(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 31 March 2004 ARTICLE 19 statement: ARTICLE 19 has analysed the latest Montenegrin draft law on Free Access to Information, published by the joint government and civil society working group in March 2004. The analysis of the current Draft complements ARTICLE 19 analyses of earlier drafts of this […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 31 March 2004 ARTICLE 19 statement:
ARTICLE 19 has analysed the latest Montenegrin draft law on Free Access to Information, published by the joint government and civil society working group in March 2004. The analysis of the current Draft complements ARTICLE 19 analyses of earlier drafts of this law, published in March and December 2003.
ARTICLE 19 supports the continued efforts by the working group in Montenegro to develop the draft law. The current Draft does contain a number of positive changes, including a broader duty to publish and the removal of an obligation on individuals to expose wrongdoing (while retaining appropriate whistleblower protection).
At the same time, we are deeply concerned that two fundamental changes in the current Draft represent steps backward in the drafting process. One such change involves the entire revamping of the exceptions section (current Articles 9 and 10). In previous analyses, we called for more detailed elaboration of the exceptions with a view to honing them more precisely on the legitimate aims sought to be protected. Instead, the current drafting opens up the potential for unduly broad interpretation and application. In addition, this section now employs various harm requirement formulations, many of which are too weak, while a harm requirement is altogether absent from some exceptions. Finally, it employs a public interest override provision that appears to be weaker than that contained in the previous Draft. This section now contains a number of vague, and sometimes overbroad, provisions. A second disturbing change is that the current Draft has completely dispensed with appellate access to an independent administrative body (the Ombudsman) and also, apparently, to the courts.
The analysis can be found at: http://www.article19.org/ViewArticle.asp?AreaID=32&SubAreaID=97&PageID=144&ElementID=70&ArticleID=1655&Comment
