Conference: "Journalists as Partners in Fight Against Corruption" (ME0085)

A brief description of the obligation

Through the creation of an interactive online map Corruption on the Map — Civic Oversight through a digital map of reports and evaluations of public institutions, citizens will be able to anonymously report suspicions of corruption, assess the transparency of the work of institutions and visually monitor the "hotspots" of non- transparency in real time. This commitment empowers the public to take an active role in overseeing institutions, increasing accountability and visibility of anti-corruption efforts.

Defining the problem

1. What problem does this obligation aim to solve?

For a decade, Montenegro has been facing lame anti-corruption mechanisms that, although they formally exist, in practice do not inspire the trust of citizens, nor do they produce the expected results.

According to the European Commission's 2023 report, "concerns remain about the selective approach of the judiciary and the limited track record in investigations into high corruption". In the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for 2024, Montenegro recorded only 46 points (out of 100), which is below the European average and without visible progress.

From the perspective of citizens, which is confirmed by the answers to the questionnaire that preceded the design of this obligation, the perception is clear: corruption is present, especially in employment and public procurement, and institutional responses are weak, slow or completely absent. Citizens do not have functional tools for reporting and monitoring corruption in real time, and the existing mechanisms are closed, non-transparent and inactive.

2.What are the causes of the problem?

The causes of the problems related to poor reporting of corruption by citizens are not superficial or technical, they are rooted in mistrust, systemic exclusion and closure of institutions. Citizens do not report corruption not because they do not see irregularities, but because they do not see the purpose, because their reports most often remain unanswered, without results and without any visible effect.

This situation stems from the fact that the reporting system is not designed as a tool for civic oversight, but as a closed administrative channel, which excludes the citizen from the further course of action.

At its core, the problem is that the citizen is not recognized as a partner in the fight against corruption, but as a passive user.

This obligation aims to change the logic of the system, in which reporting corruption becomes visible, monitored, interactive and publicly accountable, and the citizen moves from the role of a passive witness to the role of an active actor in anti-corruption supervision.

The 5Why method shows the following:

1. Why don't citizens report corruption? Because they don't believe that anything will change.
2. Why don't they believe? Because they don't see results or feedback when they apply.
3.Why is there no feedback? Because they have repeatedly witnessed impunity and selective application of the law.
4. Why did citizens witness impunity and selective application of the law? Because the system does not function as a two-way and transparent mechanism, but as a closed bureaucratic mechanism.
5. Why isn't the system two-way? Citizens are not recognized as active actors in the fight against corruption, but as passive observers.

Description of the obligation

What has been done so far to solve the problem?

Over the past decade, Montenegro has established a number of institutional and technical tools that should, at least formally, contribute to the fight against corruption. Among them, the most famous are the Public

Procurement Portal, the eGovernment system, and the activities of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. However, while these mechanisms are a step forward in the digitalization of administration and formal transparency, their impact on the perception and practice of the fight against corruption remains insufficient.

The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, although formally a key institution in this domain, has failed to position itself as an effective actor. Numerous reports, both from domestic civil society organizations and the European Commission, point to the lack of concrete results in the prosecution of high corruption, as well as political selectivity and lack of capacity for systemic work.

At the local level, there are anti-corruption plans (LAPs) but without actual implementation, evaluation or consultation with citizens.

In essence, the current approach to the fight against corruption in Montenegro is characterized by the dominance of formal and procedural solutions without real citizen participation and without visible, measurable effects that would increase trust in institutions.

2.What solution is proposed?

It is proposed to establish an interactive digital platform in the form of a map, which will enable citizens to report suspicions of corruption in real time and assess the transparency of the work of institutions. This platform would be unique in the Montenegrin context because it would include multiple functionalities in one tool, thus covering both problem reporting, public visibility and institutional response.

The platform would allow:

§ Citizen whistleblowing, anonymous or with identity, with simple user experience and thematic categorization (e.g. public procurement, employment, misuse of resources).

§ Evaluation of the work of institutions, through predefined indicators such as promptness, openness to communication, availability of information and compliance with procedures.

§ Visualization of the foci of non-transparency on the map of Montenegro, whereby the locations with the most applications or the lowest scores would be marked as "red dots", with the possibility of searching by sector or municipality.

§ A mandatory institutional response, which means that the relevant institution will have a defined deadline to respond to the application (even if it is negative) and that this response is public and available to all.

§ Monthly reports and public rankings that summarize trends, ratings, number of applications and institutional responses, which are automatically published and shared.

