Source: NIN
Interview
RODOLJUB SABIC, PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW
There were no media or citizen requirements to render minutes from negotiations on the future of Kosovo, and even if there were, the negotiating team is not a government authority so I would not be in the position to intervene, and if I could I would certainly treat such a request as a delicate matter.
Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner of public significance information, has all the reason and more to be proud. Today, a saying “I will complain to Sabic” is not only used by defenseless people but also by the powerful 7th force, the media. Therefore, for all you want to know, and they won't let you, take it up with Sabic. He is, according to the law, authorized to protect the public's right TO KNOW. These days, before judges, acting on notice from Ministry of Culture, first judgments are rendered (by no fault of their own) to government officials due to a fact that their chiefs have denied this people's right.If RTS declined to broadcast directly sessions of the National Parliament of the Republic of Serbia, would this jeopardize the public's right to know, based on which, the Law on access to public information is based, and the protection of which is your job?
- We have to appease two interests here. One is a public interest to know what the government authorities do, and especially an important one as the Parliament, moreover to the fact that we have a tradition of struggle for the infamous public in that sense - where the main request of the opposition is for a broadcast of Parliament sessions, so the annulation of it is a delicate matter. On the other hand, we now have this public service, and basic presumption of its operation is that no one influences its editing policy. I personally am of the opinion that a high level of publicity of broadcast should be provided, but the answer to this question should not be given by politicians or experts, but people dealing with technical aspects of media functioning: is the solution in cable channel or parliamentary channel? In any case we have to find something that will appease two principles: neither RTS should determine the editing of daily schedule of the Parliament, nor should anyone order public service around on what to do.
Public service is financed from citizens' subscription. How do the citizens supervise the service they finance?
- From the point of free information access, I treat RTS as a government body. We had instances where RTS was given requests to provide access to certain documents and they fall under the Law on free access to significant public information.
Well, all right, who would be authorized, according to you to decide whether to broadcast or not?
- I believe that the decision is on RTS.
When you say that you assume that RTS is under no political influence, is it?
- I can hardly judge from this position, RTS has entered into a process of transforming in the public service. But, it would be naďve to say that it is completely emancipated from political influence. I don't believe it is completely.
You have publicly agreed with all demands to open sessions of the Cabinet of Serbia for public. One of your arguments was the position that this is practice in the neighboring countries. I am asking you which countries, and more importantly, are the Cabinet sessions of Germany and France open for journalists?
- This initiative of nongovernmental sector I consider good in perspective. Cabinet is ruling on decisions important for this society, and personally I believe it is good for the public to know how they do it, in what manner and under which conditions. That does not necessarily mean that everything in the Cabinet operation should be public. Moreover the Cabinet will decide on certain delicate matters more often than the Parliament, which at certain times could not be accessible to public. But this does not mean that nothing in the work of the Cabinet matters should be public. Here is an example which is specific, and the party in question is not a country which attained enviable level of democracy, so then Croatia. In Croatia, accredited journalists attend Cabinet sessions, behind glass barrier with audio-visual contact. When it comes to a point in the agenda which calls for exclusion of the public, you can put down the blinds and turn off the audio. As for Germany it got the federal Law on information access only last year, but many of 16 lands had that law earlier. As for their Cabinet sessions, I don't know if they are open for public. But in these countries this story is not a matter of law, but a completely different relationship of public and authority is understood over there.
But, I would like to remind you of Iraq case: was the public in America and Britain truthfully informed about reasons for intervening in Iraq?
- No, it wasn't. We have no illusions. Nowhere in the world has this story gone smoothly. These are, so called, rights of heavy inertia, they have to be conquered. But, once they have been conquered, and when journalists, citizens teach the government publicity, there is no going back. I know that this law feels slow for journalists, but I have felt the real changes when the journalists started using and insisting on it. However this law was not written for the press. To a good journalist, the information is late even if it they get it today, they say: why didn't I get it yesterday. But for a particular journalism: investigative, engaging -sometimes you will search for the document for a year - this could prove to be useful.
It is written in the law, and you have once before mentioned to me that you are in charge of providing public insight into a certain carrier of information, i.e. which exists as a document. Could it happen that the government body purposely doesn't record information on its work, important for the public, namely, is there an obligation for the government bodies to make notes?
