Source: "Blic"
“The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly adopted in 1996 on XXIII session the Resolution on Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of Former Totalitarian Communist Systems. Clause 9 of this document of extreme importance for a breakthrough of the freedom of information to a forbidden area reads as follows: the Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the opening of secret service files for the public in certain former communist countries. It calls on all countries to enable the interested persons to access, on demand, the files kept of them by the former secret services.
Nearly all the former socialist countries responded to this appeal of the Council of Europe. Sadly, Serbia has not. This year marks a whole decade since the adoption of the said Resolution of the CoE Parliamentary Assembly. And also six years since the toppling of the authoritarian regime in Serbia. And three years since the admission of our country to the Council of Europe. We should see each of these “jubilees” as a solemn reminder that it is high time we passed a relevant law governing the treatment of secret service files and thus make an important step both for international reputation of our country and for its further democratic transition.”
I published the text in quotation marks four years ago, at almost exactly the same time, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the CoE Resolution. I published it then, in November 2006, for the first time. And again in November 2007. And also in November 2008. And yet again in November 2009. It appears likely I will also need to publish it in November 2010 because 14 years after the adoption of the said CoE Resolution it will still be a current issue. This is certainly not the reason for satisfaction, on the contrary. In the meantime, some issues extremely important for normal democratic transition have been opened in Serbia as well, although with great delay. And “consistency” in keeping unavailable many pieces of information from archives of secret services that are relevant for correcting past wrongdoings, for issues such as rehabilitation, restitution etc., bears many risks. Answers to many questions will be incomplete, they might even cause new wrongdoings. The right way to eliminate those risks is to at last provide for this delicate field by a relevant law.
