The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has issued an Execution Order in which he demanded of the City Institute of Forensic Science in Belgrade under threat of a fine to provide the daily newspaper Danas, as information requester, with information about court cases in which forensic analysis was entrusted to forensic expert M.L.

The Commissioner had previously passed a decision pursuant to a complaint by the information requester in which he ordered the City Institute to provide the requester with the information concerned. The City Institute failed to comply with the order within the specified period and instead simply informed the requester by informal means it would not be provided with the requested information because the Institute had taken legal action against the Commissioner's decision before the Administrative Court, of which fact it had allegedly informed the Commissioner, and would therefore have to wait for a court judgement.

Firstly, it is not true that the Institute had notified the Commissioner of the legal action it had taken. However, even more importantly, it had filed the legal action with the sole purpose of delaying compliance with its obligation, because its claim will most certainly be dismissed as inadmissible. The Institute is not a party in a proceeding, but an authority of first instance and, as such, cannot take legal action against the authority of second instance. The only course of action available to it as an authority of first instance is to file an initiative within the statutory time limit for the Republic Public Prosecutor to take legal action if he finds that reasons provided for by the law pertain, which the Institute failed to do. A decision passed by the Commissioner is binding, final and enforceable (and legal action, even if admissible, cannot stay the execution of such decision) and the execution of such decision is possible only on the basis of a court decision.

Such behaviour of the City Institute of Forensic Science would be unthinkable in any situation. It is exponentially more so in this specific case, regardless whether the underlying reason was a lack of legal knowledge or something much more sinister, since the expertise and formal qualifications of the forensic expert concerned have been questioned both in court proceedings and publicly and the suspicion has been confirmed by a copy of that person's diploma which contains inaccurate names of the issuing University and of the Faculty Dean and the University Chancellor. In such circumstances, not only does denying access to information create increased public interest, but also serves as a red flag for the Ministry of Justice and other competent authorities to investigate the matter and take appropriate action.