Mysterious memo
ExpiredWith reference to the text “Further Examinations Prolongue the Process”
Mysterious receipt
I have no intention to get myself involved in the public debate with Milovan Bozovic, District Public Prosecutor in Belgrade. However, considering that he mentions The Commissioner's name and the Commissioner's Bureau and expresses his legal opinions that may be relevant in the application of the Free Access to Information Act, all in a context flooded with misleading information, it is simply my duty to react.
In reference to the access to the information owned by the Public Prosecutor's Office, saying the relevant lex specialis is the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than the Free Access to Information Act is simply groundless and shows a complete lack of knowledge about free access to information. This means that the Criminal Code would be lex specialis for one person, Customs Act for another, Tax Act yet for another person and so on, while the Free Access to Information Act would probably only serve as decoration. The Code of Criminal Proceedings is lex specialis in the criminal law issues, not in the field of access to information. When it comes to the access to information, regardless of which government body holds the information, the Free Access to Information Act is the applicable law, not any other law. As for possible restriction of the access to information, the reasons prescribed by this - not any other - law should be referred to. I would like to remind the readers about the joint resolution of high representatives for human rights and freedom of the media, the highest level international organisations of states, UN, OSCE and the Organisation of American States, which explicitly says that in case there are inconsistencies between the Free Access to Information Act and any other law, the former will overweigh the latter.
I do not want to talk about the attempts of the Public Prosecutor's Office to prove that the memos sent to NUNS and the Commissioner where about something they were not about. I do not want to talk about my dilemma about the reasons why the Public Prosecutor's Office rejected the request of NUNS - whether the reasons were those quoted in the memo or some other reasons that they referred to later on. But I have to react to the irresponsible and unfair attempt to drive the Commissioner into a lie by making less of the issue of a mysterious memo that the Prosecutor's Office used to prove it had done something it had not actually done. This is, I believe, the Public Prosecutor's Attempt to diminish the importance of the memo sent to NUNS and to the Commissioner saying that “the Commissioner has received the memo through the 'memo book' on 10 July 2006, which means that the copy of the receipt - whatever its content - was irrelevant...".
Indeed, the Public Prosecutor's Office did submit something - through the memo book - to the Commissioner on 10 July, but it was not supposed to be proven by receipt. However, the attempt of the Public Prosecutor's Office to link the mysterious memo to another event is absolutely unacceptable.
With the receipt in question the Prosecutor's Office wanted to prove another thing. In fact, in the memo sent to the Commissioner on 12. 10. 2006, reference number A No. 662/06, which the PPO is now not mentioning PPO claimed that it submitted some sort of answer to the Commissioner on 16. 08. 2006, that the Commissioner received it on 21. 08. 2006 and proved it with this mysterious receipt.
The truth, at least for me, is worrying - PPO did not send any memos to the Commissioner on those dates, let alone that the Commissioner received them. In this context - and not any other that the Public Prosecutor is trying to put it in - the use of the mysterious receipt is indicative and, in any case, is not “irrelevant”.
This is why I believe it would be best to cut this polemic short with as little possible damage to the reputation of the Public Prosecutor's Office as possible. The best way to do this is that the Public Prosecutor, if he can and if he dares, publicly confirm that it is true that the PPO sent a “reply” to the Commissioner on 16.08.2006 and that the Commissioner received it on 21.08.2006. If this cannot be done it would do if he only said that this was not true and to refrain from explanations such as “error” or “irrelevant”. Written by the Information Commissioner
