SUBSCRIPTION

No 62, Vol I 

*  Draft Law on Freedom of Information Promoted

Base for Open Society in BiH

A Draft Law on Freedom of Information made by a special working group composed of local and foreign legal experts was promoted in Sarajevo. The law, which officially entered parliamentary procedure on June 28, is a foundation for a more open society in Bosnia-Herzegovina, says the international community. The draft stipulates that any person has the right to access information possessed by the government and other public bodies. It also gives the individual the right to amend or correct their personal information and make comment on it. Practically, state bodies and all public institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, except for a number of specified exceptions, should no longer have secrets. According to the draft law, it is enough to write a request, send it to the relevant state body, and get any information from its scope of work. Financial, political and staffing transparency, when the law is passed, will become public commodities, at least formally. The Law on Freedom of Information also stipulates exceptions from the freedom of providing information. This refers to data whose publication would jeopardize security of the country or entity, damage criminal investigations, etc.
The law will be particularly useful to journalists, who know best how hard it is to get relevant information in Bosnia-Herzegovina without personal acquaintances with individuals in power. In addition to arrogant ministers and their deputies, access to information has also been prevented by their secretaries, and even doorman in state service.
During presentation of the law, when asked by journalists whether the law also refers to the international community, which has a huge administrative apparatus in Bosnia-Herzegovina, High Representative Wolfgang Petritsch replied negatively. “Institutions of the international community in Bosnia-Herzegovina do not fall under domestic laws, but this does not mean that we will not respect the law, in particular because we are the ones who are proposing it,” said Petritsch.

Possible Abuse of Exceptions

The main aim of the law, according to the introductory provisions, is to establish that information controlled by a public body is a public commodity, and that any person has the right to access this information and give comment or correct personal information controlled by the public body. The draft law’s introductory provisions define that “information is any material conveying facts, opinions, data or any other content,” and that a public body is: (a) an executive body (of the government), (b) a legislative body (parliaments), (c) a judicial body (courts), (d) a body which exercises a public function, appointed or established in accordance with the law, (e) any other administrative body, (f) a legal entity owned or controlled by a public body.
The specification of public bodies is very widely set and practically encompasses all bodies of authority. However, the liberal character of publishing information controlled by these bodies is restricted by exceptions defined in three categories: (a) defense and security interests, as well as protection of public security, (b) crime prevention and crime detection, (c) protection of the decision-making process on the part of a public body in giving opinion, counsel or recommendation of an employee of a public body, which does not encompass factual, statistical or technical information.
In view that these exceptions are generally defined, this leaves open the possibility that some information for which the government does not want transparency will remain hidden under the pretext, for example, of “defense and security interests.” Or, with point “c”, which is unclearly formulated and basically concerns protection of a public body, a sensitive area is opened as to what is opinion, and what fact. This raises the question of who should assess whether, in what way and how much security is jeopardized and whether public bodies’ internal acts will specify these cases. Even today politicians in Bosnia-Herzegovina are inclined to accuse journalists, certain political parties, and non-governmental organizations of jeopardizing national security or state interests through their writing or activities. This problem should partly be solved with the establishment of the institution of Ombudsman for Information, which the draft law stipulates. This ombudsman, states the proposed law, should “examine the activities of public bodies pursuant to this law, upon receiving a complaint or ex officio.” However, it is not regulated how the Ombudsman for Information will act if he or she notices irregularities or evasion of the provisions of this law. In addition, the law’s final provisions state that responsibility for the law’s implementation lies on the entity Justice Ministry. It is stipulated that within three months of the day the law goes into effect the Ministry should sign a joint agreement with the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the government of the other entity concerning application of responsibility for the implementation of the law.
A request for access to information is to be submitted to the relevant public body. The text of the law specifies that if a public body establishes its jurisdiction in the content of the request, it shall refer the request to the responsible body and inform the applicant accordingly in written form. The request shall: (a) be in written form in one of the official languages in Bosnia-Herzegovina, (b) contain enough details on the nature and content of information, (c) include the name of the applicant and details on how to contact the applicant.
It is of particular significance that the public body shall not examine nor demand reasons of justification of the request. Therefore, it is not essential, for example, for the journalist to state in the request that he or she needs information for writing this or that article, which will be published on such and such a date, etc.
If access to information is approved, whether partially or in whole, the relevant body shall inform the applicant in writing on the prospect, place and other modalities of access to information. If access to information is refused, the relevant body shall, also in writing, specify the legal ground and other reasons why it cannot give information, but also clearly state the possibilities of filing a complaint with the relevant body, as well as the timeframe for the complaint.
Any public body, following passage of the law, shall name an information officer to deal with received complaints. Practically, when the law goes into effect, all bodies of authority shall have what has so far been called a public relations office.
The relevant public body shall not charge compensation or taxes for filing a request or for written notices under this law. Rates shall only be determined for photocopying. However, the first ten photocopied pages of standard format shall be free of charge.

