The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has sent a request to the Serbian Government to enforce, in accordance with its duty under Article 28 paragraph 4 of the Law on Free Access to Information, the Commissioner's Decision by which he ordered the City Institute of Expert Witnesses in Belgrade to provide the Belgrade-based daily newspaper Danas with the requested information and documents which show the number of cases in which forensic evidence was presented by expert witness L.M., the object of her forensic analysis in each of those cases, the litigated amounts and the parties in those cases.

The Commissioner passed this Decision nearly two months ago. Although the Decision is final, binding and enforceable in accordance with the law, the City Institute of Expert Witnesses did not comply with it within the specified period, even after the Commissioner imposed fines on it in the total amount of RSD 200,000 at the request of the information requester and after the Administrative Court dismissed as inadmissible the legal action filed by the City Institute of Expert Witnesses against the Commissioner's Decision.

During this time, the City Institute of Expert Witnesses publicly justified its failure to comply with the Decision by invoking alleged "legal grounds", which were so poorly concocted that they could only mean that those who came up with them either lack even the most basic understanding of how the law works or had a much shadier agenda, because serious doubts had been raised with regard to the expertise and formal qualifications of expert witness L.M. when a photocopy of her diploma became publicly available and revealed a number of potential indications of forgery.

In situations such as this one, it is imperative for other competent authorities to undertake relevant measures within their spheres of competence.

However, from the currently available information it would not seem that the competent prosecutors' office is investigating the obvious reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence of forgery, nor has there been any indication of a response from the Ministry of Justice, which appoints and removes expert witnesses, or the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government, which is in charge of enforcing the law and instituting infringement proceedings against the responsible persons.

The Commissioner believes that any further failure to respond in accordance with the Law would not only constitute a tacit but clear cover-up of the obvious and multiple violations of the law by the City Institute of Expert Witnesses, but would indeed cast a shadow of doubt on the functioning of the entire government apparatus and its observance of the principle of legality.