It seems that some members of the Government of Serbia are not taking the announcement of the international investigation into election theft very well. Let me remind you that less than a month ago, the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding an independent international investigation into the elections, to be conducted by international legal experts and institutions. The general condition of the representatives of the government is rapidly deteriorating because of this demand, just when the opposition is touring the executive institutions of the European Union.
Prime Minister Ana Brnabić has been hit the hardest by this fever. She says that a possible investigative and punitive expedition (that’s what an international investigation is called in the Radicals’ language) tramples on Serbia’s sovereignty, that it would de facto shut down our institutions, suspend our laws, take away the basic human rights of our citizens, abolish the state, suspend the National Assembly, and thus the vote of the people and the sovereignty of an individual to elect their representatives to decide on their behalf.
As if possessed by the spirits of the opposition, Brnabić has never been closer to the truth. If she would only replace the words “investigative and punitive expedition” with the words “Serbian Progressive Party” it would be a perfect description of the situation. Because it is her party, and not some future and still non-existent international investigation about Serbia, that has taken away the sovereignty of the citizens, suspended the Constitution, all laws, institutions and basic rights.
But let’s return to the Prime Minister’s arguments against the international investigation. Brnabić has been repeating them tirelessly in the past couple of days as she goes on a media tour. They could be summed up as: a) an international investigation is equivalent to a renunciation of sovereignty and occupation and b) an investigation is not possible due to the protection of privacy and personal data of voters.
If we were guided by the occupation and sovereignty argument of the Prime Minister, we would conclude that Serbia has been under occupation for a long time. Moreover, an occupation to which the Progressive government itself agreed.
Namely, by means of numerous international agreements, Serbia has already committed itself to the implementation of international investigations, which even includes the possibility of immediate, that is, field investigation in Serbia. For example, the Istanbul Convention1, which was ratified in the National Assembly in 2013 thanks to the Progressive majority, states in Article 68 that the expert group for the application of the convention, based on reliable information at its disposal, can order the members of that group to conduct an investigation. With the consent of a member of the convention, the investigation may include a visit to the territory of that country.
An almost identical principle is given in the Convention against Torture2, which was ratified more than three decades ago, regardless of the will of the Progressives, who inherited the obligations from it. Article 20 stipulates: if the control body (Committee) receives credible information that torture is being systematically applied on the territory of a member state, it may assign one or more of its members to conduct a confidential investigation which may, with the cooperation of the state, include a visit to the territory of that state.
As we can see from these two examples – and there are more – sovereign states around the world, including our country, accept the concept of international investigation in case of credible and reliable information about serious and/or systematic violations of rights. This has long since become the unquestioned standard, although it remains a last resort mechanism. Such investigations include actions on the territory of a specific country, but with the consent and cooperation of state authorities. International agreements also establish judicial and prosecutorial immunity for members of investigative missions, and oblige investigators to report the results of the investigation to the state, with clear recommendations.
Therefore, it is clear that the “problem” with conducting an international investigation is not the application of an unknown or occupation legal mechanism, as presented by the Prime Minister. Rather, it is essentially about the lack of consent of the State of Serbia to cooperate with the international investigation, which international law normally recognizes.
Why does Serbia not want to cooperate with the international investigation if the Government of Serbia and state authorities did not participate in election theft? That is the only real question that the Prime Minister must answer.
When it comes to the Prime Minister’s second argument, that the international investigation cannot be given access to the voter list due to the protection of voter privacy, and especially personal data, things are even more unfavorable for Ana Brnabić. She claims that an international investigation would suspend the Personal Data Protection Act by allowing the mission to access voter information such as first and last name, residence and other personal data.
The Law on the Protection of Personal Data without exception enables the processing of personal data for the purpose of preventing criminal acts, investigating and detecting criminal acts, prosecuting perpetrators of criminal acts, or enforcing criminal sanctions. Therefore, domestic law does not allow the protection of personal data to prevent the determination of responsibility for a committed criminal offense (in this particular case – the criminal offense of compiling an incorrect voter list). If this were not so, no one could ever be held accountable for this crime, because the prosecution would supposedly not have access to the voter list (in Serbia, no one is held accountable, but not for data protection reasons, but father for the protection of the executive branch).
Ana Brnabić surely knows, or at least should know, that the current Personal Data Protection Act was adopted in 2018 (again, well into the Progressive era), in order to integrate the provisions of the General Regulation on the Protection of Personal Data of the European Union into this law. Therefore, I want to emphasize that the EU Regulation, just like the domestic law, enables the processing of personal data for the purposes of conducting an investigation. That regulation would fully oblige every member of a future international investigative mission, which should reassure the Prime Minister – everything is in line with the regulations.
So much for Ana Brnabić’s legal arguments. She was so engrossed in her supposed understanding of the law that she gave a lesson (short form – on Twitter!) to professor of constitutional law and MP Jelena Jerinić. The prime minister was very surprised to learn that Jerinić is a law professor because, well, Jerinić claims that the protection of personal data is not absolute. I have just explained that it is not, but why would that prevent Brnabić from claiming the opposite. In Serbia, we don’t hold people accountable for murder, let alone for lying.
I must admit that, despite everything, I find it exciting to watch the executive branch hiding behind the law all of a sudden, in an attempt to protect itself from prosecution. We cannot allow an international investigation, they say, because it is against some important rules. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t coming from the same people who organized systematic, months-long election theft. However, this ironic reference to the law still shows that when a man or a regime tries to defend itself against accusations, it must at least try to do so by referring to the rules. The European Union cannot be told – we stole the elections, so what? At least not when they are threatening sanctions.
There is one more question Ana Brnabić has to answer, in addition to the one about the reasons for the lack of consent for international investigation. Why did the competent public prosecutor’s offices not initiate any criminal proceedings to determine responsibility for committed criminal acts against electoral rights? How is it possible that the procedure for the dismissal of the Supreme Public Prosecutor has not been initiated for this lack of action?
If the prime minister answered these questions with basic honesty, it would be clear to the citizens and the world that the only possible investigation in Serbia at this moment, and after three months of silence from the domestic prosecutor’s office, the only acceptable one, is an independent and international one.
Translated by Marijana Simić
Peščanik.net, 11.03.2024.
________________
- Full name: The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence
- Full name: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
- Biografija
- Latest Posts
Latest posts by Sofija Mandić (see all)
- Dogovor koga nema - 19/04/2024
- Dačić’s referendum - 18/04/2024
- Dačićev referendum - 09/04/2024
