Macedonian Lustration (1999 - 2012) Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles Application of Lustration Laws

A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 1

MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles Application of Lustration Laws 2 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Series: A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws Macedonian Lustration (1999 - 2012) Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles Application of Lustration Laws

Publisher: Foundation Open Society – Macedonia

For the publisher: Vladimir Milcin, Executive Director

Authors: Foundation Open Society – Macedonia

In cooperation with: Zarko Trajanovski, M.A. contribution: Macedonian Lustration (1999-2012) Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles Frosina Tasevska Remenski, Ph.D. Vladimir Pivovarov, Ph.D. contribution: Application of Lustration Laws

Editors: Dance Danilovska – Bajdevska Nada Naumovska

Proofreading and translation into English: Abakus

Design and layout: Koma

Print: Propoint

Circulation: 600

Free/noncommercial circulation A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 3

Skopje, November 2012 4 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

CIP – Каталогизација во публикација Национална и универзитетска библиотека „Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје

35.082.5(497.7)»1999/2012» 321.728-021.341(497.7)»1999/2012»

МАКЕДОНСКАТА лустрација : (1999-2012) : настани, изјави, наслови : примена на лустрациските прописи / [уредници Данче Даниловска- Бајдевска, Нада Наумовска]. - Скопје : Фондација Отворено општество - Македонија = Skopje : Foundation Open Society-Macedonia, 2012 (Скопје : Пропоинт). - 240, 228 стр. ; 24 см. - (Едиција Примената на законите под лупа = A Closer look at the application of the laws)

Насл. стр. на припечатениот текст: Macedonian lustration : (1999-2012) : events, statements and newspaper articles : application of lustration laws. - Обата текста меѓусебно печатени во спротивни насоки. - Текст на мак. и англ. јазик. - Фусноти кон текстот. - Библиографија: стр. 234-236 ; Bibliography: стр. 224- 226

ISBN 978-608-218-163-9 а) Лустрација – Македонија 1999-2012

COBISS.MK-ID 92760330 A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 5

CONTENT

FOREWORD...... 8

Introduction Why is this chronology needed?...... 13

Macedonian Lustration (April 1999 - 2012) Events, statements, and newspaper articles...... 22

Application of Lustration Laws...... 153

Introduction...... 155

About Lustration...... 158

Chapter 1 Macedonian Road to Lustration Law...... 162

Chapter 2 (Un)Befitting Context for Lustration Process in Macedonia...... 172

Chapter 3 Application of Lustration Laws...... 176

3.1. Lustration’s scope of application...... 176 3.1.1. Lustration’s time scope ...... 176 3.1.2. Categories of persons and offices covered by lustration...... 179 3.2. Commission for Verification of Facts: Operational set-up and procedure on determining collaboration with state security services...... 184 6 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

3.2.1. Are conditions in place for implementing fair procedures before the Commission for Verification of Facts?...... 185 3.2.2. Lustration in Macedonia: Protection of public interest or violation of the right to privacy?...... 192 3.3. Other bodies involved in lustration process...... 193 3.3.1. Administration for Security and Counterintelligence at the Ministry of Interior...... 198 3.3.2. Intelligence Agency...... 202 3.3.3. Security and Counterintelligence Department at the Ministry of Defence ...... 204 3.3.4. State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia...... 205

Chapter 4 Security Aspects...... 207 4.1. Secret data collection...... 207 4.2. State security services’ records...... 211 4.3. International cooperation concerning access to records in lustration process...... 214 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations...... 216

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 224 A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 7 8 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

FOREWORD

ifth edition in the series “Law Watch Analyses: A Closer Look at the FApplication of the Laws” is dedicated to “Macedonian Lustration (1999 - 2012) – Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles: Application of Lustration Laws”. In order to grasp the complexity of Macedonian lustration, and at the same time taking into account the late adoption of lustration law in 2008, this publication is divided into two parts. The first part provides an overview of the most important events, statements and newspaper articles from April 1999, i.e., prior to adoption of the Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service (SDB), to date. The second part contains an analysis of lustration laws’ application. This means that apart from analysis of 2008 and 2012 lustration laws’ application, it contains a review of all law-related regulations, domestic and international, in order to explain lustration as a complex term that covers an array of interpretations and legal procedures aimed to dismantle the heritage of communist regimes.

Social and political context in which lustration in Macedonia is implemented, disputable legal solutions in terms of constitutionality and procedures on determining (non)collaboration with state security services, impose the need for analysis of lustration’s implementation and application of regulations that govern it. Moreover, four years from the introduction of lustration legislation in Macedonia, time is ripe to reconsider the manner in which this process is implemented. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 9

This publication is an attempt to present steps taken by competent institutions, on whose basis readers will be able to assess whether they reflect the principle according to which lustration should be a measure that contributes towards development of democracy and democratic institutions, the rule of law and protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Finally, before we move to presentation of analysis’ main findings, it should be noted that this analysis was preceded by activities taken by the Foundation Open Society – Macedonia, which are considered important in regard to lustration’s implementation within a legal state, such as participation in the project “Disclosing Hidden Histories: Lustration in the Western Balkans”, as well as initiatives motioned in front of the Constitutional Court for the purpose of assessing 2008 lustration law’s constitutionality Special emphasis should be given to the debate organized in April 2012 and titled “What Does the New Law on Lustration Bring? Dismantling the Heritage of Former Communist Regime or Legalizing Political Revanchism?”, in particular because it was initiated due to the fourth legal intervention within a period of four years, but also due to the numerous controversies that accompanied lustration law’s application. It is our hope that this analysis will be an additional document that would contribute to creation of an appropriate framework on evaluating application of laws by the competent institutions.

From the Editors 10 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 11

MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) Еvents, Statements, and Newspaper Articles 12 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 13

Introduction Why is this chronology needed?

ustration does not imply only drafting of laws and regulations, Lorganization of parliamentary debates, law implementation, motioning constitutional and judicial petitions and court trials. One could hardly grasp complexities of Macedonian lustration without giving due consideration of the great role played by the media in instigating broad public debate. Therefore, “Macedonian Lustration (1999 - 2012) – Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles” provides an overview of the most important events, statements and newspaper articles, as reported in the most influential printed media. The Macedonian Lustration (1999 - 2012) is based on a selection of information from dailies Dnevnik, Utrinski vesnik, Vecer and Spic, and weekly Fokus. Primary source of information source are electronic editions published in the period September 2006 (for Dnevnik), October 2006 (for Utrinski vesnik) and November 2006 (for Vecer). Therefore, the authors would like to indicate that contents of electronic and printed editions do not overlap, whereas the date on which certain information was published in the electronic edition often precedes the printed edition’s date.1

Key events are deliberately presented in the language and wording used by journalists and editors, as they often pursue sensationalism and write pompous titles. However, this chronology is not only a sequence of events and newspaper articles; it is also a timeline of key statements given by key actors as part of public debate on lustration. In-depth analysis of the context in which statements were given is not required to detect the change of heart on the part of key actors, as well as change in editorial

1 additionally, proofreading has not been performed in statements and articles taken from the media. 14 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

policy on the issue of “lustration”. Without knowledge on these changes, it would be difficult to understand developmental stages in Macedonia’s lustration process. Main periods in Macedonian lustration:

1. Lustration Law is halted, only dossiers of politicians will be opened (1999-2000) Main events that characterize chronology’s first period are related to drafting and implementation of legislation on access and insight in dossiers kept by secret services2, which is developed in parallel to lustration legislation. However, on the account of non-existing political will, first Draft Law on Lustration was considered only by competent parliamentary committees.3

Ministers of Interior (Pavle Trajanov, followed by Dosta Dimovska) appear as the driving force behind legal amendments and public debates on dossiers and lustration process. Greatest media interest in this period is sparked by statements on opposing disclosure of collaborators to security services and protection of “information sources” (Pavle Trajanov), as well as proposals to destroy “dossiers on political crimes” (Zvonimir Jankulovski, expert). Under media pressure to reveal “snitches”, a “Solomon’s solution” is reached: law would protect identity of persons who participated in dossiers creation or acted as informants, and – at the request of persons concerned – MOI would disclose data on “snitches”.4

2 By means of Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by the Directorate for State Security (adopted on 5th July 2000). 3 on the same say when the Government approved the Draft Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by the State Security Service (SDB), it also approved the Draft Law on Disclosure of Public Office Holders’ Collaboration with State Security Services, albeit with substantial remarks (“Government approves laws on dossiers and snitches: snitches who hold public offices will have to resign”, Dnevnik, 18.5.2000). Later, the media fuelled speculations on possible development and publication of a Register of Collaborators to the Adminis- tration for Security and Counterintelligence (DBK), which were rejected as unfounded by MOI. 4 By the end of 2000, several hundreds of citizens manage to obtain insight in their dossiers, and some of them publish parts thereof in the media. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 15

2. Drafting and adoption of Lustration Law proposed by Stojan Andov (December 2005 – January 2008) This period starts with the sensational publication in the media of parts from dossiers and journalists’ hunt for “snitches”. Parliament adopts Declaration on apologizing to victims of regime repression in the period 1945-1990. Speculations are raised in public about 50,000 persons being victims of “Macedonian communism” (Zoran Todorovski), and “100,000 persons having acted as police informants” (Janko Bacev).

On Liberal Party’s initiative, Lustration Law is drafted, and its initiator announces purging of state administration “from spies who hinder the country’s progress” (Stojan Andov). Fierce public debate ensues on “burning issues”, such as: were collaborators’ dossiers destroyed; are they still in Macedonia; is it possible to determine who is hiding behind the pseudonyms; is Macedonian lustration being turned into “witch hunt” and “McCarthyism”; do we need new law on exoneration; are critics of lustration personally affected by the process; should the law target order- issuers and information users; should we lustrate priests, academics, professors, journalists, oligarchs..; which period should the law cover and how long it should be in effect; how many members should be appointed in the Lustration Commission and should it be independent, party or expert body...

Ruling party forecasts that: “large number of people [one third] will be removed from office”S ( ilvana Boneva). Macedonian Helsinki Committee strongly criticizes the draft law and warns that it would lead to “serious violations of human rights and freedoms”, “political abuse of lustration”, while actual perpetrators of human rights violations would go by unsanctioned. Ombudsman believes the law is chaotic, imprecise and would be turned into “instrument for creating new victims”; the law should target collaborators, and not “small fish”. Some victims of the former regime also believe that the law lustrates “common bleaks”, and protects “big fish” S( patim Polozani), and that “[present lustration] is untruthful and incomplete, and serves the purpose of daily political showdown between parties’ potential candidates for high state offices” (Eftim Gasev).

Supporters of lustration identify “an excellent chance to revive ethics in our life style” (Nikola Mladenov) and to end current “political police” (Stojan Andov). Andov is explicit that the law concerns “persons who had consciously agreed to be collaborators and had signed such consents”. Director of the Archive of Macedonia stresses: “main materials will come 16 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

from the Administration for State Security, where collaborators’ dossiers are kept”.

After tiresome squabbles over lustration’s time scope and Lustration Commission’s composition and competences, with 73 votes “for” and no votes “against”, MPs adopt the Lustration Law, which covers the period from 1944 to the day of its entry into effect. In addition to informers, the law also targets orders, order-issuers and information users. Decree on Proclaiming the Law is immediately signed by the President and published in Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia on 29th January 2008.

3. Implementation of Lustration Law; Constitutional Court revokes law provisions; amendments to Lustration Law (February 2008 – February 2011) Law implementation starts ingloriously. First open call for members of the Lustration Commission is annulled, and the second call coincides with Parliament’s dissolution, i.e., 2008 elections.5 Pre-election “political party” lustration and media persecution of “snitches” start. After elections, the opposition accuses that persons from the government are afraid of lustration and that is why they do not want Lustration Commission to be established. By the end of 2008, the opposition raises concerns about government’s intention to implement “political lustration”, because the ruling party “requires absolute majority in this body, which should be independent”.6 Battle for domination and control over the Commission ends in mid-January 2009 with nomination of 11 commissioners (7 commissioners by the ruling majority and 4 by the opposition). Lustration Commission cannot start its operation, because it does not have premises, budget and necessary technical conditions. However, that does not stop the two biggest political parties to start hunting “snitches” among their opponents.

Lustration Commission is constituted in late March 2009, and amendments are adopted in May the same year, whereby Lustration Law’s enforcement period is extended to 10 years and the office commissioner is professionalized. Andov, lustration’s initiator, doubts there is honest

5 However, some candidates for public offices submit written statements on non-collaboration with secret services. 6 one of the law creators advocates in public for Lustration Commission to include representatives of security services, as these people are “familiar with conspiracy” (Zoran Todorovski). A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 17

political will for its implementation.7 In the meantime, a heated debate takes place at the Constitutional Court and in the media with regard to the petition for reconsidering lustration law’s constitutionality.

Lustration Commission promotes new premises as late as mid-January 2010, when it announces that more than 60 public functionaries passed the lustration test.8 By late January, the Constitutional Court initiates a procedure on examining constitutionality of four articles from the Lustration Law and prohibits enforcement of these provisions until its final ruling. Following fierce inter-party squabbles in public, the Constitutional Court declares that lustration should not be applied to 17-years period of transition, names of collaborators should not be published in Official Gazette and citizens associations and religious communities should not be lustrated. Ruling party and lustration law creators and supporters launch a ruthless attack against the Constitutional Court.

By late May 2010, Lustration Commission announces that lustration test was passed by more than 130 state officials, whereas the media report on concerns about seven or eight public figures.9 According to the media, lustrators asked the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (UBK) to disclose names and surnames of people behind the pseudonyms, but were denied such information with the explanation that it is a matter of extremely confidential documents. Only after these events, some lustration supporters recognize that “key factor in lustration is UBK”, that the Commission is put in subordinated position,10 and UBK is “white bear protected by law”.

7 although the Commission announces start of statements’ verification for September 2009, in December the same year Andov says “Commission is still accommodated in two offices at ARM’s Hall and unknown is when new premises will be ready”. 8 several days later “street lustration” starts and targets a pro-governmental journalist who has allegedly collaborated with Serbian secret services, but he was expressly issued “MOI-endorsed confirmation on having spied”. 9 allegedly, these persons passed the lustration test because their dossiers did not include written statement on consenting to become informant and service’s decision wherein the person is accepted as informant and is assigned a pseudonym. In this context, Andov again confirms that: “there must be a written consent that a person has agreed to collaborate with secret services, otherwise people would be entrapped”. 10 Because the Commission depends on “information provided by the Administration” and “commissioners cannot check documents in person” (Jadranka Kostova). 18 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

By August 2010, lustrators manage to verify 324 statements and adopted decisions that these people fulfil additional criteria for public office performance. Lustration Commission requests MPs to initiate legislative changes that would enable it “to dispose with documents” and complains in public that the law is restrictive.11 In the midst of fierce inter-party showdowns and “media” lustration as to “whose MPs are snitches?”, the Lustration Commission unanimously decides not to verify the statement submitted by a certain public official.12

New political attack against the Constitutional Court is launched, followed by contesting constitutional judges’ decision and inter-party confrontations about “MPs who are snitches”. Several law creators contest the formulation “snitched a little”, as well as the process on “verifying facts” by means of outvoting. In the midst of fervent inter-party confrontation on the lustration process, Prime Minister calls everyone “to support lustration”.13 At the same time, Lustration Commission determines that all 120 Members of Parliament have not collaborated with secret services. However, third parties present the Commission with dossiers of current MPs.

Full-fledged inter-party “street lustration” begins, and continues even after the lustrators reject these dossiers as copies.14 In mid-November, lustrators request the Parliament to adopt new amendments to Lustration Law, while ruling VMRO-DPMNE’s Executive Committee announces amendments whereby lustration is to cover the period until 2010, have expanded scope of application in terms of offices subject to lustration and should accept only original documents presented by third parties. In December, MPs adopt Declaration on implementing lustration and condemning attempts for its devouring.

11 Law is presented as dam that prevents lustrators to browse the archives and prove that around ten current holders of public offices, seven or eight of which are MPs, were snitches. Stojan Andov, law’s initiator, argues against such requests, while other creators of the law advocate for “hard lustration”. 12 statement given by President of the Constitutional Court, who publicly denies to have been collaborator: “I have neither given consent, nor have I seen a written document confirming my collaboration with the secret police… I was battered and persecuted”. 13 Gruevski: “…let us all support lustration, with public lists nonetheless and with announcements for the period until 2010, for all who hold public office, but also societally responsible roles, immediately”. 14 Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (UBK) claims that dossiers are “fabricated plagiarism”, and President Adziev says “photocopies cannot be relevant for the Commission”. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 19

The fierce debate on new law amendments is mainly focused on confrontation between parties as to “which party has more snitches”. Amendments to the Lustration Law are adopted in late February 2011, without consensus and in spite of indication that amendments are harmful and contrary to recommendations of the Council of Europe and Constitutional Court’s decision. Three years into Lustration Law’s enforcement and the Commission has “lustrated” only one collaborator to secret services, i.e., President of the Constitutional Court, who has revoked key articles from the law.

4. Implementation of amendments to Lustration Law and their second revocation Lustration Commission starts to focus on former functionaries, after it reached a conclusion that no one from around 700 ministers, MPs, functionaries and judges subjected to lustration were snitches prior to or after 1991. Nobody in the state knows the exact number of functionaries in the last 67 years (it is estimated that they account for around 300,000), because there are no official lists. After the Supreme Court rejects appeal lodged by former President of the Constitutional Court, Parliament adopts a decision to discontinue his term of office in April 2011, few days before its dissolution.

Pavle Trajanov warns that “here, lustration is understood as instrument for political confrontations with the opponents”, while Stojan Andov accuses that “VMRO-DPMNE, by means of new Lustration Law, destroys my project.”15 By late April, Lustration Commission lustrated the second collaborator, Member of Council of the City of Skopje, from the opposition parties. Journalists suspect the timing “accidentally” coincides with early parliamentary elections. Pre-election hunt of opposition “snitches” begins.16

15 andov: “Main idea of that concept was to prevent people who have collaborated with or held positions in secret security services from performing public offices”. 16 unofficially, in May, the media inform that around ten candidates for MPs from opposition parties have been collaborators to secret services. Few days before the Election Day, 11 candidates for MPs from opposition parties are subject to verification. One day before the Election Day, pro-governmental media announce that “Two candidates for MPs are snitches”. Human rights experts warn that Lustration Commission is “being abused for election propaganda of those currently in power” with a tendency to compromise the candidates’ list and the political party”. 20 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Post-elections summer starts with media-based “lynch in absence” of “Dramatist”, Director of the Foundation Open Society – Macedonia (FOSM), who initiated a procedure to assess Lustration Law’s constitutionality.17 Adziev, President of the Lustration Commission, confirms that “Dramatist” “has not signed document on collaboration”, but claims “we possess documents proving his collaboration”.18 FOSM’s Director accuses of being subjected to media and political lynch,19 without any evidence, and announces he will publish parts of his dossier kept for a politically persecuted person. Some commissioners disagree with the lustration decision for “Dramatist”, because “MOI has noted that no collaboration with secret services existed”. Columnists accuse that “lustration’s train is derailed” and “methods of public lynch are applied, by abusing Lustration Law”. Stojan Andov states that “Commission Members and judges must not even think of deciding that a person is snitch, if there are no signed documents indicating he/she had consciously agreed to collaboration with services for certain purposes”.

Once tempestuous squabbles among Commission Members appear to be over, lustration continues to be focused mainly on former functionaries, while “statements of current functionaries are kept in drawers for a year now and are unlikely to be on Commission’s agenda soon” (Cedomir Damjanovski). Lustration of journalists, priests, political party functionaries and NGO employees begins in December 2011. Media announce that alleged collaborators include two former ministers from SDSM’s government, one responsible for internal matters and other for culture, but this media “prophecy” is not fulfilled.

For months, Macedonian judiciary cannot provide efficient legal protection from lustration process. In late January, the Constitutional Courts adopts a temporary measure to stop 13 articles from Lustration Law. New media and political attack against “neo-communist Constitutional Court” and

17 Fokus suggests that “Dramatist’s” lustration is used to “successfully distract the attention of part of “commoners” from the amnesty granted to persons accused of war crimes against civilians”. 18 adziev, President of the Lustration Commission, claims that the dossier comes from the State Archive, and “untrue is that only those who did sign written consent were collaborators to services”, suggesting that it is a matter of collaborator’s dossier. “If a collaborator’s dossier exists and includes numerous documents and evidence, but there is no written consent, would that mean that the person was not a collaborator?”). 19 Vladimir Milcin: “Surprising is the fact that the decision is classified as ‘strictly confidential’, while allegations contained therein were re-counted by pro- governmental media”. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 21

new media announcements for “hard lustration” and opening of dossiers ensue.

5. Adoption and implementation of new Lustration Law Few days before the Constitutional Court revoked 12 articles from Lustration Law (March 2012), VMRO-DPMNE announces a completely new Lustration Law that contains formulations similar to those contested.20 Andov warns that if the law is not adopted by consensus “an impression would be created that the law is adopted in the government’s interest and for the purpose of confronting the opposition”. Yet another round of inter-party showdowns begins. Once unrelenting supporters of lustration process, now admit in public that “law on ultimate society purging from secret police’s invisible fingers has become a tool in the hands of the government to confront the opposition”. (Nikola Mladenov).

In May 2012, the Administrative Court annuls all decisions taken by the Lustration Commission on declaring several public officials as collaborators, and new Lustration Law is adopted in June. Criminal charges against MPs who voted in favour of Lustration Law’s adoption are filed in July on the grounds of non-compliance with Constitutional Court’s decision. In August 2012, Lustration Commission starts to publish decisions on previously lustrated officials, supported by documents obtained from the services. New media lynch of “snitches” and inter-party showdowns begin. One of the greatest supporters of lustration notes “this is not lustration, but an instrument for dealing with critics and for entertaining masses” (Jadranka Kostova).

Lustration Commission members again accuse Tome Adziev, Commission President with “eternal” term of office, of giving priority to former holders of public office before current functionaries and of being “government’s installation in the Commission to implement its politics”.21

20 new draft law stipulates publishing collaborators’ names and evidence on their collaboration for the period 1944 to 2006. 21 By the time this chronology was prepared (12.11.2012), the “Registry of persons for whom the Commission determined they do not fulfil the additional criteria for public office performance” includes data for 32 functionaries, majority of which are “former holders of public offices”. 22 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Macedonian Lustration (1999 - 2012) Events, Statements, and Newspaper Articles

April 1999 kept for persons who were subject of operational processing by the Weekly Fokus publishes a statement Administration for Security and of Counterintelligence Centre’s Counterintelligence (DBK) due to former chief: “Snitches and secret their political convictions. (“Insight service field officers loyal to all allowed into all, except for snitches’ regimes are still present in the dossiers”, Dnevnik, 26.8.1999) Sector on Security and Intelligence.” (Fokus, 23.4.1999) Minister of Interior Pavle Trajanov announces that a law will be drafted on treatment of personal dossiers. August 1999 He says that some states made a mistake by opening all dossiers for New legislative project is announced public insight and indicates that the and anticipates establishment law would not cover dossiers kept of Parliamentary Committee for police informants “in order to on Personal Dossiers, whose avoid compromising the information composition “in addition to MPs, sources”. (“Insight allowed into would also include competent all, except for snitches’ dossiers”, experts from relevant institutions”. Dnevnik, 26.8.1999) (“Meeting of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia: Pavle Trajanov: “...we will have to Parliamentary Committee on protect the information sources, Personal Dossiers”, Vecer, 25.8. 1999) as most of them might have been forced or coerced into it...” (“More On 24th August, the Government than 14,000 dossiers to be opened”, adopted MOI’s communication Utrinski vesnik, 26.8.1999) on the status of police records A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 23

Minister of Interior Pavle Trajanov frustration with the treatment admits that “MOI disposes with exercised under the former system.“ materials for all politicians and (“Public must know identity of journalists who were intercepted”, snitches!”, Dnevnik, 27.8.1999) and that he ordered interception of politicians (both from the Historian Gorgi Malkovski states opposition and the government) “dossiers cannot be opened without and of journalists to stop. (“Insight a historian present, given that allowed into all, except for snitches’ they might still contain secrets dossiers”, Dnevnik, 26.8. 1999) that should not be disclosed in public because they concern state Pavle Trajanov: “As of December security”. (“Public must know this practice was discontinued and I identity of snitches!”, Dnevnik, responsibly claim that no politicians 27.8.1999) or journalists are followed or intercepted.” (“More than 14,000 Ljuben Paunovski, VMRO-DPMNE’s dossiers to be opened“, Utrinski spokesperson, says “opening vesnik, 26.8.1999) the dossiers could be a painful experience; may confuse the public Minister of Justice Vlado Kambovski and open old wounds”, and that claims the law on treatment of a selective approach should be personal dossiers will be completed pursued to opening the dossiers, within a month. (“Insight allowed with great caution. (“Public must into all, except for snitches’ know identity of snitches!”, Dnevnik, dossiers“, Dnevnik, 26.8.1999) 27.8.1999)

According to Kambovski, two days Vlado Buckovski, SDSM’s ago the Government adopted a spokesperson, states: “Regretfully, firm position that inspectors from back in 1993, when we were in Administration for Security and power, we did not succeed to see Counterintelligence (DBK) who this matter through.” (“Public must worked on police-compiled personal know identity of snitches!”, Dnevnik, dossiers will not be allowed to 27.8.1999) keep these job positions. (“More than 14,000 dossiers to be opened”, Daily Dnevnik publishes an analysis Utrinski vesnik, 26.8.1999) and informs that: “according to certain unofficial information, in Expert Zvonimir Jankulovski Macedonia there are around 23,000 requires criminal liability for registered informants to the state violation to the Constitution security service” and more than by means of interception, and 14,000 dossiers, accounting for advocates for destroying ‘dossiers 700,000 pages in total, compiled in for political crimes’: “[these dossiers] the period 1944-1990. Response to should be destroyed, as they contain the statement issued by Minister personal data that could still create Trajanov that he had prohibited 24 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

following or interception of February 2000 politicians and journalists: “Many people wonder whether this means Law on Treatment of Personal that people of other professions Dossiers is drafted, but was not would continue to be processed?” submitted to the Government (Natali N. Sotirovska, “Snitches must because Minister Pavle Trajanov be snitched”, Dnevnik, 28.8.1999) was not satisfied with it. (“Snitches and snitching from the last decade must not remain secret”, Dnevnik, September 1999 1.2.2000)

Gorgi Marjanovik, columnist and Based on the decision issued by university professor, urges Minister Minister of Interior Dosta Dimovska, Pavle Trajanov not to allow his on 27th January a commission was dossier to be destroyed “unless it established and tasked to draft has already been destroyed by his a law on treatment of personal predecessors”. (Gorgi Marjanovik, dossiers kept by the former State “About Snitches”, Dnevnik, 4.9.1999) Security Administration and the present Administration for Security Committee for Overseeing the Work and Counterintelligence (DBK). of the Administration for Security (“Snitches and snitching from the and Counterintelligence and the last decade must not remain secret”, Intelligence Agency supports the Dnevnik, 1.2.2000) initiative for a law on treatment of personal dossiers. (“Draft-Law on According to Vecer, the established treatment of personal dossiers is 6-member commission “works very underway”, Vecer, 22.9.1999) secretively and does not disclose any details” about the contents January 2000 of the draft law. Members of the Commission „apart from three On MOI’s initiative, professor expert legal persons from MOI, Zvonimir Jankulovski drafted a Law also include attorney-at-law Savo on Interception of Communications. Kocarev from Skopje, Zvonimir Rationale to the draft law reads Jankulovski, PhD, and the Director that “the law governs interception of the Archive of Macedonia, Zoran of communications and will Todorovski”. (“Law on Treatment of eliminate injustices from the past Personal Dossiers to be completed by when these means were used for end of this month“, Vecer, 17.2.2000) political purposes”. (“Macedonian police officers will be authorized to intercept”, Dnevnik, 25.1.2000) April 2000

The expert commission cannot agree on the manner for public opening of personal dossiers. MOI representatives warned that if A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 25

names of information sources are Gjorgi Marjanovik: “According to disclosed, “it would disturb the trust the criminal law, snitching can of those who had collaborated with be categorized as criminal acts – interception services, and – in future violation of dignity and reputation. – with the police”. (“Law bogs down Statute of limitations for these at snitches”, Vecer, 19.4.2000) criminal acts is three months, hence there are no legal grounds for raising charges.” (“Snitches will go May 2000 by unsanctioned due to statute of limitations for their acts”“, Dnevnik, Government approved the Draft Law 19.5.2000) on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by the State Security Service Pavle Trajanov: “I oppose the idea (SDB). Draft Law on Disclosure of for disclosing names of collaborators Public Office Holders’ Collaboration to security services. This would with State Security Service was also mean that in future nobody would approved, albeit with substantial wish to collaborate with security remarks. (“Government approves services, fearing that they might laws on dossiers and snitches: be disclosed... It is best to destroy snitches who hold public offices will the dossiers, once they are read by have to resign”, Dnevnik, 18.5.2000) those interested in their contents.“ (“Snitches will go by unsanctioned “At the same time, the law due to statute of limitations for protects the identity of officers at their acts”, Dnevnik, 19.5.2000) the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (DBK) who participated in creation of June 2000 dossiers.“ (“MOI’s press conference on snitches: 14,500 dossiers to be Ljubomir Popovski, President of opened within a year“, Vecer, 18.5. the Parliamentary Committee 2000) for Overseeing the Work of the Administration for Security and Stevo Pendarovski, MOI’s Counterintelligence and the spokesperson rejects as unfounded Intelligence Agency: “Informants to speculations on possible the Administration for Security and development and publication of Counterintelligence (DBK), snitch a Register of Collaborators to the to political parties, instead of the Administration for Security and police. After it was announced that Counterintelligence (DBK), as part dossiers, together with the names of the Draft-Law on Disclosure of of collaborators, will be opened in Public Office Holders’ Collaboration public, they are circumventing the with State Security Services. police, even in matters of state’s (“Insight allowed into 14,500 dossiers strategic interests.” (“Informants kept by DBK”, Utrinski vesnik, start snitching to political parties, 18.5.2000) 26 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

instead of the police”, Dnevnik, 3.6. informants. However, on the 2000) request of persons concerned, MOI is prepared to also disclose Pavle Trajanov: “Citizens for whom data on snitches. (“Macedonian dossiers have been compiled Parliament unanimously adopts Law should have access thereto, but on Opening Dossiers Kept by SDB: they should not be informed on the dossiers will be open to citizens”, manner in which dossier materials Utrinski vesnik, 23.6.2000) were collected and who snitched them.“ (“23,000 snitches supplied information for 14,500 dossiers”, July 2000 Dnevnik, 5.6.2000) “By submitting a special written Dnevnik: “It is difficult to determine request, concerned people can learn who is a police collaborator, unless the names of persons who snitched the person in question had signed a on them, provided that documents written consent. Connoisseurs say available enable the establishment that, in our country, such consent of their identity.“ (“Dossiers are forms do not exist for 90% of being opened: as of tomorrow, snitches.” (“23,000 snitches supplied access to confidential documents is information for 14,500 dossiers”, allowed”, Vecer, 11.7.2000) Dnevnik, 5.6.2000) Spokesperson Stevo Pendarovski It has been announced that Draft says that MOI’s archive depot Law on Disclosure of Public contains around 19,700 inactive Office Holders’ Collaboration dossiers. Most of them have been with State Security Services will compiled in the period until 1952, introduce an obligation for all “whereas, the number of dossiers public office holders to submit compiled in the period from 1990 relevant statements. (“Committee to present accounts for 500”. (“MOI for Overseeing the Work of the press conference: first requests for Administration for Security and access to dossiers are submitted”, Counterintelligence: public office Vecer, 14.7.2000) holders are obliged to submit Law on Treatment of Personal statements on non-collaboration”, Dossiers Kept by the State Security Vecer, 21.6.2000) Service enters into effect. (“Dragan Minister Dosta Dimovska stresses Bogdanovski’s dossier is among the that the law is “the first step most voluminous; it contains 18.000 towards building a legal framework pages”, Dnevnik, 29.7.2000) that would limit authorities’ use of the police to follow citizens“ and August 2000 that the law protects the identity of persons who participated By 22nd August, MOI has received in creation of dossiers or were 323 requests for dossier insight, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 27

172 of which have been negatively December 2005 responded to, because MOI does not dispose with the dossier indicated. Weekly Fokus publishes parts from (“So far, 17 persons are given insight the dossier kept for poet Jovan in their dossiers”, Vecer, 22.8.2000) Koteski, including the names of persons who compiled the dossier and those who supplied information. September 2000 Poet’s daughter, Jasna Koteska, urges “children of former political According to the disclosed dossier, prisoners to open dossiers they keep in 1994 the Administration for at home.” (“Police dossier for Jovan Security and Counterintelligence Koteski: Poet had been snitched by (DBK) attempted to determine his closest friends”, Fokus, 2.12.2005) “certain actions of extremist groups within Menduh Taci’s political Jasna Koteska: “When I first opened fraction”. (“Menduh Taci’s dossier in my father’s dossier, I wanted to see the daily Fakti: ‘Jupiter’ from PDP who the informants were?” (Jasna snitched Taci”, Dnevnik, 6.9.2000) Koteska, PhD, daughter of the last convicted Macedonian poet, Eftim Gasev describes the tragic “Writer Trajan Petrovski is UDBA’s death of a Bitola citizen, after key informant (State Security having gained insight into his Administration in the former personal dossier of 900 pages, Yugoslavia) for Koteski’s dossier?” dismissing it as “farce, travesty, lies, Fokus, 9.12.2005) defamations and accusations that do not deserve my attention”. (“Krste Two names from the list of persons leaves and dossier ‘Calamity’ is who participated in creation of again closed”, Dnevnik, 16.9.2000) Jovan Koteski’s dossier publicly denied to have collaborated with October 2000 security services. (“Gligor Krstevski, former political prisoner accused for In three months, MOI has received having snitched poet Jovan Koteski: 748 requests, and for 403 of them During Dosta Dimovska’s term of it has been determined that the office, I was maliciously indicated as requested dossiers do not exist. police informant”, Fokus, 16.12.2005) 129 citizens exercised their right to insight, while additional 94 are scheduled to do so. (“Unexpectedly January 2006 slow dynamics of dossier-opening: Ivica Bocevski: “Macedonia does 748 requests submitted for insight not need monuments of Tito and of into secret folders”, Utrinski vesnik, communism; on the contrary, these 17.10.2000) monuments must be torn down. Macedonia needs a monument of all victims of communism, we need a Commission for Truth, an 28 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

investigation into the atrocities and (Administration for Security and court trial for those who committed Counterintelligence), a person who them and are still alive.” (Ivica has been followed must not disclose Bocevski, “Facing the Ghosts of in public names of snitches, because Past”, Utrinski vesnik, 21.1.2006) the snitch is entitled to file a lawsuit against the victim for denouncing Five years later there is no first him/her as an informant. In order instance verdict taken in “Big Ear” to obtain insight into dossiers scandal, but intercepted journalists stored at the Archive, a person must announce a lawsuit in Strasbourg. present a notary-certified statement (“’Big Ear’ travels to Strasbourg: indicating that they will not political manipulation of low disclose any information or make it passions”, Fokus, 27.1.2006) otherwise available in public.” (“Law protects reputation of communist snitches”, Fokus, 10.2.2006) February 2006 Jasna Koteska: “All provisions from MPs from the Liberal Party the law protect snitches, and not present the Parliament with a their victims.” (Jasna Koteska, Draft Declaration on apologizing daughter of poet Jovan Koteski, “I to victims of regime repression in demand abolition of the act that the period 1945–1990. Declaration’s protects snitches!”, Fokus, 17.2.2006) text is identical to the declaration submitted back in 1995 and rejected by the Parliament. (“MPS March 2006 from Liberal Party revive the old Declaration: Parliament will Weekly Fokus publishes an official apologize to victims of communism”, document of MOI and list of Vecer, 1.2.2006) officials from the Directorate for State Security (Administration for Zoran Todorovski: “... if one is to Security and Counterintelligence) summarize official and unofficial who participated in compiling data, a conclusion is reached that personal dossier for a political political and prison dossiers were prisoner, as well as list of persons kept for around 50,000 Macedonian who supplied information for the citizens who had been arrested, dossier. (“Confession of Aleksandar deported, persecuted, imprisoned, Runtev, the Macedonian with the sentenced to death, shot, killed most voluminous personal dossier: I and missing.” (Zoran Todorovski, was processed by Siljian Avramovski “Humanity of Macedonian and Slobodan Bogoevski”, Fokus, Communism”, Utrinski vesnik, 31.3.2006) 2.2.2006)

Fokus: “According to Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by the Directorate for State Security A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 29

May 2006 snitches in service of SDSM: who is hiding behind pseudonyms ‘White’, Daily Spic starts a feuilleton “Secret ‘Narcissus’ and ‘Correspondent’?”, Police in Democratic Macedonia” Fokus, 25.8.2006) by Janko Bacev, who argues that “official notes of the Directorate Pavle Trajanov: “...many of those for State Security indicate to who will ‘read’ their names on more than 100,000 persons who the list of collaborators to the had acted as police informants”. Directorate for State Security (“One sad snitching history: where may be surprised as some of them are ‘Laufer’, ‘Editor’, ‘Hariton’, had never formally accepted ‘Tanjc’, ‘Little Bakunin’, ‘Kafka’, collaboration with the Directorate ‘Internationalist’, ‘Tehnometal V’, for State Security (SDB), the ‘Jurist’, ‘Vodno’, ‘Drim’, ‘Consultant’, Counterintelligence Service (KOS) ‘Egocentric’...?” Spic, 31.5.2006) or other services.” (“Journalists- snitches in service of SDSM: who is hiding behind pseudonyms ‘White’, June 2006 ‘Narcissus’ and ‘Correspondent’?”, Fokus, 25 August 2006). Janko Bacev claims that “by appointing Bogoeski chief of the Directorate for State Security, September 2006 Gligorov and Belgrade assumed full control over Macedonian Weekly Fokus writes about “the security service.” (“Secret Police in snitching scum” from the Faculty of Democratic Macedonia: In the Grips Law, referring to Gjorgi Marjanovic’s of Belgrade”, Spic, 2.6.2006) statement: “Unfortunately, adoption of Lustration Law in our country seems unlikely despite the fact August 2006 that it is conditio sine qua non for ultimate healing of Macedonia’s Fokus publishes pseudonyms bleeding society”. (“Snitches with of several informants to secret scholar titles: Faculty of Law – police “who were journalists by from police lair to nursery garden profession.” (“Journalists-snitches for staff that upholds endless in service of SDSM: who is hiding transition”, Fokus, 1.9.2006) behind pseudonyms ‘White’, ‘Narcissus’ and ‘Correspondent’?”, Parts from the police dossier kept Fokus, 25.8.2006) for academician Radovan Pavlovski are published in the magazine Gjorgi Ivanov, PhD: “At least one Sintezi. (Vecer, 14.9.2006) thing becomes clear to ordinary citizens. Heinous people do Radovan Pavlovski: “The dossier is heinous things. It is time for these a comedy, disinformation; I have abominable people in Macedonia not lived in Zadar or in Split.” “The to be lustrated.” (“Journalists- state must apologize to my family 30 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

from Zelezna Reka. They are not Lustration Law’s initiator says “... monarchists.” (“Dossier is a comedy, state administration will be purged disinformation”, Vecer, 21.9.2006) of spies who hinder the country’s progress” (Stojan Andov). (“Liberal Party’s initiative: legal purge of October 2006 snitches”, Dnevnik. 13.11.2006)

Weekly Fokus publishes a story Stojan Andov: “Actions of all officials about the dossier kept for political in the past need to be unveiled. asylant to Canada. (“Dossier ‘Black’: Draft Law stipulates that all of Jordan Petrovski, political asylant to them should declare in public that Canada: Gligorov and Crvenkovski they have not collaborated with rendered security service’s network secret services, and should the subordinated to Belgrade”, Fokus, follow-up investigation determine 6.10.2006) the opposite, they will be liable to sanctions, will have to resign or be Weekly Fokus publishes a document dismissed from office, followed by from the written “obligation” an investigation conducted by the taken by a political prisoner to Public Prosecution.” (“Stojan Andov collaboration with the State Security drafts lustration law: functionaries Administration (UDBA) (“Testimony who snitched should declare of Tomas Botev (80), a retired themselves!”, Vecer, 27.11.2006) professor from Stip: UDBA sent me to Goli Otok because I refused to snitch!”, Fokus, 27.10.2006) December 2006

