Access to Information Programme (AIP) Foundation is a non-government organisation established in 1996 as a result of the common efforts of journalists, lawyers, sociologists and economists. Its team works to promote the right to information and to instigate public debate on the issue. As such, it is unique to Central and Eastern Europe. Alexander Kashumov is head of AIP’s legal team. He has worked in the freedom of information area since 1997. The following is a speech given by Kashumov on April 21 at a debate about investigative journalism organised by the Bulgarian Media Coalition.
I can say categorically that there is investigative journalism in Bulgaria and that it is bearing good fruit. I believe that roots of accountability are starting to appear, and I will say why. First, I think the access to information law turned out to be a strong law. Its actual strength was discovered in 2001 when Alexei Lazarov from Capital weekly sued institutions for refusing to provide information. The number of journalists that lead such suits is growing and this is a clear tendency. And what is important is not that institutions open whole informational masses after those suits, but that journalists and citizens looking for information exercise strong pressure on the institutions to be accountable.
As to the judicial system issue, I think there is not a small amount of mythology around its problems. And (to prove this), I would pose a rhetorical question here: How come the court has managed to charge key institutions like the Council of Ministers (in a case last year brought against it by a journalist from the Bulgarian newspaper 24 Chasa), and in a case last week ruled against the National Investigation Service (and in favour of a journalist from Bulgarian newspaper Dnevnik) – those were serious blows delivered by civil society through the court – and at the same time failed to charge defendants when investigating crimes?
But, so much for the positive. The first problem of investigative journalism is connected to laws and the public institutions that impose those laws. The access to information law is strong, but it is also old and it cannot solve many problems that a democratic law should solve. I am giving an immediate example: last month media took an active role in discussions about the dealings of the Foreign Ministry with a company meant to lobby before the EU. I think it is shameful that in 2006 Bulgaria doesn’t have access to state contracts with private companies that are paid for by the state budget. This doesn’t happen in any democratic country. And it gives a very low starting point to investigative journalism, which has to find the contract through unofficial channels, and only then look for the record of this person that is heading the company.
Second, the punitive code provides for bigger punishments for journalistic investigation, even though they fall in the qualifications against public figures that yield power. Of course the punitive code is mostly used like that against journalists from regional media. Yesterday (April 20) Bulgaria was charged for breaching Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (stipulating the right to freedom of expression and freedom to hold opinions).
And from this point on I think we can say a lot about public institutions and their practice in executing these laws. First, there is a lack of will to provide transparency, and this has been obvious for the past few governments. As to executive power, the theme of fighting corruption was not linked to the access to information law, and I don’t think this is coincidental.
As we saw from the case of Vassil Ivanov, prosecution and police have a double standard regarding the message that they give to investigative journalists. When there is an attack against some journalist, it is never uncovered. Unfortunately, this is what the practice from past years shows.
When, however, an investigative journalist is doing their investigation, then Article339a of the punitive code is brought out (according to it, those who produce, use, sell, or have a special technical appliance and no permission for it, as required by law, and use the appliance to collect information, are deprived of freedom for three years.) This is a text that is never used on any occasion, but is skillfully used against journalists. Until today, the prosecution owes journalists an apology for using Article 339 absolutely, and it owes a promise that it won’t be used again against journalists investigating corruption cases. This statement has to be made because it is part of the political accountability that each institution has toward society.
For more information, go to: www.aip-bg.org/index_eng.htm
