or any information relevant to the consideration of the case in question,” the opinion reads.
The Protector assessed that the right to reply and correction is one of the basic means of protecting an individual from inaccurate, incomplete or misleading media content. Its purpose, as stated, is not only the protection of the rights and interests of the person to whom the information relates, but also the exercise of the public’s right to be fully and accurately informed.
The opinion points out that “the subject of the complaint is not only the fact of whether the correction was published, but whether the applicant was enabled to effectively exercise the right to reply”.
The Protector noted that the editorial office of RTCG did not submit any explanation, which is why Milatović’s answer was not published in the submitted form.
“The editorial office did not submit any statement explaining the reasons why the applicant’s answer was not published in the submitted form, nor did it explain the legal or professional basis for editing the content of the answer,” the opinion states.
The fact that the editorial office of RTCG did not respond to the patron’s request or to the subsequent urgency was considered particularly worrying.
“Such behavior is not in accordance with the principles of transparency, responsibility and cooperation with internal control mechanisms, the purpose of which is to protect professional standards and public trust in the work of RTCG”, the document reads.
The Protector pointed out that, when the media independently prepares the text of the correction instead of publishing the response of the person exercising the right provided by law, it is obliged to clearly explain the reasons for such action.
“In the absence of any explanation, it is not possible to assess whether the manner in which the RTCG acted on the request for the publication of the response was necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the applicable rules and professional standards,” the opinion states.
The Protector reminded that the Law on Media stipulates that the answer or correction must be published without amendments, except for spelling corrections that do not change the meaning. The editor-in-chief of the media is obliged, except in cases prescribed by law, to publish an answer or correction, and if he refuses to do so, he must provide the applicant with an explanation.
The opinion also states that RTCG, as a public service, has an increased obligation to ensure the highest level of accuracy, impartiality and openness to criticism.
“The defender finds that the RTCG did not satisfactorily ensure the full and effective exercise of the applicant’s right to answer in relation to the allegations contained in the complaint, and that in this particular case there was a deviation from professional standards,” the opinion reads.
RTCG was recommended to consider the possibility of publishing Milatović’s answer in its entirety, in accordance with the Law on Media and Professional Standards. It was also recommended that he submit to him a reasoned decision on the reasons why his answer was not published in the submitted form, if he believes that there are legal grounds for this.
The Protector also recommended that the RTCG ensure consistent respect for the right to reply and correction in future work, as well as to promptly act upon the Protector’s requests.
Download the application and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
News