Stojan Andov: “Nobody would November 2006 believe us if secret collaborators to the police are allowed to perform Association of politically persecuted, important state offices.” (“Stojan imprisoned and convicted for Andov wishes to unveil snitches by a advocating ideas on Macedonian law”, Utrinski vesnik, 11.12.2006) people’s distinctiveness and statehood present the Parliament Yesterday, Liberal Party’s leader with a request to adopt Lustration Stojan Andov presented the Law. (“Lustration Law should be Parliament with a proposal for adopted” Dnevnik, 2.11.2006) Lustration Law’s adoption, which was endorsed by 63 MPs both On the request of the Liberal Party, from the ruling majority and the Lustration Law was drafted and opposition. Asked about who will its presentation before the MPs is guarantee that as of today, for announced within a month. (“Liberal example, by order of Saso Mijalkov, Party’s initiative: legal purge of Director of the Directorate for snitches”, Dnevnik, 13.11.2006) Public Security, the archives would not be cleaned and dossiers would not be destroyed, Andov said: “I have A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 31

no reason to doubt, because the the past: Archive keeps dossiers of Minister of Interior guaranteed that snitches”, Dnevnik, 15.12.2006) such thing would not happen, and if it occurs, she would sanction them.” Stojan Andov: “Every secret (“Andov secures 63 MPs to endorse service should have its own secret Lustration Law”, Utrinski vesnik, informants, however, they must 14.12.2006) take due care for state security, and not about exerting political control Olivera Vojnovska: “Who guarantees over citizens, diverting state’s course that in our Macedonian story, and braking democratic processes. where - by rule - matters are I believe that from Macedonia’s distorted, lustration would not independence to present this is the become a hallmark for political factor that frozen its progress.” party purges and elimination of (“Andov proposes Lustration Law: political opponents?” (Editor’s note, security service’s network froze Olivera Vojnovska, “Unveiling or Macedonia”, Vecer, 15.12.2006) Elimination of Snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 14.12.2006) Pavle Trajanov: “Large portion of materials that I have seen are kept Director of the Archive of under a pseudonym and we have Macedonia Zoran Todorovski not established their identity. Very confirms that five years ago often, materials had been written original dossiers for 14,500 political only on the basis of talks with prisoners kept by the Ministry of journalists, who had been indicated Interior and compiled in the period as source, but had never accepted 1945-1998 have been transferred, collaboration with secret services” together with 22,000 original (“Andov proposes Lustration Law: dossiers kept at prison “Idrizovo”: security service’s network froze “They [dossiers] include specific Macedonia”, Vecer, 15.12.2006) names of persons who supplied information to secret services Esad Rahic: “Although many about the people for whom dossiers dossiers have been destroyed, I am were kept. They can be used to convinced that a large portion of check whether a public official had them is stored in private collections once been a collaborator to secret because the services always kept services.” (“Dismantling the past: one or two copies in order to be Archive keeps dossiers of snitches”, able to use them in future.” (“Andov Dnevnik, 15.12.2006) proposes Lustration Law: security service’s network froze Macedonia”, Pavle Trajanov, leader of the Vecer, 15.12.2006) Democratic Alliance and former Minister of Interior, warns that Silvana Boneva: “Large number many dossiers that clearly indicated of people will be removed from the police snitch have been office. I even believe that one third destroyed at MOI. (”Dismantling of current holders of public offices 32 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

in local and national government, Dragan P. Latas draws parallels including the Parliament and all between Macedonian lustration appointed officials, as well as those and McCarthyism in the United from public administration who States and raises the question: are authorized to make decisions in “... if its purpose is to deal with serious matters, should no longer communist snitches, why does the perform these offices.” (VMRO- law apply from 1945 until 2006, DPMNE claims that one third of given that for fifteen years now functionaries would leave office Macedonia is no longer a communist because of snitching, “Lustration country? ...And then, I remembered should demystify the former that Andov enlists collaborators system”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.12.2006) to police UDBA (State Security Administration) and military KOS Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Lustration (Counterintelligence Service)... but should demystify the former system where are the collaborators to the and the people who kept it in life. communist secret police’s third These persons must by no means pillar, i.e., diplomatic SID (Service be holders of democratic processes. for Information and Documents)?!“ Lustration is useful, it protects the (Dragan P. Latas, “Communists. democratic environment, infuses Only thing worse than communists oxygen in the system.” (“VMRO- are communist persecutors”, Vecer, DPMNE claims that one third of 18.12.2006) functionaries would leave office because of snitching: lustration Pavle Trajanov: “On several should demystify the former occasions, large number of such system”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.12.2006) dossiers was destroyed – following the change of Yugoslavia’s Minister Branko Trickovski: “After Andov’s of Interior Aleksandar Rankovic law is adopted, if state and social from office in 1965; in the period resources remain open to people 1989-1990 when Jovan Trpenoski who recruited snitches, people was the Macedonian Minister of who organized them, people Interior; in the wake of 1998 and who imprinted snitching in their 2001 elections.” (“Lustration is professional matrix, people who under preparation, the public used their information and other auctions with number of snitches”, materials, then I am afraid that Utrinski vesnik, 18.12.2006) past efforts to achieve a catharsis and experiences lived at times when Jovan Trpenovski, former Minister of we started building a democratic Interior: “Trajanov is disillusioned, society will all be turned into but I do not blame him, because a farce.” (Branko Trickovski, he never worked for the State “Snitching the Snitches”, Utrinski Security Service. As regards people vesnik, 17.12.2006) who had collaborated with secret services, and then discontinued to do so due to certain reasons, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 33

the service maintains decisions Year’s Eve.” (Parliament reimburses on deregistration signed by the Andov’s consultants for drafting Minister; hence, in no case can one Lustration Law: Jankulovski, claim that the State Security Service Bocevski Todorovski and Madzovski destroyed any documents, but reimbursed with 150,000 MKD, destroyed other types of materials, Vecer, 22.12.2006) in strict compliance with the Law on Archive Material.” (“Lustration Stojan Andov: “Network of secret is under preparation, the public informants and collaborators to auctions with number of snitches”, the State Security Service still Utrinski vesnik, 18.12.2006) renders this service as political police”. On the question “how will Weekly Fokus puts all critics of collaborators to secret services be proposed Lustration Law in the identified and what guarantees exist spotlight. (“Resistance movement: to avoid any errors?” Andov replied: what united Milcin, Latas and “personal dossiers are coded with Gjuner against lustration?”, Fokus, pseudonyms, but they also include 22.12.2006) personal names. They had agreed to act as secret informants and Zvonimir Jankulovski: “It is not true documents exist to prove that... Law that we received 150,000 MKD. I stipulates that these are persons was reimbursed in the amount of who had consciously agreed to be 132,000 MKD, and was contracted collaborators and had signed such by Andov, through the Parliament.” consents”. (“Stojan Andov: I sleep (“Parliament reimburses Andov’s tranquilly, snitches should worry consultants for drafting Lustration about consequences!”, Utrinski Law: Jankulovski, Bocevski vesnik, 24.12.2006) Todorovski and Madzovski reimbursed with 150,000 MKD, Vecer: “According to Andov and his Vecer, 22.12.2006) associates, those against lustration are in fact scared because of their Marjan Madzovski: “I was snitcher’s dossier. You don’t say?! If reimbursed with less than 150,000 so, then those against death penalty MKD. Of that sum, I spent 15,000 are in fact murderers who fear a MKD on a Beko stove, paid two fire-squad.” (“Dossiers to be opened, instalments from the housing loan biographies to be examined. Why a at Stopanska banka, which cost me selective approach? Lustration to 300 EUR. I spent 15,000 MKD on the bare skin!”, Vecer, 26.12.2006) utility bills, bought myself a winter coat worth 5,500 MKD and kept Zoran Todorovski: “When Law on the change. My wife is a journalist, Access to Personal Dossiers was she did not receive her salary; we adopted, the Archive received have three children, and if it were 14,500 political dossiers kept for not for this money, I would have persons who have been persecuted, no means for sustenance until New followed, imprisoned, convicted 34 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

from ideological reasons. Moreover, January 2007 we received 22,000 dossiers kept for political inmates from “Idrizovo”. Ivica Bocevski, one of paid However, we did not receive dossiers consultants for Lustration Law: kept for collaborators to the State “Opening dossiers as part of Security Service, which remained lustration-related processes is of at the Administration for Security key importance in political terms, and Counterintelligence (UBK). The because – to use medical terms - it Administration should still keep enables a type of vivisection of these records, but I do not know the the regime and its operations... contents thereof and the manner in lustration will not be arbitrary which these records are stored. As a opening and closing of dossiers, citizen, scholar, and historian, I fear and trading with information, but that not all dossiers kept by UBK it implies transparent procedure... will be handed over. In fact, I doubt Opening of archives will reveal all that everything can be found in its actors and their respective roles. archives.“ (“Is lustration dusting-off And one day, when this archive is dossiers?” Utrinski vesnik, 27.12.2006) digitalized and made available to future generations of historians Utrinski vesnik submitted an official and political scientists, it would FOI application to the Director of be Macedonia’s digital monument the Administration for Security and to victims of communism.” (“Ivica Counterintelligence (UBK), Saso Bocevski: it is never late for Mijalkov, and requested information lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.1.2007) on the number of dossiers; however, there is no response. (“Is lustration “Macedonian Helsinki Committee dusting-off dossiers?”, Utrinski supports lustration, but vesnik, 27.12.2006) believes that draft-law contains shortcomings that would weaken Zoran Todorovski: “To my the rule of law principle and legal knowledge, 90 percent of those security, and would - directly and who had returned from Goli Otok indirectly - lead to ‘serious violations continued as informants to state of human rights and freedoms’”, security services. Some political (“Helsinki Committee’s assessment: prisoners had been released earlier, lustration with many shortcomings”, only to be exposed to pressures Dnevnik, 11.1.2007) to be informants or had been attributed affairs so as to accept Weekly Fokus puts “snitches in the collaboration. Some of them cracked Macedonian Orthodox Church” under pressure, others did not. (“Is in the spotlight. (“Purge, but not lustration dusting-off dossiers?” fasting: will MOC reveal snitches Utrinski vesnik, 27.12.2006) among its ranks?”, Fokus, 12.1.2007)

Stojan Andov, lustration’s initiator, warns that “any obstacle to A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 35

lustration would allow further 12,000 people.” (“Lustration may action on the part of the network affect 12,000 persons!”, Utrinski of collaborators to secret services”. vesnik, 18.1.2007) (Stojan Andov, “Reactions to Helsinki Committee’s Report: Silvana Boneva: “Regrettable is the lustration is open for remarks”, fact that Republic of Macedonia Dnevnik, 14.1.2007) is sinking in its own transition due to a network of persons who Ruling party calms tensions served secret services instructed following Helsinki Committee’s by the previous system, and who strong remarks: “I am convinced could not benefit from Macedonia’s that the law would not violate independence and autonomy, and human rights and freedoms of any because of whom culprits behind citizen”. (Silvana Boneva, “Reactions disastrous privatization, crime and to Helsinki Committee’s Report: corruption remain undetected.” lustration is open for remarks”, (“Lustration may affect 12,000 Dnevnik, 14.1.2007) persons!”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.1.2007)

Emilijan Stankovik: The biggest Vlado Buckovski: “Andov is brave in opposition party fears that promoting this matter; however, by “lustration could be turned into doing he probably wishes to make witch hunt and instrument for clear that he is not a collaborator. gaining points in daily political Time will show whether this is affairs.” (Emilijan Stankovik, true.” (“Lustration may affect 12,000 SDSM’s spokesperson, “Reactions persons!”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.1.2007) to Helsinki Committee’s Report: lustration is open for remarks”, Helsinki Committee requests a “Dnevnik”, 14.1.2007) different concept for lustration, warning that “the biggest problem Again, Helsinki Committee warns identified with the existing concept that “lustration sanctions acts that is political abuse of lustration, were not deemed punishable at the because, whichever political time they had been committed, party is in power, it would use nor are they punishable now, as these documents to disqualify the informing has never been, nor is a opponents”. (“Reactions to Stojan criminal act”. (“Helsinki Committee Andov’s proposal: Helsinki requests believes lustration will punish different concept for lustration”, victims”, Dnevnik, 15.1.2007) Dnevnik, 19.1.2007)

Ivan Anastasovski from NSDP, Vice Mirjana Najcevska: “Actual President of the Parliament: “In an perpetrators of human right informal conversation I asked Andov violations remain unpunished, how many people may be affected by while victims are re-victimized. We this law, and he - distancing himself are passing the buck… the text [of from giving a reliable estimate - said the law] relies on secret services’ 36 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

data, which had been corrupted VMRO-NP requests Lustration Law and cannot be trusted.” (“Lustration to also apply to the Macedonian will not punish brains behind the Orthodox Church (MOC), health care snitching system”, Utrinski vesnik, system, universities and the media. 19.1.2007) (“VMRO-NP requests lustration for MOC”, Dnevnik, 23.1.2007) Iso Rusi: “Helsinki Committee is not against purging society from Association of Albanians-Political those who had driven nails into Prisoners presents Parliament many people’s coffins. However, Speaker Ljubisa Georgievski with informants cannot be lustration’s draft law wherein it demands only target, as equally as lustration redress for the period 1946-1991. (“By cannot be implemented by people submitting draft-law, Albanians- who had played much bigger political prisoners seek redress”, roles than those who supplied Dnevnik, 24.1.2007) information. Also, the law cannot exculpate the person who held an On his personal blog, Filip Petrovski important public office back in 1976 starts publishing parts of police and was the last Minister of Justice dossier “Martha”: “Everything in the federal government. I do should be disclosed. Everything must not know if he had been involved be known. Names from documents in such activities, but in principle, that have been covered with black inadmissible is for this person to marker should be disclosed. Snitches implement lustration.” (“Lustration and those who compiled dossiers will not punish brains behind the remain protected.” (“Snitches snitching system, Utrinski vesnik, on Filip’s blog: former MP Filip 19.1.2007) Petrovski reveals that police plotted to recruit his close friend and set Pande Kolemisevski: “As early as him up for drug use”, Spic, 24.1.2007) 1992, PULS started to lustrate. It discovered a list with 168 Fokus analyses certain parts names of eminent persons from Filip Petrovski’s dossier, who had been collaborators deregistered in 1998. (“Did the to the Counterintelligence Administration for Security Service (KOS) and State Security and Counterintelligence plant Administration (UDBA). Supported the banner ‘Gas Chambers for by the management at news agency Shiptars’?”, Fokus, 26.1.2007) “Nova Macedonia”, the paper started publishing their names. Eftim Gasev: “Existing concept of (“Lustration: there is always good the draft law reverses the theses wind for purge”, in parallel to the and renders lustration untruthful text “Bishop Naum forgive us, but and incomplete; actually, it serves we have to dig up snitches from the the purpose of daily political basement’”, Fokus, 19.1.2007) showdown between parties’ potential candidates for high state A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 37

offices. (...) as a person who was tried finds him unacceptable”,Dnevnik , in the communist regime, I advocate 31.1.2007) for a complex approach and law, which would stipulate Commission for Verification of Facts toex officio February 2007 disclose all secret informants, “It is absolutely unclear how denouncers and snitches to the Gruevski designates Commission’s ideologically-driven State Security President in advance, knowing Service (SDB), in the period 1945- that the Parliament has not yet 1990, as well as their promoters, enacted Lustration Law. Lustration irrespective of whether they are Commission should be appointed candidates for public offices.“ (Eftim by the Parliament, from the line of Gasev, “Lustration, but truthful”, candidates who apply to the open Spic, 27.1.2007) call,” said a member of SDSM’s Presidency, Aleksandar Cebotarev, Vlado Buckovski: “I doubt that, on yesterday’s press conference. let’s say, Minister of Justice Mihajlo (“Gruevski arranges for disputable Manevski would pass the lustration Todorovski to become lustrator”, test. It should be examined whether Utrinski vesnik, 1.2.2007) in communist time it was possible for a person to be a judge and Stojan Andov: “Manevski also public prosecutor without being a provided his full support to collaborator.” (“I doubt that Minister lustration. (...) By disclosing their Manevski would pass the lustration names in public, they will cease test”, Spic, 27.1.2007) to act as secret collaborators.” (“Not too late for snitches”, Spic, Prime Minister announces that 3-4.2.2007) “Zoran Todorovski will chair the Lustration Commission, which is the Janko Bacev on Lustration Law: “A reason why he was implicated in an selective and formative legal text, affair concerning Krste Misirkov”. void of essence, which allows the (“Announcement: Todorovski to actual network of secret police chair Lustration Commission”, collaborators to remain intact, and Dnevnik, 30.1.2007) reduces lustration to collaborators from the line of ordinary citizens... Possible candidate for President of the snitching past of an important Lustration Commission denies: “I group in the recent history would have still not decided whether I will not be affected...” (Janko Bacev apply to the open call; however, I “Too Many Snitches, Too Little was engaged in drafting the law and Lustration”, Spic 3-4.2.2007) am one of the law’s promoters.” (“On Prime Minister’s proposal Spatim Polozani, President of the Zoran Todorovski will chair the Association of Albanians-Political Lustration Commission, opposition Prisoners, says the law would lustrate “common bleaks”, while 38 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

identity of “big fish” would remain suggest, but not prohibit”, Dnevnik, secret. (“Shelves packed with destiny 16.2.2007) await lustration”, Spic, 8.2.2007) Igor Ivanovski, SDSM: “The entire On the direct question whether active leadership at SDSM does he will apply to the open call not have any length of service in for the Lustration Commission, the former Communist Party of Director of the Archive Zoran Macedonia. This is not true for Todorovski replied “Probably yes.” the law’s proposing party, or the (“Shelves packed with destiny await president of one party in the ruling lustration”, Spic, 8.2.2007) coalition.” (“Lustration in business heaven”, Spic, 16.2.2007) Pavle Trajanov: “Collaboration with secret services is regulated Vladimir Tulevski: “It is futile to by law. Indisputable is the fact argue about this matter from a that secret services had played a simple reason that we would face key role in maintaining the old a lot of absurd situations. Here is system, but a selective approach one of them: someone from the line is needed to determine whether of current functionaries would be lustration would concern all found or attributed to have been collaborators or only those who a snitch and thus deprived of the had violated human rights and right to perform the public office, freedoms. Law should also target after which the same office would be those who had collaborated with the recruited from the line of National Counterintelligence Service (KOS), as Liberation Army’s commanders Serbia is willing to make its archive who had massacred and kidnapped. data available to us.” (“Trajanov The difference is that one of them pleads for cautious approach was exculpated, while the other is to lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, lustrated.“ (“Good and bad news: 14.2.2007) amnesty for one, lustration for others!” Vecer, 17.2.2007) Leaders of LP and NSDP responded that they have never been involved Gjorgi Spasov: “Shameful is that in snitching. (“SDSM raises doubts the law seeks lustration for the about Andov’s and Petkovski’s servants, and not the employees snitching past”, Utrinski vesnik, of secret services, or the former 15.2.2007) communist ideologues and order- issuers … This law is throwing dust With 67 votes “for”, and not a single in our eyes. This is a law for starting vote “against” or abstained, the new ideological and political Parliament adopted the proposal for differentiation. This is re-packaged Macedonia to have Lustration Law. communism.” (Gjorgi Spasov’s (“Lustration Law passes first reading analysis “Three NOs to Lustration in Parliament: Commission can Law”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.2.2007) A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 39

Venko Andonovski: “…perfect brains behind the snitching as well”, media psychosis was created in the Utrinski vesnik, 21.2.2007) aftermath of motion to adopt ‘law on disclosing snitches’: those who Silvana Boneva from VMRO- would oppose the law are perceived DPMNE: “I believe that the law in public as potential snitches must also apply to creators of the who wish to prevent ‘uncovering’ snitching system, to enforcers of the of truth.” (Venko Andonovski, totalitarian regime. These people “Lucifer’s Lustration”, Utrinski must be targeted by lustration, vesnik, 20.2.2007) not just the ordinary executors of orders. The process should be Venko Andonovski: “Lucifer, in order extended because public office to have his devil sin forgiven and implies also the health care system, absolved by God, creates a list of judiciary, and the media that benefit those who were devils. Of course, from state funds and create public he leaves himself out from this opinion. I also believe that the ‘lustration’, but enlists names of Church should be in the forefront of those he hates, as they are God’s, Lustration Law.” (“Andov to lustrate and not his people: John, Moses, brains behind the snitching as well”, Luke, Mark…“ (Venko Andonovski, Utrinski vesnik, 21.2.2007) “Lucifer’s Lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 20.2.2007) Slavica Grkovska from SDSM: “The mere fact that prior to Venko Andonovski: “Lustration is law’s enactment, Prime Minister a law, but it is much more a ritual announced who would be appointed of discharging societal aggression Commission President, gives me (through sacrifice), in that healing the right to think that the law is the frustration of a system that purposefully adopted, that lists of is incapable of providing justice people to be labelled have already ‘now’, but ritually resorts to the been prepared, regardless of past. At the fatherland’s altar make whether they deserve the label or an offering in food for the people, not.” (“Andov to lustrate brains but not in new blood. Snitches’ behind the snitching as well”, blood would not feed the people. Utrinski vesnik, 21.2.2007) Moreover, those who drink the blood of snitches would forever feel Mersel Biljali: “Creators want to it running in their veins.” (Venko convince us that it is completely Andonovski, “Lucifer’s Lustration, moral to correct an injustice by Utrinski vesnik, 20.2.2007) causing another, greater injustice… If the proposed law remains Stojan Andov: “General suggestion unchanged, lustration can be was for lustration to also concern turned into witch hunt and would order-issuers and information users. affect innocent people, primarily This will, probably, be postponed for the political opponents”. (Mersel the second stage” (“Andov to lustrate Biljali, “Dark Lustration or Dark Enlightment”, 26.2.2007) 40 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

March 2007 At public debates, experts warn that “the worst case scenario Lustration’s initiator announces would be to adopt a Lustration that, in addition to informants, who Law of poor quality and to have collaborated with secret services, its implementation distorted by Lustration Law will also apply to turning it into ‘witch hunt”’. (Gale order-issuers. (“Lustration Law: Galev, Dean of the Faculty of Law, issuers of orders to face justice”, at the debate titled “Invisible Dnevnik, 5.3.2007) Ear”, organized by the Club of Political Scientists “Iustiniana Oliver Spasenovski, MP from SDSM: Prima”, ”Debate on Lustration: No “Nobody would fall victim to this Democracy with Denunciations”, law; on the contrary Macedonia Dnevnik, 9.3.2007) will profit the most”. (“Lustration will not be ‘witch hunt’, supporters Zvonimir Jankulovski: “…even claim”, Utrinski vesnik, 9.3.2007) Andov would not be beyond the law, and if he was collaborator to Vlado Buckovski: “Despite the secret services, would be targeted controversies whether lustration, in as well.” (Club of Political Scientists an attempt to correct one injustice, organized a public debate on can cause another, it is generally Andov’s proposal, “Lustration accepted that, by definition, should take place, but not in this lustration boosted, and did not manner”, Vecer, 10.3.2007) hinder, democratic development in other states where it was Pavle Trajanov: “Key collaborators implemented.” (“Lustration will not are missing, i.e., those who worked be ‘witch hunt’, supporters claim”, for the Counterintelligence Service Utrinski vesnik, 9.3.2007) (KOS). It is unbeknown to me why collaborators to the State Security Pavle Trajanov: “The former Administration (UDBA), including system encouraged snitching, but collaborators to the Service for in Macedonia it was raised to the Information and Documents level of national sports … The law (SID), are left outside law’s scope fails to specify which collaborators of application knowing that are targeted by lustration. In ambassadors played an utterly my opinion, lustration should negative role in that period.” (Club apply to those who provided false of Political Scientists organized a information as a result of which public debate on Andov’s proposal, others were harmed. Their names “Lustration should take place, but should be published and they should not in this manner”, Vecer, 10.3.2007) be prohibited to engage in any political activities.” (“Lustration will Mirjana Najcevska stresses that not be a ‘witch hunt’, supporters “[there is] a possibility that claim”, Utrinski vesnik, 9.3.2007) representatives of these services can be found among law’s proposers, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 41

developers and supporters, who and not ‘small fish’. In the past, according to the principle “catch the applicable laws allowed informative thief” want to divert the attention talks and any person could have away from them, and promote the been called to informative talks and old and already proven methodology later registered as informant. If the for planting lies and fear”. (“Mirjana second reading in Parliament does Najcevska: Macedonia cannot not amend the law, the country implement a just lustration”, risks to punish informants, while Utrinski vesnik, 13.3.2007) actual perpetrators would remain untouched.” (“Idzet Memeti: Idzet Memeti, Ombudsman: “Law lustration must not create new is so chaotic that it failed to define victims”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.3.2007) the terminology used . It should not contain ambiguous provisions Lustration Law can be easily that are prone to manipulation, transformed into a law that i.e., misapplication. First, one must would create victims, warns the know that ‘snitch’ or ‘informant’ Ombudsman, Idzet Memeti. He says are not recognized as legal terms that punishment should be pursued in Macedonia. Macedonia’s legal and that the law must stipulate system uses the term ‘collaborator’ a detailed procedure on proving and this should be the starting the act committed. (“Ombudsman point.” (“Idzet Memeti: lustration fears possibility for distorting goals: must not create new victims”, Lustration Law or Law on Victims?!”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.3.2007) Vecer, 15.3.2007)

Idzet Memeti, Ombudsman: Stojan Andov: “If Crvenkovski “A person could have become refuses to endorse Lustration Law, collaborator to police services only it would only implicate him as part in a specific procedure. Therefore, of the secret network.” (Fokus, the law must stipulate a very 16.3.2007) precise procedure on proving that a person had been a collaborator. Nikola Gelevski: “Police and capital Legal provisions should not leave have become editors-in-chief to any gaps that would be conductive almost every newspapers and to misapplication in the process TV outlets in the country! Every on proving the act committed. evening, the perversely voyeuristic Otherwise, the law would miss its audience takes its ‘fix’ of intrigues main goal and would be turned into and plots presented through the an instrument for creating new prism of ‘police collaborators’ secret victims.” (“Idzet Memeti: lustration cameras, while the spectacles on must not create new victims”, lustration, led by dubious political Utrinski vesnik, 15.3.2007) and quasi-political structures, continue in parallel and under Idzet Memeti, Ombudsman: “Law pretences of hunting old snitches, should address collaborators, all for the purpose of maintaining 42 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

a nonstop adrenaline rush!”.(Nikola Daily Vecer wonders “what will Gelevski, “Collapsing Pillars”, be implemented in Macedonia - Utrinski vesnik, 19.3.2007) inquisition or lustration?”, after Stojan Andov presented expanded Dnevnik: Members and collaborators version of the Draft Law on to former federal services that Additional Criteria for Public Office operated in Macedonia, including Performance, which - contrary to the Military Counterintelligence the version from 16th February 2007 Service, better known as KOS, will - contains ten new articles targeting be subject to lustration. (…) No order-issuers. (“Stole – Loyola won’t documents on activities of KOS and give in”, Vecer, 13.4.2007) its successors are available in the country. (“Lustration Law targets Vlatko Gjorcev, MP from VMRO- KOS”,Dnevnik, 28.3.2007) DPMNE: “Injustice is injustice, irrelevant of the profession held Igor Ivanovski says that Andov and by the person who inflicted it; thus his team’s reimbursement in the we should not distinguish between amount of 10,000 EUR each to draft professions in respect to whether the law is a precedent: “No Member these people are politicians, of Parliament was ever reimbursed scholars, journalists, religious for drafting legislation. Moreover, leaders, because victims of these Ivica Bocevski is the Government’s processes were equally persecuted.” spokesperson, while Marjan (“SDSM abstained about lustration’s Madzovski is Chief of Cabinet to final text”,Utrinski vesnik, 13.4.2007) the Parliament’s Speaker, Ljubisa Gjorgievski and their engagement Iso Rusi: “I personally believe that in this endeavour falls within their Macedonia cannot implement job duties.“ (“Andov is filigreeing lustration, because those who are lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, in power would have to lustrate 28.3.2007) themselves - from the Minister of Justice to Mr. Andov. One cannot Nikola Mladenov: “...I deem expect that those who should be lustration to be an excellent chance lustrated will fairly lustrate the for reviving ethics in our life style”. society. It won’t pass muster. They (“Snitching is not our specialty”, should lustrate themselves. That Fokus, 30.3.2007) is the major problem.” (Iso Rusi, “Andov’s lustration is a white lie”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.4.2007) April 2007 Bishop Clement, Secretary of MOC’s MP and leader of LP, Stojan Andov, Synod: “As the Alma Mater of all presented the Parliament with final Orthodox Christians in Macedonia, version of the Draft Lustration our primary activity is to inspire our Law. (“Lustration reaches the spiritual children to enlighten the Parliament”, Dnevnik, 12.4.2007) dark corners of their hearts. At the A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 43

same time, that means support for and NATO membership”, Fokus, disclosing bleak archives of services 27.4.2007) that are subject of interest for Lustration Law.” (“MANU and MOC Stojan Andov: “I believe that people are not afraid of lustration”, Utrinski in Macedonia are not spineless, they vesnik, 20.4.2007) have dignity, honour and strength to implement lustration.” (“Lustrator Robert Popovski, President of entangled in perpetual ‘hidden the Association of Journalists: “If agenda’”, Spic, 28.4.2007) lustration is transformed into an instrument for political or any other Stojan Andov has “no comment” for confrontation with journalists, it academician Katardziev’s statement: would have terrible consequences “Persons cannot be labelled as for the democracy and the society as enemy of state, although in the past a whole.” (“MANU and MOC are not they had done things in defence afraid of lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, of the state. Andov is involved in 20.4.2007) politics for more than 40 years, even in the period when it was Igor Ivanovski, MP and Vice unimaginable for someone to hold a President of SDSM: “It is my high office without being implicated personal belief that, with this in police structures”. (“Lustrator project, Andov wishes to erase his entangled in perpetual ‘hidden past, which cannot be achieved at agenda’”, Spic, 28.4.2007) any rate.” (“MANU and MOC are not afraid of lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 20.4.2007) May 2007

Meri Mladenovska – Gjorgievska “Are oligarchs spared?” subheading from SDSM, President of the of SDSM’s text “Plan B. Lustration to Standing Inquiry Committee, be tumbled down by Constitutional advocates for Lustration Court”. (Fokus, 27.4.2007) Commission to be appointed by the According to the Director of Euro- Parliament, with minimum 80 votes: Balkan, one of the rare NGOs that “Lustration Law should not leave decisively and strongly support room for personal contentions and Lustration Law, communism as confrontations. Commission must an ideology should be condemned, guarantee impartiality and human because there are no differences rights protection, and it should between national-socialism and therefore be appointed by two-thirds communism. “These are the two majority vote, while its President most dangerous ideologies known should be nominated by the to humanity”, Donev believes.” opposition”. (“Two-thirds majority (Jovan Donev, Ph.D., Euro-Balkan, vote required for Lustration “Lustration is precondition for EU Commission”, Utrinski vesnik, 3.5.2007) 44 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Vladimir Milcin: “On 22nd December universities’ autonomy. It creates 2000, when I requested disclosure some kind of Ministry of Truth, of the names of informants who Police of Reminiscence and renders contributed to my dossier compiled citizens powerless against a foul for a ‘person with anarcho- campaign, thus weakening legal liberal positions’, ‘participant protection of their rights. (Vladimir in demonstrations’, person who Milcin: Frustration, Lustration, ‘communicated with people who Confiscation: Macedonia pursues had been exposed from positions lustration, when Europe deems it of civil right-wing and Macedonian to be witch hunt!”, Utrinski vesnik, nationalism’, I received a document, 4.5.2007) signed and stamped, indicating that informants’ identity could not be Stojan Andov: “Judicial authorities established! Nowadays, out of the should ex officio move to retrial in blue, same people claim that they all processes where people were can read the names of informants?! tried without evidence. If these Does this mean that the ink used people are not found guilty in the to blacken names of voluntary or repeated procedure, they should pressured collaborators to the be exonerated, and the role of state State Security Service ‘faded away’? functionaries in these politically Or maybe only the ink covering motivated processes needs to be names of citizens whom the ruling established as part of repeated court government wishes to remove from proceedings. If such involvement is the public scene ‘faded away’?” established, the officials will be held criminally liable.” (“First lustration, Vladimir Milcin: “Andov’s law does then exoneration”, Spic, 4.5.2007) not provide any possibility for victims’ exoneration. Nevertheless, Zarko Trajanovski: “If the process it provides the possibility for does not focus on victims whose victims (especially those sent to Goli rights had been violated in the Otok, allegedly accused because of previous system, one cannot speak upholding Stalinism, but in reality about transitional justice. Advocates accused of upholding Macedonism!) for exoneration should have in mind to be again discredited as ‘snitches’ that victims’ human rights had been nonetheless. We are witnessing violated by means of administrative preparations for yet another measures and social exclusion and ideological and partisan purge that stigmatization, rather than in court enables rewriting of Macedonian procedures.” (“First lustration, then history”. exoneration”, Spic, 4.5.2007)

Vladimir Milcin: “I believe that Lustration’s initiator also proposes this law is contrary to moral a Law on Exoneration that would principles and represents a stipulate “retrial for politically threat against freedom of speech motivated processes, which resulted and of media, as well as against in mass casualties in the period A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 45

from late 1944 to 1991”. (“After “Does the pseudonym ‘Consultant’ Lustration Law, Andov proposes Law hide Kerim? – subheading of on Exoneration”, Vecer, 6.5.2007) Jadranka Kostova’s text, where she quotes dissident Adam Mihnik: Macedonia did not establish an “we must publish the dossiers, in independent Institute for Keeping order to put an end to their power Records of Former Secret Services, over us”. (“Only Branko’s SDSM and and therefore the country cannot Milosevic’s SPS perceive lustration implement a lustration that would as evil”, Fokus, 18.5.2007) guarantee citizens’ equal access to justice, reacts Foundation Open Janko Bacev: “…in SFRY, without Society Institute - Macedonia in any exception, all ambassadors its letter address to Members of signed a statement for collaboration Parliament. Law on Access to and with the secret police, and were Insight in Dossiers Kept by Secret integrated in the so-called Service Services, adopted in 2000, was in for Information and Documents at force for a period of one year, and the Federal Secretariat for Foreign after its expiration all dossiers that Affairs… Namely, all interested in do not hold any cultural, national or seeing how these statements look historic significance were destroyed. like are welcomed to visit People’s How can Lustration Law be enacted Movement in Macedonia”. (“Who if dossiers are incomplete or bought Kerim’s UN candidacy and irrelevant, and most likely tampered why?”, Spic, 19-20.05.2007) with? (“Foundation Open Society Institute - Macedonia reacts: Nikola Gelevski: “Our society lacks actual lustration cannot take place capacity, primarily moral capacity to with incomplete dossiers”, Vecer, implement lustration in a dignified, 15.5.2007) authoritative and fair manner.” (Nikola Gelevski, “Rewards for Janko Bacev claims that his party Flaws (Lustration)”, Utrinski vesnik, is in possession of the intelligence 21.5.2007) dossier and pseudonym of Macedonia’s candidate for President VMRO-NP warns that if the of UN General Assembly. (“Bacev: Lustration Law’s draft version is Kerim was connected to the secret adopted, it would aid functionaries police!”, Spic, 15.5.2007) from the past to avoid lustration for violation of human rights as order- Srgan Kerim, candidate for issuers. (“VMRO-NP wants new President of UN General Assembly, Lustration Law”, Dnevnik, 22.5.2007) already announced that he will file defamation and libel charges Blaze Stojanovski, Member of against Bacev. (“Foul campaign VMRO-NP’s Executive Committee: of authorities against different- “Lustration Law’s adoption must not minded”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.5.2007) allow exoneration of public office holders in the communist regime.” 46 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

(“Lustration for all functionaries in and violated human rights. Also, we communist regime”, Utrinski vesnik, will not withdraw the request for 22.5.2007) the Commission to be appointed by two-thirds majority vote. We might Vladimir Gligorov: “...lustration concede in this request only if an should have been pursued, if agreement is reached Commission’s necessary at all, shortly after the President to be nominated by the country’s democratization and only opposition.” (“Opposition demands in compliance with pre-defined lustration to apply to last seven criteria, as one-time process.” years as well”, Utrinski vesnik, (Vladimir Gligorov, “Lustration”, 31.5.2007) Utrinski vesnik, 25.5.2007)

According to amendments proposed June 2007 by Andov, Lustration Commission will be comprised of nine, instead “What was considered to ‘backstab’ of seven members as initially the project came from the envisaged, appointed by the Government. MOI is the project’s Parliament with minimum 80 votes. designer, Gruevski approved it, However, if Commission Members but Andov was tasked to present do not receive the required votes, the amendments. This is how the the procedure is repeated, where ‘commoners’ were informed that the second round of voting follows snitchers recruited in the last the majority vote principle, i.e., seven years would be saved from 61 votes from the total number of lustration.” (Jadranka Kostova, MPs. On opposition’s request, the “Gruevski sabotages lustration”, law’s text clarifies that Commission Fokus, 8.6.2007) Members cannot be “persons who “...former intelligence officer Bacev had been or are appointed to is decisive that the Commission institutions tasked to cooperate should be given jurisdiction to with the Commission. (“Andov gave open secret police’s archives and in: Lustration Commission to be have direct insight in documents appointed by two-thirds majority and registries kept by secret vote”, Utrinski vesnik, 29.5.2007) services, rather than to request Cvetanka Ivanova, MP from SDSM: such information from them, as “...we request reinstatement of the envisaged under current provisions.” initial solution, i.e., Lustration Law (“Gruevski sabotages lustration”, to apply to the period until it enters Fokus, 8.6.2007) into effect, including the past seven Todorovski remarks that Milcin does years. We doubt that the purpose not distinguish between different [behind law’s scope of application] types of dossiers, i.e., political is to exculpate persons who in the dossiers and those of collaborators period from 2000 onwards have to state security services: “In August collaborated with security services 2002, personal (political) dossiers A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 47

kept by MOI were transferred to snitches, that lustration is a must, a special commission established privatization is being revised, i.e., by the Government and comprised new denationalization is pursued, a of representatives from the respectable atomic physicist appears Ministry, Macedonian Academy of to decipher the letters from Rosetta Science and Art (MANU), Institute Stone, claiming that the writings of National History and the State are in archaic Macedonian language. Archive”, Todorovski replies. (“Zoran But, that won’t suffice. [Research] Todorovski, Director of the Archive goes as far back as the neolith era, of Macedonia: Milcin’s letter is all the way to ancestors of homo- tendentious”, Fokus, 8.6.2007) sapiens. All these are intrinsic features of dangerous populism Cvetanka Ivanova, MP from that feeds the soul until a painful SDSM: “More than obvious is that sobriety, if we can ever go sober.” somebody does not want to have (Erol Rizaov, “Did Gruevski learn the law adopted. It is the governing anything from Merkel?”, Utrinski majority, and not SDSM. SDSM vesnik, 24.6.2007) believes that if lustration is to be implemented, then all persons Vladimir Milcin draws parallels should be lustrated, starting from between Polish and Macedonian 1944 until Lustration Law’s entry lustration: “Does the similarity into effect. We will not make any between today’s Poland and concessions in that regard, on Macedonia end with lustration laws? the contrary, we want to have full Michnik believes that Lustration lustration that would not exempt Law of Kacinski twins is only part a single person.” (“Andov changes of systematic efforts made by right- heart about lustrating past seven wing and left-wing populists to years”, Utrinski vesnik, 12.6.2007) undermine democratic institutions. From their election victory in 2005 Erol Rizaov: “First, media are Kacinski twins, Michnik writes, being controlled, then fear is attempt to blur the power-sharing spread among the population, system in order to strengthen the petty criminals and political executive power. They constantly opponents are being arrested in attack the judicial power, use spectacular manner, patriotism rhetoric of fear and threat, while is wholeheartedly supported by many civil servants at ministries and songs and celebrations of the state institutions are replaced by glorious past and the great historic unqualified, but loyal newcomers.” victories dating several thousand (Vladimir Milcin, “Dissidents years back. Epochal archaeological Against Lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, artefacts on the nation’s greatness 26.7.2007) are being excavated, Iustiniana Prima is dug up, incontestable Lustration Law is already on the evidence is presented that plenary session agenda at the all political opponents were Parliament, but discussions and 48 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

its adoption are delayed for more into effect. (“Lustration to be de- than a month on Government’s blocked”, Dnevnik, 9.11.2007) proposal; Andov shortens the law’s scope of application until 5 July Vladimir Milcin: “Exercising my law- 2000 by means of an amendment. stipulated right to insight into my Opposition reacts that by shortening dossier kept by the State Security the scope of application, the Service for a longer period, I was Government and the proposing able to confirm my suspicions that party wish to protect secret services the dossiers were and are (even collaborators who operated after today!) tampered with according 2000 and who, they suspect, are to the principles of adding or currently in power. (“Lustration’s deleting, covering or uncovering application to be re-examined”, names, fabricating events. Ministry Dnevnik, 27.6.2007) of Interior did not fully implement the Law on Access to Personal Dossiers from 2000. It did not report August 2007 to the Parliament or in public on the number of dossiers that were Oliver Spasenovski, MP from SDSM: destroyed, or the number of dossiers “Insistence to exempt the period retained for their cultural and from 2000 onwards clearly shows historical significance. Namely, the that VMRO-DPMNE’s Government ‘Lustration Law’ would make sense has no intention to implement a only if the dossiers had not been and true lustration, but to transform are not tampered with.” (Interview this process into witch hunt. In with Vladimir Milcin, “Macedonia is 2000, the then current VMRO- consciously breaking on its road to DPMNE-led government did not Brussels”, Utrinski vesnik, 11.11.2007) implement the Law on Access to Personal Dossiers. Moreover, it Stojan Andov: “Clear are positions of failed to establish a governmental parliamentary groups on disputable commission that at the State issues such as the appointment Archive was to determine the procedure for President and historical, national and cultural Members of Lustration Commission significance of the dossiers.” and lustration’s time scope. (“Lustration falls into oblivion?”, Opposition does not concede Utrinski vesnik, 13.8.2007) and if it does not change heart until the plenary session, I will November 2007 propose an amendment stipulating lustration’s time scope until the Following a several-moth day the law enters into effect.” obstruction, the initiator announces (“Andov announces de-blocking a new amendment that would of lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, stipulate lustration’s scope of 12.11.2007) application by the day the law enters A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 49

