Transcription of the show "Polygraph" - "Fear from the public "
ExpiredGood evening. The new Constitution has determined that on the first meeting of the Assembly, when the new Government shall be elected, the new Commissioner for Information of Public Importance should also be elected. Yesterday we have marked two years from the establishment of this institution which is still lead by Mr. Rodoljub Sabic, this evening's guest of ours. Good evening and welcome. Do you expect to stay in this function? Sabic: Actually this is not a question for me. The thing I should say as a comment in relation to your introduction is actually, those are the contents, that is, I suppose that those are the contents of Article 5 of the Constitution. Otherwise, one provision with constitutional importance, that the Constitution has constitutional significance, was written, so to say, from the legal-technical point of view, catastrophically bad and is completely incomprehensive.
B92: What is incomprehensive?
Sabic: Well, I will tell you. There is exactly not one word in that provision mentioning the Law on Free Access to Information, or the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, but the majority of public supposes, and I share your assumption, that they intend to do something there with the Commissioner and with the Law. However, I had already been given a chance to say, when we would talk only about the Commissioner, that mustn't be some special problem, and it shouldn't be a topic for our conversation tonight, but if they intend to do something regarding the Law...
B92: You have expressed the fear that the Law shall be changed and therefore the role of the Commissioner, his function shall actually, become annulled. Based on what do you derive such fears?
Sabic: Well, how to tell you, a fear is always a result of some realistic constellations, there is much resistance against the law implementation, I suppose that it is not a secret, I have several times publicly spoken about that. There is very little readiness of many bodies in power that should assist the implementation of that, otherwise very good and useful idea, regarding wider insight of public into everything the government does. And then it is logical to assume that there are many of those whose Importance is not only that it should remain on the level we have achieved until now, and which is not much, however better than two years ago, although we're not satisfied, but that it should be annulled. What I want to tell you? There are very many people simple afraid of the public, who do not like the public to see how sloppy, incapable, negligent or prone to abuse they are, if you like it, or prone to criminal and corruption.
B92: But, for instance, in the new Constitution there is something called the right to be informed, so, in this new Constitution. How do You comment that Article 51, the right to be informed, how much does it guarantee that exactly the law that derives from the Constitution has to be written and implemented in the right way?
Sabic: I do not know what is the right to be informed, but speaking about it as about a legal standard....
B92: You want me to read it for You?
Sabic: No, I know the provision, but I do not know what does that mean, maybe you can explain that to me. I do not believe that there's anyone seriously dealing in this matter, who has heard of the right to be informed. So, when the text for which it was told it has been harmonized, appeared for the first time, it was compiled by Messers. Lončar and Hiber, and I have publicly reacted, wrote a letter to all the members of the Constitutional Board and the Chairman of the Assembly, telling that the right to have access to information, to the data in government's ownership must be included into the Constitution in an unbiased way. In the first version of the text there was the right to be informed, so, that is the kind of right understanding the right of the citizen to be informed, and the media are obliged to keep that in mind. That is a proclamation, that isn't a right.
B92: But it also writes: „Everybody has the right to access data in the ownership of state bodies and organizations charged with public authority according to the law. “
Sabic: That is the paragraph which has been included after my intervention and so, this is basic paragraph, which is fundamental for the Law on Free Access to Information. Therefore I say, Law on Free Access to Information does not have any need to be harmonized with the Constitution, to joke that way, because we have harmonized the Constitution with that Law. Speaking about the right to be informed, one should ask the authors what do they think about it as such, because it is for me one empty proclamation. So, according to me, each right of a citizen equals one obligation of the government. The obligation of the media to take care about somebody being informed, and the protection of that right is completely incomprehensive to me.
B92: You are for two years now in this position, as much as I can see you are dissatisfied with many things. What specifically, what is key of Your dissatisfaction? That simply derives from what you say.
Sabic: A man is always relatively satisfied and relatively dissatisfied. I would have gone from this function if I was completely dissatisfied. We have done something during these two years, even judging by the evaluation of some of the observers who should be objective. They come from the surroundings, from abroad, or they are peers and are subjectively indifferent. They say we have done much more than in our surroundings in such a short period. One should not forget that in the first 7-8 months I actually did not have any elementary prerequisites for work. So, from that point of view it is not bad, a state body has been created to which many citizens turn to, seeking protection of rights.
B92: And where do you encounter obstacles?
