ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION a. Any information whose disclosure to persons authorized to have access would lead to the detriment of the interests of the State, form an embarrassment to it, cause administrative or economic difficulties for the country or be of benefit to a foreign State or any other party which may reflect a detriment on the State. b. Any documents relating to an administrative or criminal investigation, trials, tenders or general financial or economic affairs, unless the disclosure of the context thereof is permissible. c. Military intelligence reports, unless they fall within another higher classification. d. Reports which, if disclosed, may demoralize the citizens unless its publication is permitted. e. Military wireless frequencies of the armed forces, security forces, public intelligence or any other governmental authority. f. Any other information or protected document that harms the reputation of any official or impairs the standing of the State. Finally, Article 10 classifies all other official documents, not included in the above classifications, as ‘ordinary’ documents which may not be disclosed to “non-concerned persons … unless permitted for publication.” Analysis The classification scheme contains numerous serious shortcomings. We are particularly concerned by Article 10 which purports to impose classification upon all official documents without any reference to national security concerns. Articles 3, 6 and 8 delineate the three levels of ‘protected secrets or document’; however, as outlined above at Section 3.2, the Law is not clear as to what constitutes ‘protected secrets or document.’ The result of this is that any information that a state official decides to classify may be deemed ‘protected’. The system for classifying information is a restriction on access to information. Restrictions on access to information are permissible only if they serve the legitimate aims delineated in the ICCPR. These aims are limited to the rights and reputations of others, national security, public order, and public health and morals. As stated in Section 2.2.2, above, Principle 12 of the Johannesburg Principles warns that States may not categorically deny access to all information related to national security, but “must designate in law only those specific and narrow categories of information that it is necessary to withhold in order to protect a legitimate national security interest.” This requirement necessitates that restrictions be narrowly drawn. The categorization in Article 10 of all other official documents as ‘ordinary’ provides that information may not be disclosed to non-concerned persons unless permitted for publication. Article 10 is overbroad since it effectively protects all State information. The Law provides no guidelines as to who or how the decision is to be made in regard to whether ‘ordinary’ information will be permitted for publication or who are non-concerned persons. Furthermore, the determination that “non-concerned persons” are not entitled to access ‘ordinary’ official documents strikes at the core of the right of access – it reverses the onus of the presumption of disclosure and, in particular, seriously restricts the right of access of the media and other actors who disclose information in the public interest. We urge the removal of this provision. Memorandum on Jordan’s Protection of State Secrets and Documents Provisional Law No. (50) for the Year 1971ARTICLE 19, London, 2005 – Index Number: LAW/2005/1205 - 11 -