Igor Ivanovski, SDSM: “Manipulation nation with an excellent love novel, with the lustration’s time scope, with a historical overview, and a as is being pursued with the collective drama that would bring a government-commissioned catharsis for citizens of Macedonia. amendment, is unacceptable. It It is a contemporary interactive is an attempt to erase the grand drama, whose writings are envied by interception scandal that implicates Ljubisa Gjorgievski, as the audience, Dosta Dimovska and Aleksandar actors and directors will collectively Cvetkov.” (“Andov announces de- enjoy the pogrom of snitches, live blocking of lustration”, Utrinski or dead, who had embittered the vesnik, 12.11.2007) lives of many and had turned them into tragedies in the past 60 years, On the question how many to date.” (Erol Rizaov, “Will Andov’s political dossiers would be used law enlighten Macedonia?”, Utrinski in the lustration process, Zoran vesnik, 17.1.2008) Todorovski claims that their number is insignificant and that they will Stojan Andov, Lustration Law’s be used as additional material: promoter, will withdraw the “Main materials will come from the amendment that exculpates persons Administration for State Security, who collaborated with secret where collaborators’ dossiers are services in the last 17 years from kept”. (“Names of snitches may be ideological or political reasons, and publically disclosed”, Utrinski vesnik, threatens to block law’s enactment. 25.11.2007) (“Lustration dodges another blockage”, Utrinski vesnik, 17.1.2008)

January 2008 Filip Petrovski: “Today, the attempt to implement lustration, i.e., At last, the Government and the to dismantle our bleak past, is opposition agreed that Macedonia proceeding sluggishly. The knot must implement the lustration from cannot be untangled. Recently, I 1944 to date. (“Lustration will be saw a newspaper heading ‘Snitches comprehensive, it will cover both are not favourite topic of discussion snitches and order-issuers”, Utrinski with MPs’. How can they even be, vesnik, 15.1.2008) when all indicators point to the fact that snitches and collaborators to Silvana Boneva: “Law should punish secret services, i.e., people liable all who made abuses, collaborated to lustration, can be found among with police services and therefore MPs.” (Filip Petrovski, “Cleansing advanced in their careers.” Ritual”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.1.2008) (“Lustration will be comprehensive, it will cover both snitches and order- TMRO indicates that lustration issuers”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.1.2008) process in the country would be a farce, because the former Yugoslav Erol Rizaov: “To end his rich National Army had withdrawn the political career, Andov bestows the 50 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

dossiers with names of snitches. Youngest Member of Parliament, (“TMRO: YNA sets snitches free”, Aleksandar Nikolovski from Dnevnik, 20.1.2008 VMRO-DPMNE, supported the law, although he is not confident in On behalf of SDSM’s parliamentary its effects: “I do not believe that group, Cvetanka Ivanova expressed this law will turn a new page in their satisfaction with the fact the society’s democratization. that proposers have accepted their Structures from the previous key requests related to law’s scope system are installed everywhere of application, which means that and I doubt that matters will be lustration will be comprehensive, completely clarified. Expectations as well as related to Commission’s that it would present a 7-mile leap appointment with two-thirds are unrealistic.” (“Macedonia makes majority vote. She said that the law first step towards lustration”, should be perceived as democratic Utrinski vesnik, 23.1.2008) benefit in the wake of NATO Summit, but accentuated that it Two days ago, MPs adopted the should be implemented with great Law on Additional Criteria for care. (“Lustration overshadowed by Public Office Performance with 73 Gjorcev’s Electoral Code”, Utrinski votes “for” and no votes “against”. vesnik, 22.1.2008) Lustration Law, which covers the period from 1944 to the day of its Pavle Trajanov submitted an entry into effect, in addition to amendment (that was rejected), informers, will also target orders, which requested specification that order-issuers and information “user of information provided by users. (“Lustration Law adopted a secret collaborator is a person UNANIMOUSLY”, Vecer, 24.1.2008) who, due to the nature of his/ her public office, has obtained Stojan Andov: “Law should not information from state security be regarded as possibility to bodies and on their basis has taken evocate the past and strengthen or participated in taking of decisions the divisions, but as right turn that violated and limited citizens’ towards the future.” (“Commission fundamental rights and freedoms will lustrate functionaries”, Spic, from ideological and political 24.1.2008) reasons”. MPs commented that Trajanov refers to high level state One again, the lustration’s initiator functionaries from the past 17 years, appealed for the adoption of a Law starting with the former President on Exoneration. (“Stojan Andov, Kiro Gligorov, President Branko MP and leader of the Liberal Party: Crvenkoski, Andov, Tito Petkovski… Law on Exoneration will follow”, (“Lustration overshadowed by Dnevnik, 25.1.2008) Gjorcev’s Electoral Code”, Utrinski vesnik, 22.1.2008) “President Branko Crvenkovski signed the Decree on Proclaiming A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 51

the Law on Additional Criteria Stojan Andov requested the for Public Office Performance, Government to secure funds for popularly known as Lustration Law. the Commission for Verification The Head of State endorsed the of Facts’s operation, as it is law last week, prior to leaving for tasked to verify the statements Qatar.” (“Lustration Law endorsed”, submitted pursuant to the Law on Utrinski vesnik, 29.1.2008) Additional Criteria for Public Office Performance, i.e., the Lustration Law. (“No working conditions: Andov February 2008 requests offices for lustration”, Vecer, 10.2.2008) Stojan Andov: “In own time, the Commission will appeal to people to submit a notary-certified statement. March 2008 Commission will determine the first group of public office holders to The open call for members of the submit statements and the deadline Lustration Commission will be thereof: the President, the Prime repeated, as only 6 from total of Minister, the Parliament Speaker, 40 candidates submitted complete MPs, ministries, judges, prosecutors, documents. (“Lustrators to be councillors, mayors… A schedule lustrated”, Spic, 6.3.2008) must be in place, in order for the Commission to be able to cope with The first open call for establishment the workload.” (“At least 3,000 of the Lustration Commission public functionaries to be lustrated”, fell through. Yesterday, the Utrinski vesnik, 3.2.2008) Parliamentary Committee on Elections and Appointments Stojan Andov: “If Ballists had turned decided to propose the Parliament themselves to the authorities, and announcement of new open call, they were not tried, but executed, with precisely specified criteria and then they should be exonerated.” conditions. (“New call for Lustration (“Can Stojan Andov’s ideas be Commission”, Dnevnik, 7.3.2008) remedied? Andov and Ahmeti will reimburse Ballists and Chetniks”, President of State and constitutional Vecer, 5.2.2008) judges need to be exempted from lustration, by revoking disputable “An expert group, whose members law provisions that concern these also include Albanians, already two categories of highest public works on the law’s text and Andov office. This is the essence of the expects it will be adopted within petition motioned in front of the six months.” (“After lustration, Constitutional Court. (“Request Andov announces Law on Victims’ is made to exempt Head of State Exoneration”, Utrinski vesnik, from lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 6.2.2008) 18.3.2008) 52 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Blagoj Caminski: “As far as I appointed by the new Parliament.” know, great number of those (“Snitches can go to elections”, persecuted were supporters of Utrinski vesnik, 14.4.2008) Vanco Mihajlovism and Stalinism, who have nothing in common Trajko Veljanovski, member with democracy, but in their time of VMRO-DPMNE’s Executive represented a threat to state’s Committee, says the party had not subsistence. Recently, a close discussed this topic. He is uncertain associate of Ljupco had his pictures whether statements can be deposed taken for a newspaper and proudly at the State Electoral Commission stated that he had been persecuted (SEC): “I do not know if it is legal, for upholding VMRO’s ideas, but still because - according to the law - only keeps Vanco Mihajlov’s portrait, a the Commission is authorized to legacy from his father, in the living receive and verify statements. In my room.” (“Lustration Law”, Utrinski opinion, deposition of statements at vesnik , 25.3.2008) SEC resembles a circus.” (“Snitches can go to elections”, Utrinski vesnik, 14.4.2008) April 2008 Igor Ivanovski, Vice President of Constitutional Court judges are SDSM,: “Unacceptable is to organize reserved, while the Head of State the elections without complying is decisive and prepared to be with a series of laws, including the lustrated. (“Crvenkovski is prepared lustration law. That is precisely to be lustrated, judges forbear”, what VMRO-DPMNE does, because Dnevnik, 1.4.2008) it refuses to allow verification of its candidates’ biographies. SDSM Parliament fails to establish the has nothing to fear and will make Lustration Commission to which candidates’ biographies available candidates for MPs are to submit for public insight. Our candidates their statements. Commission will submit statements to the State for Verification of Facts was to be Electoral Commission or any other elected no later than 6th April, but institution, as necessary.” (“Snitches the first open call was annulled, can go to elections”, Utrinski vesnik, while the second call somehow 14.4.2008) coincided with Parliament’s dissolution. (“Snitches can go to Stojan Andov: “Dissolution elections”, Utrinski vesnik, 14.4.2008) of the Parliament and non- establishment of the Lustration Stojan Andov: “Commission has not Commission considerably harm been established, but candidates the lustration process, as well as for MPs from the Liberal Party the overall process of country’s will deposit a statement at the democratization.” (“Planned State Electoral Commission (SEC), lustration put on hold: Snitches that will be subject of verification once the Lustration Commission is A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 53

‘win out’ another term of office”, information for political dossiers, Dnevnik, 20.4.2008) who affected the destiny of thousands of citizens, ideologically persecuted and convicted.” May 2008 (“Lustration Law: Commission will be comprised of trustworthy people Yesterday, one hundred and twenty only”, Dnevnik, 5.5.2008) candidates for MPs from “Sun- Coalition for Europe” signed written Candidates for MPs should statements on non-cooperation with have their statements on non- the secret services. Other political cooperation with secret services parties also announce signing of notary-certified and submitted to such statements. (“Pre-election the Commission for Verification of lustration: Everybody pledges on not Facts. This procedure is stipulated being a snitch”, Dnevnik, 4.5.2008) in the Lustration Law, regardless of the fact that the Commission Adriatic Imeri, DPA’s spokesperson: is not fully staffed, is the opinion “It has already been made public of the Democratic Alliance. that the holder of [DUI-proposed] (“Pavle Trajanov requests certified candidates’ list for the fifth electoral statements on non-collaboration”, unit, Fazli Veliu, had collaborated Dnevnik, 7.5.2008) with former Yugoslavia’s Intelligence Service (KOS). I am Pavle Trajanov: “I have leverage, sure that this is true for other because I have worked in the candidates.” Izet Medziti, Chief Ministry of Interior for a long of DUI’s Election Headquarters, time and know the names of presents counter-accusations for people who because of different DPA: “I call upon Menduh Taci and reasons collaborated with the Arben Dzaferi to confirm or deny in services until 2000. However, it public Pavle Trajanov’s statement has never crossed my mind, nor that they have collaborated with it will in future, to disclose them secret services.” (“Pre-election in public. SDSM finger-pointed lustration: Everybody pledges on not people who should be lustrated, but being a snitch”, Dnevnik, 4.5.2008) they later became their coalition partners.”(“Democratic Alliance Zoran Todorovski: “Commission will not be Employment Agency”, Members should be representatives Utrinski vesnik, 11.5.2008) of the Intelligence Service, Ministry of Interior, Army Intelligence Igor Ivanovski: “For example, Service and Intelligence Agency, Gruevski evades lustration, Pavle as well as the Parliament. Namely, Trajanov because of “Okta”-related these are people familiar with episodes, and even some younger conspiracy and know how to MPs. That is why they did not want treat such confidential matters... the Lustration Commission to be The ‘ventilation exercise’ must established, i.e., because some of include informants who supplied 54 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

their present candidates would know who snitched me. They are not be allowed to run for MPs.” my school peers, friends ... I refuse (Igor Ivanovski, “Sun” Coalition for to disclose their names in public. I Europe, “A state cannot be run with forgave them all. However, I do not threats, fear and coercion”, Dnevnik, want to talk about those times and 23.5.2008) further fuel my anger. Even at home, I never talk about it. I want to forget and have, in some way, succeed June 2008 in that, maybe because I was very young at the time, I was only 18 Teofil Blazevski: “Creations of the years old. Those who were older, League of Communists of Macedonia still bear deep scars.”(“Is it time for –State Security Service (the Second lustration?, Utrinski vesnik, 3.9.2008) Generation) were and remain in the government and the opposition!” (“Post-election status LCM-SSS November 2008 (the Second Generation)”, Dnevnik, 27.6.2008) For nine months now, the ambitious project is running in the spot. Cvetanka Ivanova: “Insistence to August 2008 have complete dominance in the Commission is a clear signal for Bogomil Guzel: “I doubt that anyone the intended political lustration”. from today’s ‘nouveau riches’ or (“Everybody wants to control the ‘oligarchs’, who maximally benefited lustration process”, Utrinski vesnik, in the period of thefts and lucrative 2.11.2008) (reprinted on 9.11.2008) deals, will now be affected or ‘held accountable’ pursuant to the Government and opposition cannot Lustration Law…” (Fokus, 29.8.2008) agree on the number of members in the Commission tasked to September 2008 implement the Lustration Law. Cvetanka Ivanova, MP: “VMRO- Ilija Dimovski, President of the DPMNE requires absolute majority Parliamentary Committee on in this body, which should be Elections and Appointments: “I independent. Obvious is that believe that by the end of the month they are preparing for political the Parliament will complete lustration.” (“Lustration Law this process, so that lustration’s disappears into thin air”, Dnevnik, implementation can begin.” (“Is it 11.11.2008) time for lustration?, Utrinski vesnik, 3.9.2008) Stojan Andov: “It is high time to implement the Lustration Law, Dzevat Ademi, MP from DUI, who which would be valuable only if in the 80s was sentenced to 12 years decisions stemming therefrom are imprisonment (served 8.5 years of adopted by a consensus, including his sentence): “I have my dossier, I the decision on Commission’s A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 55

establishment.” (“Stojan Andov Stojan Andov: “If there are no requires consensus for lustration”, secret violations to the law, the Utrinski vesnik, 11.11.2008) goal will be achieved. However, if there is organized violation to the “Neither the Government, nor the law, it would be massive abuse and opposition want to implement the it should be treated as criminal lustration; at least, not on their association. Some might entertain members.” (Predrag Dimitrovski, such ideas.” (“Lustration fails “Snitches stronger than the law”, the first exam”,Utrinski vesnik, Dnevnik, 12.11.2008) 13.11.2008)

More than ten months after Law Senior party sources from VMRO- on Additional Criteria for Public DPMNE: “As regards the member Office Performance was adopted, quotas in the Commission, the party commonly known as Lustration Law, which is the formal successor to MPs cannot agree on the members the Communist Party cannot be to the Commission for Verification given majority in the Commission of Facts. (“Snitches everywhere, that is tasked to purge the society lustration nowhere”, Dnevnik, from those who terrorized the 12.11.2008) population, precisely during that regime.” (“Will Lustration Ilija Dimovski, President of the Commission be established today?”, Parliamentary Committee on Vecer, 17.11.2008) Elections and Appointments: “We do not recede from the lustration process and succumb to attempts December 2008 to prevent its implementation. If SDSM does not agree, then the Trajko Veljanovski: “I expect that Commission will be completed with the Committee on Elections and members from other parties that Appointments to submit a proposal agree with us.” (“VMRO DPMNE on the Lustration commission’s will not recede from lustration”, composition by the end of the Dnevnik, 13.11.2008) month.” (Trajko Veljanovski, Parliament Speaker, “I want to leave Main actors on the Macedonian a mark in the Parliament”, Utrinski political scene failed the first exam; vesnik, 5.12. 2008) they cannot or would not establish the Lustration Commission. The two Political asylant Jordan Petrovski biggest parties from the Macedonian accuses: “Nikola Gruevski does political block, VMRO-DPMNE and not want to dismantle the SDSM, struggle for dominance and Administration for State Security’s control over the Commission that network of spies.” (Fokus, 19.12.2008) should implement this process. Tahir Hani, coordinator of DUI’s (“Lustration fails the first exam”, parliamentary group, considers it Utrinski vesnik, 13.11.2008) is logical to have an Albanian chair 56 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

the key body tasked to implement upon Commission’s first president, lustration: “All institutions according a rotating system for that would be asked to provide terms of office in duration of six documents on the basis of which months. (“Gruevski withdraws candidates for public offices will be governmental campaigns”, Utrinski checked if they had collaborated vesnik, 9.1.2009) with secret police services, are chaired by Macedonians. Our Lustration Commission is comprised insistence to have an Albanian as of eleven members in total, and Commission President is completely during the first six-month period normal.“ (“DUI and DPA request will be chaired by journalist Agim Albanian to implement lustration”, Mehmeti, while historian Gorgi Utrinski vesnik, 23.12.2008) Malkovski will act as Deputy President. Seven commissioners are Cvetanka Ivanova, SDSM: “Obvious is nominated by the ruling majority; that the government does not wish five by VMRO-DPMNE, and two to implement this process, because by DUI. Four commissioners are it would have otherwise established appointed on the opposition’s the Lustration Commission by now. proposal; two by SDSM, and one by It makes everything in its power to DPA and LDP, each. (“Lustration prevent this. We conceded for at Commission’s composition follows least 50 percent of our requests. parties’ quota”, Utrinski vesnik, We agreed to have Commission 14.1.2009) President and one member from our party. What more do we need Journalist Agim Mehmeti to do?! Agree to have the ruling (nominated by DPA) is Lustration majority nominate all members?” Commission’s President, while (“DUI and DPA request Albanian historian Gorgi Malkovski to implement lustration”, Utrinski (nominated by VMRO-DPMNE) will vesnik, 23.12.2008) act as Deputy President. Other commissioners include: Novica Veljanovski, historian; Marija January 2009 Milosevska, employee at Ministry of Education; Vecko Zdravevski, For the first time, candidates for political scientist from Kicevo; Tome Presidential and Local Elections Adziev, attorney-at-law from Bitola are obliged to submit statements on - all nominated by VMRO-DPMNE; non-collaboration with the secret Spendi Vinca from the Public police. (“Dual elections scheduled Broadcasting Service; Daut Dauti, for 22nd March 2009”, Utrinski vesnik, journalist from Skopje – nominated 9.1.2009) by DUI; former MP Blagoja Gesovski, graduated defectologist, and Janake As regards the establishment of Vitanovski, graduated lawyer – Lustration Commission, Prime nominated by SDSM; and Cedomir Minister Gruevski expects opposition Damjanovski, employee at the parties SDSM and DPA to agree A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 57

Parliament – nominated by LDP. (“At verified by the elections’ onset.” last, lustration can start”, Utrinski (“First elections, then search for vesnik, 15.1.2009) snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 2.2.2009)

“But, who and when will International representatives Commission lustrate, given that requested the Albanian Government all eleven members are nominated to withdraw the Lustration Law by political parties? … Commission and postpone its enforcement until should have been an independent the Constitutional Court delivers and autonomous body, as stipulated its ruling in this matter. (“Europe by law… [according to current contests Albania’s lustration”, situation], odds are that instead Dnevnik, 13.2.2009) of fair, there will be political lustration.” (Olivera Vojnovska, Constitutional Court in Albania “Partisan Lustrators”, Utrinski reached a decision to halt vesnik, 15.1.2009) Lustration Law’s enforcement until it delivers a final ruling in this Agim Mehmeti: “I am convinced that matter. (“Albanian lustration halted the Commission would not succumb by Constitutional Court”, Dnevnik, to political pressures, if any; on the 16.2.2009) contrary, it will work in compliance with legislation, and honestly. All Two biggest political parties commissioners hold great personal started hunting snitches among integrity and credibility; I trust their opponents. (“Parties start to their professionalism.” (“Lustration lustrate opponents”, Utrinski vesnik, starts, snitches protected by 25.2.2009) political parties”, Utrinski vesnik, 19.1.2009) “Disastrous start of lustration! Contrary to legal provisions and Lustration Commission, established all norms governing democratic with consensus two weeks ago, behaviour, the ruling party puts cannot start its operation because on three hats: accusing, acting as it does not have premises, budget lustration commission and acting and necessary technical and as court.” (Predrag Dimitrovski, working conditions. (“Difficult “Government strikes lustration”, start of lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, Dnevnik, 25.2.2009) 26.1.2009) Stojan Andov: “If somebody disposes with certain information that is February 2009 deemed useful for the Commission, it should submit them, rather than Agim Mehmeti: “This is a new area wage war against these people of work, performed for the first in the public. Commission is the time; number of candidates is high single entity competent to declare and given the short period of time, whether someone had collaborated all statements cannot be objectively 58 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

with secret services or not… Commission President”, Utrinski Submission of false statements and vesnik, 20.3.2009) unauthorized publication of data are liable to imprisonment sentences. Aleksandar Bicikliski, VMRO- Nobody has the right to take the DPMNE’s spokesperson: „… In his law in its hands; such actions are testimony for daily Nova Makedonija, liable to criminal responsibility.“ and earlier in the weekly Fokus, (“Lustration is dangerous weapon Jordan Petrovski stated that he during election confrontations”, publicly raised an initiative to verify Utrinski vesnik, 26.2.2009) accuracy of Frckoski’s statement on non-collaboration (including “What was VMRO-DPMNE doing order-issuing) from ideological so far and why it did not exonerate reasons, and claimed that the Risto Siskov, but uses his tragic presidential candidate blatantly destiny for political confrontations, lied in his statement deposited with when it pleases?” (“Abuse of the State Electoral Commission lustration: why VMRO-DPMNE did (SEC).”(“VMRO-DPMNE opens fire to not exonerate Risto Siskov?”, Fokus, discredit Frckoski”, Utrinski vesnik, 27.2.2009). 26.3.2009)

Two days ago, Lustration March 2009 Commission was constituted in the Parliament, because its At last, Lustration Commission was premises in Public Broadcasting awarded office premises covering Service’s building are not an area of 350 square meters on adjusted for work. Commission’s 17th floor in Public Broadcasting President, Agim Mehmeti, says Service’s building. According to commissioners are expected to announcements, Commission obtain state secret certificates any should start its work in about day now. (“Lustration Commission two weeks, which will mark the is constituted”, Utrinski vesnik, institutional start of lustrations. 27.3.2009) (“Lustration Commission temporary accommodated in Public Broadcasting Service’s building”, April 2009 Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2009) During yesterday’s session in Agim Mehmeti: “In case it is Parliament, MPs unanimously established that certain elected approved the proposal to amend official had collaborated with the Lustration Law, with a view secret services, they will have to to specify commissioners’ status, resign from office. Pursuant to the Commission President’s term of Lustration Law, submission of false office, as well as law’s enforcement statement is liable to imprisonment period. Parliamentary Committee sentence in duration of up to one members accepted the amendment year.” (“Lustration starts with new proposed by MP Oliver Sambevski A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 59

related to extending law’s professor Zvonimir Jankulovski, “No enforcement period to 10 years. exculpation for any part of the past”, (“Who spreads fear among judges”, Spic, 2.6.2009) Utrinski vesnik, 22.4.2009) Jadranka Kostova: “If lustration fails Constitutional Court’s test, let us May 2009 reward snitches with a new law that would stipulate disclosure of their Amendments to Law on Additional names.” (Fokus, 5.6.2009) Criteria for Public Office Performance adopted by MPs Office equipment tender procedure yesterday govern the status of announced for Lustration Commission President, Deputy Commission falls through, while President and Members. This office Constitutional Court has not yet will be performed in professional scheduled preliminary hearing. manner and will not be compatible (“Lustration clinched between with performance of any other tenders and Constitutional Court”, profession. (“Lustration gets Utrinski vesnik, 14.6.2009) extension of ten years”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.5.2009) Stojan Andov: “Personal dossiers were compiled also in the period Lustration’s initiator, Stojan Andov, after 1991, for example, a dossier cannot explain why lustration exists for Filip Petrovski who has been side-tracked, but doubts was followed in the period 1997- there is no honest political will for 1998. This means that somebody its implementation. (“Manevski issued such orders. Law is good, requests lustrators to work under but it would detrimental if certain task contracts”, Utrinski vesnik, provisions are revoked.” (“Lustration 19.5.2009) clinched between tenders and Constitutional Court”, Utrinski Particularly interesting is the fact vesnik, 14.6.2009) that Commission tasked to “comb through” confidential documents is As of this month, Lustration accommodated in the building of a Commission members have the broadcasting operator. (“Lustration status of public servants and will shut-down at the very beginning”, be entitled to monthly salary in the Utrinski vesnik, 20.5.2009) amount of 60,000 MKD, pursuant to a coefficient set by Parliamentary June 2009 Committee on Elections and Appointments, i.e., they will be Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Non- reimbursed in an amount of three reformed secret police is yet average salaries. (“Lustration another reason why lustration clinched between tenders and cannot apply only to the period until Constitutional Court”, Utrinski 1991.” (Interview with university vesnik, 14.6.2009) 60 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

July 2009 these practices will be repeated.” (“New dossiers to be compiled, Lustration Commission members while old dossier still exist”, Spic, are entitled to salary in the 22.8.2009). amount of around 60,000 MKD, although from January, when they Gorgi Malkovski says that in were appointed to office, they did Macedonia there are 36,000 not work and according to their dossiers in total, 16,000 of which announcements, unlikely is that are of ideological reasons and are their work will start before October. currently stored at the Archive, (“Lustrators on payroll, snitches while the remaining 20,000 catch a breath”, Spic, 6.7.2009) dossiers concern inmates from “Idrizovo”: “These dossiers do not Gorgi Malkovski: “Office premises include ones kept for operational are expected to be ready by purposes at the Administration for mid-September and only then Security and Counterintelligence Commission can start verifying (DBK). Of course, some dossiers are statements. It is a matter of kept at private archives, but their very sensitive materials and one number remains unknown to us. office at the ARM’s Hall, where Nevertheless, what we need and the Commission is currently what the public should know is that accommodated, does not allow many dossiers are currently located reviewing such confidential in Belgrade. They are kept in full documents.” (“Lustration starts format, due to reciprocal approach from high state functionaries”, that existed in former Yugoslavia. Utrinski vesnik, 27.7.2009) We do not know their number, current state they are in and Yesterday, Parliamentary Committee persons for whom these dossiers for Elections and Appointments were compiled.” (“Lustration adopted a decision on appointing dossiers are in Belgrade”, Utrinski Spend Dimca new President and vesnik, 31.8.2009) Cedomir Damjanovski Deputy President of the Commission for Verification of Facts. (“Crvenkovski September 2009 to lead SDSM while benefiting from Instead of assuming that Belgrade presidential pension”, Utrinski would not hand over documents, vesnik, 31.7.2009) Lustration Commission should request cooperation with Belgrade- August 2009 based services. (Editor’s note, “Call Belgrade for lustration”, Utrinski Vladimir Milcin: “Given that vesnik, 1.9.2009) obligations stemming from Law on Access to Personal Dossiers remain First statement on non- unfulfilled and personal dossiers had collaboration with secret police was been tampered with, it is our belief submitted by Parliament Speaker A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 61

Trajko Veljanovski. Today at noon, In the first three days from Prime Minister and Leader of lustration’s start, almost half of the VMRO-DPMNE, Nikola Gruevski, total of 250 state functionaries from also submitted his notary-certified the first cycle, submitted statements statement, followed by MPs from to the Commission for Verification SDSM and DUI. (“Macedonia starts of Facts. (“Almost all MPs attest to lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 1.9.2009) not having snitched”, Utrinski vesnik, 3.9.2009) Stojan Andov: “Dossiers for all citizens of Macedonia compiled Lustration Commission confirms during the former political system that most dossiers in original do exist in our country, in original or copy remained at archives or copy. Even in the case if a dossier in Belgrade. (Lustrators tangle kept for our citizen is kept at one themselves in blunders, process is of former Yugoslavia’ successors, uncertain”, Vecer, 4.9.2009) Macedonia disposes with a copy of the dossier. Therefore, raising Statements on non-collaboration doubts about documents is were not submitted by 37 mayors, completely unwarranted. It can three MPs and four members be interpreted as an excuse not to of Government. Constitutional implement lustration.” (“Macedonia Court judges and employees starts lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, at its administrative services 1.9.2009) (total of 18 persons) submitted their statements to Lustration Nikola Gruevski: “It’s good for the Commission on own initiative. In process to start, in order to clarify the meantime, lustrators obtained matters and close one black chapter special certificates that allow them in our political history, which to work with confidential materials. would make us stronger and more (“Mayors lustrated in the nick of confident in future endeavours.” time”, Utrinski vesnik, 30.9.2009) Yesterday, Lustration Commission members, including professor Jovan Trpenovski, last Minister Malkovski, stood behind Prime of Interior during socialism: Minister Gruevski and affirmatively “According to its jurisdiction, the nodded their heads while he was service was divided into federal giving statements for the press. and republic departments, but neat (“Macedonia starts lustration”, documentation was kept at both Utrinski vesnik, 1.9.2009) levels. Records were kept for both levels of operations, which by late Lustration Commission and the 80s and early 90s were dislocated Archive of Macedonia distanced from the Republic Council of themselves from statements issued Internal Matters to places that I by Malkovski. (“Belgrade divides would not like to discuss.” (“Trails lustrators”, Utrinski vesnik, 2.9.2009) exist to all snitches”, Dnevnik, 3.9.2009) 62 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Pavle Trajanov: “Trails for all irrevocably distance himself from collaborators to former State the Encyclopaedia, and Suljeman Security Service exist in records kept Rusti says: “he does not want to by the Administration for Security believe that distorted facts from and Counterintelligence (DBK); they the Encyclopaedia are actually a exist in the form of microfilms, follow-up to 2001 events, when the datacentre entries or hand-written Macedonian Academy of Science notes kept by the services. [This and Art (MANU) presented indecent is due to the fact] that checks for proposals… We will propose collaborators to federal level State amendments to Lustration Law Security Service were performed by and will request MANU members people from the republic level State to be lustrated, because the Security Service.” (“Trails exists to public must be acquainted with all snitches”, Dnevnik, 3.9.2009) their biographies.” (“Gruevski tacit about reactions triggered by In October 1991, two months prior Encyclopaedia”, Dnevnik, 22.9.2009) to the tragic death of the first Minister of Interior in pluralistic Round Table “20 Years after the Macedonia, certain organizational fall of the Berlin Wall: Dismantling units at MOI had prepared special the Heritage”, organized by the information on collaborators to Konrad Adenauer Foundation former Counterintelligence Service and the Institute for Democracy, (KOS) who operated on the territory and dedicated to lustration and of Macedonia. (“Trails exist to all experiences from Germany and snitches”, Dnevnik, 3.9.2009) Albania (“Berlin Wall looms over Macedonians”, Dnevnik, 24.9.2009) Aleksandar Dinevski, who at the time when information was Vladimir Milcin: “One name from prepared acted as assistant the eight officers who processed commander in MOI’s analytics me was missing. His name was unit: “As far as I recollect, the list blackened with a felt-tip pen. How included around 96 persons from will the Commission identify this various security, political and person now?” Milcin refers to economic structures. At that time, tempering with personal dossiers, they all held management positions indicating that true lustration is and were members of the two possible only in a society governed leading political parties. Today some by the rule of law. (“Berlin Wall of them hold political offices, while looms over Macedonians”, Dnevnik, others are close associates to Prime 24.9.2009) Minister Nikola Gruevski.” (“Trails exist to all snitches”, Dnevnik, Reply from the Archive of 3.9.2009) Macedonia’s Director, Zoran Todorovski: “If you wish to learn Democracia e Re (New Democracy) the names of your snitches, visit also requests Gruevski to us. Archive keeps all original A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 63

documents intact.” (“Berlin Wall should concern the single-party looms over Macedonians”, Dnevnik, system: “This process must end 24.9.2009) with the beginning of pluralism. If it continues in the period during the Aleks Bukarski: “Politicians who 90s, it would be counterproductive immediately after 1991 failed and the entire process would be to introduce lustration and turned backwards.” (“Andov defends denationalization cannot be part of lustration before constitutional today’s political scene, regardless judges”, Utrinski vesnik, 6.10.2009) of how hard they try to convince us in their pro-European positions.” According to professor Ilo (Aleks Bukarski, “Euro-Accelerator”, Trajkovski, Lustration Law is Dnevnik, 28.9.2009) acceptable and assists democratic processes… In support of lustration, Trajkovski refers to statements October 2009 given by former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, ”poor Zarko Trajanovski: “Such ‘secret lustration law is better than no law”. trials’ where only Commission for (“Andov defends lustration before Verification of Facts has access to constitutional judges”, Utrinski ‘facts’ from state security services vesnik, 6.10.2009) is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights Zvonimir Jankulovski: “If (ECHR), i.e., principle on ‘equality Constitutional Court does not of arms’. Documents that concern revoke the law and approves operations of former communist lustration to be applied the period security services “should not be from August 1944 until change of classified, because that would system in 1991, it would - in fact - imply denied access for concerned agree that the former system was parties and would deprive them of repressive and undemocratic, but possibilities to contest the version of would exculpate new ‘collaborators’. facts presented by security services.” Fact is that even after 1991 (Zarko Trajanovski, “Lustration dossiers were kept for political Diary”, Dnevnik, 6.10.2009) and ideological reasons, which is contrary to the Constitution,; Professor Ljubomir Frckoski fact is that we have non-reformed believes Lustration Law is not in services and political dissidents; conflict with the Constitution and and therefore, lustration’s time serves the purpose of “eradicating scope was extended until the law’s hypocrisy of having human right enactment.” (“Lustration gets its violators from one system to own dossier”, Dnevnik, 8.10.2009) perform public offices in another system.” However, Frckoski is of Zoran Todorovski: “From 1991 the standing that lustration should onwards, around one thousand be pursued narrowly, i.e., applied dossiers were compiled from only to most exposed officials and 64 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

ideological and political reasons, Jadranka Kostova: “At least three which is contrary to the people in Gruevski’s government Constitution. Someone has taken and two advisors to Gorge Ivanov upon itself to determine who state are snitches?!” (Fokus, 16.10.2009) enemy is and, worse so, nobody was held responsible for such actions.” Ivica Bocevski: “...lustration (“Lustration gets its own dossier”, process will individualize culprit Dnevnik, 8.10.2009) for historical injustices during Macedonian totalitarianism; it will Zoran Todorovski: “Lustration show that new liberal-democratic does not concern those who have order breaks up with bad habits of behaved patriotically towards their past, through the institutions and country, were secret collaborators by rigorous adherence to the rule and reported on terrorist activities. of law principle, rather than by It rather concerns snitching from ‘revolutionary justice’ and systemic material and carrier-advancement violation of human rights on behalf purposes, and snitching that of secret services.” (Ivica Bocevski, concerns a person’s integrity.” former Deputy Prime Minister for (“If not legal, there will be street European Integration, “Lustration lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, in Wonderland”, Fokus, 16.10.2009) 8.10.2009) Janko Bacev: ”…by revoking Ilija Dimovski: Content- and Lustration Law, constitutional amendment-related changes made judges might unconsciously enable in parliamentary procedure and Macedonian citizens to finally enjoy concerning Lustration Law resulted true lustration process. Every cloud in fatal dismay way before law’s has a silver lining.” (Janko Bacev, entry into effect. (Ilija Dimovski, People’s Movement of Macedonia, “Lustrating Lustration”, Utrinski “Seven political parties in Gruevski’s vesnik, 12.10.2009). coalition are established by secret police”, Fokus, 16.10.2009) Ljubomir D. Frckoski: “If today, during pluralist times, someone Stojan Andov proposes “publication from the police or the government of the list of collaborators to illegally keeps dossiers or has secret services in Macedonia and otherwise violated the law, he/ Yugoslavia, who – back in 1991, were she should be brought to court elected Members of Parliament and and tried pursuant to existing Government.” Andov argues that legal incriminations, rather than “indisputably, such peopled do exist” subjected to ‘lustration’,” (Ljubomir and provides examples of two MPs D. Frckoski, “YES to lustration, (one from VMRO-DPMNE) who have NO to instilling hate”, Dnevnik, confided with him that they are 12.10.2009) still in the grips of secret services. (“Stojan Andov: VMRO-DPMNE’s ‘lions’ should ask themselves why A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 65

nobody reveals collaborators to statements submitted by 60 public secret services from Nikola Kljusev’s officials from the first round government?”, Fokus, 30.10.2009) that encompassed around 260 persons.” (“Prime Minister conspires lustrators’ replacement”, Utrinski November 2009 vesnik, 23.12.2009)

Stojan Andov: “Secret services In his first annual address to bestowed VMRO-DPMNE with the the nation, President Gorge role of ‘exclusive defendants’ of Ivanov committed to lustration national interests.” (Fokus, 6.11.2009) implementation: “This is a year when lustration’s implementation Dragan P. Latas writes a column to finally starts. Citizens have the disgrace Ljube Boskovski. (Dragan P. right to know who addresses them, Latas, “Snitch”, Vecer, 30.11.2009). who offers political solutions and who wishes to speak on their December 2009 behalf.” (“Prime Minister conspires lustrators’ replacement”, Utrinski Gruevski is dissatisfied with vesnik, 23.12.2009) lustration’s dynamics, and points to Commission as main culprit. (“Prime Stojan Andov: “Lustration must not Minister conspires lustrators’ be politicized; appointment of new replacement”, Utrinski vesnik, commissioners would imply exactly 23.12.2009) that.” (“Lustration must not be politicized”, Dnevnik, 24.12.2009) Stojan Andov: “As far as I know, Commission is still accommodated Next year’s state budget increases in two offices at ARM’s Hall and funds allocated for lustration unknown is when new premises will implementation by ten times be ready. Moreover, Commission compared to this year’s budget, and has not established its technical reaches a sum of over one million and administrative units and has EUR. (“Lustration must not be insufficient funds.” (“Prime Minister politicized”, Dnevnik, 24.12.2009) conspires lustrators’ replacement”, Utrinski vesnik, 23.12.2009) January 2010 Spendi Vinca: “We have excellent Ivica Bocevski: “Lustration sends cooperation with competent strong message that all actions of institutions, i.e., Administration for public office holders will one day be Security and Counterintelligence disclosed, as well as that they are (UBK), Counterintelligence liable to political (and maybe even to Department at Ministry of criminal) liability. In that, lustration Defence, Intelligence Agency and process enables individualized State Archive. First, we lustrated culprit for historical injustices ourselves, and now we examine made during the totalitarian rule 66 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

in Macedonia, and will show that At yesterday’s promotion of new liberal-democratic order Commission’s new premises, located breaks up with bad habits of past, on 17th floor in Public Broadcasting through institutions and by rigorous Service’s building, Spendi Vinca, adherence to the rule of law President of the Commission for principle, rather than ‘revolutionary Verification of Facts, announced justice’ and systemic violation of that total of 61 public functionaries human rights on the part of secret passed the lustration test and no services.” (“Ivica Bocevski: Judges person was called for interview wait for headquarters’ call”, Fokus, or was requested additional 8.1.2010) information. (“No snitches in high state echelons”, Utrinski vesnik, Two days ago, Ljube Boskovski’s 15.1.2010) political party accused that “high state and ruling structures, as well Spendi Vinca: “People want names. as parliament opposition, include In our country, if someone is people who would be targeted by declared hero in the day, the same Lustration Law”. (“Lustrators deny person is considered traitor in the being pressured”, Utrinski vesnik, evening.” (“No snitches in high state 14.1.2010). echelons”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.1.2010).