Sabic: The problem is that this hasn't been accompanied with the other efforts that should be provided by the others, especially the executive power. So, I will tell you that two basic obstacles are, and that would be recognized even by the layman, not the lawyer, in implementation of each and every law, and especially of such a law which is almost revolutionary, the facts that in two years the state bodies in charge have not submitted a single offense charge against the violators of the law. So, although the Law contains one solid set of violations and penal provisions, in two years not one single offense charge has been submitted against someone who broke the law. And another thing, speaking about implementation of any law, you of course start from the assumption that the decisions of the body in charge shall be implemented. But in case that they are not implemented, the Law envisages the mechanism for securing their execution. Also in this case the Government of Serbia is obliged to execute the decisions passed by the Commissioner, when the body in charge fails to observe otherwise obliging Commissioner's Decision. I have to tell you, although luckily in the majority of cases the bodies in power to whom the Commissioner issues orders observe them, still in the small number of cases, just a couple of dozens, whenever the Government has been asked to secure implementation of the Commissioner's Decisions it failed to do so.
B92: Can you roughly in quantitative way tell us how many cases have you until now had that you've dealt with and how many cases you have succeeded to resolve?
Sabic: I do not have that precise statistics, but for sure in this moment from the beginning of work until now, we have registered in our service around 2,000 cases. I suppose we have done something more than 1,400 of them which are already resolved. So, this is an evidence of an obviously growing trend. Regarding the parameters, in the whole 2005 there were around 450 cases, in this year we shall have four maybe even five times that much. So, the number of applications of citizens grows, and not only of citizens, but also of non-governmental organizations, companies, media, journalists, and which is very indicative, of political parties, even from the bodies in power, which is very specific.
B92: Which body in power turned to You?
Sabic: Several bodies in power, as much as I know, for instance you have the request of the Mayor of Kragujevac in relation to some other body in power, and so on, and so forth, showing that we lack the minimum, the necessary minimum of normal communication between the bodies in power. Actually, that points out to the phenomenon of bad communication caused by one's belonging to certain political party.
B92: You have criticized the Government that it didn't cooperate with You, that is, answer your requests. Who was the most cooperative?
Sabic: I didnt' criticize it that it didn't cooperate with me, I only spoke that they do not do the things they are legally bound to do. For instance, Article 28 writes that the execution of the Commissioner's decisions should be provided by the Government, and in another Article writes that the Ministry of Culture is in charge of law implementation, and also for starting the infringement proceedings. So, in two years, and a couple of days ago it happened for the first time that someone in Serbia has been punished for breaching someone's right of free access to information. The Magistrate in Sombor has made that honorable and nice precedent, but the initiator was not the state body in charge, but one non-governmental organization for environmental protection.
B92: I suppose that the inheritance we as a nation have also influences lack of understanding for Your function, insufficient understanding, and therefore probably in the power itself they do not know the meaning of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance. I suppose that the reason for that is a lack of adequate laws. You have, amongst else, publicly announced for several times that we lack the Law on Secrets, secrets are something You are dealing with, that is, what Importances the citizens. What is the problem there, the lack of definition what is the secret or who should conceal the secret, unveil it and so on? Please explain.
Sabic: Generally we have the problem with the understanding of the relationship between the power and the public. That is our Balkan inheritance, which is socialist inheritance, that is, in the end, the inheritance from the authoritarian regime from the end of the last century. However, we have a serious problem, we have that problem of lack of public presence in relation to the past, and we are therefore the last post-socialist country which has not provided access to the dossiers of secret services, and we have that problem also in relation to present tense. We nurture a phenomenon that a pile of things that might be inaccessible to the public, are easily accessible, and are for instance on the first pages of tabloids, and on the other hand, a pile of things that should be accessible to the democratic public is not, and is completely undeservingly carrying a label of secret, hiding from the public for completely illegitimate reasons.
B92: Good, I shall as first remind You, for instance, of the case of Vladan Vlajkovic and his book, where in his book "Military secret" he presented some reports written in shorthand, from the meetings of ex-General Staff. He was also in temporary arrest, his book has been seized, but not prohibited. Did he really discover a secret, or not, what is happening to that case so far, You dealt with that? For instance, let's use that example to see what is the secret.
Sabic: Some time ago he also asked for the assistance from the Commissioner and that is simply one problem that speaks about, to say it that way, our serious lagging behind in relation to the standards valid in Europe. So, Vlajkovic published a collection of documents formally labeled as a secret. All Minutes from the sessions of military top carry that label, but the contents of those documents mostly spoke that the military top has, except in dealing in their regular activities, also dealt in the activities like tracking and wiretapping of journalists, interfering with broadcasting of domestic media, that is breach of human rights, not to say, obvious criminal acts. And of course, that is the criminal-legal issue if when you discover something like that, you should be prosecuted after all. That is one thing, and the other is even more Importanceing in relation to the job I perform. So, you can read today the contents of that book on several tens of websites, as the whole text or in parts. A part of the circulation has been seized, half of it has been distributed, so it is completely without sense, not only from the legal standpoint but also logically speaking, to treat that as a secret. How can it be a secret, when you can read it on the Internet. That is the first problem, and the second problem brings us to something which can become serious thing. So, speaking about certain standards valid in Europe, when a document which was even secretive, so, formally, correctly, rightfully secretive, once leaks into public, it stopped being secret, that is the attitude of the European Court in Strasbourg, the Court for Human Rights, and every prohibition of its distribution shall be deemed breach of human rights.
