Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, said that the change of the Government of the Republic of Serbia must involve much more than intervention addressing already established Draft Decision on Amending the Rules of the Government has.

The Commissioner considers necessary to eliminate from the current Rules the provisions that govern on  completely inadequate legal manner the issues of confidentiality. The Commissioner also considers that it is necessary to do a more specific provisions governing the public's right to participate in the legislative process, or in the public debate on bills and laws that government brings.

Emphasizing that the minimum must be to eliminate the provisions of Article 43 and 96 applicable Rules, Rodoljub Šabić said the following:

„It is unbelievable that more than three years since the adoption of the Law on Government Secrecy Rules include the term "military" and "official" secret that this law does not stipulate more.

Still retain these terms in the Rules of the Government adds to the already present mess in the area of confidentiality. I've repeatedly warned that the Law on Secrecy "exists" more like fiction than a realistic and important element of the legal order and the system. Confidentiality law provided for a unique, more or less classical nomenclature of classified information - internal, confidential, top secret, state secret. Being so "established uniform system of classification and protection of classified information",  the "military" and "official" secret as relics of the old "safety culture", were eliminated, even as terms. It is indicative and concering that the Government not only retains it in the  Rules but are extensively used in further legislative practice.  Quite a number of groups of Laws which have been adopted or been amended following the entry into force of the Law on Secrecy, and they still use concepts and forms of classification that the Law on Secrecy does not know. With the inevitable risks and negative consequences for the public's right, the general safety and security of the state.

In relation to Article 96 Rules there is the same problem but has one extra. This provisions of the Rules stipulates that practically every word spoken at the Government is a secret. I think it obvious that such a solution much more resembles the ancient times but in modern democratic standards, and public relations. Perhaps it is redundant, but I remember that in many countries today to attend the meetings of the government and journalists accredited to the public online, electronically available agendas, materials from the sessions and even phonograms course except in exceptional cases where the public is excluded.

I think that, as a matter of law and public interest, and in terms of the reputation of the government, should immediately replace the existing rigid adequate solutions, which I proposed in a separate letter to the Government."