Spendi Vinca, President of the Ivica Bocevski: “At the moment, any Lustration Commission: “So far, interference in lustration matters there are no pressures from the on the part of executive authorities government, or the opposition; and political parties could be Commission firmly stands on the counterproductive and endanger position that it would not succumb this process.” (“Ivica Bocevski: Black to any pressures.” (“Vinca: no stains in Macedonia’s contemporary pressures for lustration”, Dnevnik, history must be clarified, they have 14.1.2010) been kept under carpet for too long“, Fokus, 15.1.2010) Stojan Andov: “Political parties are not covered by the law; it does Zarko Trajanovski: “Many not stipulate any competences or malevolents are unhappy because responsibilities [for them]. If they lustration did not target the Minister dispose with certain documents, of Justice, whose biography says I recommend my colleagues from “has worked at Public Prosecution United for Macedonia to hand of Republic of Macedonia for them over to the Commission in more than 28 years”. What were individual capacity, and not in they thinking; that our socialist capacity of political party.” (“Vinca: prosecutors had violated human no pressures for lustration”, rights from political or ideological Dnevnik, 14.1.2010) reasons? In defiance of these malevolents, Commission verified the unquestionable “fact” that A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 67

nobody among current functionaries the manner in which lustration had consciously collaborated in is pursued does not provide violating or restricting fundamental possibilities to see matters through rights and freedoms of citizens from and sanction actual informants.” political or ideological reasons! If (“Journalists start lustrating among Commission continues to verify themselves”, Utrinski vesnik, “facts” with the same dynamic, it 19.1.2010) might turn out that we have lived in the most righteous system possible.” Surprising is the rapid reaction (Zarko Trajanovski, “Righteous by the Ministry, which put its Smallville”, Dnevnik, 19.1.2010). machinery into operation and combed the entire archive of In its holiday issue, daily Vreme Administration for Security and published a cover story “Latas Counterintelligence (UBK) in a collaborated with Serbia’s secret matter of hours, in order to issue a services” and disclosed a document document stating that information of Administration for Security and exists on the collaboration of a Counterintelligence that provides particular person with foreign detailed description of the fact services. (Olivera Vojnovska, that, ten years ago, editor-in-chief “Macedonia in Spy-Thriller Mode”, at TV Sitel and daily Vecer allegedly Utrinski vesnik, 20.1.2010) “participated in preparations for demonstrations and arsons in Gordana Jankuloska: “MOI front of US Embassy in Skopje”. guarantees truthfulness of its (“Journalists start lustrating among document submitted to Dragan themselves”, Utrinski vesnik, Pavlovik – Latas, editor at TV Sitel 19.1.2010) and daily Vecer. We do not take sides, lie and fabricate evidence for Latas: “I will go to Belgrade and anybody’s interest.” (“MOI does not demand them to react, because fabricate evidence for anybody”, the writings also implicated the Utrinski vesnik, 22.1.2010). Embassy of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and purposefully create Jadranka Kostova: “Latas is the conflicts with our neighbour.” first journalist who holds written (“Journalists start lustrating among evidence on clean dossier - such themselves”, Utrinski vesnik, ground-breaking evidence of purity 19.1.2010) was published by Bojo Andreevski’s daily Vecer in protection of its Goran Mitevski, former Director editor-in-chief. If this is not of Administration for Security and exception, some sort of special Counterintelligence (UBK): “Obvious ‘purification’ procedure, then all is that documents are selectively journalists can easily solve their presented. The Administration holds lustration issues, by requesting such the key … My working experience deed of purity from Mijalkov and at the Administration tells me that Jankuloska.” (“Jadranka Kostova: 68 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

pitiful Macedonia if the person who would be imposed and would rocked Branko and Bucko’s boat, include tampering with dossiers. as well as Ljubco and Grujo’s boat, False, construed, but also accurate was indeed a Serbian spy!”, Fokus, documents will be revealed in 22.1.2010) public, on the detriment of general spirit in society. Lustration Law From today and until 25th February, was to prevent personal attacks judges, attorneys general and and guarantee institutionalized prosecutors should present process.” (“Transitional snitches Commission for Verification of spared from lustration?”, Utrinski Facts with their notary-certified vesnik, 27.1.2010) statements on non-collaboration with secret services. (“Lustration Silvana Boneva, coordinator of of judges starts today”, Dnevnik, VMRO-DPMNE’s parliamentary 24.1.2010). group: “Having in mind that Constitutional Court’s current Trendafil Ivanovski: “...immediately composition was appointed during after first speculations in public Branko Crvenkovski’s political about alleged collaborators to zenith, VMRO-DPMNE believes secret services started, we decided that cancelling lustration’s scope to submit our statements. We of application after 1991 has one presented the Commission with goal only: to prevent Lustration our statements in the same period Commission and citizens in as Prime Minister and Ministers of Macedonia from learning whether Government.” (“Lustration in court, Crvenkovski and other SDSM judges to be lustrated”, Dnevnik, officials, who controlled secret 25.1.2010). services, have actually used these structures against their political Constitutional Court is uncertain opponents.“ (“Constitutional Court whether 17 years of transition in accused of protecting Crvenkovski’s Macedonia, i.e., from Constitution’s snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 29.1.2010) adoption until January 2008, should be subject to lustration. Yesterday, Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Lustration’s Court initiated a procedure on fiasco would inevitably trigger examining constitutionality of four personal vendettas; dossiers would articles from Lustration Law and start appearing in mail boxes, at prohibited enforcement of these front doors and at offices. Instead provisions until its final decision of having a channelled process, which is expect within two months lustration will take the street and the latest. (“Transitional snitches gain an undesired dimension.” spared from lustration?”, Utrinski (“Constitutional Court accused of vesnik, 27.1.2010) protecting Crvenkovski’s snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 29.1.2010) Stojan Andov: “Should lustration fails, new, street-based lustration A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 69

Group of citizens whose family concerning abuse of office and members and close relatives were authorization at state security libelled, imprisoned, persecuted services by ‘lustration’? These and convicted by former regime’s acts should be resolved by court secret services strongly oppose proceedings, where the court, by Constitutional Court’s decision. means of court orders, would obtain (“Group of citizens against dossiers and lists of collaborators, Constitutional Court”, Utrinski in a much more effective vesnik, 31.1.2010) manner than any committee in Parliament.” (Ljubomir D. Frckoski, “Cooperative”, Dnevnik, 1.2.2010) February 2010 Marjan Madzovski: “Lustration Prime Minister Gruevski says Law is a form of prevention again his VMRO-DPMNE is the biggest continuous human rights violation supporter of lustration and by different entities that have such announces “[they] will continue possibilities, but are exempted to seek alternatives to resolve from criminal or political liability. the matter, because process’s Actually, the legal provision on termination would mean moving lustration’s time scope beyond forward chins up, but chained feet.” 1991 should bring additional (“Is lustration missing the target?”, guarantees that human right would Utrinski vesnik, 1.2.2010). not be continuously violated.” (“Government hesitates about Boris Kondarko: “During your four- lustration”, Dnevnik, 3.2.2010) year term of office as Minister in the past and as Prime Minister in Trajko Veljanovski: “If last four years, Administration for Constitutional Court’s decision Security and Counterintelligence remains in effect, Commission’s and (UBK) is headed by your closest law’s future existence are brought relative, Saso Mijalkov, while MOI is under question; we would reach managed by your right-hand person, a point where media implements Gordana Jankuloska. Nothing lustration, instead of an official prevents you from gaining access, authority.” (“Government hesitates insight and control over secret about lustration”, Dnevnik, 3.2.2010) services. Stop manipulating the public in Macedonia and stop hiding Constitutional Court in Albania behind Lustration Law. If you deem rejected Lustration Law after it was necessary and wish to punish those presented with the opinion of Venice who allegedly abused office, you can Commission, which is advisory body do that immediately.” (“Is lustration to Council of Europe. (“Government missing the target?”, Utrinski vesnik, hesitates about lustration”, Dnevnik, 1.2.2010). 3.2.2010)

Ljubomir D. Frckoski: “Why should a democratic state resolve affairs 70 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Bishop Timotej: “Existing law if they do exist, and to initiate exempts priests from obligation adequate criminal procedures? Who to submit statements on non- are you lying to and fooling with collaboration with secret services. such statements and construed We are ready to waive this accusations?... Mr. Gruevski, why exemption and have the law apply should we influence Constitutional also to our members.” (“Bishops to Court to contest a legal provision we be lustrated”, Dnevnik, 3.2.2010) proposed in the first place.” (“SDSM suspects Gruevski of intercepting On the initiative of Parliament people”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.2.2010). Speaker, Trajko Veljanoski, it has been agreed to task an expert group with drafting a response March 2010 to Constitutional Court’s decision “Parliament reacts to Constitutional and submit it within law-stipulated Court’s decision on lustration” deadline of 30 days. (“Parliament (Utrinski vesnik, 2.3.2010) to defend lustration before Constitutional Court”, Utrinski [Constitutional] Court believes that vesnik, 4.2.2010). lustration should not be applied to 17-years transitional period in Nikola Popovski: “Are Prime Macedonia, notably because it Minister and his party courageous deems that the new Constitution enough to look truth in the eyes and has established democratic order blame Constitutional Court for the and guarantees fundamental human fact that their and other Members rights. Also, Court finds publication of Parliament and of Government, of names of snitches in the held high police and secret service Official Gazette to be problematic, positions in socialism (which is since such act would be equal to the cause of today’s lustration), stigmatization of persons concerned. together with other formal and Moreover, it does not agree with informal magnates of that time. lustration of citizens’ associations Constitutional Court has nothing and religious communities, as the to do with that. Lustration Law is Constitution guarantees right to created to prevent lustration of free association and clearly defines today’s system, i.e., of those who religious communities as separate truly deserve to be lustrated.” from the state. (“Transitional (Nikola Popovski, “Enemy no. 1”. snitches spared from lustration”, Dnevnik, 4.2.2010) Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2010) Branko Crvenkovski: “Who Silvana Boneva: “We are convinced prevented you before, and in last that Constitutional Court wants to four years when you have complete harness Macedonian democracy, power, when you dispose with all and keep it hostage to the cobweb archives, dossiers and documents, weaved by collaborators to secret to disclose and even abuse snitches, services. People from secret services A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 71

strike back, together with their law’s adoption, implementation collaborators who continued to procedure and like, but my snitch, violate human rights, destroy impression is that no legal people’s lives and wage war against arguments are presented for political opponents even after 1991.” matters that were deliberated [by (“Transitional snitches spared Constitutional Court] in regard to lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2010) their constitutionality. I believe that the response should be made Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Obvious is available in public. For example, that somebody wants to protect Parliament, in its response, states someone. Constitutional Court ‘in constitutional and legal terms, seems to have no problem with one cannot contest law’s time this role. In this way, the legal scope’.... That cannot be considered process that allowed soft lustration legal argument.” (“Lustration to would now be transformed into apply only to communism”, Dnevnik, uncontrolled street-based process. 24.3.2010) Thus, instead of the Official Gazette, names of snitches would Judge Igor Spirovski: “Parliament’s be published in the media.” response underlines that Lustration (“Transitional snitches spared from Law should rectify political affairs lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2010) after the independence, something that the state has not been able to Stojan Andov: “Law’s provision on do from reasons unknown to me, historical time of collaboration although it disposed with relevant that will be subject to lustration instruments.” (“Lustration to apply was revoked, but there are no only to communism”, Dnevnik, other obstacles for lustration to be 24.3.2010) applied for law’s validity period.” (“Transitional snitches spared from “Constitutional Court demonstrated lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2010) it is not immune and fully depends on influences from anti-democratic Marjan Madzovski: “Constitutional structures and installations,” – Court’s decision practically extends stresses the representative of law’s scope of application to citizens who protest in front of collaborators, order-issuers and Constitutional Court. (“Lustrators information users by additional uncertain about lustration’s time years and corresponds to law’s scope”, Utrinski vesnik, 25.3.2010) validity period”. (“Transitional snitches spared from lustration”, Silvana Boneva: “We are all brave Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2010) people and should make sure that lustration continues.” (“Parliament Trendafil Ivanovski: “[the] response has final say in lustration’s is 17 pages long and provides implementation”, Utrinski vesnik, details on the necessity to pursue 26.3.2010) lustration, motives behind 72 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Legal Crvenkovski acted as Prime Minister. security of those who violated These people must have known human rights during the former about secret police’s activities.” regime is the source of legal Bicikliski calls Crvenkovski to insecurity for citizens and vice answer who endorsed orders that versa. In the context of these resulted in human rights violations. two types of legal security, (“Who manipulates secret services Constitutional Court of Republic of more”, Utrinski vesnik, 29.3.2010) Macedonia - in an attempt to justify the right to lustration - actually SDSM’s press release, Gordan protected denunciators and gave Georgiev: “Fact that SDSM them primacy over civil society’s requested lustration’s time scope security.” (Zvonimir Jankulovski, to be extended to present renders “Constitutional Court between Law Gruevski’s and VMRO-DPMNE’s and Politics”, Dnevnik, 26.3.2010) thesis ridiculous and cheap. We remind Gruevski that from Silvana Boneva: “Snitches and 1991 onwards, the Constitution order-issuers continued to operate. prohibits abuse of secret services They are offended by this liberal and considers such acts as criminal law, only because they are still in compliance with Criminal infiltrated in the system.” (Public Code. Why are you attempting to debate on Lustration Law, organized manipulate the public? For four by Institute “Pavel Satev”, Vecer, years now, it is you who holds Prime 27.3.2010) Minister’s office, while your family manages the secret services.” (“Who Ilija Dimovski: “Constitutional manipulates secret services more?, Courts demonstrates a big Utrinski vesnik, 29.3.2010) truth…. that immediately after the Constitution was adopted (November 1991), Macedonia became April 2010 a democratic state overnight… Yes, Lustration Commission urges in times of democracy, Ministers citizens to submit any documents of Interior in several SDSM-led they hold and might implicate governments issued orders for public functionaries, if they exist. political opponents’ interception (“Lustrators seek citizens’ help”, and following. There is much Utrinski vesnik, 21.4.2010) evidence for these abuses.” (Ilija Dimovski, “Antihuman Crimes”, Stojan Andov: “Commission needs Utrinski vesnik, 28.3.2010) to establish whether a document is authentic, and if so, it can be taken VMRO-DPMNE’s press release: “In into consideration. Also, it should the period from 1992 until 1998, the inquire why given document is not office Minister of Interior was held available at Administration for by Ljubomir Frckoski and Tomislav Security and Counterintelligence Cokrevski. In the same period, (UBK) and for how long.” A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 73

(“Lustrators seek citizens’ help”, underground atmosphere exists Utrinski vesnik, 21.4.2010) and changes things”: “Lustration is now pursued by former employees in the services, as they write about May 2010 given people in the media. Without broad opening of archives to scholar At the round table organized by work and without exoneration Conrad Adenauer Foundation and for victims, we cannot assess the weekly Forum, it was said that present, or even anticipate the lustration is reduced to verification future.”(“Lustration as slow as of facts and gathering of statements, transition”, Dnevnik, 27.5.2010) in the absence of true will to dismantle the past. (“New law for Utrinski vesnik: It has been brought successful lustration”, Utrinski to our knowledge that doubts vesnik, 27.5.2010) have been raised about seven or eight public figures that had their Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Process is statements verified as part of this running in the spot, as desired and cycle, indicating that they sustained accomplished by certain structures.” themselves and advanced their (“New law for successful lustration”, careers by snitching. However, both Utrinski vesnik, 27.5.2010) documents necessary to establish their status of collaborators Janake Vitanovski, President to secret security services are of the Lustration Commission: missing from their dossiers, which “Law provides an opportunity, ultimately led to lustrators’ decision but is implemented sluggishly, to declare these people as “clean”. just as transition. Nevertheless, It is a matter of written consent Commission has capacity to fully whereby a person accepts to act as implement the law.“ (“New law informant to state security services for successful lustration”, Utrinski and decision issued by secret vesnik, 27.5.2010) services’ officer on accepting the Jadranka Kostova: “Lustration Law’s person as informant and awarding provisions that stipulate opening of him/her pseudonym. In the absence dossiers and high fines in practice of these crown evidence from the protect snitches and collaborators personal dossiers that were subject to secret services from ideological of reviews, it had been impossible and political reasons. That is why to identify snitches among we need new law that would not current politicians in Macedonia. prohibit, but truly de-conspire in (“Pseudonyms exists, names of normal procedure.“ (“Lustration snitches don’t”, Utrinski vesnik, as slow as transition”, Dnevnik, 31.5.2010) 27.5.2010) Pavle Trajanov: “Dossiers are being Stojan Andov assesses that, contrary cleared on permanent basis and as to political consensus, “certain soon as a person is no longer active, 74 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

his/her dossier is destroyed. Some (Slobodan Najdovski, “Lustration of dossiers are kept. This was regulated ‘Contemporary Snitches’”, Utrinski by means of Administration for vesnik, 31.5.2010) Security and Counterintelligence’s internal acts and relevant bylaws. Dnevnik: To our knowledge, Certain trails can be found, but lustrators asked the Administration without reliable document verifying for Security and Counterintelligence that a person had collaborated with (UBK) to disclose names and secret services, such collaboration surnames of people behind cannot be proved. When the law pseudonyms, but were denied such was adopted, we were euphoric information with the explanation about dismantling our heritage of that it is a matter of extremely the past… In essence, the law is confidential documents that drafted in a manner that protects concern state security; hence the certain people in the political dilemma whether pseudonyms establishment.” (“Pseudonyms include names and surnames of exists, names of snitches don’t”, people who still work at or are Utrinski vesnik, 31.5.2010) collaborators to secret services, but also appear as holders of state and Stojan Andov: “There must be a other public offices, or maybe even written consent that a person has current functionaries who passed agreed to collaborate with secret the lustration test. (“UBK protects services, otherwise people would snitches”, Dnevnik, 31.5.2010) be entrapped. Service operated on the basis of these consents and they do exist. There are also June 2010 documents indicating order-issuers. Jadranka Kostova: “…key factor in Trails cannot be fully destroyed, lustration is Administration for there is always some kind of trail Security and Counterintelligence left behind.” (“Pseudonyms exists, (UBK). Commission depends names of snitches don’t”, Utrinski on information provided by vesnik, 31.5.2010) the Administration. Fact that commissioners cannot check Slobodan Najdovski: “...today, it documents in person, but submit is funny to see representatives requests for information speaks from ruling majority who criticize that Commission is in subordinated Constitutional Court’s decision, position.” (“Services in service of which is identical to government’s snitches”, Dnevnik, 1.6.2010) opinion. Back then, when in opposition, they did not agree Hristo Ivanovski: “…lustrators will with government’s position and only learn snitches’ pseudonyms, conditioned lustration law’s but not their names. Snitches adoption with a proposal to have remain protected, while the public the law’s timer scope defined wonders who they were.” (Hristo until the day of its adoption.” A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 75

Ivanovski, “Lustration Camouflage”, services were submitted by 1.6.2010) 2,514 public officials. Lustration Commission announced that it Pavle Trajanov: “[to prove verified 287 statements. (“Who collaboration] it is required to obtain will dismiss municipal councillors evidence that a person, by assigning who did not submit lustration his/her signature, committed to statements?”, Utrinski vesnik, collaboration, although he/she 4.7.2010) might have accepted to collaborate, but refused to attest it fearing possible consequences… Such people August 2010 are collaborators, but the law Janake Vitanovski: “…ten public stipulated that a collaborator is only office holders have suspicious a person who signed the consent dossiers, but there are insufficient form. How are we to distinguish evidence to prove they were between those who signed consents collaborators …” (“Snitches among and collaborated and those who Members of Parliament?”, Utrinski did not sign, but also collaborated? vesnik, 4.8.2010) A parallel can be drawn to couples living in registered and unregistered Lustration Commission asked unions. Responsibilities and MPs to initiate legislative changes consequences are the same.” that would enable it “to dispose (“Pavle Trajanov, former Minister with documents that lustrators of Interior: without evidence, are currently provided with by difficult is to determine who was four competent institutions, those collaborator”, Dnevnik, 2.6.2010) being: Archive of Macedonia, Administration for Security and 108 from total of 1,391 municipal Counterintelligence, Intelligence councillors, i.e., 7 percent of all Agency and Security and councillors, could have their terms Counterintelligence Department of offices revoked. Last Monday, at Ministry of Defence.” (“Snitches Commission for Verification of Facts among Members of Parliament?” adopted a decision that these people Utrinski vesnik, 4.8.2010) did not fulfil additional criteria for public office performance, because Janake Vitanovski, President of the they failed to submit notary-certified Lustration Commission, clarified statements on non-collaboration that Minister Jankuloska interfered with secret services. (“108 municipal in the docket related to journalist councillors are first victims of Dragan Pavlovik-Latas, when he was lustration”, Dnevnik, 16.6.2010) expressly issued a MOI-endorsed confirmation on not having spied for July 2010 foreign services: “Only Commission for Verification of Facts can Written statements on non- initiate procedure and determine collaboration with state security truthfulness of statements, no 76 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

other body is given such right or be reconsidered by MPs. I am jurisdiction. However, there was one concerned with Government’s such example, and if this practice boycott for the Commission. I do continues, we would have street- not know whether it is purposeful based, rather than institution-based or bureaucratic. Commission does lustration.”(“Jankuloska interferes not have employees or technical with lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, working conditions, and now 4.8.2010) Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (UBK) has an Lustrators complained in public that excuse to say Commission does Law on Additional Criteria for Public not have storage capacity to keep Office Performance prevents them documents.” (“Snitches more to browse archives and prove that powerful than lustrators”, Dnevnik, around ten current holders of public 5.8.2010) offices, seven or eight of which are MPs, were snitches. (“Lustrators as Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Clear is ‘paper-made tigers’”, Utrinski vesnik, that the concept of soft lustration 5.8.2010) does not provide any results… If we wish to pursue true lustration, we Ivica Bocevski: “We cannot allow need a different concept, i.e., hard this body to be turned into ‘paper- lustration, and only then it would made tiger’. In such case MPs, as become clear whether political will holders of state sovereignty, could be exists for this process.” (“Lustrators liable to coercion or we would have as ‘paper-made tigers’”, Utrinski MPs who gained office by ‘snitching’. vesnik, 5.8.2010) Such situations are serious threats to democratic process.” (“Lustrators Janake Vitanovski: “I had erroneous as ‘paper-made tigers’”, Utrinski information that Minister of vesnik, 5.8.2010) Interior issued a confirmation on non-collaboration with our Stojan Andov: “Even if they are services. Following reactions in granted full insight and access to public, I studied this matter in archives, what would they gain, details and based on information what would they see if allowed available I concluded that the inside? They should know how to person concerned was not subject browse archives, how to ‘comb of statement verification in the through’ documents and see capacity of public functionary. MOI whether and what is missing, is not competent for statement whether somebody is hiding facts verification. In this case the or refuses to disclose them, which person was issued confirmation is liable to sanctions in compliance on non-collaboration with foreign with the law. If Commission has services, which falls within MOI’s doubts, it should voice them. jurisdiction. Therefore, there was no Commission should present interference in our work. I repeat, the Parliament with a report to this was my personal position. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 77

From today’s point of view, it can (“Taci to sue lustrators”, Dnevnik, be stated that MOI did not interfere 13.9.2010) in Commission’s matters.” (“First lustrator was confused about MOI”, Tome Adziev, President of the Utrinski vesnik, 6.8.2010). Lustration Commission: “There is no such thing. We do not keep Olivera Vojnovska: “Pitiful sight dockets in drawers. All dockets of Janake Vitanovski, frightened and documents obtained from and fully broken in front of TV competent institutions are regularly cameras, mirrors our misery. It processed and reviewed.” (“Taci to took him 48 hours to completely sue lustrators”, Dnevnik, 13.9.2010) change his statement and admit that he disposed with “erroneous Yesterday, Rafis Aliti from DUI, information”! To make the Vice President of Parliament, irony greater, the person who commenting on DPA’s accusations was supplied with “erroneous that one MP from DUI is on the list information” chairs an institution of collaborators to secret services that should implement lustration. said that “[they] have no knowledge After last week’s ‘small incident’ (as about such thing”. (“DUI doesn’t one lustrator qualified Vitanovski’s hide snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, public address), disputable is 14.9.2010) whether commissioners are credible to continue lustrating. Moreover, Rafis Aliti, MP from DUI and can we trust them that when Vice President of Parliament: “As reviewing materials they had not signatory to Lustration Law, I been planted or have hidden certain believe that it is unjust to lustrate information.” (Olivera Vojnovska, those who had been discriminated “Ocean’s Lustrators!” Utrinski vesnik, or have accepted collaboration 9.8.2010). with secret services under duress. It is immoral and incorrect for modern day public officials, MPs and September 2010 snitches who collaborated after the 90s to be exempted from sanctions Ernad Fejzulahu, DPA’s General anticipated under Lustration Law. Secretary: “We will motion a lawsuit Law should be applicable to all who against Lustration Commission had collaborated until the day of if it does not perform work it is its adoption.” (“Snitches in political mandated with under the law and hoop”, Dnevnik, 14.9.2010) if it tries to make political bargains, in order to hide the fact that one Stojan Andov: “If today’s lustration MP from DUI had collaborated with proves to be unproductive and halts secret services. It is our hope that society’s purging, then we should Commission will not continue to reconsider and assume the approach hide this docket in its drawers.” applied in Bulgaria, and announced by Serbia, i.e., public disclosure 78 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

of snitches’ names.” (“Andov to no avail.“ (“Lustration becomes a to demand public disclosure of farce”, Dnevnik, 15.9.2010) snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 14.9.2010) Zoran Todorovski: “I would like Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski to underline law’s detrimental states his dissatisfaction with effects because it does not allow lustration’s dynamic and urges public disclosure of names of Lustration Commission to work persons who would be confirmed more energetically. (“Snitches in to have collaborated with secret DUI?”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.9.2010) services. This undermines lustration’s essence. Additionally, Ivica Bocevski: “Definitely, both the process is further undermined VMRO-DPMNE and SDSM, lack by Constitutional Court’s decision actual will for true lustration; on that lustration would be applicable the contrary, they are willing to only to the period until 1991. In my use the process for vilification of opinion, this decision was desired political opponents.” (“Lustration by lustration’s opponents.” (“Zoran becomes a farce”, Dnevnik, 15.9.2010) Todorovski, Director of the State Archive: suspicious dossiers are Luan Tresi, political spokesperson: thoroughly combed”, Dnevnik, “Once DUI acknowledged that 15.9.2010) at least one of its MPs had collaborated with secret services, Dnevnik: Constitutional Court judge we have decided not to disclose his is the first victim of lustration. name in public. We are giving the Contrary to political party Commission another possibility to announcements and pressures, perform its legal mandate and solve two MPs from ruling majority were this matter. Should it fail, DPA will saved from lustration in the nick motion criminal charges against of time and by outvoting, our party Commission members and will sources report. (“First snitch has reveal the name of DUI’s MP who been voted”, Dnevnik, 17.9.2010) was a snitch.” (“Lustration becomes a farce”, Dnevnik, 15.9.2010) Ivica Bocevski: “Any attempt for partisan or political abuse of the Tome Adziev: “We dispose with process threatens to turn it into facts and arguments and study witch hunt, which is what we need them. On that basis, we verify or the least in this stage.” (“First victim not statements submitted by public of lustration is judge?”, Utrinski functionaries or candidates for vesnik, 17.9.2010) public offices. We are not interested in anything else. Political parties Luan Tresi: “In a scandalous pursue their campaigns and that is manner, by voting as if they are their business. But, we cannot allow government and with seven votes for a person to be publicly labelled against, Lustration Commission attempted to save MP from DUI. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 79

By doing so, it became part of Zvonimir Jankulovski: daily political bargains, and DPA “Constitutional Court’s decision will motion criminal charges losses weight because a person against them”, Luan Tresi, DPA’s who was personally concerned spokesperson, says. (“DPA and DUI with lustration had participated in in squabble about snitches”, Utrinski decision-taking. This shows system’s vesnik, 20.9.2010) inconsistency and confirms the need for lustration not to be limited Tahir Hani: “DPA is spreading lies. only to acts committed until 1990.” It resorts to libels as a political (“Constitutional Court in conflict concept”, replies Tahir Hani, with lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, coordinator of DUI’s parliamentary 22.9.2010) group. (“DPA and DUI in squabble about snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, Stojan Andov: “If it is confirmed 20.9.2010) that the judge had collaborated with secret security services, it will cast Tome Adziev: ”…nobody knows a shadow on Constitutional Court’s how Commission Members voted, decision concerning lustration. because voting is secret”. (“DPA and This decision becomes problematic DUI in squabble about snitches”, also in light of the fact that one Utrinski vesnik, 20.9.2010) constitutional judge was personally affected by lustration. It turns out Utrinski vesnik: “…lustrators that Constitutional Court adopted prevented the judge to have insight the decision under questionable in data they used to confirm circumstances. We do not know his collaboration with secret votes’ breakdown and whether police, which greatly diminishes other judges were influenced in his chances to defend himself”. some way.” (“Constitutional Court (“Constitutional judge summoned in conflict with lustration”,Utrinski to declare whether he snitched”, vesnik, 22.9.2010) Utrinski vesnik, 21.9.2010) Marjan Madzovski: “This means that On journalist question whether MPs the judge had a personal motive were “saved” because of their short and could have guided discussions, collaboration with secret services, thereby influencing the final Adziev explained that Commission decision.” (“Constitutional Court in decides pursuant to several conflict with lustration”,Utrinski provisions from the law, including vesnik, 22.9.2010) those that stipulate that public functionary should have snitched Utrinski “unofficially” learns that for an uninterrupted period of time. constitutional judge has allegedly (“DPA sues Lustration Commission”, sinned during his high-school days, Dnevnik, 21.9.2010). in capacity of a member of branch organization called “United for Macedonia” that was advocating for 80 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

unification of ethnic Macedonia’s security services.” (“Georgievski territories. Once discovered, writes to Gruevski: why do you under pressure from the police, protect snitches?”, Utrinski vesnik, he was forced to disclose names of 22.9.2010). organizers. (“Judge asks to speak publicly about him being a snitch”, Nikola Gruevski: “I fully support Utrinski vesnik, 22.9.2010) this law. Those who comment the law today had an opportunity Ljubco Georgievski, in a letter during their governance to adopt addressed to Nikola Gruevski: and implement such legislation, “Nature of your motives behind but did not adopt or implemented law’s non-implementation are it. Today, those who implement the unknown to me, but fact is that law are being accused for that.” VMRO-DPMNE is the breaker (“Georgievski writes to Gruevski: of lustration in Macedonia and why do you protect snitches?”, prevents its adherent and principle- Utrinski vesnik, 22.9.2010) based implementation. Docket concerning your protection for Zoran Todorovski, Director of the journalist Dragan Pavlovik-Latas was Archive of Macedonia: “Once a grotesque, but recent obstructions snitch, always a snitch. As long as to Lustration Law become ever so one person in a given situation or tragic and represent serious attack period, regardless of the longevity, to democracy in Macedonia. I was had collaborated with secret unpleasantly surprised to learn that services, he/she cannot be exempted you reached an agreement with DUI from law-stipulated sanctions. to discontinue further proceedings Legal solutions must be applied in dockets concerning two MPs.” in his/her case and he/she cannot (“Georgievski writes to Gruevski: be exculpated. Inacceptable is the why do you protect snitches?”, Commission not to find former Utrinski vesnik, 22.9.2010). collaborators who hold public offices guilty.” (“All who snitched are Ljubco Georgievski clarifies that snitches”, Dnevnik, 22.9.2010) it is a matter of one MP from DUI and one MP from VMRO-DPMNE’s Stojan Andov: “According to coalition: “People, however, still voting’s outcome, obvious is that recollect his accentuated affiliation Commission Members were not able with VMRO-DPMNE’s Bulgarian to persuade one another. Whenever wing, and I remember that the said there is a voting process, certain person was appointed minister and people have doubts about it and most importantly, after his removal normal is for these doubts to be from office, played a major role clarified in court. According to the in VMRO-DPMNE’s buying of six law, those who have doubts, be it MPs in 2000. This means that at an individual or political party, and that time, we had a failed attempt possess documents, can initiate a for coup d’état organized by state court procedure, because the court A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 81

has the final say in determining gaining political points!” (“Ermira whether somebody was a snitch Mehmeti: when witch hunting or not.” (“All who snitched are becomes a political goal”, Spic, snitches”, Dnevnik, 22.9.2010) 23.9.2010.)

Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Snitch Filip Petrovski: “The old system is a snitch, irrespective of the continued to exist at least until fact whether he exercised this 1998, if not for longer. Hence, even activity once or hundred times… today there are rumours about a Commission determines facts, network of informants, snitches it does not vote.“ (“Lustration in all around us… Current status of government’s courtyard”, Utrinski lustration process is pitiful. After 65 vesnik, 23.9.2010) years of snitching, it has all come down to one or three snitches. Enjoy Ivica Bocevski: “This is a ridiculous the show! New snitches should not statement. Just as it is impossible worry, as it has been announced for a woman to be ‘little pregnant’, that the law will not only protect it is also impossible for somebody them, but reward them with to ‘have snitched a little’. Moreover, pension and insurance benefits for system is disputable as well. If there their ‘noble’ deeds.” (Filip Petrovski, were truly such things, then they “Monty Payton Lustration”, Utrinski are contrary to law’s underlying vesnik, 24.9.2010) logic. Existence of facts on somebody’s snitching is an objective Nikola Gruevski: “I would like reality; Commission can only verify to make it clear that VMRO- such facts, and not vote about them DPMNE and I, in the capacity of or express its opinion about nature its President, are the greatest of these facts. Hence, Commission supporters of lustration – time will owes an explanation in public about show that. There are no ‘deals’, speculations that surfaced and or bargains to protect people who concern alleged ‘voting’ for several violated human rights and destroyed MPs.” (“Lustration in government’s human destinies. Therefore, let courtyard”, Utrinski vesnik, us all support lustration, with 23.9.2010) public lists nonetheless and with announcements for the period until Ermira Mehmeti: “...the entire 2010, for all who hold public office, public is focused on Albanian but also societally responsible roles, political block, as if Albanians were immediately.” (“Gruevski demands the greatest collaborators to secret public lists of snitches; all snitches services! In this way, attention is must be disclosed, that is our goal!”, diverted from actual collaborators Utrinski vesnik, 24.9.2010). and regime’s victims are put in the spotlight. Such actions cannot Gorgi Malkovski, Member of the be qualified in any other way but Lustration Commission: “Based as witch hunt for the purpose of on documents obtained from 82 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Intelligence Agency, Administration DPMNE.” (“Constitutional judge to for Security and Counterintelligence defend himself in front of Lustration (UBK), Military Intelligence and Commission on Monday”, Vecer, State Archive we determined that all 24.9.2010) 120 Members of Parliament have not collaborated with secret services.” Jadranka Kostova: “Government (“On my honour, there are no nominated seven members to snitches!”, Spic, 24.9.2010). Lustration Commission, and known is that MP Ahmeti was saved thanks Cvetanka Ivanova, coordinator to seven votes against!” (“Jadranka of SDSM’s parliamentary group: Kostova: which former Vice “SDSM requests Lustration Law’s Presidents of VMRO-DPMNE was a adherent enforcement. We condemn snitch?”, Fokus, 24.9.2010) any political interference. SDSM has nothing to hide. There are no Trendafil Ivanovski, President of snitches among our members. We the Constitutional Court, denied will not comment on turmoil within in front of Lustration Commission VMRO-DPMNE.” (“Constitutional to have collaborated with secret judge to defend himself in front of services in the former system. Lustration Commission on Monday”, Ivanovski believes he is a victim of Vecer, 24.9.2010) politically motivated process. He confirmed that he was persecuted Roza Topuzovska – Karevska: for upholding ideas about “Commission follows political Macedonian people’s distinctiveness orders. This is another attempt and statehood. In those times, as he to devaluate the entire process. says, he was abused and terrorized, It has allowed for snitches to and state security services compiled sit in parliamentary benches.“ his dossier when he was a minor. (“Constitutional judge to defend (“Constitutional Court’s President himself in front of Lustration contests charges on having Commission on Monday”, Vecer, snitched”, Utrinski vesnik, 27.9.2010) 24.9.2010) Trendafil Ivanovski: “I categorically Ilija Dimovski: “VMRO-DPMNE has claim that both receipts in amount nothing to do with the previous of 10,000 dinars dated 1.12.1965 and system. Ljubco Georgievski, instead 20,000 dinars dated 25.5.1965 are of accusing, if in possession of forged either by service operatives certain information, must submit or those who submitted his dossier. them to the Commission. He There had been no collaboration, should also answer for his failure albeit the attempt to fabricate it, nor to implement lustration process had I enjoyed any material benefits when he was Prime Minister. or favours such as employment and Political protection of collaborators carrier advancement. Dossier clearly to secret services is unknown to indicates that there was no victim working principles upheld by VMRO- of alleged violations to fundamental A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 83

human rights, and ‘collaborator’ “he has no right to assess legitimacy himself is the only victim... Me of decisions taken by Constitutional being tortured and processed by Court, but rather to ensure their former state security services serves unhindered enforcement.” (“Prime current authorities to fabricate my Minister wages war against docket.” (“Trendafil Ivanovski: I am Constitutional Court”, Utrinski David, the other Goliath”, Utrinski vesnik, 28.9.2010) vesnik, 27.9.2010) Nikola Gruevski: “Until recently, we Silvana Boneva: “Everybody were criticized for not implementing should be lustrated until 2010 and lustration; now that lustration snitches’ names should be disclosed started, we are again criticized in public.” (“Who is Gruevski’s for its quality. Yesterday, I heard mole, SDMS asks”, Utrinski vesnik, comments and accusations and, as 27.9.2010) in many other cases before, Prime Minister is indicated as wrongdoer Andrej Petrov: “Which Lustration on duty. Whenever something Commission member told Gruevski negative is said about someone, about the person and his snitchers? Prime Minister is blamed, as if I Which Commission Members aided forced people to do things in their Gruevski in striking a deal with past.” (“Prime Minister wages war DUI for protection of two MPs from against Constitutional Court”, parliamentary majority? What Utrinski vesnik, 28.9.2010) is that if not abuse of executive power.“ (“Who is Gruevski’s mole, Todor Dzunov, former chair of the SDMS asks”, Utrinski vesnik, Constitutional Court and retired 27.9.2010) professor of international law: “Lustration Law creates a tool that Boris Stojmenov: “Whether or not could be used by political party somebody is a snitch or collaborator in power to persecute those who is determined by means of verifying are of different mind… A body documents. Three months ago, i.e., has been established, but without on 12th July, Commission issued judicial powers, and is comprised of a confirmation that I had not persons who lack legal knowledge collaborated with state security and relevant working experience. services and therefore I can perform Following verification of 3,300 my office as Member of Parliament. elected or appointed functionaries, No document contains my name.” the entire process has been reduced (“Stojmenov shows confirmation on to one President of Constitutional not being a snitch”, Utrinski vesnik, Court. Names are being hidden; 28.9.2010) decisions are taken by means of outvoting, and not on basis of Constitutional Court says Prime determining facts.” (“Prime Minister Minister acted beyond his wages war against Constitutional constitutional competences, because Court”, Utrinski vesnik, 28.9.2010)) 84 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Ivon Velickovski: “...’underground’ Constitutional Court’s control of politics and economy by communication: “Using one pending the services must be replaced with court case to stigmatize a collective civil oversight over security services body reminds us of events from the that protect constitutional order past that must not be replicated in and security of citizens and of state, a democratic society.” (“Lustration as a fundamental contribution and used to attack Constitutional Court”, for the purpose of liberating [the Dnevnik, 28.9.2010) business] from political clientelism.” (Ivon Velickovski, “Cleansing the Erwan Fouere, EU Ambassador: Delusions”, Spic, 28.9.2010) “On many occasions before, we expressed concerns about attacks Ljube Boskovski, in a letter targeting Constitutional Court’s addressed to Prime Minister: “Once credibility. It is our belief that such you complete lustration among attacks also undermine the rule your family, you should continue of law in Macedonia.” (“Fouere: with members of your political attacks targeting Constitutional party, Ministers and Members of Court undermine country’s image”, Parliaments. We assure you that Utrinski vesnik, 29.9.2010) you will have great results and excellent examples for lustration. Tome Adziev: “We listened to his Should you need any assistance with deposition, but are not obliged to information, we are here to help assess its contents. We assess data you and to offer certain materials or documents we dispose with that would make you realise that and are obtained from competent you are surrounded by suspicious authorities. His deposition was people. Actually, political party you centred on his agreement or lead, DPMNE, was turned into a nest disagreement with our conclusion, of collaborators to UDBA and KOS and he said he does not agree with (State Security Administration and it.“ (“Lustrators decide Ivanovski Counterintelligence Service), i.e., to was snitch”, Utrinski vesnik, former Yugoslav services.” (“I will 29.9.2010) give you documents about snitches in DPMNE”, Spic, 28.9.2010). Vladimir Milcin: “Compromise President of the Constitutional Ljubomir D. Frckoski: “DPMNE Court, and then delegitimize the made a monstrous, shameful and Court, and afterwards ‘torpedo’ hypocritical act typical for a furious, the Constitution - this is the motto self-obsessed party that believes it behind the bleakness that ascends can do anything and even change on us.” (Vladimir Milcin, “Lustration physics of facts, i.e., determine truth Night”, Spic, 29.9.2010) by voting!?” (Ljubomir D. Frckoski, “Homage to Hypocrites”, 28.9.2010) Andrej Petrov from SDSM: “VMRO- DPMNE and Gruevski are caught in a lie; they are passing the buck, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 85

because this process resembles me the victims that I had harmed street lustration; everyone who is by snitching and I will personally deemed as possible threat for the confront them and, if guilty, government must be eliminated, reimburse them.“ (“Ivanovski: my while Constitutional Court, which dossier had been tampered with”, operates in professional manner, Utrinski vesnik, 30.9.2010) must be tumbled down.” (“Two snitches needed in exchange for a Nikola Gruevski (when asked by constitutional judge”, Spic, 29.9.2010) Cvetanka Ivanova, coordinator of SDSM’s parliamentary group, Zarko Trajanoski: “Lustration should why does he comment pending be an instrument of transitional procedures): “Government justice, but what remains of justice implements all decisions taken by when dossiers kept by non-lustrated Constitutional Court and enables secret police start being treated conditions for its unhindered as source of absolute truth? What operation and decision-taking; remains of justice when the media however, as any other citizen of start hunting “snitches” at archives? Macedonia, I also have the right to What remains of justice when Prime express my own opinion, including Minister declares “snitches” before about court’s work and decisions.” a procedure in front of Commission (“Ivanovski: my dossier had been for Verification of ‘Secret Police’ tampered with”, Utrinski vesnik, Facts is initiated? What remains 30.9.2010) of justice when ‘democratic’ vote decides whether a person has been Stojan Andov: “There are many a collaborator? Is there anything dossiers that continued to be active more tragicomic than a Serbian after 1991, and - as such - they were propagandist (MOI-certified for not handed over to the Archive. On this being foreign spy), who publicly account, we need to intervene in the snitches the Constitutional Court law’s text, but with great caution.“ of being a “snitching” institution? (“Ivanovski: my dossier has been (Zarko Trajanoski, “Lustration tampered with”, Utrinski vesnik, Devours its Offspring”, Dnevnik, 30.9.2010) 29.9.2010) Tome Adziev: “Facts are always Trendafil Ivanovski: “I have neither determined by means of given consent, nor have I seen a majority vote, but in this case we written document confirming my unanimously reached the decision collaboration with the secret police. and all 11 Commission Members When I was high school student, decided that the constitutional judge back in the 60s, I was battered and does not fulfil additional criteria for persecuted for upholding ideas on public office performance.” (“Nikola Macedonia’s unification... Even Gruevski – judge, jury and executor”, the communist regime was more Spic, 30.9.2010) tolerant of people. Can someone tell 86 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Luan Tresi, DPA’s spokesperson: typed by UDBA (State Security “According to our knowledge, Administration) inspector, back in Taci’s dossiers were discussed by 1964 and 1965, which he forgot to Commission Members, although sign. How can they prove me being a they date back to the period that is collaborator to the secret police on not covered by lustration. This is the basis of such evidence?” (“This yet another proof that Commission is castration, not lustration!” Spic, follows political orders.” (“Taci to 1.10.2010) file charges for having his dossiers reviewed”, Dnevnik, 30.9.2010) Dnevnik: Group of former employees at State Security Service prepare Dimitar Mircev: “I am, however, a list of collaborators to secret against amending the Lustration services, for whom they hold Law; I would rather see it revoked... relevant knowledge, information Truth be told, reasonable and free- and documents. (“Former of-political-pressures assessment intelligence officers prepare list of is needed as to whether this snitches”, Dnevnik, 2.10.2010) law does more harm than good to consolidation of democratic Katerina Blazevska: “Someone processes and human rights and needs to explain to the public freedoms in Macedonia. In my why lustration became polarized opinion, the latter is more likely inter-party, rather than beyond- to be true.” (Dimitar Mircev, party and social process? Why “Lustrations and Frustrations”, it became shameful political Dnevnik, 30.9.2010) bargain, how many of ours, how many of yours? Why does the Commission act as self-governing October 2010 body, where members interpret facts to their own liking, as if they Vlado Gjorcev: “He [lustrated are debating monthly horoscope, judge] even dares to share in public instead of straightforward archive that he established movements documents?” (Katerina Blazevska, for independent Macedonia?! “Who will Lustrate the Lustration?”, You don’t say! It turns out that Dnevnik, 2.10.2010) our constitutional snitch bears resemblance to Goce Delcev, Dame Igor Ivanovski from SDSM: “...clear Gruev and Pavel Satev. In fact, is that snitching and repressive services persecuted him so fiercely undemocratic mechanisms are and thereby guaranteed his post in common practices of DPMNE... the Constitutional Court, where he Neither I nor any SDSM member serves for a decade.” (Vlado Gjorcev, has anything to hide or be afraid “Constitutional Snitch for All of. Therefore, we insist lustration Systems and Times”, Spic, 1.10.2010) to continue and be adequately completed, so that at last the public Trendafil Ivanovski “What evidence learns who worked against the has the Commission verified? Notes A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 87

people.” (Igor Ivanovski, “About independence to present, the Macedonian Lustration”, Spic, communist system was not changed 2-3.10.2010) and that lustration must cover this period as well... Demands are Stojan Andov, at a local debate made for snitches from this period organized by Citizens for European to be disclosed as well, and should Macedonia (CEM Club): “I consider they hold political office, to resign! Ivanovski innocent until procedure’s For whose benefit did they snitch? completion. All media outlets This seems to be irrelevant for the inferred own conclusions; they demand-makers. Those for whom were supposed to leave him fight they worked would remain in office his own battle, instead of turning and exclaim: ‘Catch the thief’. I his case into field for political am in favour of lustration! (Gjorgi confrontations.” (“Lustrators easily Spasov, “Snitch and Protected ‘sold’ themselves”, Spic, 2.10.2010) Witness”, Utrinski vesnik, 6.10.2010)