- This presumption is possible, and in certain circumstances even probable. No one can be made to record information, by this law. .
Does the negotiating team for Kosovo belong to a government body in your competency?
- Strictly formal, it is not a government body, because government body is a subject of the law, something that understands particular definition, formed by the law. This is not the case; this team is in the political sphere. In this context, Commissioner for information of public significance could not treat the negotiating team as a government body.
Is the negotiating team obliged to keep minutes for public insight? And has it been a case until now that someone has required seeing them?
- Considering that they have not been founded by the law, we can hardly talk of their obligation to this or that? But surely there are written evidences of their work. So far, no one from media has required such information on negotiations on K and M, but I have to tell you that this would be a delicate request. Our Law on free access of public information of significance is very liberal, surprisingly liberal for our environment , but still it provides for option in certain cases to deny access to certain information prevailing the public right to know. We could say that certain questions connected to activity of the negotiating team could be in the sphere of not desiring to show cards, neither in front of the partner from the other side, nor in front of the international public.
Surely you have noted that our public constantly negates official allegations that NATO in the year 1999. has fired depleted uranium only a few spots in the South of Serbia and targets on Kosovo. Were there any requests from citizens or media for the government body to provide them such information?
- As I recall there was a request for that, and interestingly enough, not from our citizens but from a foreign non governmental organization. I believe it was organization “Norwegian Aid “. They requested from our MIA, these information. I believe in this case it is a question of first class importance information. As I recall MIA has handed over information they had, but in this case it is a matter of, whether there are all documents about it.
Can you in any manner force any government body to collect information on whether, in sectors controlled by the army, depleted uranium munitions were used?
No. We should as a State have these data, but I do not know if we do, and I can not order anyone to create a document on something if this document is non existing. I can only establish that a certain organ has denied you the right to access a certain document, and instruct them to give you a copy of the document. If the body does not act upon it, commissioner hasn't got the factual or legal power to make them do it. According to Law, this should be done by the Cabinet of Serbia. This was expected from the Cabinet, in few dozen cases, and it is a serious problem, Cabinet of Serbia hasn't done it once. This is almost an invitation for breaking the law.
In public, from serious doctors there are information and rumors that the number of cancer patients in the recent years has amounted to epidemic level. Have you had anyone requesting such information from you?
- No one. Interestingly, no one has.
Recent days we had speculations in the newspapers of police brutality. Has anyone asked for assistance from MIA and afterwards from you, in publicly showing the details on how wide spread the police brutality in the force is?
- Such sort of general statistics hasn't been asked for. But there were requests for documents of specific individual cases. In number of cases these information were given. MIA has in organizational sense done a lot in terms of following this Law, while the Safety Information Agency ignores it completely. They will not respond to completely benign obligations and requests. I have had a talk once with Mr.Rade Bulatovic on this matter, and was under the impression that he understood, but. The attitude of SIA is more so strange if you ask me, since most of these requests were totally benign. For instance, people wanted to know the location of elimination of some of their ancestor, and the sole serious request is the information on the number of wired citizens in a year. Not even who did it, not even where, or why, or in what manner, only the number. But SIA has refused to give out such information even after the Supreme Court ruling. In the neighboring Montenegro, same question was raised and information was given, not only on the number of wired but also on the number of employees in their identical agency. And it is known how many people are employed in our SIA - 2.286 people.
- And which is, according to you a bigger secret: a number of employed or a number of wired? I am going to tell you: a number of employed in a certain service says clearly about the potentials of that service. A number of wired in a year says nothing.
Many times you have mentioned official and business secret. And you claim that this is not regulated in the law at all. However, I can see that you have called upon this prevailing interest in the matter of request denials. What exactly are you calling upon, then?
- Whenever I act, I call upon the Law which I am protecting. All countries but us, and I believe Montenegro; have laws on classification of data or secrets, if you will.
You are a jurist. Isn't a fact that there is no Law on state secret legally conclusive to the fact that nothing is a State secret?
- Of course not. We have more than few hundred laws and regulations, some take this matter seriously, some superficially, often enough they are contradictory, and all are anachronous and surpassed. You are not going to believe this, as far as I know there are regulations dating from 1958 still in everyday use. Imagine the criteria on confidentiality from 1958 and 2007. It is a humiliating chaos.