B92: You speak about European standards. What do they consider as secret?
Sabic: It would take us of course much more time than we have now.
B92: Is it for instance a secret to find out, although the editorial office of “Danas” is trying to do so, what is the property of Slobodan MiloSevic?
Sabic: Of course it is not. In order to understand, there are no static categories, nothing for which you can upfront say it is a secret. So, as an European standard, behind the secret always stands a legitimate Importance, the Importance envisaged by the law, regardless if that is the Importance to protect your privacy or that is an Importance to protect the national defense, or if that is the Importance of country security, or Importance to discover perpetrator of a criminal act. But, then, there must exist one of the Importances envisaged by the Law and there must be a real, not inferred Importance. So it is completely illogical to assume that any Importance at all shall be endangered by disclosing a document which has already become public.
B92: Right, but is the property of Slobodan MiloSevic a secret?
Sabic: I have already answered to that by passing the decision I have passed, and by giving an order to the Tax Administration to disclose that fact.
B92: And they said that they do not have that data.
Sabic: I shall reiterate that to you. Your property, that is, data about your property or property of any citizen do not have to be available and should not be available to the public.
B92: Mister MiloSevic was not an ordinary man.
Sabic: Exactly. When there is legally justifiable reason, and there is such reason, regardless if we speak about the personality who personally gave the reason, due to the function one has performed, and so on. Accordingly, those are categories where one must take care about the real context, not in advance. So, we have done something, there is a blueprint for a secret, and that is the secret for all times. We nurture secrets since '46, which is completely meaningless. The Berlin wall has fell down, and still today you have the fact that the documents old even 60 and more years are still secret.
B92: Is that a secret regarding the European or global standards, or any standards whatsoever, when for instance, you ask some service, like BIA in our country (Security Intelligence Agency), to simply state how many citizens were wiretapped during the last year? Namely, the Youth Initiative for Human Rights asked for that, and even in the end they turned to You, because they couldn't receive anything from BIA, and then you were sought after by Rade Bulatovic and he sued you, while Minister Stojkovic also accused You that you work against the Importance of the state. Is it usual for European countries that they publicize how many people have been wiretapped?
Sabic: I shall tell you, it is not unusual, only that I'm not a Commissioner in some European country, but I am a Commissioner in the specific European country called Serbia, and according to our law we have something which carries the label secret, which is inaccessible to the public, only pending that the revealing of that data would bring certain heavy consequences to the legally protected Importance. So, in this specific case it was my obligation to apply the Serbian law, not the German law, not the French law, but the law passed by the Assembly of Serbia. So, in respect of that condition I have concluded that disclosure of simple, summary data, communicating that data to the public, how many of the citizens were wiretapped, is only statistical, summary number, and that can not endanger absolutely any Importance at all. I still today claim that it is so, and I claim that it is against the common sense to claim anything else.
B92: Did you meet Minister Stojkovic, because he accused You that You work at the detriment of the state?
Sabic: I have replied to his letter, but he didn't reply to that answer and I think he had understood my message. So, I had an impression that at that time when he accused me that I work to the detriment of the state, and that I must not do what I'm doing, that he was not informed about the contents of the law, that's what I have wrote him. So, the Law is not only envisaging my right, but it also envisaged my obligation, not only mine, but of the previous first degree body, that when someone asks for data formally labeled as secret, to check if the essential conditions for secret have been fulfilled, and then they can pass a decision about that matter. I have myself explained what are the reasons out of which I have taken that attitude and I believe, I repeat, that I was right.
B92: NUNS (Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia) has reacted today...
Sabic: I apologize, just to add one more thing, also when I say that we do not live in some abstract European country, we live in the country which is seriously burdened with certain inheritance from the last 15 years. So, we know what the secret service in this country did and I thought that it would be not only allowed, but also very useful that the Security Intelligence Agency should inform the public about the number of people it wiretapped. So, we would be witnesses of a multitude of abuses by those services, even the most brutal abuses leading to execution of some people, including your colleagues. I thought that in this country, six years after the fall of authoritarian regime it is not bad to tell the public that in relation to a certain number of citizens, certain legally envisaged measures are applied, and nothing more than that, nothing that would endanger the operations.