Branko Crvenkovski: “Lustration Predrag Dimitrovski: “... Adziev, process’s start in Macedonia with clear consciousness, announces is anything but lustration. that MP Boris Stojmenov has clean Commission’s first decision on three past, that no dossier kept for him dockets provides the conclusion and was therefore issued certificate that lustration is implemented on fulfilling additional criteria for selectively. Facts are being outvoted; public office performance several people are classified as big or small months ago. However, the same snitches. Commission must not be Adziev would say that Stojmenov allowed to make such distinctions; ‘was not part of the game’. Oh it should establish facts.” (“Name really!? And who was part of the policy is disastrous!” Utrinski vesnik, game, what type of game was it, who 4.10.2010) and how organized it, who lost and who won... Lustration is governed by Pavle Trajanov: “Counterintelligence law-established rules, and if our first Service’s dossiers (KOS) from the lustrator sells lustration as a game, third military district concerning he is obliged to explain rules he collaborators from Macedonia, as respects in the game and who pulls well as dossiers kept by the State his strings.” (Predrag Dimitrovski, Security Service (SDB) have been “Who plays a game of lustration”, transferred to Belgrade. I have Dnevnik, 6.10.2010) reliable information that these dossiers are not destroyed, i.e., they Ivica Bocevski: “In the next period still exist.” (“Information available, we will have our ears full of stories dossiers stored in Belgrade”, about Macedonian dissidents and Dnevnik, 5.10.2010) Macedonian patriots who suffered from the regime. However, such Gjorgi Spasov: “We publicly persons did not and could not claim that from Macedonia’s take part in politics, let alone hold 88 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

leading societal positions during to the public: “Only way out is to communism in Macedonia.” (Ivica freeze all dossiers and the state to Bocevski, “Dismantling ‘Myth of establish a technocratic body tasked VMRO’”, Dnevnik, 6.10.2010) to systematize and process them.” (“Snitches are infiltrated in the Dimitar Mircev: “I would be system”, Spic, 9.10.2010) willing to convene a meeting of all victims of ‘snitching’ and regime’s Dimitar Dimitrov: “Leaving torture, so they could make a list regime’s entire hierarchy intact of ‘intelligence officers and secret and libelling only collaborators to service field workers, as well as secret services, is nothing else but order-issuers at all levels’ who have injustice and cynicism. Snitch is committed these crimes, including not a vocation of own making, but those who visited MP Trajanov. function/victim of non-democratic But, in the end I said to myself – it’s system. Snitching is immanence enough. That is what I proposed of tyranny. The original snitch is – to revoke Lustration Law; to the autocrat who feeds on people’s close Pandora’s box of evil; to stop division into loyal, i.e., snitches, new divisions among the people and traitors, i.e., enemies... Tito’s into snitches and non-snitches.” communism has been installed (Dimitar Mircev, “Foreign Policy as early as Macedonian country’s Disorientation”, Dnevnik, 7.10.2010) establishment, and assumed the form of denunciation. Single order Manco Mitevski: “First lustration from above transformed the entire case concerning Trendafil Ivanovski, loyal communist government President of the Constitutional into secret service collaborator...” Court, opened Pandora’s box and (Dimitar Dimitrov, “About Snitching showed how the process should and the System: Lustration Law”, not be implemented, how the Dnevnik, 9.10.2010) Commission should not operate (selective approach, controversial Mahi Nesimi: “If we wish to reveal facts, political party-based snitches, we should adopt a law outvoting) and how the Government that would enable full disclosure, should not behave (satanizing regardless of the fact whether the Constitutional Court!)... First the person is alive or dead.” (Mahi lustration case in Macedonian Nesimi, “Thorough lustration: Who style resembles the saying ‘let fools benefits from snitching”,Dnevnik , hang for ideals’! (Manco Mitevski, 9.10.2010) “Macedonian matters: lustration as bread for the poor”, Utrinski vesnik, Gordana Jankuloska: “MOI handed 8.10.2010) over the dossiers when Law on Access and Insight to Personal Jasna Koteska, at CEM’s public Dossiers was adopted; since then debate, advocated for dossiers to be people can request insight in their published online and made available dossiers, but only at the Archive A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 89

of Macedonia and only concerning kept at archives; we will examine matters of their interest prior to them and decide how to proceed.” that date. This means that at the (“DUI functionaries entangled in the moment, MOI does not have any snitching network”, Utrinski vesnik, jurisdiction over these dossiers. 14.10.2010) (interview with Minister of Interior Gordana Jankuloska, “MOI not Zoran Todorovski: “I responsibly competent for dossiers”, Dnevnik, claim that dossiers were not 11.10.2010) tampered with, by adding or deleting documents. State Menduh Taci: “[the ball] is in Archive stores thousands of Ahmeti’s court. He needs to express dossiers handed over by MOI; any his opinion on these documents intervention in their contents is in public and acknowledge that considered criminal act and liable his closest associates were and to imprisonment sentences. In the still are spies for Serbian secret media, constitutional judge and his services.” (“Belgrade to implement attorney-at-law make accusations, lustration?”, Spic, 12.10.2010) but he has never requested insight into his personal dossier.” Zoran Todorovski: “To my About accusations put forward knowledge, obtained from by Ivanovski that photocopied personal contacts, dossiers kept documents have been inserted in for collaborators to secret services his dossier, albeit the fact that back are still classified as official and in the 60s photocopying machines state secrets.” (“No volunteers for were not yet invented, Archive’s requesting Belgrade to hand over Director Todorovski explains these dossiers”, Dnevnik, 13.10.2010) are photocopies made on Lustration Commission’s and that in reality Spend Ljusi, professor at State Ivanovski saw commission-disposed University of Tetovo: “By submitting copies, but claims they are originals. three dossiers to Lustration “To avoid such misinterpretations, Commission, I fulfilled my civil he [Ivanovski] should have duties. [Somebody] has left these performed an insight into his documents on my doorstep. Once I dossier, and should know that opened them, it became clear that documents presented to Lustration they concern high functionaries in Commission are photocopies, government. Three of them concern made for their purpose.” (“DUI Albanians., (“DUI functionaries functionaries entangled in the entangled in the snitching network”, snitching network”, Utrinski vesnik, Utrinski vesnik, 14.10.2010) 14.10.2010)

Tome Adziev: “This is the first Cedomir Damjanovski, Member time for a third party, pursuant of the Lustration Commission: to law, to present us with certain “According to the law, Commission documents. Dossiers are usually cannot check facts from dossiers; 90 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

it is Ivanovski who is entitled play, persecution and we strongly to request such action in court. condemn it.” (“Musa Dzaferi comes That is why our decision is not clear that dossier ’Mama’ was kept final and executive, but includes for him”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.10.2010) a legal remedy notice stating that he is entitled to appeal in Sonja Kramarska: There are no court. Given that Commission has doubts that lustration is turned no law-stipulated possibility to into witch hunt and battlefield for establish dossiers’ reliability, once political confrontations. At the the judge expressed his doubts, moment, it exploded in the Albanian we [commissioners] enabled him courtyard, but it is only a matter of a legal remedy to appeal in court time when same shenanigans will and prove that his dossier had been spillover on the Macedonian side. ‘fabricated’.“ (“DUI functionaries (Sonja Kramarska, “Is ‘Uncle’ better entangled in the snitching network”, shooter than ‘Mama’?”, Utrinski Utrinski vesnik, 14.10.2010) vesnik, 15.10.2010)

Musa Dzaferi: “I agree that DPA Filip Petrovski: “Dossiers were wanted to make waves and stir-up opened in 2000. Such action media storm. I assume that former was to mark the start of settling structures in UDBA (State Security accounts with snitches, including Administration) are still present and so-called dissidents. But in reality, collect on people indebted to them. the situation was different. It Unfortunately, even the professor is unbeknown to me why this would have to fall victim to these endeavour halted with adoption dirty games, because he is indebted of Law on Access and Insight to somebody and must now settle to Personal Dossiers and why the accounts.. (“Musa Dzaferi comes competent authorities decided to clear that dossier ’Mama’ was kept blacken out names. From today’s for him”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.10.2010) perspective, that was the wrong approach. Truth should have Ali Ahmeti: “Lawsuit will be been disclosed in one cycle.” (Filip motioned against professor Spend Petrovski, “Suspicious Fellows – Ljusi, because we believe that Real Dissidents”, Utrinski vesnik, documents he presented are 15.10.2010) fabricated. These dossiers appeared in a rather strange manner, as if Stojan Andov: “Competent and fallen from the sky. Therefore, it is highly-paid authorities, such our belief that the dilemma about as Administration for Security their validity should be resolved in and Counterintelligence (DBK) court. Accusations are made against and Intelligence Agency, need to people who enjoy great credibility determine where these dossiers and trust with Albanians, in an came from”. (“How Belgrade landed attempt to tarnish authorities in in Tetovo’s courtyard?”, Utrinski the state. It is nothing else but foul vesnik, 17.10.2010) A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 91

Utrinski vesnik: Spend Ljusi, with Serbia. In the meantime, university professor from Tetovo, MOI should make efforts to obtain who overnight became centre materials by diplomatic channels. of attention after submitting I have no intention on interfering three dossiers concerning DUI in political bickering between DUI functionaries, lives in a two- and DPA, but documents presented story house with a garage, but no to Lustration Commission are courtyard. Where did Belgrade’s photocopies. One cannot expect ‘mysterious courier’ leave document expert forensic to be performed on folders, Tetovo citizens wonder, copies, such an action necessitates knowing that professor Ljusi enters originals.” (“’Archer’ spared the house directly from front from lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, door. (“Snitch-hunting professor 18.10.2010) has no courtyard”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.10.2010) Pavle Trajanov: “These dossiers are powerful weapon in hands Cedomir Damjanovski says they of Belgrade, notably with a view [Commission] reviewed materials to exert influence in Macedonia. presented by professor Ljusi; By possessing these documents, however their reliability has not secret services in Serbia can been established yet: “Commission control whether and to what extent has no authorization on cooperating Macedonian authorities allow with foreign services, and insight in dossiers and whether therefore we unanimous adopted they have been tampered them.” the conclusion and asked four (“Belgrade dossiers decorate competent institutions to verify Macedonian courtyards”, Spic, authenticity of materials kept by 18.10.2010) Belgrade-based services within shortest deadline possible. Such Zoran Todorovski, Director of request was made in relation to two the Archive of Macedonia, does dockets, as the third person affected not believe Belgrade would agree by these dossiers is not subject to to hand over documents for Law on Additional Criteria for Public former collaborators to secret Office Performance. Only after services. “These are classified documents’ reliability is established, and confidential documents; they a decision will be made on initiating contain state secrets, and no lustration procedure or not.” country would allow insight” (Zoran (“’Archer’ spared from lustration”, Todorovski, “’Mama’ and ‘Uncle’ Utrinski vesnik, 18.10.2010) to arrive from Belgrade”, Utrinski vesnik, 19.10.2010). Pavle Trajanov: “Truthful and fair lustration in Macedonia would Janko Bacev: “President Ivanov holds depend on documents from the key to the truth about Kerim.” Belgrade. In order to obtain these Bacev calls Ivanov to “exculpate him documents, an agreement is needed from criminal prosecution, in order 92 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

to allow public to finally learn about party, but they were copies whose Srgan Kerim’s ‘clean dossier’ as originals are not in Macedonia. talked about in the media!” (“Bacev: Therefore, Commission’s request to if Ivanov pardons me, I will disclose competent authorities with whom Kerim’s dossier!”, Spic, 19.10.2010) it cooperates to assess authenticity of documents is completely normal DPA announces that new and in compliance with the Law on compromising materials will appear Additional Criteria for Public Office in DUI’s lawn. (“’Uncle’ leads to Performance. (“Commission acts DUI management”, Utrinski vesnik, in compliance with law”, Dnevnik, 20.10.2010) 21.10.2010; letter to editorial board in response to column “Goli Otok” Vasko Popetrevski: “Do we need published in Dnevnik on 20.10.2010) more evidence to discredit the eleven clowns from Lustration Vasko Popetrevski: “Dear Mr. Commission?!, whose every new Damjanovski, what value do decision cancels their own doings. decisions taken by Commission for These are the people who declared Verification of Facts hold, if they themselves non-competent to can be withdrawn at any moment? assess authenticity of documents How does Commission verify facts related to constitutional judge if it does not have access to key Trendafil Ivanovski’s docket, but source of such facts?... Finally, if you acted contrary in dockets ‘Mama’ only work with original documents, and ‘Uncle’ by deciding to deliberate why did you initiate lustration on copied documents. Do we need procedures on basis of copies?” more evidence on the compromised (“You legitimatize dilemmas”, lustration process when the Prime Dnevnik, 21.10.2010) Minister says competent institutions are free to request dossiers from Ivanov, after his meeting with Belgrade, while Minister of Interior Tadik, President of Serbia: “We ‘plays dumb’?” (Vasko Popetrevski, discussed an issue that is important “Goli Otok”, Dnevnik, 20.10.2010) in Macedonia, especially concerning the succession of joint archives, Cedomir Damjanovski, Member of in order to enable our competent the Commission for Verification institutions to address their of Facts: “In the docket related to Serbian counterparts that store the verification of constitutional judge’s archives of the former common statement on non-collaboration, state, pursuant to the principle Commission acted on basis of of succession. That would allow original documents contained in our institutions to use documents Ivanovski’s dossier, compiled and necessary in certain processes that handed over by the competent are implemented in our country.” authority. As regards dockets ‘Uncle’ (“Ivanov asks for Belgrade-based and ‘Mama’, Commission was dossiers”, Dnevnik, 21.10.2010) presented with materials by a third A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 93

Marjan Dodovski, President machinery, I received a note of VMRO-NP: “Lustrators lack from the police that there is no credibility to implement lustration, information on my collaboration as all eleven commissioners are with in-country or foreign police political party soldiers... Reality services, be it Serbian, Albanian, shows that constitutional judge American or German. Their lost this round 10 to 0, while other manoeuvres were to no avail. I am persons, who should have been clean. What about them?” (Dragan P. lustrated, were spared by means of Latas, “Dossiers”, Vecer, 25.10.2010) politicized voting within Lustration Commission.” (“Tome Adziev is Connoisseurs say dossiers that were political lustrator”, Utrinski vesnik, opened in 2000 provide information 21.10.2010) on some of the greatest snitches, but do not indicate monetary Mahi Nesimi: “Recent developments reimbursements they benefited at Lustration Commission, such from. Such information can be as the motion to seek Belgrade’s found only in dossiers compiled for opinion on two dossiers that landed collaborators, which are jealously in the courtyard of Tetovo citizen, guarded by State Security Service indicate problems with Macedonia’s (SDB), i.e., Administration for power and ability to deal with its Security and Counterintelligence past and future. Such actions render (UBK). They include entire the country’s future ‘uncertain’. It documents on collaborators’ is already clear that we continue network and operative links. to voluntarily agree our future to (“Snitches didn’t provide their be dictated from above (Belgrade).” service free”, Utrinski vesnik, (Mahi Nesimi, “Lustration gains in 25.10.2010) intensity: unprecedented political madness”, Dnevnik, 22.10.2010) Trendafil Ivanovski: “If somebody’s mistake from adolescence suffices “Government considers all for somebody else’s vindication by possibilities for Macedonia to fabricating lies about the former obtain dossiers from Belgrade in who has not had any contact shortest time possible”, says a senior whatsoever with secret services for government functionary. (“Exclusive, 45 years, it only serves the honour of our paper publishes ‘Ibar’ dossier: the latter.” (“Forensic expertise for National Liberation Army (NLA) snitches’ dossiers”, Utrinski vesnik, established in Belgrade”, Dnevnik, 26.10.2010) 25.10.2010) Tome Adziev: “Commission adopted Dragan P. Latas: “Fortunately, I am its decision based on dossier Latas and know who to address provided by the State Archives when needed. Before the affair was and cannot indulge in fabrications announced in the media and way and adding facts, let alone their before unleashing of propaganda’s subtraction.” (“Forensic expertise 94 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

for snitches’ dossiers”, Utrinski institutions, including experts vesnik, 26.10.2010) in certain fields, to reveal the truth... According the situation Vlado Buckovski: “Documents are presented, it seems as if Albanians published that could shed new were the most content people in light on events from 2001; they the region, because UDBA created could lead to a painful realization KLA, and advocated for Kosovo’s and give another dimension to the independence and equality of armed conflict.” (“’Ibar’ might flood Albanians in Macedonia”. (“Ahmeti: the Government”, Utrinski vesnik, ’Ibar’ is worthless pamphlet!”, 26.10.2010) Utrinski vesnik, 28.10.2010)

Ljubco Georgievski: “Any Prime DUI: “Does Dnevnik entertain Minister or President of State can DPA’s game called ‘honest citizen’ be manipulated by secret services. who does not submit so-called This is true anywhere in the world. ‘dossiers; to the institution Secret services are a story in itself. I competent to examine them, but asked all Ministers of Interior, Pavle rather distributes them in public. Trajanov, Dosta Dimovska and Ljube Background of ‘honest citizen; is Boskovski, to open secret dossiers. clear for us, but we are unsure of All of them claimed that documents your hidden agenda and hope it led had been destroyed. I do not know by commercial needs, which again whether they also were manipulated fails to justify the goal. One thing by the services.” (“Ljupco: My is certain, you entered somebody’s political demise was due to coup scenario for ‘street lustration’, d’état”, Utrinski vesnik, 27.10.2010) whose single goal is to prevent legal and real lustration.” (letters to Abdulakim Ademi, Deputy Prime editorial board, “You are violating Minister and DUI’s Vice President: Journalists’ Code of Conduct”, “This is a direct attack with a Dnevnik, 28.10.2010) view to discredit deeds of KLA and NLA’s founder, successes of both Dnevnik’s editorial board: Albanian armies and bright history “Journalists’ Code of conduct is not of Albanian people, as well as violated, because documents contain success of our leader Ahmeti and allegations that could completely his associates.” (“DUI disapproves change public’s perception of the media madness”, Utrinski vesnik, 2001 armed conflict and it is our 27.10.2010) firm belief that establishing their accuracy and truthfulness is of Ali Ahmeti: “Institutions should outmost public interest.” (Dnevnik, be concerned with such worthless 28.10.2010) pamphlets being distributed in public... We call all citizens to Branko Crvenkovski: “We witness be moderate and calm; at the street lustration. On the account same time, we expect all state of qualifications contained A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 95

in dossiers that surfaced in not original, but a copy, and 1991 public, matters could escalate marks the end of joint statehood to unprecedented proportions... within SFRY. i.e., the period that is Lustration Commission resorted not subject to lustration. (“Piece of to outvoting exercises in order to solace for Macedonia’s James Bond”, establish facts about two MPs from Utrinski vesnik, 1.11.2010) parliamentary majority, however facts either exit or not and cannot Yesterday, Lustration Commission be subject of inter-party bargains decided to dismiss dossiers “Uncle” and outsmarting”. (“Lustration and “Mama”, assessing that they evades supervision”, Utrinski vesnik, are photocopies and cannot be 29.10.2010) treated as official documents. Last week, lustrators received a reply Goran Mitevski, former Director from Administration for Security of Administration for Security and and Counterintelligence (UBK) that Counterintelligence, is convinced dossiers are “fabricated plagiarism”. that documents in question are (“Lustrators reject ‘Uncle’ and trustworthy, i.e. they are copies of ‘Mama’”, Utrinski vesnik, 1.11.2010) the original: “No service world-wide would disclose its collaborators. Ali Ahmeti: “30 to 50 years after my Information and data are exchanged, death, one can raise questions about but sources are never revealed.” my deeds; the deeds of my uncle did, (“Public would never know if of Gzim Ostreni, Musa Dzaferi or ‘Ibar’ was forged”, Utrinski vesnik, Dzevat Ademi. Today, many people 29.10.2010). would come in public with different interpretation; some would say one Bozidar Spasik, former commander thing, while another would dispute. of Yugoslav State Security Service’s These questions should be raised special unit, in video material after our death”. (“Musa and Fazli broadcasted on TV Alfa: “I had certified for having clean records”, frequent meetings with collaborator Dnevnik, 2.11.2010) known as ‘Ibar’... He was a very intelligent person, but at this Ivan Babamovski: “Ivanovski could moment I cannot and am not not have been a snitch. As a minor, allowed to reveal his identity.” aged 16, he only could have been (“’Ibar’ exists, I was his connection!”, informant who was threatened Spic, 29.10.2010) with high school expulsion... Today, most vocal in the requests for lustration of others are those November 2010 who should be lustrated in the first place, including some ministers, and Vlado Popovski, first Director of who at those times accused people the Intelligence Agency, refuses to on basis of knowledge obtained comment on the dossier published. from collaborators’ dossiers” In his opinion, the dossier is irrelevant on two grounds: it is 96 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

(“Babamovski: Ivanovski is not a name. (“Administrative Court’s snitch!” Utrinski vesnik, 2.11.2010) decision in writing”, Dnevnik, 3.11.2010) Filip Petrovski: “Nobody in the country trusts lustrators’ “Allegedly, the dossiers, including decisions. Indicative is the manner the one where Alija Ahmedi had in which Commission behaves been replaced by Ali Ahmeti, were from lustration’s onset. General fabricated in Serbia and later sold impression is that its role is not to in Macedonia for 60,000 EUR, as discover, but protect snitches... If originals.” (“Ibar was Ahmedi, not allegations that KLA’s establishment Ahmeti”, Dnevnik, 4.11.2010) and leadership were organized and under direct command of secret Ljube Boskovski: “Milosevic’s services, whose lists include well- intelligence officers, who were also known NLA commanders, are detained at Scheveningen, informed true it would mean that the war me that KLA in Macedonia is their in Macedonia was orchestrated by creation. At that time, I could not foreign interests ... This must be a believe my ears”. (Interview with subject of military investigation by Ljube Boskovski, President of United an independent joint commission.” for Macedonia, “Gruevski and (“Petrovski: nobody trusts Crvenkovski are not welcomed in my lustrators”, Utrinski vesnik, 3.11.2010) home”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.11.2010)

Zoran Todorovski: “First, Abdulakim Ademi, Deputy Commission Members must be Prime Minister responsible professionals who are well vested for implementation of Ohrid in this matter and will fulfil their Framework Agreement: “False duties with great discretion. Second, dossiers are creation of Democratic in my opinion, lustration should Party of Albanians’ members, not be two-instance procedure, former collaborators to State because all countries that already Security Administration (UDBA) and implemented lustration, left the functionaries at Administration for courts aside.” (“Bleak spots of Security and Counterintelligence enlightenment”, Dnevnik, 3.11.2010) (DBK),who were in power back in 2001... I believe they cannot accept Ivan Babamovski, former Head of their defeat in 2001 and therefore State Security Service, who was resorted to fabricating documents.” called as expert witness by plaintiff (“Ademi:dossiers are printed by Ivanovski, confirms that during former functionaries at DBK”, his career in UDBA (State Security Utrinski vesnik, 4.11.2010) Administration) from 1964 until the 90s, he has not encountered Original documents concerning a collaborator’s dossier under the dossier “Ibar”, as well as “Mama” pseudonym “Lambe”, but rather a and “Uncle”, are not found at personal dossier coded under that intelligence services or the Archive A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 97

of Macedonia. Administration for who tortured and killed allowed Security and Counterintelligence’s to run for MP office.” (“Lustration response submitted to lustrators knocks on Prime Minister’s door”, indicates that “Ibar” is fabricated. Spic, 12.11.2010) (“’Ibar’ was plagiarism!”, Utrinski vesnik, 8.11.2010) Court confirmed that constitutional judge was a snitch, while Ivanovski Ljubco Georgievski: “Anyone announces an appeal in front engaged in politics should be of the Supreme Court and the prepared to unprincipled attacks. European Court of Human Rights It is better to have three innocent in Strasbourg, as well as criminal victims of lustration, than three charges against Tome Adziev, guilty in power.” (“Ljubco: Three President of the Lustration snitches in power could be Commission. (“Administrative Court dangerous for the state!”, Utrinski doesn’t clear judge Ivanovski’s vesnik, 9.11.2010) dossier”, Dnevnik, 13.11.2010)

Tome Adziev: “Photocopies cannot Rather lucidly, analyst Kim Mehmeti be relevant for the Commission. indicates possible direction of After having received information lustration: “If Skopje receives on checks and comparison with the dossiers from Belgrade, we other dossiers created by the risk having Albanians’ chickens services in the same period, it can proclaimed snitches.” (“Where be concluded that they [photocopied are real snitches hiding?”, Utrinski dossiers] do not provide relevant vesnik, 14.11.2010) grounds for initiating a procedure.” (“Dossier ‘Ibar’ dismissed as Menduh Taci: “State Security irrelevant”, Dnevnik, 10.11.2010) Administration (UDBA) did not fight for rights of Albanians, but was Constitutional judge announced infiltrated in Macedonia in order to criminal charges against Lustration prevent Kosovo’s independence. It Commission’s President, notably was tasked to prove that [Albanians] because Tome Adziev claimed that are a turbulent nation that has no Ivanovski had signed document on political demands, but criminal or collaboration to secret services, ad hoc requests. It is obvious by now which was denied by Ivanovski. that 2001 events followed a script (“Ivanovski goes to Supreme Court”, developed by Belgrade.” (“Taci: Utrinski vesnik, 12.11.2010) the name dispute is problem of Macedonians”, Dnevnik, 15.11.2010) Ljubco Georgievski, at the public debate “Where does Macedonian Menduh Taci: “We will lustrate him lustration go?”: “Main breaker of [Adziev] and reveal his lucrative lustration is the government in bank deposits in amounts of 300, power. Contradictory is to have 400 or 500 thousand EUR. Soon collaborators prosecuted and those we’ll see each other in court, and 98 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

somewhere else. Commission’s is also entitled to receivables in President, being incompetent in all the amount of around 2.5 million aspects, is not aware that another, MKD as loan-giver. (“How much is urgent procedure exists, and would President of Lustration Commission find himself in a difficult situation. worth?”, Utrinski vesnik, 16.11.2010) (“Taci starts counting Adziev’s money”, Utrinski vesnik, 16.11.2010). Utrinski vesnik: Kadri Dauti, who is a father of one of the people Adziev: “These [Taci’s accusations] arrested during police raid ‘Brodec’, are filthy lies. My family is honest. presented lustrators with a dossier Property I have in my possession under pseudonym ‘Vihor’, for which has been acquired by hard work he claims concerns DUI’s leader, i.e., and prior to my appointment Ali Ahmeti... Lustration Commission as President of the Lustration says they will review documents, but Commission. From the moment I would take them into consideration, joined the Commission, I have no only if they are originals. (“New additional income and my capital dossier: first ‘Ibar’ then ‘Vihor’”, has not increased. I have one bank Utrinski vesnik, 17.11.2010) account and one savings account, whose balance is inflated only by Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Lustration accrued interest rate. This can Commission failed to impose be easily confirmed.” (“Taci starts itself as authority in process counting Adziev’s money”, Utrinski implementation. This institution’s vesnik, 16.11.2010) authority rests on a person’s authority that leaves an imprint. According to data indicated in the Unfortunately, our Commission asset declaration submitted by Tome proved itself to be lustration’s Adziev, President of the Lustration weakest link. Manner in which it Commission, to the Commission was established, i.e., by means of for Prevention of Corruption, he inter-party agreement, renders disposes with assets in approximate it additionally vulnerable.” value of 400,000 EUR. Adziev also (“Lustrators are the weakest link”, appears as co-holder of joint real Utrinski vesnik, 18.11.2010) estate: 21 m2 business premises in Bitola, 160 m2 housing premises Commission for Verification of in Bitola and 50 m2 apartment Facts requested the Parliament studio in Ohrid. He owns precious to amend several provisions from metals worth 500,000 MKD, arts the Lustration Law. They include and collectibles worth 350,000 provision that a third party can MKD. Adziev owns an automobile submit documents to Commission, “Renault Sedan Sport 1.5 DCI” but only originals... Lustrators manufactured in 2006 and worth request law’s scope of application 1,078,410 MKD. First lustrator has to concern the period to present, two savings accounts at TTK banka not only until 1991.” (“Lustrators are with nearly 7.5 million MKD. Adziev A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 99

the weakest link”, Utrinski vesnik, police arrests people and German 18.11.2010) dossiers surface”, Utrinski vesnik, 23.11.2010) Two days ago, VMRO-DPMNE’s Executive Committee approved EU Ambassador Fouere: “In all proposed amendments whereby countries where implemented, lustration is to cover the period lustration proved to be a very until 2010, have expanded scope sensitive issue and should be treated of application in terms of offices as such. It is a process that should subject to lustration and acceptance not be part of any political agenda, of original documents presented but it should equally not be allowed by third parties. .(“VMRO-DPMNE to prevent judicial authorities to drafts amendments to lustration, perform their duties.” (“Lustration DUI to press charges”, Dnevnik, reaches boiling point, police 20.11. 2010) arrests people and German dossiers surface”, Utrinski vesnik, 23.11.2010) Two nights ago, Hisen Musliu, former employee at State Security Utrinski vesnik: Ivo Kotevski, MOI’s Service (SDB) and current advisor on spokesperson, informs that during security issues at DPA, was arrested the search of Musliu’s house in at his home in Tetovo. Police the presence of his attorney, suspects he was involved in forging the police confiscated two PCs, dossiers on collaboration with secret two USB drives, several mobile security services ‘Mama’, ‘Uncle’, phones and two payment receipts ‘Ibar’ and ‘Archer’, which have been from Western Union indicating related to senior functionaries from money transfers to Bozidar Spasik. DUI. (“Lustration reaches boiling According to Kotevski, files of point, police arrests people and four forged dossiers, as well as German dossiers surface”, Utrinski materials that allegedly originate vesnik, 23.11.2010) from Bundesnachritendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) and Lustration Commission, which were to be tampered with were recently has become the most found on PC hard-drives. “Detainee popular institution in the state, confessed to have disposed with the was presented with new materials, materials prior to their publication, in German language nonetheless, and has obtained them from DPA concerning alleged collaboration leadership.” (“Lustration reaches of DUI functionaries with secret boiling point, police arrests people services. Persons who submitted and German dossiers surface”, these materials did not give Utrinski vesnik, 23.11.2010) any statements for the press or presented themselves. They Adriatik Imeri, DPA: “Eureka! distributed the documents and Ahmeti is finally saved. Greatest were immediately driven away. ‘forger’ in the region was arrested, (“Lustration reaches boiling point, and to our knowledge, he was not 100 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

computer savvy.” (“MOI discovers (“Lustration might burn the state”, forger of dossiers”, Dnevnik, Utrinski vesnik, 24.11.2010) 24.11.2010) “They arrest forgers, new dossiers Utrinski vesnik: Ivanovski’s appear” (subheading of “Lustration complete dossier, which as Hymenoplasty: it’s not a problem Lustration Commission deems that they artificially patch them, to be a collaborator dossier, but but that they emerge more innocent constitutional judge claims it is after any new dossier!” Focus, dossier of a repressed person, 26.11.2010) contains two proposals, on registration and deregistration, Luan Tresi, DPA’s spokesperson: 10 briefings, two receipts and a “MOI’s statement that dossiers were questionnaire, i.e., 21 document in fabricated is a filthy lie; they rely on total. Of them, first two documents Lustration Commission’s conclusion date from 1964, while others are that documents are photocopies, dated 1965. Confusing is the fact which only proves that originals do that it contains the proposals, exist, but they are unwilling to find but not decisions on establishing them. Allegations that Musliu was collaboration or on deregistration. presented with dossiers by DPA’s Moreover, there is no statement leadership are scandalous.” (“DPA signed by Ivanovski in attestation raises defamation charges against of his consent to collaborate. MOI”, Dnevnik, 26.11.2010) All ten briefings are taken from police report and are not signed; e 0 allegedly, they are based on four D cember 2 10 oral statements given by Ivanovski Utrinski vesnik: Yesterday, Lustration and six written accounts sent by Commission was presented with postal services. There is no written an infamous dossier of 13 pages report prepared by Ivanovski and concerning a MP from DUI. Dzevad he contests authenticity of both Ademi recognizes documents, but receipts that reportedly prove he dismisses them, because they have was reimbursed for the services already been inspected by Lustration rendered. (“Dossier ‘High-school Commission. (“MP’s 13-pages long Student’”, Utrinski vesnik, 24.11.2010) dossier springs up”, Utrinski vesnik, 6.12.2010) Mile Zecevik, former Director of Administration for Security and Dzevad Ademi: “What they are Counterintelligence: “Lustration doing is monstrous. They cling to is like fire, and nobody should play worthless pieces of paper taken with fire, as he might easily get from investigative actions, which is burned. Worse so, he might start indicative of their crisis of moral. a fire that would swallow both the [Dossier] submitted originates security system and the state.” from 1982 when I was arrested and sentenced to 12 years in prison. It A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 101

speaks of their immoral. Actually, Yesterday, Lustration Commission these information are part and for the second time and by means parcel of my dossier that already of outvoting, rejected as irrelevant passed the lustration test.” (“MP’s the document referred to as “DUI’s 13-pages long dossier springs up”, MP of 13 pages” by DPA. (“Lustrators Utrinski vesnik, 6.12.2010) in another round of outvoting for “DUI’s MP of 13 pages”, Dnevnik, Ivan Babamovski, who worked long 14.12.2010) years at State Security Service, claims that dossiers of many key Utrinski vesnik: Albanian Union players from the past are missing: gave Ahmeti an ultimatum: either “During the mandate of Nikola disappear from politics or public Kljusev’s expert government, will have an insight in originals of everybody was ‘lustrated’, they had documents that were submitted their dossiers cleared, including to Lustration Commission in last the dossiers of their children and months, and which the Commission friends. Same was true for the deemed photocopies, inadmissible first coalition government after to initiate further investigation. (“Ali Macedonia’s independence. When Ahmeti’s ultimatum to expire soon”, VMRO-DPMNE came in power, Lady Utrinski vesnik, 19.12.2010) Minister and her superiors were tasked to peek into dossiers and Olivera Vojnovska: “[Lustration] ‘lustrate’ anybody from their ranks. process missed the goal and is Current government did the same, exclusively used for political i.e., erased trails to their doings confrontations. Macedonian during communism. This is how lustration is a caricature and insult today’s archives contain documents for the state. Lustration Commission implicating ‘small fish’.” (Feuilleton, loses its credibility. Lustrators’ “Is UBDA unavoidable? (1), Utrinski opinion whether someone was vesnik, 9.12.2010) snitching or not is irrelevant. Nobody trusts their decisions and, Almost all parties represented in unfortunately, entire process Parliament reached a consensus and became a laughing stock. (Olivera supported adoption of Declaration Vojnovska, “Unbearable Easiness of on implementing lustration Declaring Snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, and condemning attempts for 27.12.2010) its devouring. Declaration was motioned by MPs Tahir Hani, Dnevnik: Skopje-based TV outlet Cvetanka Ivanova, Ilija Kitanovski, airs a story and raises a question Goran Misovski, Safet Neziri and whether Damovski was saved from Rafis Aliti. (“Parliament adopts detention at the time when TV a Declaration to stop street A1’s owner, Velija Ramkovski, and lustration”, Vecer, 13.12.2010) others were apprehended “thanks to his collaboration with secret services”. Photocopies of documents 102 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

that were presented indicate Crvenkovski and Gligorov, former that are he was recruited under Presidents of State, and Georgievski, pseudonym “Saddam”. According former Prime Minister, will also to these documents, Damovski’s be lustrated. (“Government urges main task was to supply information lustration for all!” Utrinski vesnik, on Serbian extreme nationalism. 12.1.2011) (“Aleksandar Damovski: I was not snitch”, Dnevnik, 29.12.2010) Silvana Boneva, answering a journalistic question on the point Aleksandar Damovski, former for lustrating persons who no longer manager of daily Vreme: “I have hold public offices: “We cannot never been collaborator to police know whether in future a person services, nor agreed to such might intend to perform public activities for the future”, after TV office or not. Therefore, a Register A1 reported that after 1993 he was had been established and following collaborator to security services lustration’s completion persons under the pseudonym “Saddam” and who have collaborated with secret that because of “his activities and services will be revealed. If their close contacts with Administration name is enlisted in the Register, I for Security and Counterintelligence do not believe that they are likely to (DBK), he was saved from detention run for public office.” (“Government in the ‘Spiderweb’ affair.” urges lustration for all!” Utrinski (“Damovski denies he is ‘Saddam’”, vesnik, 12.1.2011) Utrinski vesnik, 29.12.2010) Silvana Boneva: “Law’s main Ivo Kotevski, MOI’s spokesperson: purpose is to increase number of “MOI, in compliance with its persons to be lustrated, i.e., to cover jurisdiction, will check whether also former state officials who are something has disappeared from not deceased.”... Law amendments our records and in case anything is do not include the proposal for missing, will sanction responsible Commission Members to be given officers”. (“Damovski denies he insight in documents kept by four is ‘Saddam’”, Utrinski vesnik, competent institutions... Silvana 29.12.2010) Boneva: “Commission Members cannot manage everything, we are talking about a sea of information January 2011 and documents. It was decided that the best course of action would Lustrators call Governor of be for authorities competent to the National Bank of Republic provide information to enjoy shared of Macedonia, academics and responsibility.” (“Only kindergartens Macedonian diplomats to spared from lustration”, Dnevnik, submit their statements on non- 13.1.2011) collaboration with secret services. (“Governor Gosev next to be lustrated”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.1.2011) A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 103

