In defense of HUMAN RIGHTS and in order to consolidate democracy with a transparent system, every citizen by law has the right to request reports of government acts and to verify with supporting documentation what an official affirms, especially when this represents knowing What does a public official do in the exercise of his functions at the head of the administration of the sphere of a State.
This year we celebrate 40 Years of Democracy and it is time to honor it with acts of real transparency, which is far from the “information” dispersed by the media, despite the fact that such public confessions force anyone, especially a official representing the administration of a State.
It is fundamental and a responsibility of the states to maintain and sustain acts of public transparency with their entire community, it is a subject reached by the provisions of the regime of the LAW OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION (LAW No. 27.27) and in accordance with current regulations that is formally entitled to be sued in case of silence or refusal.
All required information must be in the public domain for everyone, since the “LAW OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION” establishes that all State powers as well as various public and private organizations must guarantee the right to Access to public information, because the information is important in terms of transparency. Any refusal or silence in the face of a public information requirement would be violating HUMAN RIGHTS and there could be maneuvers configured as crimes of corruption, hence the concealment of government acts and non-transparency. Any request for a report on access to public information on the acts or operations must be supported by documents and recorded in accounting so as to allow the preparation of accounts, demonstrative statements and balances that make their measurement and judgment feasible.
It is a constitutional right of the citizenry in general to have access to information regarding the public sphere.
Failure to formally respond to these requirements entitles the applicant by legal imperative to the action of PROTECTION because their constitutional rights are affected with more precautionary measures and complaints against the sphere of the State in question and against the person in charge of that administration for the alleged commission of crimes of corruption, making the maximum representative of that administration directly responsible.
by CEDOC