Bigger Political, Than Practical Significance

There is no doubt that the Draft Law on Information is a significant democratic achievement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Following its passage, certain Balkan stereotypes that the state is a powerful structure that can keep information from its citizens will be destroyed. The Law on Information precisely provides the RIGHT TO KNOW. During the communist system, during the war, and even now, this right has been systematically suffocated. The political impact of the law is immense, in particular because it gives citizens the right to obtain information directly from a public body. However, journalists, at least in this form, will not get too much help from this law. It may even hamper their work if public officials and the administration strictly apply the rule that journalists must submit a written request for any piece of information, and may have to wait for up to 15 days for a reply. For example, journalists have had to wait for information from the police on the number of registered drug-addicts in Sarajevo for three days after submitting a request, although it can be obtained after three clicks of the computer mouse. Can a public body drag out even this kind of information for 15 days?
Independent Media Commission Director Krister Thelin announced a couple of months ago that he would insist on the following postulates that must be incorporated into this law to facilitate journalist work. They are: 1) A request for information should be informal. This is particularly important because many government structures and police bodies ask for official requests from media in order to give out any information. 2) Speedy delivery of information. Namely, journalists in Bosnia-Herzegovina wait for several days to get information which is often available the same day. Therefore, Thelin proposes a solution like the one in Sweden, according to which information should be made available the same day. 3) Information is completely free of charge, including costs of photocopying and mailing which needs to be done by the government. 4) Possibility to get information through court, in case it is denied, as well as responsibility before the court of those who refuse to give information.
It is clear from the draft law which has gone into parliamentary procedure that these proposals have been considerably eased. This is probably a result of compromise and accommodating the sluggish state apparatus. Perhaps this also explains the fact that the law has entered parliamentary procedure a whole year after being initiated by the High Representative with uncertainty as to whether it will be passed at all.  (Radenko Udovicic)

* Commentary on Television

Will Croatian Radio-Television (HRT) journalists be forbidden to broadcast commentaries in the news program? The Croatian parliament will answer this question when it passes the long awaited new Law on Croatian Radio-Television. The government’s proposed law includes an article banning the broadcasting of commentaries in the television’s news program in order to avoid a “suggestive approach to viewers.” As far as we know, this is a unique legislative initiative in the region.
 

* War Reporting and Respect for Geneva Conventions

If I were to find myself again in a war, I would probably act different – this conclusion, but with different arguments, could be drawn from most of the ideas heard during a meeting of war reporters in Neum on June 23-24 this year. For some of them war reporting was a professional challenge, for others a patriotic obligation. Some found themselves on the “line” almost by accident and thus became war reporters, others were sent by their media organizations as on any other assignment. Among them are also those who expected war recognition, because they thought they were soldiers in the first place, and only then journalists. Be it as it may, a year, five or even ten years after their “war baptism”, these journalists today with a lot of caution and without euphoria speak about their war reporting. Songs of praise in memory of days of war spent on the Croatian battlefields back in 1992, on the fronts of Bosnia-Herzegovina on both sides of the confrontation line, or in Kosovo, increasingly give place to demystification of the war and one’s own journalistic role.
An International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation in Bosnia-Herzegovina decided to bring together war reporters who reported on the war in Bosnia within a project called People about War. In accordance with the mandate of this international organization, the topic was the Geneva Conventions – whether journalists knew about them, whether they wrote about their respect or disrespect, how they were protected in their professional work. Although a topic defined in such a way considerably narrowed down the contents of potential discussion, the meeting in Neum, within Media Plan’s Summer School, was characteristic in many regards. First, for the first time since the war it gathered in one place reporters who had worked on different sides in the conflict. Second, the badly needed distance started to appear, from which it is possible to assess the real professional effects and failures of war reporting. In the gathering, which is normal, there were no journalist spearheads who spouted hatred during the war, but it is a pity that some excellent reporters also did not come, who seem to be reserved at the possibility of talking about professional matters with disregard for their national, entity or ideological orientation.
Media News offered an OBN journalist, Adis Saranovic, Media Plan School of Journalism graduate, to present his view of war reporting based on his experiences from the war and today’s views of his colleagues.
 

* Moral, Political and Financial Problems of “Slobodna Dalmacija”

The case of Split’s “Slobodna Dalmacija” surpasses by far the characteristics of a local media scandal. In it we can identify the tragedy of the media situation in many countries in transition: interference on the part of the state, corruption, media abuse for political aims, dependence of journalists on employers, loss of professional identity. Goran Vezic of STINA News Agency from Split writes about “Slobodna Dalmacija.”

* News

A magazine called “Vizija” was launched in Sarajevo early July with a sub-title “magazine for culture and critique of time.” The impression given by the first issue is that this is a regional magazine featuring proven writers from the former Yugoslavia, such as Tatjana Tagirov, Gordana Susa, Petar Lukovic…
The magazine’s editors are from Bosnia-Herzegovina – Nenad Velickovic, Tanja Topic, and Faruk Loncarevic.

The paper “Valter” was promoted in Sarajevo June 28. The paper’s concept, and partly staffing, is supposed to be a successor to a paper of the same name from 1988, which was banned by the communist authorities after one year.
The paper’s editor-in-chief is Enver Causevic, and his deputy is Senad Mesetovic.

The Republika Srpska Privatization Office announced that RS Radio Television has been put on a list of strategic enterprises and that a special privatization program will be worked out for this house.
 
 

If somebody interfere with your professional, journalistic work call SOS – open line for journalists - 078 213 442 Media Plan Banja Luka

Council:Media Plan Institute

Prof. Dr. Muhamed Nuhic, Hamza Baksic (Sarajevo); Perica Vucinis (Banja Luka); M.S. Lenart Setinc (Ljubljana); Prof. Dr. Mario Plenkovic (Zagreb); M.S. Loius de la Ronciere (Paris); M.S. Aleksandar Todorovic (Montreaux); Prof. Dr. Slavo Kukic (Mostar), Prof.Dr. Miroljub Radojkovic (Beograd).