Mirjana Najcevska: “This law Ilija Dimovski: “We also witnessed should be immediately revoked, strong support for lustration, and and not amended. Its selective even criticism addressed to its slow enforcement leads to witch hunt, pace expressed by those who are intimidation and threats. Draft known to have issued orders on amendments would only strengthen political persecutions. This time demonstration of Orwellian around, the law will not apply only power...” (“Only dead snitches would to current holders of public offices, be saved!” Utrinski vesnik, 13.1.2011) but also those who performed public office in the past, and are Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Soft still alive.“ (Ilija Dimovski, “Precise, lustration that was offered as Not Fruitless Lustration”, Dnevnik, model did not provide expected 18.1.2011) results... Lustration requires public labelling of those who have supplied Written reaction issued by the information to the oppressive Foundation Open Society Institute: system. These people should be “In our opinion, lustration should disclosed in public, they should imply a process of dealing with be known and the public should the past in order to identify and finally learn who is who in society.” eliminate possibilities for further (“Lustration should not be turned violation of human rights in the into witch hunt”, Dnevnik, 14.1.2011) current social and political system, rather than confronting present Branko Crvenkovski: “Government political opponents.” (“Scope of may propose any scope of ‘new’ lustration raises concerns”, lustration. They would not find Utrinski vesnik, 20.1.2011) any snitch in our ranks, but would entangle themselves between their Jovo Vangelovski, President of former and current members.”0 Supreme Court: “Only a week ago, (“Lustration should not be turned judges who take decisions in this into witch hunt”, Dnevnik, 14.1.2011) case received a response from Lustration Commission wherein Ivica Bocevski: “Lustration of elderly they were informed that they have people, who performed public offices not been collaborators to security in communism, would not yield services.” (“Judges who didn’t snitch any benefits for society... Concerns to rule on snitching”, Utrinski vesnik, that lustration can be turned into 20.1.2011) ‘witch hunt’ and means for political showdown become legitimate in a Vlado Buckovski from SDSM situation where new amendments replies to Silvana Boneva from to the law are presented as ‘fait VMRO-DPMNE during the plenary accompli’ by both ruling parties.“ session on amendments to Law (Ivica Bocevski, “Secret Service’s on Additional Criteria for Public Shadows Loom over Lustration”, Office Performance: “By expanding Utrinski vesnik, 16.1.2011) lustration’s scope, instead of 104 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

dismantling the past, you would In the opinion of Foundation Open stir additional chaos and retaliation Society Institute – Macedonia against political opponents. VMRO (FOSIM), law’s amendments is afraid of purging and heals own are harmful and contrary to frustrations through lustration. You recommendations of the Council should lustrate Mihajlo Manevski of Europe and the Constitutional who does not have a collaborator’s Court’s decision, which stipulates dossier, but has executed orders that lustration process must given by secret services and cover the period after Macedonia’s participated in political executions. independence. According to FOSIM, You only persecute collaborators to lustration should not imply a secret services of former Yugoslavia, showdown between present political and not those who collaborated opponents. (“Snitches are being with other foreign services, notably pulled out of sleeve”, Dnevnik, because such an endeavour would 21.1.2011) reveal that VMRO-DPMNE and DUI have collaborated with them. Ljubomir D. Frckoski: “...absurd You fear that the public will learn scope of ‘purging’ extended to an of your husband’s collaboration unspecified date in future and with secret services in Bulgaria.” covering virtually everyone in (“Snitches are being pulled out of society, lustration loses its meaning sleeve”, Dnevnik, 21.1.2011) and purpose. It should no longer be called ‘lustration’, since it does Silvana Boneva responds to not purge from rotten moral and Buckovski: “If you are a man, come political arrangements of former and say this outside Parliament communist system, but attempts so I can file defamation charges to create legal basis for permanent against you. During the defamation political confrontations, based lawsuit we were both involved on fully arbitrary police-forged in, you admitted to the judge of documents for people.” (Ljubomir D. having contacted in-country and Frckoski, “Purge: Bunga-Bunga and foreign secret services, which is Law”, Dnevnik, 24.1.2011) a precedent for a former Prime Minister. SDSM has no idea how Nikola Gruevski: “Citizens should to treat the law. Either you are or ask how Crvenkovski knows there you are not in favour of lustration. are no snitches in SDSM. Either Accusations that we brought to light he had access to documents of the dossiers concerning DUI officials secret police at the time when he are just your cuckoo in the nest and was Prime Minister, or perhaps he attempt, unsuccessful I might add, has had something changed in that to trigger discord between VMRO- time. We can also raise doubts that DPMNE and DUI.” (“Snitches are this political party, when in power being pulled out of sleeve”, Dnevnik, during first years of Macedonia’s 21.1.2011) independence, infiltrated their people in opposition ranks and A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 105

tasked them to disqualify politicians, Mersel Biljali: “Billions of snitches to snitch, etc.” (“Whose snitches is cannot do so as much harm to the the secret police hiding?” Utrinski state as government’s irrational vesnik, 25.1.2011) politics and actions. Therefore, the opposition needs to ‘sharpen its SDSM: “[VMRO-DPMNE] needs knives’, instead of hunting snitches to face facts that one Macedonia in VMRO-DPMNE.” (“Whose snitches became independent, Nikola Kljusev is the secret police hiding?” Utrinski was elected Prime Minister, and vesnik, 25.1.2011) his uncle, Jordan Mijalkov, was appointed Minister of Interior. Erol Rizaov: “Ever since first drafts From total of twenty years of of Lustration Law, many wise people independence, VMRO-DPMNE warned that the law may be turned has been in power for eleven into powerful weapon for showdown years, which confirms the fact between political opponents and for that Gruevski is very well familiar silencing critics of government that and responsible for the display of enjoy public’s trust... Lustration in disreputable people recruited as Macedonia is already a compromised members in his party.” (“Whose issue. It has escaped control of snitches is the secret police hiding?” system’s institutions.” (Erol Rizaov, Utrinski vesnik, 25.1.2011) “We Should be Named Snitchtown”, Utrinski vesnik, 27.1.2011) Ivica Bocevski: “Evident is the intention to devaluate lustration and abuse it for political goals. February 2011 Process should be conducted in Lustration Law passes first reading transparent manner, with full in Parliament. (Utrinski vesnik, disclosure of dossiers of scholars, 3.2.2011) historians and journalists.” (“Whose snitches is the secret police hiding?” Stojan Andov is decisive that it was Utrinski vesnik, 25.1.2011) a big mistake to have amendments adopted without consensus: Albert Musliu, political analyst: “Although still in first stage, this “What is the point of lustration law cannot be considered or adopted if Prime Minister says that secret unless consensus is achieved.” services have tampered with (“Lustration passes first reading documents? If he implies that in without opposition’s support”, a given period - when someone Dnevnik, 4.2.2011) else was in power, archives were rampaged and documents forged, Saso Mijalkov wants to become does this mean that at present Aleksandar Rankovic of the 21st dossiers are still forged, or stored century! (Fokus, 4.2.2011) in safe places?” (“Whose snitches is the secret police hiding?” Utrinski Janko Bacev writes about “ruling vesnik, 25.1.2011) structures which include at 106 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

least three collaborators holding March 2011 offices in Government, at least two advisors in Ivanov’s cabinet Supreme Court rejects appeal and several persons in [VMRO- lodged by former President of the DPMNE’s] Executive Committee, Constitutional Court, Trendafil plus at least ten managers among Ivanovski, and thereby confirms second echelon members, as well as Administrative Court’s lawful leaders of seven parties in the ruling decision according to which coalition led by VMRO-DPMNE who Ivanovski had collaborated with were collaborators to the State secret services. (“Supreme Court: Security Administration (UDBA)...” Ivanovski had collaborated with (Janko Bacev, “VMRO-DPMNE uses secret services”, Utrinski vesnik, marketing tricks to create an image 4.3.2011) of supporting lustration, although majority of its members are Trendafil Ivanovski: “Verification snitches!”, Fokus, 11.2.2011) was performed based on false facts, lies and non-existing facts. Tome Adziev: “This means that The judgment was made based on we should additionally verify such false facts... There is neither whether officials who passed the dossier of collaboration, nor have lustration test for the period until I collaborated with the secret 1991 have been collaborators to police. Last time I had contacted secret services, before or after. an inspector of the State Security Soon a decision will be made on the Service (SDB), was as part of future course of action”, says Tome political, and not collaboration Adziev, President of the Lustration procedure, back in March 1965.” Commission.” (“Lustration to start (“Lustrated constitutional judge anew”, Dnevnik, 24.2.2011) won’t resign”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.3.2011) Last Tuesday evening, MPs in Parliament adopted amendments Jovo Vangelovski, President of the to Lustration Law. Proposal for Supreme Court, statement for amendments was motioned by Macedonian News Agency: “From ruling coalition partners VMRO- evidence presented during court DPMNE and DUI, and were adopted proceedings, primarily the reports without the opposition SDSM, attached to the dossier of the whose MPs continue to boycott concerned party, uncontested is the Parliament. (“Government’s the fact that he - basis on a written proposal approved: amendments document – had knowingly, secretly, to Lustration Law adopted”, Vecer, deliberately and continuously 25.2.2011) collaborated with state security services. Based on his statements, which have been subject to processing, keeping and use by state security authorities in the A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 107

form of automated or manual data former officials who held offices in collections, dossiers were compiled the period 2 August 1944 (ASNOM) to and kept for certain individuals. In present, need to submit statements that, citizens’ fundamental rights to Lustration Commission indicating and freedoms have been violated or they have not collaborated with restricted from political reasons.” secret security services… On the (“Lustrated constitutional judge contrary, they would be liable won’t resign”, Utrinski vesnik, to fines in amount of 3,000 to 4.3.2011) 4,000 EUR in MKD counter value. (“Thousands of former functionaries Trendafil Ivanovski: “I will not to undergo snitch-detector”, Utrinski submit letter of resignation. I do vesnik, 7.3.2011) not have guilty conscience because I have never accepted nor will I ever Lustration Commission: “Statement accept that I was snitch.” (“Judge submitted by Trendafil Ivanovski Ivanovski loses the battle against wherein he claims not to have lustration”, Dnevnik, 5.3.2011) collaborated with secret services is public and the prosecutor should Trendafil Ivanovski: “Those who ex officio initiate a procedure on forged my dossier alleged that I had the grounds of depositing false collaborated with the secret police statement.” (“Judge Ivanovski as a zealous and patriotic student remains in office until end of term”, who upholds ideas for the country’s Dnevnik, 8.3.2011) independence. I was subjected to persecution, detention, repression Ljupco Svrgovski: “Until the Court in the past, and now my doings in Strasbourg delivers a final from the 60s are abused to remove judgement in this case, Public me from the office I performed Prosecution will not express its until recently, i.e., President of the opinion on the matter.” (“Judge Constitutional Court.” (“Trendafil Ivanovski remains in office until end Ivanovski:I will not resign”, Spic, of term”, Dnevnik, 8.3.2011) 5.3.2011) Svetomir Skarik: “...if Parliament Olivera Vojnovska: “Ivanovski is of the Republic of Macedonia the only victim of Macedonian decides on own initiative to dismiss lustration. It sounds incredible, but Ivanovski, such act would be it turned out Macedonia had only unconstitutional and attack on one snitch! All current politicians constitutional judiciary, which is have been cleared. No spots in their impermissible.” (“Judge Ivanovski biographies.” (Olivera Vojnovska, remains in office until end of term”, “One Snitch!” Utrinski vesnik, Dnevnik, 8.3.2011) 6.3.2011) Amendments to Lustration Law will Macedonian lustration gets fantastic apply only to priests, journalists and dimensions. In March, all living former officials. Current politicians 108 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

are spared from having verified be pursued for the entire period their possible snitching in the period of Commission’s term of office, after 1991. Although new legal until 2018. Nobody in the state is amendments propose public offices exempted from lustration or can to be purged from collaborators evade lustration process. (“No to secret services in independent snitches among functionaries”, Macedonia from 1991 onwards, more Dnevnik, 9.3.2011) than 1,400 officials, including those holding key positions in politics, Pavle Trajanov: “[Here] lustration have already been certified on not is understood as instrument for having snitched, although nobody political confrontations with the knows whether and with whom opponents, rather than as process of they had collaborated in the period ‘purging’ and dismantling the past. after Macedonia’s independence.” Law’s broad scope of application (“Current politicians exempted in terms of persons subject to from law’s amendments: priests, lustration renders this process journalists and former politicians to relative. I am afraid that single- undergo lustration”, Vecer, 8.3.2011) party system’s executioners would portray themselves as victims and Nobody from 700 lustrated thus entangle everything.” (“Shared ministers, MPs, officials and judges responsibility for the name”, Utrinski was a snitch until or after 1991 and vesnik, 13.3.2011) Commission will not re-examine their statements. (“No snitches It is journalists’ turn to undergo among functionaries”, Dnevnik, lustration, followed by priests. 9.3.2011) (Utrinski vesnik, 14.3.2011)

Tome Adziev: “All officials are Pensioner Stamen Filipovski cleared. We checked everything disputes law changes adopted about them until and after 1991, but a month ago, which expand none of four competent institutions lustration’s scope: “Lustration presented us with documents cannot concern the period after that implicate them. This means 1991, when the state has built that they are not registered as different political system based collaborators to secret services. on human rights protection.” (“No snitches among functionaries”, (“Lustration to face new test before Dnevnik, 9.3.2011) Constitutional Court”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.3.2011) Silvana Boneva: “Law amendments do not exculpate anybody, i.e., Ljubomir D. Frckoski: “[Law] nobody was lustrated only for the enabling political showdown with period until 1991, so that he/she opponents and ravaging Macedonian would be again subject to lustration society (called lustration 2) again for the period after 1991. It introduces legal obligations was clarified that lustration would liable to threatening sanctions. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 109

Constitutional Court should urgently with such information: “We sought adopt temporary measures on help from the State Archive, but discontinuing law’s implementation, were denied such assistance on the as consequences thereof might be grounds that it implies extensive devastating, and should initiate work. So far, few former officials the procedure on assessing law’s submitted statements, only those constitutionality much earlier than who have learned from the media or anticipated deadline.” (Ljubomir D. who were instructed by somebody Frckoski, “Indecent Games: Easy on their legal obligation.” (“Mega- Rider”, Dnevnik, 22.3.2011) lustration to experience fiasco”, Utrinski vesnik, 3.4.2011)

April 2011 Two days ago, Kiro Gligorov, deposited his statement on non- Jadranka Kostova: “State Security collaboration with secret security Administration (UDBA) methods services to Lustration Commission. for recruitment of snitches Yesterday, such statement was also from ideological and political submitted by former President of provenience, for money or career State and Prime Minister, Branko advancement, are still the favourite Crvenkovski. (“Gligorov and tool of Gruevists. Any document on Crvenkovski ‘lustrated’”, Utrinski any specific crime committed, every vesnik, 5.4.2011) data that contains compromises somebody, and any criminal charge With 64 votes “for” and not a single raised can be used to portrait a vote “against” or “abstained”, given person not as snitch, but as Parliament adopted a decision on government’s partner or at least its non-fulfilment of additional criteria megaphone!“ (“Lustration in 100 for public office performance and steps, a parody: UDBA methods for termination of term of office for a snitch recruitment used by rebirth- constitutional judge. (“Parliament supporters to make new coalition expressly ‘judges’ Trendafil partners!”, Fokus, 1.4.2011) Ivanovski”, Utrinski vesnik, 11.4.2011)

Nobody in the state knows the exact Trendafil Ivanovski: “On several number of functionaries in the last occasions Trajko Veljanovski, 67 years; it is estimated that they Parliament Speaker, said that account for around 300,000. (“Mega- he would request MPs to obtain lustration to experience fiasco”, security certificates in order to Utrinski vesnik, 3.4.2011) remove confidentiality of my dossier and enable insight therein. Cedomir Damjanovski, Member of Apparently, he abandoned this the Commission for Verification of intention and two days prior Facts, says that although they have to Parliament’s dissolution, I urged all institutions to submit was dismissed from office in an lists of former functionaries, unconstitutional procedure.” Commission was not presented 110 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

(“Ivanovski: government wants deposition on Tuesday”, Dnevnik, me removed from Constitutional 29.4.2011) Court’“, Utrinski vesnik, 12.4.2011) Olivera Vojnovska: “Why is new Only 7,000 persons submitted snitch surfacing now? How statements claiming they have not did lustrators fail to detect the been snitches, while estimates are ‘intruder’ among Skopje City Hall that around 300,000 should do councillors, given that he submitted so. (“Routed lustration of former non-collaboration statement as functionaries”, Utrinski vesnik, early as May last year? Are we 28.4.2011) to believe that verification of statements submitted by local Stojan Andov: “VMRO-DPMNE, officials came in line just now? by means of new Lustration Law, Such timing ‘accidentally’ coincides destroys my project. My concept with early parliamentary elections. was to prevent people who have Pure coincidence! Even slightest collaborated with or held positions suspicion about any connection to in secret security services from elections should be interpreted as performing public offices, and tendentious.” (Olivera Vojnovska, therefore prevent them from “Le Corbusier Strayed in Macedonian inflicting further damage to society Lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, due to their former ties with secret 29.4.2011) services. Today, I am still convinced that such lustration is necessary, justified and makes sense. What is May 2011 being pursued nowadays is beyond Slobodan Ugrinovski: “I had ex any reason.” (“Routed lustration officio contacts with both, high of former functionaries”, Utrinski federal and republic officials, and vesnik, 28.4.2011) people from secret services, but Member of Council of the City of they supplied information to me Skopje from opposition parties is and not the other way around. I probably the next public official would have been honoured if given who fails the lustration filter in the possibility to contribute to front of Lustration Commission, protection of the country’s integrity reveals Dnevnik relying on unofficial and implementation of its laws.” sources... (“Member of Skopje’s (“Ugrinovski doesn’t acknowledge City Council is snitch”, Dnevnik, lustrators, but only SFRY and SRM 28.4.2011) laws”, Dnevnik, 3.5.2011)

His pseudonym was Le Corbusier. Slobodan Ugrinovski: “I have Unofficial sources reveal that his submitted a statement at the time of briefings focused on activities 2006 Parliamentary Elections, then of foreign students in Skopje. during 2008 Early Parliamentary (“Counsellor-snitch to make a Elections and also during 2009 Local and Presidential Elections. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 111

Moreover, I submitted statement data, this was established yesterday when I became councillor in the by Lustration Commission after it City of Skopje. In 5 years’ time I have compared their statements against submitted four statements. Aren’t evidence that exist at security 5 years enough time to establish services. (“What are most common certain facts about me, knowing that jobs of candidates for MPs”, Dnevnik, Dragan Pavlovik-Latas was certified 26.5.2011) by Minister Gordana Jankuloska on not being a collaborator to secret Tome Adziev: “Commission is services in a matter of 12 minutes.“ verifying data available for 11 (Spic, 7.5.2011) candidates for MPs. Verification should be completed in two or Trendafil Ivanovski: “I regret the three days.” (“By Friday, we’ll know fact that in my own country I am whether 11 candidates for MPs were unable to prove that I had not snitches”, Dnevnik, 31.5.2011) collaborated with the secret police, as Lustration Commission claims, and as confirmed by court decisions. June 2011 However, it is never too late to prove Two days before Election Day, that by other means.” (“Ivanovski lustration gains weight. According sues Macedonia in Strasbourg”, to announcements, tomorrow Utrinski vesnik, 11.5.2011) lustrators will clear any dilemma on possible snitches among Gjorgi Spasov: “...entire law is based candidates for MPs. Finger is on complete trust in documents pointed at 11 persons of different kept by communist security services, ethnic background - Macedonians which should provide key evidence and Albanians, all from opposition on somebody’s guilt. Question parties. Ten days ago, State Archive is raised what has suddenly and Administration for Security and encouraged such trust in security Counterintelligence (UBK) informed services (the enemy) that ‘recruited the Commission that they hold collaborators’ and kept dossiers of documents for 11 MP candidates their collaborators?“ (Gjorgi Spasov: proving their collaboration with “Statements of Innocence”, Utrinski secret services. (“Pre-election hunt vesnik, 13.5.2011) for opposition snitches?”, Utrinski Lustrators find another judge who vesnik, 1.6.2011) snitched. (Dnevnik, 18.5.2011, 23:16) Mirjana Najcevska: “Such action Around ten candidates for MPs cannot be interpreted differently from opposition parties have been than as being part of government’s collaborators to secret services propaganda activities. Lustration and therefore would not be able to Commission is being abused for become Members of Parliament, election propaganda of those if elected. According to unofficial currently in power. At the same time, presumption of innocence is 112 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

seriously violated…” (“Pre-election Dimce Najceski: “According to all hunt for opposition snitches?”, legal standards, we are entitled Utrinski vesnik, 1.6.2011) to exoneration, instead of life- long punishment. We remained Professor Osman Kadriu: “Any second-class citizens. Association of doubts might influence the voting prisoners from Goli Otok requested outcome. Tendency is to discredit and still requests adoption of official candidates, compromise the acts to resolve this issue, i.e., to candidates’ list and the political create legal conditions for people party. Commission can verify to be exonerated and eventually statements, but inadmissible is reimbursed.” (“Macedonia strays to point fingers at persons during from European mainstream”, elections and when the balloting Dnevnik, 20.7.2011) process is still not completed.” (“Pre-election hunt for opposition For decades now, Boris Popgorcev snitches?”, Utrinski vesnik, 1.6.2011) leads a legal battle to correct the injustices inflicted to his father Two candidates for MPs from Bogdan, who has been shot together opposition have been collaborators with 52 people from Veles: “Law on to secret services. Lustration Cancellation of Judicial Decisions Commission identified one snitch in in Politically Motivated Cases is SDSM’s coalition, who runs for office pending adoption for eleven years. in the fifth electoral district and It was put on Parliament’s agenda is leader of smaller party. Second once and that was it. Single tomb for collaborator was identified in the victims of communism is located in Albanian political block. (“Lustration Veles, but is damaged.” (“Macedonia Commission confirms: two strays from European mainstream”, candidates for MPs are snitches”, Dnevnik, 20.7.2011) Vecer, 4.6.2011) Former director of a higher education institution was long-term July 2011 collaborator to secret services, concluded Lustration Commission Dimitar Mircev: “In my opinion, yesterday, after suspecting his current debate and seemingly statement that he was not police lustration measures from the snitch and reviewing his dossier. recently adopted law are a comedy Commission does not reveal more in terms of the need for complete information. Unofficially, the person and responsible confrontation under pseudonym “Dramatist” with our totalitarian past. This collaborated with secret services confrontation, however, cannot and for dozen years. (“Lustration must not be reduced to monumental Commission checks new dossier: or museum homage.” (“Macedonia lustration broom for ‘Dramatist’”, strays form European mainstream”, Dnevnik, 21.7.2011) Dnevnik, 20.7.2011) A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 113

Initially, due to his activities, he Tome Adziev: “Before law’s was followed by the same services amendments, owners of private that he became a collaborator to media outlets could make own later. Cooperation started back decisions as to whether they want in 1976, while he “snitched” his to employ journalists who were peers from higher education and police collaborators. This possibility cultural artistic circles. (“Dean is no longer allowed under the with pseudonym ‘Dramatist’ was amended law... [lustration] snitch to secret services”, Dnevnik, procedure for journalists at private 21.7.2011) media outlets will start after the summer holidays. Then, members Tome Adziev, President of the of religious communities and Lustration Commission, explains citizens’ associations are obliged that dossier “Dramatist” was to also submit statements on “revealed” after the director non-collaboration.” (“Lustration and former manager of higher dilemmas: who dismisses snitches education institution, in the – law or employers?”, Dnevnik, capacity of former functionary, 22.7.2011) submitted his statement on non- collaboration with secret services. Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Law does Adziev confirms that as part of due not aim to dismiss someone from diligence performed by Commission work. ‘Clean past’ is an additional it was determined that he was first requirement for public office followed by the services, but later performance. Private owners or started to collaborate with them. employers will decide whether (“Who is third functionary caught by they would keep employees once lustrators”, Utrinski vesnik, 22.7.2011) latters’ past and character are revealed...” (“Lustration dilemmas: Boban Nonkovik: “According to who dismisses snitches – law or official communication of Lustration employers?”, Dnevnik, 22.7.2011) Commission headed by Tome Adziev: ‘Once a collaborator receives their Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Pursuant decision, he would have to resign to the law, documents must not be from all offices he performs!’ To use published, which in a way is being drama jargon, this modern day hero abused, and therefore those for who finally faces the finale. evidence exist are attempting to I would add, finale of a dark, rigid, wash their hands from past doings secret-police and snitching era of and represent themselves as victims, leadership in Macedonian politics, by using the public.” (“Lustration non-governmental organizations dilemmas: who dismisses snitches and journalism.” (Boban Nonkovik, – law or employers?”, Dnevnik, “Inglorious Finale for Communist- 22.7.2011) Era Dramatist”, Dnevnik, 22.7.2011) Zoran Dimitrovski: “Disbelief, shock, consternation! Media and Lustration 114 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Commission resonated with the Society Institute. Lustration is a likelihood that first person of the political confrontation with those most influential non-governmental of different mind… In that dossier, I foundation in Macedonia was a am a victim, subject of processing.” snitch! Is it possible? A spy had (“Milcin: I was victim, not snitch”, chaired the foundation that Dnevnik, 25.7.2011) indigenously fights for democracy and human rights? A gendarmerie’s Vladimir Milcin: “I owe eternal informant had commanded the gratitude to Dosta Dimovska, organization that went overboard to who in the capacity of Minister of stigmatize - even destroy - Gruevski’s Interior, offered me to obtain the regime as totalitarian, Kim-Il-Sung dossier compiled for me. In 2000 -like, Lukashenko-like, Milosevik- and as part of regular procedure, I like, Hitler-like! (Zoran Dimitrovski: received a copy of my dossier spread “No Democracy without Snitches”, on 217 pages and my request for the Dnevnik, 22.7.2011) dossier to remain secret until 2047 was approved. Documents [from Vladimir Milcin, in Facebook post the dossier] read that I did not have titled “Lynch in Absence”: “Lynch any relation with bodies for internal I was exposed to in my absence, affairs. I am a victim of prosecution, notably by being profiled as alleged not a collaborator”. (“Vladimir collaborator, i.e., snitch to state Milcin: Foundation is the target, not security, indicates that Macedonia me””, Dnevnik, 25.7.2011) is reviving the year 1948. First calls from journalists, relying on Vladimir Milcin: “A person who supposedly well-informed sources, was subject of processing cannot caught me behind the wheel, on the be a collaborator at the same time. road from Bolzano (Italy) to Vienna These are lies and montage. So- (Austria). From what I saw in some called lustration is political pressure media, Tome Adziev claims I was over different-minded. I will not collaborator to state security from allow fear to silence me or blur my 1976 to 1986, when I was object reason.” (“Milcin accuses of political of special measures (following, lynch being led against him”, interception, and like) taken by Utrinski vesnik, 25.7.2011) state security because of anarcho- liberalism and participation in Tome Adziev: „It is a matter of thick student demonstrations” (“Milcin: dossier from the State Archive, I was victim, not snitch”, Dnevnik, which indicates that the person 24.7.2011) concerned was followed, but at one moment accepted to collaborate. I Vladimir Milcin: “This is a political believe there is no need to receive lynch that destroys the procedure, reports from all four bodies, for law, facts, democracy, legal state us [Lustration Commission] report and people. I am not the ultimate from one institution is sufficient. target, but the Foundation Open The person who collaborated in A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 115

a certain period did not receive they are someone’s marionettes. It money and had not signed is impossible all allegedly detected document for collaboration. We cases to concern people from the possess documents proving his opposition… They informed on collaboration, and the fact that he the existence of 500-pages long denies to have collaborated remains dossier for a minister, for whom to be proved. Same thing happened they established was not a snitch. in the case of Trendafil Ivanovski, However, a logical question would who first negated and was later be to: what do these 500 pages proved that he was a collaborator.” contain?” (“Lustration train derails”, (“Milcin: I am not snitch, this is Utrinski vesnik, 26.7.2011) political lynch against me”, Utrinski vesnik, 25.7.2011) Dimitar Mircev: “I find it particularly strange why members Ilija Dimovski: “We never thought of security services who blackmailed all people are innocent and honest these people and pressured in their intentions for the nation them into becoming snitches and the country, but never did we are not sanctioned; because the believe – not even in our dreams - system in that time first followed that the most prominent fighters for certain victims, and later had an human rights and civil society would opportunity to blackmail them. I also be the most prominent snitches absolutely do not understand how and installations tasked to protect they are not subjected to criminal values of the former system.” and other responsibility today, while (“Masks are Falling, Lustration Can those who gave in under pressures Start”, Dnevnik, 25.7.2011) and blackmail are”. (“Lustration train derails”, Utrinski vesnik, Tome Adziev: “According to 26.7.2011) documents we dispose with, Commission determined that a Tome Adziev, answering a journalist statement submitted by one person question “Is information true that and indicating his non-collaboration the person under the pseudonym with the police is untruthful. The “Dramatist” did not sign consent for dossier we dispose with comes from collaboration with secret services? the State Archive. We can initiate In the absence of such statement, a procedure based on documents is it possible to determine with from one of the four competent great certainty that somebody was a institutions. We are prepared to collaborator?”: “Untrue is that only prove this in court”. (“Dramatist those who did sign written consent reveals his identity: Milcin also were collaborators to services. If claims he is innocent”, Vecer, a collaborator’s dossier exists and 26.7.2011) includes numerous documents and evidence, but there is no written Stevo Pendarovski: “So far, these consent, would that mean that the people [lustrators] only proved that person was not a collaborator? What 116 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

is important is for other written determined that in the beginning evidence to exist and to confirm he was followed by the services, but that a person collaborated with later became their collaborator.” secret services. There is no need for (Tome Adziev, President of the written statement on collaboration. Lustration Commission, “No need of In the case of Trendafil Ivanovski written statement for somebody to there was no such written consent, be snitch”, Dnevnik, 26.7.2011) as well. I do not believe that such consent could be found in any of the Tome Adziev gives different dossiers.” (Tome Adziev, President statement from the one issued of the Lustration Commission, on 22.7.2011: “People for whom it “No need of written statement for would be determined to have been somebody to be snitch”, Dnevnik, collaborators will no longer be able 26.7.2011) to perform public offices. However, in the case of private institutions, Tome Adziev, answering a citizens’ associations, civil society journalist question “What was organizations, foundations, etc., the basis for the Commission to it is founders and owners who initiate verification procedure and decide whether they wish to have where was his dossier kept?”: “He former collaborators to services presented the Commission with among their employees.” (Tome statement on non-collaboration Adziev, President of the Lustration in the capacity of former holder Commission, “No need of written of public office, i.e., Dean of the statement for somebody to be Faculty of Dramatic Arts, and snitch”, Dnevnik, 26.7.2011) not in the capacity of university professor. His case was processed in Kole Casule and Zivko Cingo were regular procedure and the Archive victims of snitch “Dramatist”. informed us that it disposes with Vladimir Milcin told on them, his dossier. We reviewed the dossier claiming they were giving roles to and determined as stated in our actor Risto Siskov, who at that time decision.” (Tome Adziev, President was imprisoned on the grounds of the Lustration Commission, of being politically incorrect… “No need of written statement for Did Milcin tear down pages from somebody to be snitch”, Dnevnik, the dossier he was waiving in 26.7.2011) front of cameras yesterday will be known from lustration procedure’s Tome Adziev, answering a journalist outcome? (Aleksandar Spasovski, question “According to unofficial exclusive news, “How and against information reported by the who did ‘Dramatist’ work: Milcin media, he was first followed by snitched on Kole Casule and Zivko the services and later, allegedly, Cingo”, Vecer, 27.7.2011) became a collaborator. Are there two dossiers?”: “No. There is only Jadranka Kostova: “…overall one dossier. On its basis, it can be chronology of events related to A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 117

lustration screams of VMRO- (Gordan Georgiev, “Summer 2011 DPMNE’s scenario to transform - Anti-Democratic Hell”, Utrinski this project into another tool for vesnik, 4.8.2011) selective disillusionment of the public. Milcin, is a person of great Erol Rizaov: “Velvet dictatorship is interest and was therefore used to transforming itself into regime... successfully distract the attention Where no opportunities for of part of “commoners” from the accusations or hostile alliances amnesty granted to persons accused exist, as is the case with Trendafil of war crimes against civilians.” Ivanovski, President of the (“’The Pastor’ crushes Ljube and Constitutional Court, or the non- Velija, including Vladimir Milcin, governmental sector led by Vladimir and orders ‘sliced journalists’ for Milcin, methods of public lynch four persons!”, Fokus, 29.7.2011) are applied, namely by abusing Lustration Law. From that moment on, there are no unconstitutional August 2011 laws, and non-governmental sector is quiet. Pax Ottomana rules in the Tome Adziev for Macedonian News country. Stigmatized are left to Agency: “Today, the Commission defend themselves alone. Admirable deliberated on the deposition is the courage of intellectual elites.” made by the person who submitted (Erol Rizaov, “Macedonia - Dark statement on non-collaboration Vilayet”, Utrinski vesnik, 4.8.2011) wherein he contested our conclusion (on him being a snitch) and decided After Cedomir Damjanovski, Janakie that his deposition is in conflict with Vitanovski and Blagoja Gesoski data disposed by the Commission, left, only six people attended the on the grounds of which he was Commission’s session, and although declared not to fulfil criteria they did not represent qualified for public office performance,” quorum for voting, decided to vote (“Lustration Commission: Milcin in the matter, and thus illegally was collaborator to secret services”, confirmed [Commission’s] initial Utrinski vesnik, 8.4.2011) decision. The above indicated three commissioners reacted to such Gordan Georgiev: “...general public, actions by submitting a written finally, realized that lustration communication to Commission’s process served and will serve only President Tome Adziev, remarking for confrontation with political that the decision is not in opponents (‘Dramatist’ docket is compliance with the law. Yesterday yet another in the series of cases), afternoon, first lustrator Adziev while closing of A1 TV, was in fact summoned Commission Members to ‘pre-election’ promise of the ruling an urgent session, but denies that party. The case concerning Martin procedure was illegal. “That is not Neskoski’s murder is already a black true. Two members were absent due spot of the old-new government.” to injuries; as for the three members 118 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

who left, it was considered that secret services should have signed they have expressed their opinion”, a collaboration statement, while Adziev says. (“Turbulences within the person in question claims the Lustration Commission”, Utrinski opposite. Moreover, his dossier vesnik, 4.8.2011) does not contain information about material reimbursements, but Vladimir Milcin: “Commission’s Adziev votes that that person was decision that I am a snitch is a collaborator. I cannot understand arbitrary, with no evidence, contains how we can proclaim someone deliberately distorted interpretation of being collaborator to secret of allegations that are taken out services, when MOI has noted that of context, all for the purpose of no collaboration existed.” (“I don’t falsely portraying me as alleged protect anybody’s interests”, Utrinski collaborator to secret services.” vesnik, 8.8.2011) (“‘Dramatist’ raises many dilemmas; Vladimir Milcin to appeal lustrators’ Cedomir Damjanovski: decision”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.8.2011) “[Commission] President tried to push through decision-taking, Vladimir Milcin: “I continue to claim which is not allowed, as is contrary that the government is bothered to Article 17 from Lustration Law. with my views on democratic We brought this to his attention, society. Therefore, Commission but in rushing decision’s adoption, for Verification of Facts is used to he summoned the seventh disturb my personal authority. I will commissioner, who had his broken appeal in front of competent court leg in cast, and sent a car to within law-stipulated deadline and bring him, all for the purpose of contest the decision. Surprising establishing required quorum and is the fact that the decision is adopting this decision. As quorum classified as ‘strictly confidential’, was guaranteed with the seventh while allegations contains commissioner, we returned to therein were re-counted by pro- session in order to convince other governmental media, even before members that such decision is its adoption. This shows that the impossible to be adopted, as it is not entire case is a political hunt, and based on facts from the dossier.” (“I open remains the question on who don’t protect anybody’s interests”, leaked confidential information, Utrinski vesnik, 8.8.2011) prior to decision’s formal adoption. (“‘Dramatist’ raises many dilemmas; Erol Rizaov: “Lustration Commission Vladimir Milcin to appeal lustrators’ has been transformed into a decision”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.8.2011) centre for lynch and government’s showdown with those who criticize Cedomir Damjanovski, Member it... There is no doubt that Vladimir of the Lustration Commission: “... Milcin is a thorn to government the person who is to be declared because of his views and public collaborator to former Yugoslav appearances. Practically, all those A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 119

who criticize current government’s Stevo Pendarovski: MOI keeps a abuse of power are labelled as registry of active collaborators, ‘Sorosoids’ by its apologists, even which indicates the type of work when they have no connections to each collaborator performed, what the Open Society Institute. Hence, kind of briefs he submitted and to Milcin was expressly put on the what extent information supplied agenda for purging and discrediting, was used in planning police actions. way before those who snitched on Registry of passive collaborators, on great Macedonian activists, and the other hand, concerns persons way before dramatists who signed who after a certain period of time off on political trials led against ceased to communicate information, them.” (Erol Rizaov, “Who snitched due to various reasons. Third on Cento, Satev, Bogdanovski...”, type of dossiers are dossiers for Utrinski vesnik, 9.8.2011) deregistration, which contain data on collaborators whose services can Ana Pavlovska - Daneva: “How can no longer be used or are no longer of they vote whether something is or is services’ interest. (“Victims cannot not a fact? …Who is he to speak of be snitches at the same time”, honour, when his term of office as Utrinski vesnik, 17.8.2011) Commission President has expired, but continued to lustrate people on Gorgi Spasov: “SDSM has not orders?” (Ana Pavlovska - Daneva, once threatened that its members “How much does silence cost?”, would leave this Commission, Utrinski vesnik, 11.8.2011) which is transformed into “governmental body for public Stojan Andov, at public debate discredit and selective prosecution organized by Citizens for European of persons from the opposition.” Macedonia (GEM Club): “Commission Opposition does not request any Members and judges must not even list to determine order in which think of deciding that a person Commission pursues “fact-finding” is snitch, if there are no signed and its “butterfly-like” flights documents indicating he/she had from presidents of constitutional consciously agreed to collaboration courts to opposition political with services for certain purposes. leaders, and finally to leaders of Worse so, they would do much non-governmental organizations. It greater harm if they replace this simply observes how Commission document with official notes from liquidates opposition members, informative talks, as such action following a pre-defined list, and is directly harms security services, somehow certain that opposition’s which often use this method to most prominent activists are not solve different cases.”(“Is lustration on that list. That makes it an possible in a politicized state?”, accomplice and cannot be pardoned Utrinski vesnik, 11.8.2011) for.” (Gorgi Spasov, “Government- Tailored Opposition”, 19.8.2011) 120 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Marjan Madzovski: “Attempts are Ljubco Georgievski: “...I feel pity made to abuse lustration. In order to see obvious selective lustration for the process to be completed as pursued by current VMRO-DPMNE’s designed and in order to deliver government. Lustration is applied benefits for the state as a whole, only to political opponents, [lustration] should be directed whereas their associates enjoy towards the future, not the past.” great protection. By protecting your (“Lustration continues: who’s next in associates, you [VMRO-DPMNE] line for execution?”, Utrinski vesnik, strengthen your position, which 23.8.2011) was exactly the system used by old communists. During my first 10 Cedomir Damjanovski, Member years in politics I was surrounded of the Lustration Commission, by numerous collaborators to says that statements of current secret services. (Interview with functionaries are kept in drawers Ljubco Georgievski, “Road to for a year now and are unlikely to Independence”, Utrinski vesnik, be on Commission’s agenda soon. 28.8.2011) (“Over 4,500 former functionaries didn’t submit statements on non- Tome Adziev: “Public is collaboration”, Dnevnik, 25.8.2011) misinformed. We [Commission] do not proclaim anybody as being Blagoja Gesoski: “We operate snitch. We only inspect whether with an estimate of 10,000 former someone’s statement on non- functionaries, 4,600 of which have cooperation with services can not submitted a statement on non- be verified, and later, the person collaboration with secret services. concerned can prove whether However, it is illogical for the he was collaborator or not in a number of former functionaries procedure led in front of a court. in the period from 1944 to present Otherwise, dossiers are not rocket to account for only 10,000 people, science. Any literate person can and no one knows how they determine whether someone was a were selected to be on the list. collaborator or not. Written consent Commission cannot work with on collaboration with services is not decimated data. It cannot operate crucial. Person’s name can be found in selective manner, moreover due in other dossiers indicating that to the fact that in the last months he/she supplied information about it was dealing only with former others.” (Members of Lustration functionaries, although the main Commission about the process, goal is to eliminate past snitches, “Even without written consent, which currently hold public obvious is who snitched whom”, office.”(“Members of Lustration Dnevnik, 31.8.2011.) Commission wait Adziev to leave”, Utrinski vesnik, 25.8.2011) Gorgi Malkovski, who worked on dossiers for two decades at Institute of History: “…Part of A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 121

collaborators’ information is either current functionaries are examined incorrect or only partially correct, in parallel. (“Squabbles in Lustration and was supplied only because the Commission”, Utrinski vesnik, contributor wanted to flatter higher 11.9.2011) structures... Nobody can be forced to collaborate with secret services.” At a press conference, Damjanovski (Members of Lustration about the accuses Commission’s President process, “Even without written of deliberately violating the consent, obvious is who snitched law: “In a recent case, Adziev whom”, Dnevnik, 31.8.2011.) refused to verify the statement, although no documents were found that the person collaborated September 2011 with secret services. Reasons behind that remain unknown From approximately 5,000 to me, but President and other statements submitted by former Commissioners voted against functionaries, in the wake of statement’s verification as truthful”. elections, lustrators - accidentally (“Verbal altercations in Lustration or not - examined the statement of Commission: lustrators ‘lustrate’ a former Prime Minister from one each other in the media”, Dnevnik, of SDSM’s governments. (“During 13.9.2011) election campaigning, lustrators hunted former Prime Minister from Tome Adziev: “Only three members SDSM”, Fokus, 9.9.2011) were of different standing, and now he [Damjanovski] accuses Cedomir Damjanovski: me of being tendentious. Written “[Commission] President does document on consenting to not implement Commission’s collaboration with secret services conclusions and works on own is not the single proof that a initiative, which resulted in the person was collaborator. Many procedure being distorted. I will other documents from his dossiers raise this issue on the next session clearly indicate to that fact.” and will request information on non- (“Verbal altercations in Lustration implementation of the conclusion Commission: lustrators ‘lustrate’ concerning parallel processing each other in the media”, Dnevnik, of cases concerning former and 13.9.2011) current functionaries”. (“Squabbles in Lustration Commission”, Utrinski Cedomir Damjanovski: “Although vesnik, 11.9.2011) there were no documents indicating that the person concerned was Adziev: “Untrue are allegations collaborator to secret services, that we act in selective manner, which was confirmed also by MOI, but in compliance with the law. and despite the fact that Adziev Of course, we cannot examine all confirmed that the person had not cases in one day, but I guarantee consented to collaboration or had that cases concerning former and 122 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

enjoyed material benefits, I do not announces significant increase understand the reasons for not in number of current and former verifying his statement, by means functionaries who will be subjected of voting”, Damjanovski notes. He to lustration. Unofficially, lustrators adds that such action is not only in should receive documents that violation to the law, but also inflicts contain names of around sixty great harm to the person concerned former and current functionaries, and the state. (“Who snitches whom members of Macedonian Academy in Lustration Commission”, Utrinski of Science and Art (MANU) and vesnik, 13.9.2011) NGO activists. (“Will list of secret services’ collaborators expand? Five Cedomir Damjanovski: “When new snitches?!”, Vecer, 13.10.2011) person’s collaboration with secret services is determined, the law prohibits him/her from performing November 2011 public office in the future. I see no Blagoja Gesoski: “From May logic in acting on cases of former onwards, Commission examines functionaries and avoiding cases of only cases of former functionaries. current functionaries, who are liable We examine and lustrate deceased to sanctions. Current functionaries’ persons or persons over 90 years old, statements on non-collaboration while we avoid Ministers, Deputy were submitted in May last year, and Ministers, who create policies on although their term of office will daily basis.” (“Gesoski and Vitanovski expire soon, we have not processed won’t go back to Adziev”, Utrinski them yet. (“Who snitches whom in vesnik, 1.11.2011) Lustration Commission”, Utrinski vesnik, 13.9.2011) With the new four snitches, total number of disclosed secret services Yesterday, MPs from ruling majority collaborators increased to around failed to secure two-thirds majority twenty. Recently, Lustration in order to appoint Agim Mehmeti Commission did not verify as President of the Lustration statements on non-collaboration Commission, and to reassign with secret services given by three current holder of that office, Tome former functionaries, aged around Adziev, as Vice President. (“Tome 70 years and without ambitions to Adziev is irreplaceable”, Utrinski run for public office in future. List vesnik, 26.9.2011) of snitches also includes a former Macedonian Ambassador to a October 2011 Balkan country, former journalist in Albanian Editorial Board at the Vecer’s sources from the Lustration Macedonian Radio and Television Commission inform that increased and winner of “Mito Hadzivasilev- number of collaborators to secret Jasmin” award. (“From December, services would likely be disclosed lustration starts for private media, in the next period. Commission A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 123