What sets this obligation apart is the fact that it uses reputation, digital visibility, and collective citizen oversight mechanisms to put pressure on institutions to act transparently. It is planned to create a Reputation Index in such a way as to establish a formula for calculating this index, and based on this index, each institution receives a monthly score from 0 to 100, based on which a ranking list by sectors and municipalities is defined, which is published publicly. Of the parameters for calculating this index, it is necessary to take into account the following:

• Response to reports (% of reports responded in the last 30 days),

• Quality of response (Manual or AI scoring (response complete, relevant, timely),

• Average rating of citizens (Score from 1–5),

• Response time (Speed in days (shorter = better),

• The number of "closed with an outcome"( Reports that led to a specific action)

In addition to this, survey indicators on a semi-annual basis would be included and thus measure citizens' satisfaction with the work of a specific platform.

Instead of the fight against corruption being conducted in private, within cabinets and offices, it is brought out to the public, visualized and democratized.

People are not passive observers. On the contrary, their perception becomes relevant, their rating carries weight, and their reporting gains visibility and meaning. Such a platform does not replace the institutional system, but complements and opens it up, making it more sensitive to signals from the field and more susceptible to public scrutiny.

The goal is not just for citizens to "report," but to create a new social moment, in which transparency is a daily practice, not the exception. Through this commitment, Montenegro has the opportunity to introduce an innovative, concrete and measurable mechanism that directly links civic perception with institutional action, thus breaking the cycle of mistrust and passivity.

3. What results are to be achieved by the realization of this obligation?

The realization of this commitment aims to create visible and measurable progress in the fight against corruption.

The first concrete result is a significant increase in the number of reports of suspected corruption and irregularities, Through a secure mechanism on a digital map, citizens will have access to a tool that does not require knowledge of the legal procedure, but only the will to point out the problem. The number of applications is expected to be many times higher compared to previous periods, especially in areas where reporting has so far been marginalized or discouraged.

The second result refers to the establishment of a reputation system for public institutions, through evaluation and comments of citizens. This system will introduce a public ranking list of institutions according to the ratings of transparency, timeliness, professionalism and openness. Institutions with the lowest scores will be clearly marked as "red dots" on the map, while positive examples will be singled out as examples of good practice. This visible reputation of institutions aims to introduce a new kind of pressure, not only legal, but also public and social.

The third key result is the establishment of the practice that all reports receive a response in the form of an institutional comment, explanation of measures, status of the procedure or reasons for non-action. This is a significant qualitative shift, as feedback is the basis for trust in the system.

The fourth result will be a measurable increase in the perception of accountability and transparency, both among citizens and within the public administration itself. By surveying the users of the platform and measuring the number of active users, it will be possible to assess the effect of this intervention on citizens' trust in institutions.

Another expected result is the establishment of a sustainable, institutionalized platform, as an integral part of the national anti-corruption framework.

How does this commitment promote transparency?

This obligation brings a new kind of transparency, visible, accessible and understandable to citizens. Through an interactive map, everyone has an insight into where there are problems, what citizens report and how institutions react. Instead of hidden data, an open picture of the situation in real time is obtained, thus building trust through clarity and publicity.

How does this obligation promote accountability?

Institutions can no longer remain silent to reports of corruption or suspicion of corruption, because reports and their (non)reaction are publicly visible. The platform introduces a culture of response, where each institution is invited to explain, react and correct.

How does this task improve the participation of citizens in the definition, implementation and monitoring of solutions?

Citizens are no longer just observers, but active participants in the supervision and improvement of the work of institutions. for continuous The platform allows and meaningful participation, in which each entry contributes to greater accountability and better governance.

Commitment Planning

Key steps | Expected Outcomes | Expected Period of Completion | Stakeholders

Cocreation of platform design with the IT sector | Defining the design of the Platform and initiating administrative procedures for implementation | Q1 2027 | Coordinator: Ministry of Justice, Agency for Prevention of Corruption

Launch of a national campaign and promotion of the Civic Oversight Platform • Implementation of educational activities (seminars, workshops, trainings) on reporting and prevention of corruption. • Implementation of promotional activities in cooperation with the media. • Conducting periodic surveys on the perception of corruption and citizens' trust in institutions. |
Established a functional Platform and increased use of available citizen monitoring tools Increase by 50% in reports of suspected corruption compared to the reference year 2025 Increased percentage of citizens familiar with the ways and mechanisms of reporting corruption and the operation of institutions. Percentage of citizens' trust in institutions (measured through research). The number and type of training, events and media activities carried out. The number of institutions and actors involved in the implementation. Number of content in open (data) format derived from quarterly reports. | Q4 2027 | Coordinator: Ministry of Justice, Agency for Prevention of Corruption

3. Quarterly reports on the performance and participation of citizens | Regular reports analyze trends and problems by sector; Data from the report available in open data format | Q4 2029 | Coordinator: Ministry of Justice, Agency for Prevention of Corruption