Below is the “Conclusions” chapter of a 78-page report prepared by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Edison Lanza. The report is titled “Specialized Supervisory Bodies For The Right To Access To Public Information.” English version. Spanish version.
In this report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur presents a summary of some of the most relevant decisions of guarantor bodies that regulate and interpret the right to access to public information in the States of the region that have laws on access to information. This report is limited to pointing out some of the best practices identified in the direct interpretation of the transparency laws.
The systematization made reaffirms the importance of the work performed by specialized autonomous bodies that guarantee the right to access to public information. In addition, a general conclusion of this study is that it is crucial for these bodies to have the specific and precise mandate of resolving disputes concerning the implementation of the laws on this subject. The influence of these bodies on the full guarantee of the right is clear. The regulatory frameworks that grant authority to specialized, autonomous, and independent units to adjudicate disputes arising from access to or the denial of public information tend to produce more robust and exhaustive decisions. Therefore, it is advisable to follow the example of those States such as Mexico and Chile that have a vigorous practice of protecting the right of access through such institutions.
The Office of the Special Rapporteur notes that some of the decisions studied tend to broaden and specify the scope of the principles governing the right of access to information. Of the decisions examined, those that stand out are the ones that define and specify the scope of recognition of the right to access to information as a fundamental right and the obligation of States to be governed by the principle of maximum disclosure. In most of the countries studied, the grounds for confidentiality and classification are generally restricted to those provided for by law, and the interpretative bodies have developed criteria to weigh those grounds against the public interest.
The study makes it possible to show some of the most recent decisions of the supervisory bodies that advance the interpretation of the right to access to information. Most notable are the judgments that broaden the consideration of the types of documents that can be accessed and those that determine the conditions under which information must be disclosed, both in terms of procedure and with respect to the requirements that must be met.
The Office of the Special Rapporteur underscores the importance of simplifying the administrative procedures for accessing information, as well as the subsequent judicial guarantees. The experience and practice of the supervisory bodies has been enormously important in making progress toward the effective guarantee of the right to access, and demonstrates the importance of the existence of these types of authorities specialized in the implementation, interpretation, and resolution of disputes. In all cases it is essential to ensure the specialization and autonomy of these entities, which exists to varying degrees in the bodies whose decisions were examined.
Filed under: Latest Features