NGOS and religious communities”, journalists is open”, Utrinski vesnik, Vecer, 11.11.2011) 11.11.2011)

Vlado Buckovski: “In my opinion, Branko Crvenkovski: “Do we, by it is high time to stop abusing continuing our participation in lustration. Do you think anyone Lustration Commission, create an believed that Vlade Milcin was illusion of normalcy and legitimacy collaborator to secret services? of a state institution that has long Persecution of political opponents been transformed into political must stop.” (Vlado Buckovski, party branch office and that believes “Lustrum Macedonicum: the Constitution and laws do not Persecution of Opponents, Utrinski apply to it.” (Interview, “If necessary, vesnik, 11.11.2011) we’ll make door-to-door visits”, 11.11.2011) Tome Adziev: “We adopted a conclusion on the deadline for Erol Rizaov: “Hunting horn is submission of statements, which sounded. Season for free shooting will be sent out to holders of public of journalists, capitalists, pests, authorizations. This cycle concerns domestic traitors and snitches is founders of public broadcasting and proclaimed open… As was the case printed media, including journalists before, Lustration Commission, and editors, as well as holders of would continue to, illegally and public authorizations from the immorally, count votes in favour of public sector, i.e., non-governmental declaring somebody from the line sector, citizens’ association and of journalists a snitch, to please the religious communities.” (“Hunting government.” (Erol Rizaov, “Hunting season for journalists is open”, journalists-capitalists”, Utrinski Utrinski vesnik, 11.11.2011) vesnik, 17.11.2011)

Pavle Trajanov: “so far, many Zoran Dimitrovski: “…all journalists journalists were subject to police who supplied information to and political processing. From the police, regardless of the different reasons (compromising fact whether their reasons were materials, patriotic or other ideals), patriotic or else, cannot be excused some of them were turned into and cannot pass lustration test. Of collaborators to secret services... course, unless they snitched to harm Written document, proof that they people to whom information was actively operated and supplied supplied!” (Zoran Dimitrovski, “Fear information must exist for of Lustration”, Dnevnik, 18.11.2011) collaborators, in order to be able to establish whether the collaboration Zvonimir Jankulovski: “Fear was based on patriotic or other among journalists is unjustified; reasons and whether they were lustration concerns only those who reimbursed.” (“Hunting season for voluntarily accepted to collaborate”. (“Lustration alerts media workers: 124 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

snitching fever among journalists”, is omnipotent, but there are no Dnevnik, 19.11.2011) documents!”, Vecer, 21.11.2011)

Pavle Trajanov: “We are talking Tome Adziev: “We are obliged about lustration of journalists who to implement law provisions, as collaborated with the police, in adopted. A person proven to have order to harm others”. (“Lustration collaborated with the service might alerts media workers: snitching not be liable to sanctions today, fever among journalists”, Dnevnik, but in future he/she cannot run for 19.11.2011) public office, as long as the law is in effect.” (“Lustration also applies Emilijan Stankovic, SDSM’s to future functionaries”, Utrinski spokesperson: “...as long as the vesnik, 23.11.2011) Commission is chaired by Adziev, a man who illegally holds this Tome Adziev: “I do not understand position for more than a year, SDSM why journalists are so afraid has no intention of legalizing the of being lustrated. There are witch hunt implemented by this standards against which we check Commission”. (“Adziev prepares the statements, i.e., whether the dismissal decisions for Gesovski and person has collaborated on basis of Vitanovski”, Dnevnik, 19.11.2011) written documents, which implies regular collaboration with services. Tome Adziev: “...within the They [secret services] follow Commission, we discussed and procedures and if collaboration decided to include journalists exists, it can be proved by inspecting and public office holders from several instances at the services.” other institutions registered in (“Lustration also applies to future compliance with the law. They functionaries”, Utrinski vesnik, include political parties, non- 23.11.2011) governmental organizations, religious communities and Vlado Kambovski stresses Lustration journalists, i.e., founders of private Law as particularly problematic, media, journalists and editors,” because – in his opinion – the law Adziev says in an interview for serves the purpose of distracting the “Radio Free Europe”. (“Lustration public, and no one knows its goal for journalists”, Dnevnik, 20.11.2011) and purpose. (“Academics request new unifying opinion”, Utrinski Vecer: Members of NLA (National vesnik, 24.11.2011) Liberation Army) from 2001 become heroes, but police and military collaborators are snitches. Which December 2011 state does Macedonian Lustration Tome Adziev: “Those wish to admit Commission work for?! (Good idea their collaboration with secret with bad methods, is disaster by services can write a letter and enlist definition, “Lustration: OZNA that in compliance with the law, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 125

they cannot submit a statement obtained from several sources, the because of having collaborated said people lodged appeals in front security services. Although this of Administrative Court, but court is not stipulated in the law, such proceedings are not yet scheduled.” statement will be taken into (“Lustration ‘stuck’ between account, because it would imply Administrative and Constitutional that these persons acknowledge Court”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.12.2011) the responsibility in advance.” (“Snitches cannot confess about Two former Ministers from SDSM’s having snitched”, Utrinski vesnik, government, one responsible 1.12.2011) for internal matters and other for culture, are among alleged Ivica Bocevski: “For the public, it collaborators. (“Lustrators discover is important to have journalists four new snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, lustrated, because media are as 12.12.2011) equally responsible as politicians, on the account their important Tome Adziev: “We examined eight function in society.” (“Snitches reports, and agreed that statements cannot confess about having of four former office holders are snitched”, Utrinski vesnik, 1.12.2011) contrary to data disposed by the Commission. On that account, their Lustration of journalists, priests, statements were not verified and political party functionaries and these persons will be notified on NGO employees begins today. Commission’s decision within three Pursuant to Law on Additional days.” (“Lustrators discover four new Criteria for Public Office snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 12.12.2011) Performance, they should present Commission for Verification of Facts Cedomir Damjanovski: “Persons with a notary-certified statement are targeted for lynch and hasty on non-collaboration with secret decisions are adopted on declaring services.” (“Lustration of journalists someone snitch or order-issuer… and priests begins”, Dnevnik, Those dossiers were opened 1.12.2011) purposefully, because they were not subject to review by Commission. “...road to justice is not easy, and These four dossiers, one of which not speedy for Executive Director concerns a former Minister, are of FOSM and professor at Faculty of four thousand pages long. This Drama Arts, Vladimir Milcin, as well means that someone has whispered as President of the Union of Tito’s Commissioners where, what and Left Forces, Slobodan Ugrinovski. who to look for … At the same time, Despite the fact that lustrators all four cases were reconsidered adopted their conclusions in the before and previous ministers issued summer, wherein they inform orders for following them.” (“Special the concerned persons that their law was drafted to discredit me. statements do not match data Frckoski, overnight, becomes subject 126 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

of lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, Ljubomir Frckoski: “Lustrators 13.12.2011) declare somebody a collaborator only on the basis of a conversation Gordan Georgiev, Vice President with inspectors from Administration of SDSM: “Certain Commission for Security and Counterintelligence Members shamelessly turned (DBK), and there are hundreds of themselves into ruling party’s such persons in Macedonia. In doing extended hand, and follow orders so, Lustration Commission sets an to play with people’s lives in awful precedent, because Dragan cruel manner. With every day, we Bogdanovski, VMRO-DPMNE’s consider this institution ever more founder, has made hundreds of irrelevant. (“Special law was drafted such conversations with services. to discredit me. Frckoski, overnight, According to Commission’s logic, becomes subject of lustration”, he should be declared the greatest Utrinski vesnik, 13.12.2011) collaborator in Macedonia.” (Interview, “Government says there Tome Adziev: “Some structures still is no legal system”, Utrinski vesnik, refuse to change the system, and 13.12.2011) therefore resort to insinuations. It serves their honour; I have no Pavle Trajanov, leader of Democratic intention to argue with them. Alliance (DS) and MP from the ruling Commission consists of 11 members, majority, proposes lustration to be but they all target me. Great fuss completed within five years: “I think was made for the lustration of two lustration should be completed as people, one of which did not submit soon as possible. Otherwise, it can a statement. Are these insinuations be used for political confrontations.” supposed to pressure us into not (“Trajanov to cut lustration’s adopting decisions in their cases.” durations”, Utrinski vesnik, (“Tome Adziev’s house scribbled 15.12.2011) over”, Dnevnik, 13.12.2011) Predrag Dimitrovski: “Lustrators Ljubomir Frckoski: “Proposals opened Pandora’s box. I say this discussed by so-called Lustration because possible “persecution” Commission in my case (Mile of first order-issuer would by rule Nedelkovski, Dimitar Crnomarov for imply express inspection of all Bulgarian purposes, Bishop Petar previous ministers of defence and for Serbian and a certain Fejziu for interior, directors of Administration Albanian purposes) are operative for Security and Counterintelligence processing and registered by my (UBK), former DBK, heads of military predecessor; I only continued to secret service and all persons from compile their dossiers. Same goes lower hierarchy echelons, i.e. all for my successor. It is a normal those whose regular work duties thing.” (Interview, “Government implied issuing orders for following says there is no legal system”, persons. What would this mean for Utrinski vesnik, 13.12.2011) the entire security system can only A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 127

be guessed, because accurate and services in the past, from 1945 precise assessments are impossible.” until 1991, because the purpose (“Dark-coloured enlightenment: who is to discover snitches from the committed greater sin, Frckoski or totalitarian regime, who operated lustrators?”, Dnevnik, 16.12.2011) from political and ideological reasons. What ideological Stojan Andov: “Most recent law background exists for someone to proposal, whose adoption requires become collaborator in pluralistic majority vote, and not consensus, Macedonia?” (Interview with can become an instrument in hands Pavle Trajanov, “Former Minister of ruling majority for political of Interior should be criminally confrontations, i.e., one party to charged, not lustrated”, Dnevnik, persecute those of different mind.” 23.12.2011) (“Lustrators became ideology- led commission”, Utrinski vesnik, Marjan Madzovski: “An attempt 18.12.2011) is being made to destroy law’s basic structure and purpose by Daut Dauti, Member of the spreading misinformation. Law’s Commission for Verification of underlying concept is to prohibit Facts: “Media coverage is sometimes those who violated human rights accompanied by serious violations to from performing public office for the law (former public office holder’s a certain period of time. There is biography, including a picture, was no blaming-game, and irrelevant disclosed!), which should alarm the is whether violations were made public about the type of lustration during totalitarian regime or we want.” (Daut Dauti, “Lustration pluralism”. (Madzovski, “Politicizing must be adopted with consensus”, lustration would lead to retaliation”, Dnevnik, 18.12.2011) Dnevnik, 29.12.2011)

Members of the Lustration Janake Vitanovski: “We were Commission postpone deliberation informed that our archive received in cases concerning former responses from relevant institutions ministers from SDSM’s government and related to certain cases back in in the period 1992-1996, Ljubomir September. These responses indicate Frckoski and Gjuner Ismail. On the that names of concerned individuals proposal of Daut Dauti, Commission were not found in dossiers kept by unanimously decides to postpone competent services. We suspect discussions, because facts should be that responses concern 500 people, additionally examined. (“Lustrators but we were not timely informed postpone discussion in Frckoski’s about their submission, i.e., we have case”, Dnevnik, 20.12.2011) not seen these responses, although the usual procedure requires Pavle Trajanov: “Lustration is so.” (“Adziev hides information designed as process concerning from ‘opposition-appointed’ persons who collaborated with 128 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

commissioners?”, Utrinski vesnik, as institutions’ responses are 29.12.2011) received, they are integrated on session’s agenda. They should Tome Adziev: “I found the peace I come out in public and say I am have lost by performing this office hiding documents, so that I can file in art, which I greatly enjoyed criminal charges against them.” in my youth. When coming (“Adziev’s space for manoeuvring is home exhausted from numerous narrowing”, Utrinski vesnik, 8.1.2012) obligations, I take my brush and painting easel... However, I am Daut Dauti: “Do you remember when mostly drawn to painting still-life law amendments were adopted on in oil.” (Tome Adziev, “Up close and having former functionaries subject personal: lustrator with artistic to lustration, unofficial estimates soul”, Dnevnik, 30.12.2011) on their number accounted for several hundred thousand! Data made available to the Commission January 2012 concerning the number of living former functionaries indicates Archbishop Petar: “Holy Prelate around 6 or 7 thousand persons, a Synod adopted a decision wherein figure no one guarantees reflects the it confirms that the Church as a reality.” (“Daut Dauti: amendments whole and it clergymen should be to Lustration Law, but of what ‘lustrated’ in the capacity of persons nature?” Dnevnik, 8.1.2012) who perform public service.” (“Archbishop Petar: defamators Tome Adziev: “Accusations about cannot be ministrants”, Utrinski me hiding or keeping documents vesnik, 4.1.2012, 15:26) obtained by competent authorities and concerning a former Minister Cedomir Damjanovski: “On of Interior won’t stick. I only keep the meeting, we will demand medicaments for Damjanovski’s Commission President’s behaviour benefit. His accusations are false. to be reconsidered, because he What am I to do? If I were his was hiding documents that were father, I would teach him a lesson!” submitted in September and (“Squabbles in the Lustration concerning the case of former Commission continue”, Dnevnik, Minister of Interior.” (“Adziev’s 9.1.2012) space for manoeuvring is narrowing”, Utrinski vesnik, 8.1.2012) Sonja Kramarska: “Most recent cases show that it would suffice Tome Adziev: “I do not have any for somebody to see you greeting document in my possession; all a policeman on the streets, and documents are submitted to - bam!, you are an immediate Commission’s archive and are candidate for lustration. Tampered available to all members. I myself dossiers, incidents from teen keep a fax filer to write notes in; years, official actions of former I have nothing to hide. As soon A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 129

ministers of interior – they are all Academy for Science and Art considered admissible evidence (MANU), with respect to whether or for lustrators in Macedonia. More not they were collaborators to secret so, they are considered valid services, will be examined together. evidence that destroy human lives (“Fifth academic surfaces before and professional careers.” (Sonja lustrators”, Dnevnik, 20.1.2012) Kramarska, “Questions to the Public Prosecutor”, Utrinski vesnik, On today’s meeting, Constitutional 10.1.2012) Court of the Republic of Macedonia adopted a temporary measure to Marjan Madzovski: “First, we revoke 13 articles from Law on must remove the confidentiality Additional Criteria for Public Office designation assigned to these Performance, i.e., Lustration Law. documents, and then publish them. (“Lustration of former functionaries, …Names of collaborators should be journalists, attorneys-at-law and published after the reconciliation mediators stopped”, Utrinski vesnik, process is completed. We should 25.1.2012) concentrate on lustration’s purpose, i.e., to prevent those who violated Emilijan Stankovic, SDSM’s human rights from performing spokesperson: “The fact that public offices.” (“Dossiers are Constitutional Court is deliberating opened, lustrated published on the constitutionality of same legal Internet”, Utrinski vesnik, 11.1.2012) provisions for the second time, although they were once revoked, For months now, judiciary in provides an excellent illustration Macedonia does not provide efficient about the lustration process’ legal protection from the lustration derailment.” (“Constitutional Court process. (“Urgent lustration cases stops lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, stuck in Administrative Court”, 25.1.2012) Utrinski vesnik, 12.1.2012) Safet Bisevac from Party Former head of the Administration for European Future (PEI): for Security and Counterintelligence “Constitutional Court has finally gets caught in lustration’s network. stopped the fascist policy of Nikola His case is completed. …Lustrators’ Gruevski and his party, VMRO- current agenda includes 20 people DPMNE, led against all those who for whom there are evidence and are of different mind. With that, facts on collaborating with the Tome Adziev no longer has the services, but Commission has not moral right to continue to chair the adopted conclusions yet. (“Another Commission.” (“Constitutional Court capitalist in lustration’s net”, stops lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, Dnevnik, 13.1.2012) 25.1.2012)

Statements submitted by academics, Ilija Dimovski from VMRO-DPMNE: members of the Macedonian “All post-communist countries in 130 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Europe have two major political demonstrated consistency with its structures exist, one advocating for previous decisions. It referred to lustration, and the other against the previous decisions and followed process. Macedonia is not the first legal logic”. (“Lustrators will country where the Constitutional comply with Constitutional Court’s Court attempts to block lustration.” temporary decision”, Utrinski vesnik, (“Constitutional Court stops 26.1.2012) lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 25.1.2012) Emilijan Stankovic, SDSM’s Editors and journalists, regardless spokesperson: “Witch hunt, brutal of whether they work at private showdown with opponents and or public, printed or electronic obvious violation to Lustration media, are to pass the lustration Law, consciously conducted by the test. Unlike them, priests and government placed Macedonia imams are spared from this process. among undemocratic and (“Journalists to be lustrated; priests totalitarian states.” (“Constitutional and imams spared”, Dnevnik, Court contests 13 articles from the 25.1.2012) law: reporters, attorneys-at-law and priests saved from lustration”, Vecer, Alexandra M. Mitevska: “In a 26.1.2012) situation when it is ‘forbidden’ to poke around dossiers of former Ilija Dimovski from VMRO-DPMNE: officials, lustrators have two choices: “Many serious analyses show that sit and do nothing or commit to Macedonian citizens support the examining cases of current office lustration process. This is additional holders.” (Alexandra M. Mitevska, incentive for us to work and find “Lustration of Lustration”, Utrinski a better way to implement this vesnik, 26.1.2012) process.” (“Constitutional Court contests 13 articles from the law: Tome Adziev: “Statements from reporters, attorneys-at-law and aforementioned categories of priests saved from lustration”, Vecer, citizens will not be taken, nor 26.1.2012) will dossiers of former officials be examined. We will work according Nikola Gruevski: “[this is ] result to sections of the law that have of people who were snitches in not been contested, and we will the past and are afraid of having continue to examine dossiers of their names disclosed as snitches current holders and candidates for for political purposes, personal public offices.” (“Lustrators will interests, career advancement and, comply with Constitutional Court’s sometimes, for money. They did temporary decision”, Utrinski vesnik, not snitch terrorists or persons 26.1.2012) who worked against the state, but rather people with different Savo Klimovski: “Constitutional political opinions. These people Court did not do anything new, but were put in prisons, and many of A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 131

them had been executed.” (Gruevski: plans, through lustration and “Constitutional Court‘s decision administration. Neo-communist made under snitches’ pressure”, Constitutional Court can hardly Utrinski vesnik, 27.1.2012) wait to tell fairy tales on democracy and constitution, but comrade “Branko Naumovski, President judges are decisive in executing of the Constitutional Court, is all commands issued by Branko convicted.” These high-flown Crvenkovski and ‘Bihakka’”. headlines were published yesterday (“Lustration in Macedonia: Our by some news agencies and Internet Beloved ‘Democratic’ Bolsheviks”, portals. (“Lustration sinks, judgment Dnevnik, 27.1.2012) against Naumovski surfaces”, Utrinski vesnik, 27.1.2012) Zoran Dimitrovski: “Well, it is time for hard lustration. Let dossiers Tome Adziev: “We work in be opened. Then, let gentlemen compliance with the law currently informants keep their jobs; it would in effect, and act upon it. Logical not be fair to have them dismissed is for the Commission to continue now, just when they built their its work; we do not know what careers. I would like to see their type of decisions are adopted [by faces once dossiers are opened!” Constitutional Court] until they are (Zoran Dimitrovski, “Frustration, published in the Official Gazette, or Lustration, Castration!” Dnevnik, until we are informed in writing.” 27.1.2012) (“Without letter on paper, lustration continues as before”, Utrinski vesnik, Erol Rizaov, commenting on 27.1.2012) Gruevski’s statement (“Under pressure from snitches, Pavle Trajanov: “Lustration process Constitutional Court adopted should concern those who are decision to undermine lustration currently performing or running process”): “I, however, naively for public office, as was the case in thought that Constitutional Court all countries that have completed is under constant pressure from the the process. I am against broad government and Prime Minister, coverage of citizens, because under who deems all decisions contrary the current dynamic, we would need to his will as hostile act against 200 years to complete lustration”. the state.”(Erol Rizaov, “Gruevski (“Without letter on paper, lustration pressures the Constitutional Court”, continues as before”, Utrinski vesnik, Utrinski vesnik, 29.1.2012) 27.1.2012)

Vlatko Gorcev: “Constitutional February 2012 Court was tasked to demolish system projects implemented by Tome Adziev: “We will comply with this government, starting from Constitutional Court’s decision, demographic policy, general urban which is an item on today’s agenda... We will not work on cases contrary 132 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

to this decision, but will continue security services without operative to work on cases allowed by law… connections.” (Interview, “Violence At the moment, we have several has own genesis and background”, statements on non-collaboration Utrinski vesnik, 12.3.2012) submitted by courts, prosecution offices, MANU that need to be Ruling VMRO-DPMNE proposes completed, and in future we will brand new lustration law stipulating start verification of statements public disclosure of snitches’ names submitted by the administration, and evidence on their collaboration whose number is high. Statements with security services in the period submitted by Ministers were already from 1944 to 2006. (“VMRO-DPMNE verified, but those submitted by proposes new Lustration Law”, military personnel, state secretaries, Dnevnik, 22.3.2012) directors and employees at agencies, administrations, members of Nikola Gruevski: “Within 30 days, legal and supervisory boards, dossiers of persons subject to this commissions, ministries and law will be published on Internet, faculties are yet to be verified.” without deleting any names, i.e., (“Lustrators devote time to current as copy of originals. In addition, functionaries, Utrinski vesnik, everyone can visit the Archive and 2.2.2012) see the originals should they doubt authenticity of documents published Nikola Gruevski: “Lustration is like on Internet.” (“Gruevski: everyone as a man with head held high, but will see who collaborated with chained feet. We started breaking secret services”, Dnevnik, 23.3.2012) out of the chains, but it seems some of them are too tight and would Ljubisav Ivanov - Zingo: “I was necessitate more efforts and greater against the proposal, when initially engagement, as well as serious submitted by Andov, because I counter-resistance, because of the think this matter should have been resistance we face in reactions performed much earlier, but given from constitutional courts and that the law is already adopted, powerful structures.” (“Gruevski: we I think it [lustration] should be won’t give up lustration”, Dnevnik, completed as soon as possible”. 25.2.2012) (“Based on VMRO-DPMNE’s latest proposal: revision of privatization?” Dnevnik , 23.3.2012) March 2012 Stojan Andov, in the case the law is Vladimir Pivovarov, university not adopted by consensus: “If such professor: “A retrospective of thing happens, then the general security services’ work would say impression would be that the law that Lustration Law is adopted, is adopted in the interest of the but drafted in a manner that government, and for the purpose of would contribute to leaving confronting the opposition. Law’s A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 133

concept is changed, starting with since their reputation and honour its title. Now, in addition to public are being endangered... According sector, the private sector will also to judges, revoked articles violate be subject to lustration. However, the moral integrity and dignity and oligarchs during Gruevski’s reign are contrary to the constitutional will not be lustrated, which proves principle of the rule of law and that law’s proposer has specific equality of citizens. (“Former political purpose and specific targets functionaries will not be lustrated”, for lustration.” (“New Lustration Dnevnik, 28.3.2012) Law divides politicians and experts”, Dnevnik, 23.3.2012) Kire Naumov: “...it becomes clear that this government was never Yesterday, opposition SDSM interested in lustration, which is requested lustration of “snitches a process that above all should working for Prime Minister Nikola dismantle the communist past. After Gruevski” from 2006 to date. (“SDSM several years of prying in dossiers, requires lustration for Gruevski’s they found out that if it is the only ‘snitches’”, Dnevnik, 25.3.2012) purpose of lustration, results ‘ours vs. theirs’ are defeating for them.” Ilija Dimovski: “All dossiers and (Kire Naumov, “On Snitches and notes composed by these people will Economy: Non-Stop Lustration!”, be published. With that, we will no Dnevnik, 28.3.2012) longer be outsmarting each other whether someone was or was not a Talat Dzaferi, DUI’s coordinator: snitch. Everybody will all be able to “We disagree with constitutional see the truth. Lustration will be ex judges that lustration’s time scope officio implemented and shall apply should end with 1991. Is should to all.” (Ilija Dimovski, “Lustration: be extended until 2006. In our Just to Be Clear”, Dnevnik, 26.3.2012) opinion, important is for the law to be adopted by consensus.” On today’s meeting, Constitutional (“Government counteracts Court of the Republic of Macedonia opposition’s requests: lustration revokes 12 articles from Law on will be passed without consensus”, Additional Criteria for Public Office Dnevnik, 29.3.2012) Performance, i.e. Lustration Law, adopted in 2008 and amended Silvana Boneva: “...Resolutions on two occasions, in 2009 and of Parliamentary Assembly of 2011... As regards associations the Council of Europe from 1996 and foundations, according to and 2006, as well as of European the judges, Article 20 from the Parliament from 2009 and 2012, Constitution that guarantees recommend us to transparently freedom of association has been complete the lustration process, violated in relation to journalists, with publishing of names and editors, founders of the media, dossiers of agents associated with attorneys-at-law and mediators, secret services in former Yugoslavia, 134 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

which would be a step towards capital during the privatization. But dismantling the communist past.” it is not enough.” (“Ana Pavlovska (Interview with Silvana Boneva, Daneva from SDSM: they should be “Lustration is process of regional published and criminally charged”, reconciliation”, Dnevnik, 30.3.2012) Fokus, 30.3.2012)

Mladen Cadikovski: “...the lustration Nikola Mladenov: “Fokus was model that exists in Macedonia among most consistent supporters is some kind of lustration of lustration. Unfortunately, Frankenstein, unknown to past lustration’s implementation gave experiences. Key problem is the right to its opponents to contest it. fact that, like many times before, Law on ultimate society purging lustration was used as cruel from secret police’s invisible fingers attempt for political confrontation.” has become a tool in the hands (“Mladen Cadikovski: Oligarchs of government to confront the are next!. To keep businessmen on opposition... In simple terms, the short leash, the Rebirth created process is compromised on various Lustration Frankenstein!”, Fokus, grounds...” (Nikola Mladenov, 30.3.2012) “Hungry people will unleash their anger against lustrated oligarchs, Ivica Bocevski: “I do not see instead of the Government”, Fokus, anything disputable in the fact that 30.3.2012) Lustration Law concern persons who have participated in the Nikola Mladenov: “It is reasonable privatization process, but only if to assume that persons who have publication of their names remains signed collaboration statement with an information.” (“Ivica Bocevski secret services will be lustrated. from LDP: It is not disputable, They surely have separate dossier, as long as partisanship is not with general information included, promoted”, Fokus, 30.3.2012) plus an assigned pseudonym. This is a proof that does not require Silvana Boneva: “The question to voting, because nobody can contest be answered through lustration its existence and contents. Then process is whether secret services why waste time with dossiers of enabled such privatization, in followed persons?... Lustration’s order to control them [oligarchs] power relied on its arbitrariness. in the future? All companies that Literally everyone outside Gruevski’s were subject of privatization will good graces should be afraid of it. It be covered.” (“Silvana Boneva from should force them into obedience... VMRO-DPMNE: Five billion EUR into Undoubtedly, such large-scale private hands”, Fokus, 30.3.2012) exposure to public embarrassment is one of instruments used for Ana Pavlovska-Daneva: “SDSM finds enhanced intimidation.” (Nikola it acceptable that Lustration Law Mladenov, “Hungry people will covers persons who had acquired unleash their anger against A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 135

lustrated oligarchs, instead of the Gordon Kalajdziev, at the debate Government”, Fokus, 30.3.2012) “What Does the New Law on Lustration Bring?”: “Instead of promoting independent judiciary, April 2012 many decisions are left to quasi- bodies, and degenerate into new Stojan Andov: “On first sight, inquisitions where persons are being information recently given by accused without the opportunity Silvana Boneva and concerning to defend themselves. This is such drafting of new Lustration Law inquisition that accused persons resembles deliberate intention have no opportunity to submit for one-party attacks in sensitive evidence and there is no standard areas, designed to achieve political procedure on proving whether their discipline by intimidation of and collaboration should be considered blackmailing significant figures as ill-intended.” (“Entire state to in all areas of public and private undergo lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, sector. (“Stojan Andov: lustration is 13.4.2012) degenerated into right to persecute political opponents!”, Fokus, Cedomir Damjanovski: “This law will 06.4.2012) concern persons and their relatives who have acquired ownership over New Draft Lustration Law is already 5% of assets in companies with state in parliamentary procedure, and capital. The term ‘relatives’ refers the proposal is endorsed by VMRO- to persons related by marriage, DPMNE and its coalition partner children and parents, brothers, DUI, even though it bears only half-brothers, grandparents and the signature of Talat Dzaferi, grandchildren, stepmothers or coordinator of DUI’s parliamentary stepfathers, stepsons, daughters- group. (“Entire state to undergo in-law, sons-in-law, parents of their lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 13.4.2012) spouses. If accepted as such, I do not know why there is need to define Ljubomir Frckoski, at the debate categories of people to be subject to “What Does the New Law on lustration. Let us lustrate the entire Lustration Bring?”: “With this nation.” (“Entire state to undergo proposal, Government destroys lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 13.4.2012) the constitutional order in a manner unseen before. We have Paradoxes of Macedonian lustration: had scandals concerning non- “VMRO-DPMNE founders admit that implementation of constitutional secret services had interfered in the decisions, but not in such clear party, but Adziev does not dare to and unambiguous way. After this lustrate among party members?!” precedent, we cannot speak of (Fokus, .20.4.2012) legal security, or hierarchy of acts in Macedonia.” (“Entire state to Dzevad Ademi, MP from DUI: undergo lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, “Exoneration of victims should be 13.4.2012) 136 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

pursued in parallel to lustration in constructive and rational process. On Monday, I will motion atmosphere without threats, a draft-law on victims’ exoneration blackmail and insults. We support and will ask support from all the law as is, and we will continue parties.” (“MPs fight one another to support it in future; however, for lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, we believe that there is no point in 23.4.2012) disclosing collaborators to secret services without entitling victims of Dzevad Ademi, MP from DUI: the communist system to redress.” “Court proceedings were not (“DUI supports new Lustration Law”, initiated against the majority of Utrinski vesnik, 24.4.2012) Albanians in former Yugoslavia, but former inspectors from the State Silvana Boneva: “The purpose is Security Administration (UDBA) to prevent any single person from conducted the investigation. Many evading lustration process, as well of these people were forced to sign as to make all dossiers of those statements of collaboration with who snitched from ideological secret services, and now they should and political reasons available... If be subject to lustration”. (“Ademi Macedonia aspires to become EU and Aliu to lustrate one another Member State, it should seriously with fists”,Dnevnik , 23.4.2012) consider how to translate into a law EU’s recommendation to complete Imer Aliu from DPA: “If you have the process of disclosing names of signed [consent for collaboration] collaborators to secret services.” and have ‘dossier of 13 pages’, it (“Lustration Law passes first reading does not mean that all Albanians in Parliament”, Utrinski vesnik have signed such statements and 24.4.2012) were snitches.” (“Ademi and Aliu to lustrate one another with fists”, Gordana Duvnjak: “Ink on Dnevnik, 23.4.2012) Constitutional Court’s decision has not dried yet as the ruling Goran Misovski from NSDP: party rushes with a new draft law, “VMRO-DPMNE shows that it more restrictive, with broader does not respect decisions taken time scope from the previous one by Constitutional Court and and with contestable provisions demonstrates force of law in the once revoked by constitutional most vulgar way possible.” (“MPs judges miraculously reintegrated fight one another for lustration, in its text. What is the message Utrinski vesnik, 23.4.2012) they are sending? ‘To hell with’ Constitutional Court? We’re Suzana Saliu, Vice-President of moving along!” (Gordana Duvnjak, the Parliament and MP from DUI: “Lustration creates disagreement, “As a serious political party, DUI instead of reconciliation”, Utrinski requires the lustration process to vesnik, 24.4.2012) be implemented transparently, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 137

Zoran Ivanov, winner of Lifetime soft lustration, cheap exoneration”, Achievement Award “Krste Petkov Dnevnik, 25.4.2012) Misirkov”, to the Macedonian Association of Journalists: “In the Dzevat Ademi: “We do not want name of journalism, their mouths hard exoneration, i.e., we do not should be shut and they should be demand financial redress for former prevented from further abusing political prisoners, in order to make the media and manipulating the the law acceptable for all political public with certain ‘journalists- parties and to avoid financial patriots’ considered by journalistic implications for the state.” (“DUI community as ‘former or present tailors Law on Rights of Former collaborators to secrets and police Political Prisoners: soft lustration, services’, who literally, for petty cheap exoneration”, Dnevnik, materialistic, party or career 25.4.2012) privileges were or are ‘police informants’ and ‘snitches’ of the Vladimir Milcin: “Ahmeti proposes worst kind.” (Letters to editorial Gruevski: ‘if you exonerate me, I’ll board, “Journalists should be support the lustration’. Both of lustrated”, Utrinski vesnik, 25.4.2012) them would give us inquisition.” (“Left-wing intellectuals send a Dzevat Ademi, MP from DUI: message to right-wing one: do not “Macedonia is obliged to exonerate destroy the Constitutional Court!”, former political prisoners and Utrinski vesnik, 26.4.2012) persecuted persons. The idea is not to draft a law only for Albanian VMRO-DPMNE: “DUI’s proposal prisoners; we do not differentiate contains too many general between Albanian or Macedonian formulations, i.e., it resembles a political prisoners, sentenced and utopian law. Unlikely is that this persecuted for ideological reasons. draft law would exonerate those This law will also cover Macedonians who truly fought and advocated for who at the time were accused and Macedonia’s distinctiveness and convicted due to upholding ideas were true victims of the communist for Macedonia’s independence.” regime, given that the indictments (“Exoneration for Ali Ahmeti as well, rarely referred to them in such Utrinski vesnik, 25.4.2012) terms. Many persons who advocated for independent Macedonia were Judicial cleansing of dossiers of tried for terrorism, for undermining victims of communism, benefited the state order or were qualified as pension plan for years served in Vanco Mihajlovists.” (“Exoneration prison, as well as social protection of victims of communism halted by to socially disadvantaged people MPs: Gruevski sends Ahmeti’s law to are three pillars underlying DUI’s oblivion”, Dnevnik, 26.4.2012) proposal. (“DUI tailors Law on Rights of Former Political Prisoners: Bekim Fazliu from DPA: “Being anti-Marxist and anti-communist 138 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

party, DPA will support any project Security Administration (UDBA) or law that would offer redress for and Counterintelligence Service Albanian victims of communism, (KOS), secret polices of the army and but not Albanian ‘victims’ of Dzevat political party account for over 10 Ademi’s calibre.” (“Exoneration of million!... In order to achieve fair victims of communism halted by and complete lustration, all dossiers MPs: Gruevski sends Ahmeti’s law to need to be examined, without any oblivion”, Dnevnik, 26.4.2012) selection, which would imply an endless procedure. (“Lustration Erol Rizaov: “True exoneration would last at least one hundred would mean right of families to years: over 10 million UDBA and repeated court proceedings, to KOS’s dossiers wait for us!”, Vecer, discover order-issuers and judges 7.5.2012) who ruled contrary to law, but in line with party or personal orders, Helsinki Committee (Annual to detect false witnesses, snitches Report): As regards lustration and their instructors. Outcomes process, it is noted that lustration is of repeated court proceedings will pursued contrary to Constitutional provide basis for fair reimbursement Court’s decisions, and it clearly as part of court rulings.” (Erol assumes a form of instrument Rizaov, “On Victims and Snitches”, for violation of human rights and Utrinski vesnik, 26.4.2012) freedoms. (“Regress of human rights”, Utrinski vesnik, 14.5.2012) Ilija Dimovski: “Our proposal is fair; we do not say that any person or Administrative Court annulled institution should assess whether all decisions taken by Lustration someone is snitch or not, but we Commission on declaring several want all dossiers and notes to be public officials as informants. published on Internet and made Lawsuits motioned by Vladimir available to all.” (“Dimovski: new Milcin, stage director and Executive wave is not personal confrontation, Director of Foundation Open but reform”, Dnevnik, 29.4.2012) Society Macedonia, and Slobodan Ugrinovski, President of Union of New draft Lustration Law is in front Tito’s Left Forces, as well as several of MPs. (Utrinski vesnik, 30.4.2012) other public officials who sought legal protection before the court, are admitted. (“Administrative 0 May 2 12 Court annuls 11 decisions taken by lustrators”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.5.2012) Vecer: So far, lustration in the country, as process of political Ana Pavlovska - Daneva: “If showdown with communist only Adziev understood the law, profiteers, stumbles on validity of professionalism and justice, he documents it relies on. Dossiers would not have commented on kept in the country are incomplete, individual rulings taken by the whereas dossiers kept by State A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 139