B92: As things stand now, we will not find that out. We spoke about secrets, about what You do and in which way are You trying to discover them, and who is preventing You. NUNS has today reacted and reminded of the death of lady journalist Dada Vujasinovic. She has tragically died in April '94, and You have more than two months ago ordered the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade to disclose the data about her death, because the investigation has been restarted several times. But still, at least in one part of the public, which is Importanceed in that, it is unclear how did she die. Why a case like that can not be resolved?
Sabic: I have to tell you that this is completely incomprehensible, the idea is absurd that someone 12 years after death, tragic death and 12 years of dragging of some kind of criminal proceeding, or whatever, considers that they do not owe to Serbian public any kind of information, except that the proceeding has not been completed. That is, I would say, cynicism if nothing else, and having in mind that I have issued that order and that the Prosecutor's Office is not executing it already for two months...
B92: Is there any kind of deadline which they have to observe?
Sabic: I have determined the deadline by Decision, the deadline was three days. So, they are protecting their, I would say, exclusive position which was maybe characteristic for those bodies in the first year of the last century, not of this century.
B92: Sorry to interrupt You, but if they fail to observe those three days, what is then Your further authority?
Sabic: The Government of Serbia is obliged to secure execution of that Decision, it unfortunately hasn't, as in any other case until now, done so.
B92: Did you turn to....?
Sabic: I do not turn to, but the one seeking information turns to someone, and there is a Commissioner's Decision. As much as I know NUNS turned to the Government of Serbia a long time ago and their last reaction is related to that.
B92: What is the sanction? So, You give them three days, then the Government of Serbia gives them probably another deadline, what is the sanction?
Sabic: Let's not talk about sanctions, is it normal to speculate about the situation where even the Government of Serbia can not... Sanctions are pecuniary for perpetrator, but we do not speak about sanctions, and NUNS is not Importanceed if someone from the Prosecutor's Office shall be punished with 50,000 dinars. NUNS and the Serbian public are Importanceed if anything has been done and what has been done regarding the case of Dada Vujasinovic. Twelve years from the death of that woman both her family and the whole Serbian public have the right to know that, and persisting on the attitude that the public does not have the right to know results in, I am completely sure of that, sure counter-effect. That is irresponsible and nurtures doubts that something is hidden there. What - I do not know, if that is sloppiness, lack of ability or maybe something more serious. So, that is something we have to count on. I have to tell you that I am worried because the Prosecutor's Office, in persisting in that attitude, has used even the data which are obviously incorrect, and that is the thing on which I expect the Government to finally react.
B92: We have however mentioned some very famous cases, the cases known to the public. I suppose that many anonymous people turn to You, what are the problems that come to your Cabinet?
Sabic: The most variegated. As I already said, if we would bring down that story about the public to the thing that the journalists should write about in little bit more quality texts or for someone to satiate his curiosity, that would be a worthless topic. But this story clearly speaks about one horrible burden, about one Auger's stable, which we have inherited from earlier times and which we should properly clean. So, I was in a position to see things like the fact that someone was in psychiatric asylum for two years, but no one actually knows who has sent him there, nor is it possible to find the clue. The fact that someone has been for instance sentenced for an offence, but no one knows who has sentenced him, because the signature on the verdict is of someone who was at that time on trip abroad. This is the situation when you could for instance help someone to get an insight into some documents, records of patients in some hospital, and that person receives the data he was looking for, but also comes with a horrible impression and says - my Lord, what is the state of that, that is one ghastly old tattered book, based on which thousands and thousands of dinars of compensation are paid. So, that is an excellent method, penetration of public is an excellent method for us to find out the dimensions of the problems in which we live. That story of ours that we have opted to be an European country is very good, but it requires a huge effort to overcome a whole set of other factors, of bad inheritance. Not to pretend that you can swim when you jump into the water, you have to know it. So, ignoring problems is not acceptable, we nurture a dramatic problem, for instance corruption, the whole world knows that the public is excellent means against corruption, it is not necessary to explain why, I hope. The corrupted work in shadow, in the dark. Why should we tolerate the facts that behind so-called official, business and other secrets there are certain tricks, hidden abuse of social resources, of resources that belong to all of us. That is more or less so, we can do very much using that prism, by expanding the area of public towards all information that are relevant, we can really stand up to a whole series of those evils, both inherited and the current ones.
