The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, regarding articles published in several media, in connection with the rape and murder of minor A.S. and the murder of D.S. from Vratarnica, conducted a supervision procedure over the implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection against the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Zajecar.
The supervision procedure was conducted at the Head office of the MIA in Belgrade, Police Department in Zajecar and Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Zajecar, and involved taking statements from the police and prosecuting acting officers and examination of the complete official documentation.
The Commissioner, bearing in mind the stage of ongoing criminal proceedings, at this time will not make public the minutes of the supervision completed, but he may say that the examined official documents of the police and prosecutor's office does not confirm that these authorities were the source of the information published in the media.
According to his findings, the most delicate, extremely harrowing detail allegations of defendant's statements on the modus operandi of the crime, the method of concealing the victim's body after the commission of the crime and the alleged content of the autopsy findings or psychiatric expertise which have been published in the media, have no basis in the official documentation of the authorities, or it varies in a very large extent or completely.
It is not the task of the Commissioner to engage in an assessment of whether this is due to a poor source, or falling for someone's "spin" ("canard") or conscious creating of untruths in the battle for circulation. But, bearing in mind that similar things happen often and continuously, it certainly deserves the attention and reaction, not only from journalists' associations, but also from other relevant governing bodies, far more serious than so far. It is unsustainable and irresponsible to reconcile with the possibility that the constitutional provision of Article 51 which guarantees the right to accurate, full and timely information, and obliges the media to respect this right, literally turns into a caricature.
It is a good thing that in this specific case the supervision procedure did not confirm "leakage" of information from the competent authorities, but certainly not enough for a general assessment. Some earlier supervision procedures conducted by the Commissioner had the same result. The Commissioner notes that the authorities which the media in such circumstances directly or indirectly identified as a "source" do not react to it, as a rule, and do not deny falsehoods and invites them to do so in a documented manner. However, in some prior supervision procedures it was found quite the opposite, and the Commissioner filed against officials requests for misdemeanor proceedings and criminal charges.
In any case, generally, and continuously, every day there are many things raising doubts about the illegal disposing of personal data of citizens by various government bodies to third parties. The Commissioner once again warns that the misuse of such data and its use for purposes other than those provided for by law, constitutes a criminal offense. He also said that it is necessary and calls on the competent, MIA and the prosecution's office to act against perpetrators of these crimes in practice incomparably more intense than ever.
