The duty to provide information and objects is a concept defining the obligation of individuals to furnish information or objects when requested by the authorities. This obligation is valid in the criminal procedure as well. Individuals in question have the duty to comply with the request, as in the opposite case sanctions are foreseen, moreover, acting in accordance with the request can contribute to avoiding further law enforcement agencies’ proceedings. Thus, the legislative regulation of the duty to provide information and objects remains of the utmost importance, since in criminal procedures, it generally represents the first level of actions taken by law enforcement agencies, before undergoing eventual more invasive measures. Providing requested information or objects signifies active behaviour of the individual. Therefore, it is necessary, in order to ensure the implementation of the privilege against self-incrimination and limitation or exemption regarding testimony, to legislatively define the accused, relatively incompetent and privileged witnesses exceptions from this duty without consequences. The current Code of Criminal Procedure inconsistently handles this question. My interest was triggered by insufficient regulation concerning the position of journalists involved in criminal procedures due to criminal offenses committed by their sources of information (usually the release of classified information). With the aim of disclosing the criminal offense, the perpetrator or the evidence significant for the procedure, the law enforcement agencies have the possibility to order or inflict different actions against the journalist. As a rule, the duty to provide information will represent the first step compelling the journalist to collaborate with the law enforcement agencies. More invasive measures of gathering confidential journalistic information, currently compromised by the inappropriate legislation, might follow. The absence of explicit provisions and guarantees for the protection of journalistic sources of information, might result in negative consequences, affecting not only journalists’ work and freedom of expression and of the press, but also the right of the public to be informed.
|
