审议组注意到了《刑法》第 124 条，其中依据制裁的力度规定了浮动的时 效。在罪犯逃避司法处置或者在启动了司法协助程序的情形下，可暂停或中断这种时效期限。但是，黑山有关当局承认，基层法院管辖范围之内的较轻 的腐败相关犯罪的时效相对较短，由此可能出现妨碍进行有效起诉的各种问 题。 认为可适用于多数腐败犯罪所涉自然人和法人的制裁适度且具有警戒性，特 别是在贿赂犯罪方面。但是，审议组注意到，应统一判刑条款，以消除对行 贿和受贿行为的制裁间的差异。正在起草《刑法》修正案，以期除其他外按 照审议组的建议，统一对行贿和受贿行为的制裁，从而统一这些犯罪的时 效。审议组欢迎这一发展态势，并请国家相关当局继续正在开展的相关努 力，并适时通过经增订的立法。在黑山，给予了总统和议员、总理和内阁成员、最高法院院长、宪法法院院 长和法官，以及最高国家检察官豁免（《宪法》第 86 条）。由议会决定豁免权事宜（《宪法》第 82 条），并可以取消豁免，以使得能够进行刑事起诉。 法官享有职能豁免，但在刑事犯罪案件中，经司法理事会决定后，取消此豁免（《宪法》第 122 条和第 128 条）。 合法性和强制起诉原则在国内法律范畴内非常关键。但是，在某些情况下， 法律给予了使罪犯免于刑事起诉的检方自由裁量权（《刑事诉讼法》第 272 条至第 273 条）。在这个意义上而言，审议组对黑山的立法符合《反腐败公 约》第三十条第三款表示满意。 审议人员注意到了与刑事调查职权相关的新法律框架，该框架将此项职权授 予了检察机关。但是，仍由调查法官裁定审前拘留事宜，因为需要对有可能 影响到人权保护的行动进行司法控制。在有组织犯罪背景下实施的刑事犯罪 及严重的腐败案件均属联合调查组的职权范围，该小组向最高国家检察官进行报告。
The review team noted article 124 CC, in which escalated statute of limitation periods are prescribed in accordance with the level of criminal sanctions. Such limitation periods can be suspended or interrupted when the offender has evaded the administration of justice, or where MLA proceedings have been initiated. However, the Montenegrin authorities acknowledged that issues hampering effective prosecution may emerge in relation to a relatively shorter statute of limitation period for less serious corruption-related crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Basic Court. The sanctions applicable to natural and legal persons for most of the corruption offences were found to be adequate and dissuasive, specifically with regard to the bribery offences. The review team noted, however, that the sentencing provision should be harmonized in order to remove disparity between sanctions for active and passive bribery. Amendments to the CC are being drafted with a view to, inter alia, harmonizing the sanctions for active and passive bribery, and consequently the statutes of limitation periods for such offences, as proposed by the review team. The review team welcomed this development, and invited the national authorities to continue ongoing efforts and pass the updated legislation in due time. In Montenegro, immunity is granted to the President and Members of Parliament, Prime Minister and Cabinet Members, President of the Supreme Court, President and Judges of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme State Prosecutor (article 86 of the Constitution). The Parliament decides on immunity rights (article 82 of the Constitution), and can lift immunities so as to enable criminal prosecution. Judges enjoy functional immunity, which is lifted upon decision of the Judicial Council in case of a criminal offence (articles 122 and 128 of the Constitution).The principles of legality and mandatory prosecution are fundamental in the domestic legal context. In certain cases, however, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion leading to the release of the offender from criminal prosecution is afforded by the law (articles 272-273 CPC). In that sense, the review team was satisfied of the compliance of Montenegrin legislation with article 30, paragraph 3, of the UNCAC. The reviewers noted the new legal framework regarding competence to conduct criminal investigations, which assigns competence to the prosecutorial authorities. However, the decision on detention during pretrial proceedings is still in the hands of the investigation judge due to the need for judicial control of actions that may have an impact on the protection of human rights. Criminal offences committed within the context of organized crime and grave corruption cases fall within the competence of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which reports to the Supreme State Prosecutor.