B92: You have earlier reacted on the Proposal of the Law on Foreign Investments, according to which the citizens were prohibited to ask questions regarding sales of social resources to foreign investors. What happened to that Proposal of the Law, did that provision remained or not?
Sabic: You have, however, seriously simplified that. In essence, yes, it was about one legal provision that tried to completely excuse...
B92: Speaking about corruption this is very important.
Sabic: Of course, that's why I have reacted. They wanted to completely exclude the application of the Law on Free Access to Information, all information in relation to foreign investments. However, one such clause would actually enable to mask any kind of communication in relation to privatization, to concessions, big movements of social resources by bringing in one stranger, even with a half of the percent of share, so you say no.
B92: From Seychelles for instance.
Sabic: Well, I think that such formulations are simply unacceptable for us in this state of affairs regarding corruption.
B92: What other laws do we lack in order that we could for instance complete our story somehow, at least on the legal level, so that what is in implementation should be...
Sabic: We miss a couple of things. I shall tell you all. It seems to me that one thing is missing acutely, and the fact we lack it shall appear very soon as a problem, hopefully soon, by continuing on our road to Europe. So, in the last study of European Commission the problem regarding protection of personal data has been underlined. We are on still one, how to say, uncivilized level, with huge lagging behind in relation to democratic countries. I have for instance believed that, when we start the story regarding the Constitution, which would be an idea, to protect personal data, because the lack of that body has already been marked by the European Commission to the Commissioner for Information, because that is the trend. So, I do not know any body named, as written in the Constitution, the body in charge of monitoring implementation of the rights of citizens regarding information. I know of many Commissioners for Information and the trend is that they are also in charge of protection of access to information and protection of personal data. So, that is the Law which we have to quickly pass, but there are also two other, similarly inevitable, where we are horribly late. One is about the classification of secret data and the other is about secret services' dossiers. We now have the first decisions in front of courts, and I have been very satisfied to hear that the District Court in Belgrade has rehabilitated today or yesterday the first two persons who were the victims of post-war terror, victims of political terror. We also have involved ourselves in the rehabilitation process, but we didn't resolve the problem regarding secret services' dossiers, and maybe that data bank is absolutely relevant, especially for rehabilitation.
B92: We have still a couple of minutes to the end of the show, and I would like to use them to open up one new topic, which pertains to the information that the Minister of Justice, Mr. Zoran Stojkovic has a couple of days made public. That during the transitional Government, in 2000/2001, 36 prisoners have been killed in prisons. As he stated, some of them killed themselves mutually, some were killed by police. You were politician at that time, an MP, you were Minister in the Government of Zoran Đinđic which Minister Stojkovic accused that has hushed up the whole story. Did you ever hear about such an information?
Sabic: During that time I was a Vice President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, I have become Minister much later, and of course, I wasn't the Minister of Justice, to immediately resolve that. I do not remember that....
B92: But 36 people, you must have known about that...
Sabic: That is something that we should know for sure. I shall tell you, I have seen the reactions of three individuals who were co-Ministers at that time, in that famous three-headed Government, as they named it. They were three very different persons, both personally and different in relation to their political options. By chance I knew all three of them, I knew Nikolic from SPS, I knew Spahovic from SPO and I knew Dragan SubaSic who was ours, DOS Minister. All three of them have categorically denied that, and based on what I could have found out later, that is, as a member of the Government a year and a half or two years later, I could not in any way infer that it could...
B92: Not even based on the book of Mr. Maric, who was in charge of prisons, but is not mentioned in that riot....
Sabic: I have to tell you, I exclude the possibility that 36 people could be killed, without public knowing, even if any Government would try to...
B92: All right, but we, however, as journalists, we want to know that information. What is the way to find it out? You are the Commissioner?
Sabic: Hypothetically speaking, we would need to turn directly to the Ministry of Justice, because it is competent for execution of criminal sanctions and we should ask for the document. I repeat, information that I protect and access to information I protect must be contained in certain documents. To ask for supportive document, because of course, that document is missing, because if it was there, it would be right in the hands of Minister Stojkovic.
B92: Yes, but Minister Stojkovic, I suppose he knows what he is talking about, so how is it possible that... So, You do not have even the slightest doubt regarding that...?
Sabic: I have already told you, I wasn't in any way involved in that event, but according to everything I know, I exclude the possibility that a riot of that size could emerge with such consequences. To be clear, there was a riot in the prison, you remember that, and that year immediately after the victory of DOS at elections, there was a serious riot of wide span in several penalty-corrective institutions, but without those consequences.
B92: Mister Sabic, thank You for being a guest of Polygraph, we shall certainly continue to deal in this topic. Our guest tonight was mister Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance.
