ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION the information outweighs the harm from disclosure.”29 This is also recognised in the Special Rapporteurs 2004 Declaration on Freedom of Information and Secrecy Legislation.30 It is integral to the proper functioning of government that the broader public interest in disclosing the information is always considered. Frequently, public disclosure of such information is necessary in order to bring about reform in State organizations. Also, there is often a significant public interest in the disclosure of the information for a wide range of other legitimate reasons. These must be accommodated rather than adopting a closed door attitude to all information which may tangentially touch upon sensitive issues of security, for example, or economic policy. Recommendation: • The Law should include a public interest override, allowing for the disclosure of information when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm from disclosure. 3.5 Review Mechanism for Classification of Information The Law fails to provide for a review mechanism which means decisions to classify information are never subject to review. Therefore, the potential for abuse is great since every decision is final once it is made. Principle 1.1(b) of the Johannesburg Principles states “the law should provide for adequate safeguards against abuse, including prompt, full and effective judicial scrutiny of the validity of the restriction by an independent court or tribunal.” The Law also fails to allow for changes in the classification of information. This failure is a serious shortcoming as information, once classified as protected, will remain protected indefinitely. Persons could wrongfully classify information as protected knowing that the decision would never be revisited and the information would remain protected forever. This has particular impact in regard to the time-sensitivity of the information in the assessment of harm to national security. The review mechanism should provide for regular review of all classified information to assess whether or not ongoing classification remains necessary. Qualified persons other than the person who originally classified the information should conduct the review. The Hungarian classification law provides for review every three years and the Bulgarian law provides for review every two years.31 We recommend a similar timeframe in this case. All categories of information should be subject to obligatory review for re- or de- classification, as well as the classification determination was justified in the first place. Recommendations: • All decisions to classify information should be subject to independent review. • A provision providing for a formal review mechanism of protected information should be added. • Qualified persons other than the person or persons who originally classified the information should complete the review of classified information for re- or declassification. 29 Principle 15. See Note 4 above. 31 See Memorandum on the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on “Protection of the State Secrets”, Article 19, June 2004. 30 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 - 14 -