Administrative Court, let alone to lustration. On this account, his case prejudge decisions to be taken by of lustration discredits the process.” the Commission he chairs (with (“Collaborator dossiers of former expired term), in cases for which functionaries cannot be found at procedures have not initiated and MOI, because they were kept at a should be led pursuant to a law that secret location”, Fokus, 19.5.2012) is not adopted yet.” (Ana Pavlovska – Daneva, “Adziev’s Change of Heart”, Pavle Trajanov from Democratic Utrinski vesnik, 17.5.2012) Alliance emphasizes that he is favour of non-selective and fair Aleksander Dinevski, former lustration for all high functionaries member of the State Security Service from 1945 to present. (“Draft (SDB): “There are two categories Lustration Law accepted at first of information sources – operative reading in Parliament,” Dnevnik, links and service collaborators. They 21.5.2012) differ to a large extent. An operative link might not even know that he/ Ana Pavlovska - Daneva, Vice- she talks to service inspector.” President of SDSM: “We are still (“Collaborator dossiers of former of the same standing and expect functionaries cannot be found at VMRO-DPMNE, led by Silvana MOI, because they were kept at a Boneva, to wake up and withdraw secret location”, Fokus, 19.5.2012) the law. Then, it should open a broad public debate and adopt a Aleksander Dinevski, former mutually acceptable solution, which member of the State Security Service will primarily be in compliance (SDB), answering the question on with the Constitution. If not, which how is it possible the Commission is to be expected, we will consider to declare Vladimir Milcin as the lustration process illegitimate.” snitch, when the Administration for (“Lustration passes without the Security and Counterintelligence opposition”, Utrinski vesnik, (DBK) responded that he was 22.5.2012) not registered as collaborator to the service: “Obvious is that Silvana Boneva: “We submitted the Commission has no clue whatsoever law to all parliamentary groups and about rules governing the work of all of them had the opportunity to secret services. Otherwise, they submit comments, but SDSM did would have understood that notes not have any comments. Obvious scribbled by a field office indicating is that they do not want lustration the possibility for a person to be to be implemented or the law to recruited as collaborator do not be adopted, although it is aligned mean that the person was recruited. with EU acquis”. (“Lustration passes Tendency pursued in such cases without the opposition”, Utrinski is obvious... Vlade Milcin has not vesnik, 22.5.2012) recruited as collaborator, and there is no evidence in favour of his 140 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Silvana Boneva: “Declassification Ilija Dimovski from VMRO-DPMNE: [of dossiers] is an experience taken “I cannot understand where does from Germany, Hungary, Poland such fear come from? Process will and Bulgaria… their laws clearly be transparent. Documents related stipulate that documents kept from to all collaborators will be published ideological and political reasons on the [Commission’s] website.” are not classified information.” (“New lustration before new (“New law enters Parliament”, Vecer, elections”, Utrinski vesnik, 20.6.2012) 22.5.2012) Ivon Velickovski from the Liberal Party: “You will not reveal the June 2012 collaborators; instead, you will disgrace many people, although Parliament adopts the amended later they might prove in court that lustration law. (Dnevnik, 20.6.2012) they were not collaborators. That would be pointless, as they would Stojan Andov: “...Gruevski’s regime already be stigmatized. Majority in acknowledges as prominent the Commission determines who members of National Liberation and will be announced as snitch.” (“New Anti-Fascistic War only those who lustration before new elections”, were repressed, i.e., arrested and Utrinski vesnik, 20.6.2012) prosecuted in post-war time. Those who did not share the same destiny, Stojan Andov: “I prepared the draft but have distinguished themselves law which was supported by 93 MPs. as fighters against fascism, are a This means, we had consensus. priori treated as executioners of the It is the most important thing in former.” (“Stojan Andov: Gruevski’s adopting laws of this nature. Today, regime to exonerate Stalin’s we have a situation where some are policy?!”, Fokus, 20.7.2012) in favour, while others against the law, which means that outvoting Ivon Velickovski from the Liberal is in place. It is, practically, in the Party: “I come from a party that hands of the ruling structures.” in 2006 proposed adoption of (“Lustration without consensus Lustration Law. Today I am still is tool in government’s hands”, in favour of lustration, but not Utrinski vesnik, 21.6.2012) implemented in this manner. Just look at the wording - Commission Professor Novica Veljanovski, for Verification of Facts establishes Member of the Commission for non-collaboration with services. If Verification of Facts: “…I support there was a collaborator’s dossier the proposal to publish names of as a term, things might have been collaborators to secret services. …I different.” (“New lustration before believe that documents should be new elections”, Utrinski vesnik, published also for those who oppose 20.6.2012) or deny collaboration and accuse the Commission of incompetence, A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 141

amateurism, selectiveness and in doing so they have committed arbitrariness. (“Lustration without the criminal act failure to enforce consensus is tool in government’s decisions adopted by Constitutional hands”, Utrinski vesnik, 21.6.2012) Court of the Republic of Macedonia”. (“Lustrated file criminal charges Yesterday Vladimir Milcin, Executive against MPs”, Dnevnik, 1.7.2012) Director of the Foundation Open Society - Macedonia (FOSM), Vladimir Milcin: “Why haven’t they addressed President Gorge Ivanov [MPs] changed the Constitution, so with a letter: “It is our expectation they can do whatever they please? that you, with your long experience This is convenient for them; this as professor at the Faculty of Law, allows them to conduct a witch will be committed to maintaining hunt. MPs have directly and Macedonia’s constitutional and legal promptly delivered on orders issued order, which are being destroyed by executive authorities. What they with the adopted Lustration Law, did does not render them protected given that the new law again as ‘sacred cows’. We will not be includes provisions that are silenced and will not contest the contrary to Constitutional Court’s law in front of Constitutional Court decisions from April 2010 and April for the third time, somebody else 2012.” (“Milcin requests Ivanov should do it instead.” (“Criminal to stop Lustration Law”, Utrinski charges against MPs who voted for vesnik, 22.6.2012) Lustration Law”, Utrinski vesnik, 1.7.2012)

July 2012 Uranija Pirovska, Executive Director of the Macedonian Helsinki MPs who voted for adoption of Committee: “The legislator does Lustration Law earned themselves not fully comply with Council criminal charges filed by Ljubomir of Europe’s standards, which Frckoski, Vladimir Milcin, Gjuner recommends that this law makes Ismail, Branko Geroski, Nikola sense only if it successful in dealing Gelevski, Zarko Trajanoski and with the past, in order to protect Roberto Belicanec. (“Criminal the future, not to serve as tool for charges against MPs who voted for retaliation.” (“Lustration before Lustration Law”, Utrinski vesnik, Constitutional Court: third time is 1.7.2012) the charm”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.7.2012)

“By adopting the Lustration Law on Stamen Filipov: “This law is a 20th June 2012, MPs de facto voted disaster and cannot survive in the for unconstitutional legal solutions, legal order. Its adoption does not which were already declared defy only the Constitution, but the unconstitutional and were revoked Constitutional Court’s work as well… by the Constitutional Court. MPs If politics is given primacy over the consciously refuse to implement law, it would mean capitulation of Constitutional Court’s decision, and 142 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

the Constitutional Court, as well Commission] show their intention as of the rule of law.” (“Lustration to silence us [opposition-appointed before Constitutional Court: third commissioners]. Our discussions are time is the charm”, Utrinski vesnik, limited to three minutes, although 5.7.2012) we decide on people’s lives. No provision will prevent me to make Tome Adziev: “You need to read the statements about a decision that is law. It says that all documents that contrary to the law.” (“Lustration were classified are now declassified. Law enters into effect, although In exceptional cases, insight in these it was amended twice”, Dnevnik, documents necessitates a security 17.7.2012) certificate, which will be issued by the Administration for Security FOSM’s Director, Milcin will be and Counterintelligence.” (“Fear lustrated for second time around, of volunteer lustration”, Utrinski in the capacity of former holder vesnik, 12.7.2012) of public office. According to new Lustration Law, people to Cedomir Damjanovski: “In the be targeted by lustration are not wake of local elections, 13,000 to obliged to submit statements to 14,000 candidates for municipal Commission. Commission is to councillors will need to be subject determine order of priority. (“Milcin to verification. Such workload is to be lustrated for second time”, impossible to be completed. This Utrinski vesnik, 23.7.2012) is due to a disastrous error in the law.” (“Fear of volunteer lustration”, Lustration Commission is to start Utrinski vesnik, 12.7.2012) new verification procedure for Director of the Foundation Open Manco Mitevski: “There are many Society Institute, Vladimir Milcin, cases on Constitutional Court’s and another nine people. Yesterday, decisions not being enforced, but lustrators decided that verification most interesting is the Lustration procedures concerning these people Law, whose provisions were deemed are to be repeated although the unconstitutional on two occasions, Constitutional Court revoked certain and are arrogantly adopted for the provisions from the old Lustration third time, with even more rigid Law. (“Commission for Verification solutions and large-scale violations of Facts starts new procedure: to constitutionally guaranteed Milcin again in lustration’s human rights, as indicated by spotlight”, Vecer, 24.7.2012) the international community and legal experts.” (Manco Mitevski, Ana Pavlovska – Daneva, Vice “Government’s adherence to President of SDSM: “[New law] would principles”, Utrinski vesnik, 15.7.2012) not target only collaborators to secret services, but also people who Blagoja Gesoski: “New rules of were subject of operative processing procedure [of the Lustration and those whose names were A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 143

accidentally included in services’ see who snitched on them, how reports. Although they would not and what private life details were be lustrated, details from their shared. (“Following publication lives, secretes they thought were secret collaborators’ names: victims only theirs and ‘juicy’ details that rush to see who snitched on them”, would be considered interesting Dnevnik, 5.8.2012) for the public, could be found on Commission’s website, followed Tome Adziev: “They [victims] can by lustration reality show in the also sign a statement on allowing media.” (“SDSM: so-called internet us, once we determine who supplied lustrations starts”, Utrinski vesnik, information for them, to reveal 24.7.2012) their names in collaborator’s dossier documents.” (“Following publication secret collaborators’ names: victims August 2012 rush to see who snitched on them”, Dnevnik, 5.8.2012) Last Monday, Commission confirmed the lustration decisions concerning Opposition party finds it 11 people in compliance with new unbecoming that collaborators to Lustration Law, which inter alia Counterintelligence Agency who anticipates their publication on worked on issues related to Serbian Internet within three days. (“Names nationalism or operation of Greece’s and dossiers of 11 lustrated people services in the country, which published on Internet”, Dnevnik, means they were not information 4.8.2012) from ideological reasons, are also lustrated. (“Following publication Cedomir Damjanovski: “We should secret collaborators’ names: victims not public names or any dossiers rush to see who snitched on them”, until relevant procedure on these Dnevnik, 5.8.2012 cases is completed.” (Lustration drama starts”, Utrinski vesnik, Announcement on State 4.8.2012) Broadcasting Service: “Any citizen can visit Lustration Commission’s Names of additional 12 lustrated website and without any external persons are published on Internet. influence, without manipulation, (Dnevnik, 5.8.2012) but rather guided by own reasons, can assess contents of documents After the publication of names of 11 concerning the 11 collaborators current and former functionaries to secret services.” (“Internet whom the Lustration Commission lustration”, Utrinski vesnik, 6.8.2012) revealed on its website as collaborators to secret services Danco Cevrevski: “I do not want last week, four families of victims to lead this battle in the media. I in the communist period request would only say that this is absolute access to all documents disposed untruth. I will prove that at system’s by this institution, in order to 144 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

institutions.” (“Danco Cevrevski: my Erol Rizaov: “I dare say that if being snitch is absolute untruth”, Siskov was alive today, being a Utrinski vesnik, 6.8.2012) zealous critic of government and power and justice seeker, party “Theatre called lustration lustrators would find it very easy to continues; on the basis of law with proclaim him snitch on basis of his unconstitutional elements, which tempestuous dossier abound with was not voted for by the opposition, figments of secret service agents… and led by Commission President If VMRO-DPMNE wished to honour whose term had expired. Theatre’s victims of communism, instead of director desperately attempt to confrontations with snitches, mainly distract public’s attention from critics of government and political the unbearable reality. The greater opponents, it should have adopted director’s despair, bigger is the Law on Exoneration of Victims.” theatre.” (“SDSM: theatre to blur (Erol Rizaov, “Don’t hide behind the bleak reality”, Utrinski vesnik, Siskov”, Utrinski vesnik, 7.8.2012) 6.8.2012) Kire Naumov: “In the period when “SDSM is persistent in opposing documents were not published, we lustration. Obviously, it is seriously could easily assume that all persons concerned with not having the truth indicated have in one or another come out about who are victims and way, voluntarily or under duress, who are snitches.” (“VMRO-DPMNE: consented to become collaborators. SDSM protects snitches”, Utrinski Now, with only one exception where vesnik, 6.8.2012) the person concerned does not deny his collaboration, all initially Ilija Dimovski: “Persecutor and published documents do not provide snitch can never be the victim… any evidence that persons indicated Complete documents concerning were actually collaborators… cases of people for whom procedure since when is security-intelligence is initiated in front of Commission treatment of irredentism for Verification of Facts is now (irrespective whether it is Albanian, published on Internet and available Kosovar, Serbian, Bulgarian or to public. This time around, any Greek) classified as snitching from citizens of Republic of Macedonia ideological and political reason. Or, can make own judgment and since when is counterintelligence assessment whether somebody is treatment of activities taken by a snitch or not and whether he is foreign services in our country, virtuous enough to confess and assisted by ‘Veterinarian’, considered repent, or would continue to lie...” snitching?” (“About lustration: what (Ilija Dimovski, “About snitches and is trendy in being Bugarophil?” lustration: not to forget victims, by Dnevnik, 8.8.2012) defending others”, Dnevnik, 6.8.2012) Tome Adziev: “Constitutional Court revoked several legal provisions on A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 145

whose basis certain persons where candidates for public offices, and proclaimed collaborators, and thus not deceased persons. Dossiers for Administrative Court’s decisions DUI’s leaders exist and include way were returned to Lustration more arguments on them being Commission on the grounds of snitches compared to persons they non-existent legal regulations that are disclosing…” (Interview with govern them. Nevertheless, we do Menduh Taci, President of DPA, “In not repeat decision-taking in cases. September, I’ll apply for US visa”, It is the same procedure. Once a Dnevnik, 10.8.2012) procedure is completed, we cannot re-open the docket. That is certain.” Branko Geroski: “Can the story (“I don’t hide any document, Milcin about ‘victims of communism’ be was informant to secret services”, completed, if in addition to victims Vecer, 9.8.2012) and snitches we do not reveal UDBA operatives (State Security Tome Adziev: “…Commission Administration), UDBA prosecutors decided that Milcin had collaborated and judges, UDBA ministers in with and supplied information Macedonian government, spies in for secret services concerning Serbian and Bulgarian services, uncertain persons and events. There destined recipients of Milosevik’s are no dilemmas in that regard. medals and similar creatures? Let If somebody doubts that, it is his/ us learn who these talents are, her problem.” (“I don’t hide any whose doings are we reading on document, Milcin was informant to Internet today? Maybe one of them secret services”, Vecer, 9.8.2012) could be nominated for the literary award ‘Balkanika’.” (Branko Geroski, This afternoon, Commission for “How the Vlach from Bitola and the Verification of Facts published on butcher from Janina revealed a plan its website (http://www.kvf.org. on Greek’s invasion of Macedonia”, mk/mk/resenija.html) names and Fokus, 10.8.2012) dossiers for two more people it had established were collaborators to Jadranka Kostova: “As for Vladimir secret services. (“Names and dossiers Milcin, it seems that Rebirth’s of two more lustrated persons are invisible black book has written in published”), Dnevnik, 10.8.2012) stone his inauguration into snitch, and not even God can help him... For Menduh Taci: “Commission asked those who ask me about lustration, Administration for Security and I was and still am IN FAVOUR of this Counterintelligence (UBK) to provide process, but should immediately them with my dossier ‘Creator’ clarify that what we see today is compiled in the period 2002- not lustration, but an instrument 2006, but was informed that such for dealing with critics and for dossier does not exist, although entertaining masses. The fact that I have a copy. Lustration should talents from VMRO-DPMNE and target current functionaries and DUI smeared the process serves 146 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

their honour.” (Jadranka Kostova, dismantling of the communist “After they are done with ‘murderer’ past not to serve their interest. Ljube and ‘snitch’ Milcin, will they (“Dilemma: dossiers not to be shed some VMRO’s impure blood in published on Internet without evidence of their non-selectivity?!” court procedure. Dismantling the Fokus, 10.8.2012) communist past”, Utrinski vesnik, 12.8.2012) Dimce Najcevski: “...representatives from association ‘Goli Otok’, Vladimir Milcin: “Current on several occasions addressed government’s true goal is not Stojan Andov with a request for lustration, but stigmatization, exoneration of victims under Tito’s because I am a thorn in their eye… regime to be put on Parliament More distressing is the fact that agenda. Andov conditioned their if it cannot force somebody to request with presentation of cooperation, today’s government documents from their trials. compromises then. We are faced Despite the explanation that such with a regime that is no better documents are not in possession of than the regime under which I was former inmates at Goli Otok, notably followed, had my correspondence because they were not tried in court, read, my plays ‘reviewed’ and the requested was not relented considered me dangerous element to.” (letter to editorial board, for the state and liberal.” He “Manipulations of Stojan Andov”, informs that from total of seven Fokus 10.8.2012) documents published on Internet, two have nothing to do with Stojan Andov: “Based on Lustration him. One of them, he explains, Commission’s on-going work, concerns the infamous talk with a an impression is obtained that certain collaborator “Miso” about nobody cares about citizens’ Risto Siskov and the incident constitutionally guaranteed rights, that, allegedly, occurred at club presumption of innocence is not restaurant of “Vardar film”. (“Milcin respected and procedure is not to appeal in front of Administrative followed. Commission labels people Court, but also motion lawsuit and creates general atmosphere of against Adziev”, Utrinski vesnik, political showdowns, rather than 13.8.2012) strengthening the democracy.” (“Dilemma: dossiers not to be Tome Adziev: “Everybody is entitled published on Internet without to raise charges, and those who court procedure. Dismantling the believe are righteous should do communist past”, Utrinski vesnik, so. I have no documents in my 12.8.2012) possession; all documents exist in relevant records, and only those Jovan Donev: “…Obvious is that related to the lustration decision certain circles within SDSM or in were published.” (“Adziev: I have not its surrounding found adherent A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 147

hidden documents”, Utrinski vesnik, somebody persuade us that greater 13.8.2012) transparency is more harmful compared to greater secrecy?” (Ilija Erol Rizaov: “Dear Prime Minister Dimovski, “Reactions to Lustration: Nikola Gruevski, by pursuing a witch Exaltation of Compatriots”, Dnevnik, hunt, orchestrated by your political 13.8.2012) party, you are most responsible for this madness and onlookerism Vladimir Milcin: “He [Tome Adziev] that encroached on Macedonia as has hidden the document issued by a terrible tsunami of primitivism UBK (Administration for Security and low passions. The state that and Counterintelligence) where you manage was turned into it is stated that Vladimir Milcin Snitchville with your blessing. Stop is not a collaborator. He also hid this lynch of innocent people who away the questionnaire on personal are put on the poll of shame by your dossier review, which reads that I obedient servants… You installed an have not collaborated with bodies inquisition that passes judgements on internal matters.” (“Milcin: and publicly brands people first, Adziev is government’s servant and but allow then later, in capacity of accomplice in spreading filthy lies”, victims, to prove they are innocent Vecer, 14.8.2012) in court. Such right is possible only in the darkest regimes and To present, names of 26 people in dictatorships.” (Erol Rizaov, “Open total for whom it was established letter to Gruevski”, Utrinski vesnik, that they had collaborated with 13.8.2012) secret services are published on Lustration Commission’s website. Branko Crvenkovski: “For SDSM, this (“Former municipal councillor from Lustration Law is unconstitutional, Kumanovo is lustrated”, Utrinski illegitimate and thereby invalid. vesnik, 16.8.2012) For us, it simply does not exist and every action made in this regard Kiril Psaltirov: “I was victim of is nothing else but political and the former regime and victim of a criminal violence of VMRO-DPMNE.” real snitch, for which I was under (“After the announced boycott investigation for eight days, because of Lustration Commission: there of my views, ideas and initiative for are no legal obstacles, legitimacy unification of all parts of Macedonia. of decisions will be disputable”, I was repressed by the investigators Dnevnik, 13.8.2012) and pressured to become informant, but I never consented to it; on the Ilija Dimovski: “Nobody losses contrary, I openly told them that with publicity of work, but the such action is in conflict with my Commission gains an opportunity principles.” (“Psaltirov: I am not to explain its work. After all, fight snitch, but victim of the former for democracy implies transparency regime”, Utrinski vesnik, 16.8.2012) in institutions’ work. How can 148 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Dimitar Mircev: “Why members and Verification of Facts … Most absurd chiefs of services who ordered and in the entire situation is the fact implemented snitching, by coercion, that the law provides an opportunity pressure, corruption and human for declared snitches to be dismissed rights violation nonetheless, are from office immediately after the not sanctioned? I do not believe Commission has declared them as that any individual would come to secret service collaborators. (“Nine police and say: here, I volunteer to people declared snitches resort to become a snitch! People from the legal remedies”, Utrinski vesnik, secret services were given highest 21.8.2012) recognitions and medals, additional pension benefits and rather high Gordana Jankuloska: Under no pension benefits, apartments, circumstance will lustration process etc.; and today they enjoy the disrupt the operation of security entertainment offered by lustration. services… (“Jankuloska: lustration And finally, are we sure that same does not harm state security”, things are not pursued by today’s Dnevnik, 23.8.2012) services, using same methods and violating human rights? Who Stojan Andov: “VMRO-DPMNE’s guarantees that in the future they new law, interpreted by Tome would not start publishing lists of Adziev, President of the Lustration modern-day snitches and those they Commission, turns matters have recruited?... This lustration upside-down. This is most obvious madness must stop.” (Dimitar in the case of Vladimir Milcin. Mircev, “Much ado about nothing: Commission, under Adziev’s healing lustration wounds”, Dnevnik, management, has persistently 16.08.2012) and obediently declared Milcin as snitch despite the fact that four Tome Adziev: “New meeting will be competent state institutions issued scheduled as soon as documents written notifications that he is not from state institutions and registered as their collaborator.” concerning certain persons are (“Stojan Andov: VMRO-DPMNE does submitted. Since we depend on not wish legal, but party lustration other institutions, we do not know and exoneration, in order to be the number of people for which able to attribute all evils to SDSM”, documents will be forwarded to us Fokus, 24.8.2012) and when.” (“Quest for functionaries from 1944 lands on obstacles”, In our country, the Commission Utrinski vesnik, 17.8.2012) publishes dossiers on Internet. What is your opinion on this matter?: Since new Lustration Law’s “I know that many states have entry into effect, Administrative decided to do so, but not Germany. Court is presented with a total Commission must have evidence of nine appeals contesting the that somebody was a collaborator decisions taken by Commission for and examine all documents prior A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 149

to revealing the person’s identity.” beginning, lustration served (Interview with Joachim Fester, the government as instrument chief of department on access to for intimidation and silencing Stasi dossiers, “When opening the disobedients from their “own dossiers, privacy must be protected”, ranks”, then it was turned Dnevnik, 28.8.2012) into means for public lynch of opponents, and is now turned into onlookerism as ultimate September 2012 instrument for defocusing public’s attention from actual problems… Uranija Pirovska: “The petition Neither legal, nor societal, or any [motioned in front of Constitutional other logic exists in Commission Court] contests around 13 President’s stubborn insistence to provisions from the law, which lustrate former holders of public primarily concern the lustration offices, in that, neglecting current process’s time scope, as well as governmental officials.” (Ana public disclosure of names of Pavlovska-Daneva, “Onlookerism persons lustrated in the absence beyond Measure”, Utrinski vesnik, of court decision, but on the basis 6.9.2012) of decisions taken by Commission for Verification of Facts.” (“Two Lustration Commission casted a petitions on lustration in front net over there order-issuers, one of Constitutional Court”, Utrinski of whom is deceased. (“Even if they vesnik, 2.9.2012) are deceased, important is to be lustrated”, Utrinski vesnik, 10.9.2012) Blagoja Gesoski, Member of the Lustration Commission: “If it’s Lustrators lustrated two deceased order-issuers turn to be lustrated, persons. (Vecer, 11.9.2012) my proposal is to review documents on inspectors who appear in the Predrag Dimitrovski, Lustration dossiers of persons for whom Commission’s spokesperson: “Should enforceable decisions exists that any of the 11 lustrators find evidence they have collaborated with secret on collaborating or order-issuing services from ideological and role of secret service functionary, political reasons. Second alternative he is entitled to work on the case would be for Administration for alone or hand the case over to Security and Counterintelligence Commission, which is to decide on (UBK) to hand-over documents on the commissioner to be tasked with persons who were followed from reviewing the dossier that was found ideological and political reasons so on own initiative… Data on living as to see who issued such orders.” order-issuer will soon be published (“Adziev discovers three order- on our website, whereas in cases of issuers”, Utrinski vesnik, 5.9.2012) deceased persons, the Commission publishes only the office he Ana Pavlovska-Daneva, Vice performed and its decision, without President of SDSM: “In the 150 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

disclosing the name.” (“Lustrators Blagoja Gesoski: “He declared to research on their own”, Dnevnik, lustration of former holders of 13.9.2012) public office a priority before current functionaries, which Vasil Kostojcinovski, former is nonsense and contrary to all secretary of State Security Service: principles of lustration. In other “I cannot deny being order-issuer words, Tome Adziev is government’s during the time when I performed installation in the Commission and the office Undersecretary of implements its politics.” (Blagoja State Security Service. If a person Gesoski, Member of the Lustration performs this office, he must issue Commission, “On daily basis, orders and must not send back members are appointed to executive people who bring information. boards without being checked by the Finally, jobs in the field of state Lustration Commission?!”, Fokus, security are as any other job.” 28.9.2012) (“Lustration – Kostojcinovski: I was authorized to issue orders”, Utrinski Blagoja Gesoski: “Tome Adziev vesnik, 14.9.2012) did not want to comply with law’s provision stipulating that should Predrag Dimitrovski, Lustration any party publish names or parts Commission’s spokesperson: of dossiers kept for persons who “Regardless of the fact that it is a are to be subject of lustration; matter of a deceased person, legal the Commission must initiate provisions apply to them as well. a criminal procedure.” (Blagoja However, public disclosure of their Gesoski, Member of the Lustration names is made for the purpose of Commission, “On daily basis, revealing the truth, because their members are appointed to executive orders affected certain people boards without being checked by the and their families would like to Lustration Commission?!”, Fokus, know the truth.” (“Names of two 28.9.2012) more snitches are known”, Vecer, 15.9.2012) October 2012 Erol Rizaov: “Lustration. Celebration of lies. Quest for snitches is only Lustration Commission proclaims media spectacle and lynch of people two new snitches, i.e., a former approved by law, which does not Ambassador to Poland and former fulfil basic legal standards. Issuers employee of MOI… (“Ex-Ambassador of orders in politically-motivated declared as collaborator”, Utrinski trials will never be revealed, and vesnik, 15.10.2012) the greatest and most significant Despite the ex-ambassador’s name, victims of persecutions will never published information includes be fully exonerated.” (“Ten Greatest the lustration decision and one Lies”, Utrinski vesnik, 20.9.2012) document, which indicates that the former professor has supplied A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 151

information on another person. His collaboration was discovered through the dossier of another person, while reasons for his collaboration with the services included bureaucraticism and statism. No documents are published for the former state secretary, because it was assessed that such action would also disclose security information. (“Petre Nakovski and Ejup Ademi proclaimed as snitches”, Utrinski vesnik, 18.10.2012)

Newly selected academic who was subject to lustration checks is safe. Today, Commission for Verification of Facts decided there is insufficient evidence to declare him collaborator. (“Newly selected academic was not a snitch”, Utrinski vesnik, 29.10.2012)

November 2012

High imam from the Islamic Religious Community has collaborated with secret services, Vecer learns from sources at the State Archive. His dossier is not yet in the hands of lustrators. (“Lustrators discover another snitch: IRC high imam is lustrated”, Vecer, 9.11.2012)

Gordana Duvnjak: “Four months following the adoption of new Lustration Law, ‘snitches’ declared by Commission for Verification of Facts cannot obtain legal protection from lustration process.” (“Constitutional Court is not in a rush when it comes to lustration cases”, Utrinski vesnik, 13.11.2012) 152 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 153

Application of Lustration Laws 154 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 155

INTRODUCTION

ustration as legal and, more importantly, as moral process on Ldismantling the past in post-communist societies is one of the most controversial topics in Europe. Lustration laws (following the example of denazification) implemented in many former communist countries from Central and Eastern Europe, in order to protect young and fragile democracies from influence of people who had violated human rights in the communist time or had collaborated with the repressive regimes and their security services, failed to bring desired outcomes. Past experiences from implementing lustration processes warn about complexities of the task on dismantling communist heritage. Lustration must not violate principles of the legal state on which democratic states are based, nor should the process pursue retaliation and confrontation with political opponents and critically-minded people. Only fair and legally-pursued lustration can contribute to establishment of moral and truth in public life.

While former socialist countries from Central and Eastern Europe are completing final stages of lustration1, in Republic of Macedonia this pro cess was introduced very late after its independence and is implemented with major lack of understanding about lustration’s true meaning. In terms of its effects, past practices related to lustration implementation shows that it is predestined for failure and is dubbed “witch hunt” of those who have different opinion.I n terms of ethics, lustration is also disputable when considered in correlation with the 2002 Amnesty Law,2 as the latter exculpated participants in the 2001 armed conflict. Although it is a matter of legal solution that falls within the broad concept of dealing with the

1 For example, Czech Republic has completed the lustration process, while lustration’s duration in Republic of Serbia will expire in April 2013; 2 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”no. 18 from 5.3.2002; 156 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

past, lustration process’s shortcomings and weaknesses render this law disputable in terms of legal and moral procedure on dismantling the past.

The need to analyse lustration-related developments and application of lustration law3 originates in the societal and political contexts in Republic of Macedonia that provide the background for lustration implementation, legal solutions that are disputable in terms of their constitutionality, and procedures on determining (non)collaboration with state security services.

This analysis was preceded by activities of the Foundation Open Society – Macedonia (FOSM) that were important in the light of lustration’s implementation within the legal state. Four years have passed from lustration’s regulation by law in Republic of Macedonia, and time is ripe to examine how the process is pursued so far. Inevitable is also the need for continuous monitoring of institutions competent to implement lustration, in particular because supervision exercised by the Constitutional Court, by means of revoking provisions from the lustration law in 2010 and 2012, proved to be insufficient in order to guarantee lustration’s implementation in compliance with democratic and constitutional principles. Parliament also proved to be an institution unable to implement appropriate supervision over lustration’s implementation. In the period January 2009 – July 2012, not once has this institution reconsidered, as agenda items, six-month reports of the Commission for Verification of Facts (responsible for lustration’s implementation). Moreover, in June 2012, Parliament’s current composition adopted a new lustration law, whose text integrates provisions that demonstrate disrespect for decisions taken by the Constitutional Court, which on two occasions revoked provisions from 2008 lustration law.

3 so far, Republic of Macedonia has adopted two lustration laws. First law was called Law on Additional Criteria for Public Office Performance, adopted in February 2008. It was first amended in 2009, and then again in 2011. Law was published in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”no. 14/2008, 64/2009 and 24/2011. Second law on lustration was adopted in June 2012 and is called Law on Additional Criteria for Public Office Performance, Access to Documents and Disclosure of Collaboration with State Security Services. It was published in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”no. 86/2012. This analysis uses the term lustration law to refer to both laws whose titles are given above. Precise reference to the first or the second law would only burden reading of the analysis, and therefore we believe that use of a common denominator would not result in any confusion, since both laws have more similarities than differences. On this account, in order to distinguish between the laws, we will refer to them as 2008 law (or 2009 and 2011 amendments, as necessary) and 2012 law. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 157

This analysis assesses performance of the Commission for Verification of Facts and its legal and practical (administrative, technical, human) capacity to implement lustration in compliance with international standards on human rights protection. For the purpose of obtaining a comprehensive overview of the lustration process and test the application of one of the principles underlying 2012 lustration law, i.e., free access to public information, FOSM submitted a total of 238 Freedom of Information (FOI) applications to all institutions holding certain jurisdiction in lustration implementation.4

4 commission for Verification of Facts;A dministration for Security and Coun- terintelligence at the Ministry of Interior; Intelligence Agency; State Archive of Republic of Macedonia; and Misdemeanour Body at Basic Court Skopje I – Skopje. 158 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

About Lustration...

ustration is a term related to post-communist period and transition Ltowards democracy in Central and Eastern European countries and represents societal, political and legal attempt for post-communist states to deal with their past. It is a matter of complex term that includes broad scope of interpretations and legal procedures on dismantling the heritage from communist regimes. However, lustration procedures – as one measure to face the past in Central and Eastern European countries – are not fully implemented in a desired manner, nor do they bring expected results. Absence of criminal prosecution for large number of members of secret police, secret security services and their collaborators, for which grounded suspicions exist about direct participation in human rights violations, is indicative of serious legal and political shortfalls in the lustration process. On this account, lustration has become one of the most controversial political issues in post-communist Europe and emotional burden to democratic transition of Central and Eastern European countries.

Key problem for lustration are its formal and legal determinants. Contemporary literature and broadly-accepted views are dominated by the position that lustration implies a process of dismantling the past, assisted by opening of secret police and secret service archives, prohibition for public office performance concerning members of former party nomenclature and members of security services, while in case of reasonable suspicions, followed by criminal prosecution for crimes committed5. However, academic and legal debates on lustration are often marked by misunderstandings, which are result of non-delineated borders between societal and moral aspects of dismantling the past, and criminal

5 szczerbiak, Aleks, (2002), Dealing with the Communist Past or the Politics of the Present? Lustration in Post-Communist Poland, Europe-Asia Studies,54 (4), 553-572; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 159

and legal aspects of prohibition and prosecution of former security service members and their collaborators.6

Some analysts support the thesis that lustration (in its original ancient meaning of “purification”7) does not have penal, but moral role of purging the society from communist ideological indoctrination.8 Instead of prosecuting, it should clarify all aspects of the communist rule and represent a procedure on revealing the truth.

Lustration causes many unclarities and divergence of views between different political actors, as the term lustration is burdened with different meanings and causes theoretical discord among scholars. Some authors have expanded the term’s denotation. For example, Brahm believes that lustration has emerged after the Second World War in Europe, and that de-Baathification of Iraqi society following the coalition forces’ invasion in 2003 could also be subsumed under lustration.9 Bogoljub Milosavljevic, however, believes that purges in France, defascization in Italy and denazification in Germany after 1945 also represent lustration, but under a different name.10

Difficulties in understanding lustration as a process also appear because of different types, scope (societal functions subject to lustration) and lustration measures anticipated in different states. Usually, lustration is pursued as part of transition and represents screening, vetting of individuals who run for public offices or already perform them. Authors of relevant texts often use the terms vetting and lustration as synonyms, while some exclusively use the term vetting.11

6 elster, J., (1998), Coming to Terms with the Past. A Framework for the Study of Justice in the Transition to Democracy, Archives Europeenes de Sociologie, 39(1):7-48. 7 Lustrum – Latin word, meaning purification, and concerning the rituals of animal scarification for the purpose of purifying the human soul. 8 Letki, N., (2002.), ‘Lustration and Democratisation in East-Central Europe’, Europe-Asia Studies, 54(4): 545; 9 James, Harlod, (2008), Globalization, Empire and Natural Law. International Affairs,84 (3), 421-436; 10 Milosavljević, Bogoljub (2006) Zakonsko pročišćavanje, Pravda u tranziciji, broj 7, decembar 2006. (Milosavljevic, Bogoljub (2008) Legal Cleansing, Transitional Justice, issue no.7, December 2006); 11 Oxford English Dictionary: the verb to vet was first used in 1891 in the context of horse-racing. At the time, it was used to refer to “checking for health and soundness of a horse by a veterinarian”. In early 20th century, it was used as synonym for “checking or evaluation” in general, and especially a check whose goal is to “search for flaws”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetting). Merriam- 160 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

By means of its Decision from March 2012,12 the Constitutional Court revoked certain provisions from the lustration law and offered an interpretation of persons who should be subject to lustration in Republic of Macedonia, as follows: “...[Lustration] law, which in its essence must concern only holders of public offices in the current democratic system and which limits access to such office for persons who had been previously confirmed to have, directly or indirectly, participated in restricting and violating fundamental human rights and liberties from political or ideological reasons and for the purpose of obtaining material gains or benefits in employment or career advancement, - is in the interest of the entire community”. Furthermore, speaking on lustration’s goal, and again in relation to persons who should be subject to lustration, the Court stresses “... lustration implies a process of dealing with the past, in order to identify and eliminate possibilities for further violation of human rights in the current societal and political system, i.e., lustration’s goal is to protect the future, and not deal with the past per se“.

In this analysis, the term “lustration” also includes processes that took place in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and processes implemented (or still in implementation) in countries- successors of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Having this in mind, motives for introducing contemporary lustration processes (i.e., those that emerged after the fall of Berlin Wall) are very important.

Fall of totalitarian communist regimes in the early 90s of the last century triggered debates and political and legal assessments on acts committed in the name of the regime’s ideology. Process of so-called elimination of opponents to democracy and those who violated human rights in the former regime are considered one of components necessary for transition into another system, i.e., transition to democracy. Discussions on these issues and manner in which they are approached are considered internal issues of the state, while guidelines provided by the international community, in particular the Council of Europe, are geared towards undertaking measures to protect new democracies.13

Webster Online Dictionary lists two meanings of the term vetting: first is “to provide veterinary care for (an animal) or medical care for (a person)”, while the second concerns “to subject to usually expert appraisal or correction (of a manuscript) or to evaluate for possible approval or acceptance (of a candidate for a position)” (http://www.merriam-ebster.com/dictionary/VETTING); 12 u.no. 52/2011 and U.no. 76/2011; 13 Measures recommended in Council of Europe’s Resolution 1096 from 1996 concerning measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totali- A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 161

As regards the justification for enacting a lustration law, in its 2010 Decision, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia14 assesses that: “Parliament, in compliance with its competences stipulated in Article 68 of the Constitution, regulates by law areas of societal life. For that purpose, Parliament adopted the Law on Additional Criteria for Public Office Performance”. Furthermore, the Court determines that: “starting from the legislative body’s constitutional competence to regulate matters by legislation, the Court has assessed that the legislator had constitutional basis to regulate by law a matter from societal life for which it deemed needed and justified to be regulated separately, i.e., define norms and standards whereby perpetrators of human rights violations during the previous political system are prevented from performing public offices in another, democratic system...“

tarian regimes, which is frequently referred to throughout the analysis. 14 u.no. 42/2008 and U.no. 77/2008; 162 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Chapter 1 Macedonian Road to Lustration Law

espite its late adoption in January 2008, lustration law enabled Dthe Republic of Macedonia to join Central and Eastern European countries that clearly distanced themselves of crimes committed in totalitarian communist regimes. In order to understand the lustration process that should contribute to development of democracy, democratic institutions, rule of law and protection of human rights and freedoms, here, an attempt is made to provide an overview of other legislation in Macedonia adopted for the purpose of dealing with the past and as part of decommunization of the society as a whole. First steps taken in that regard include: Law on Transformation of Companies with State Capital (1993); Law on Denationalization (1998); Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by Secret Security Service (2000); and Law on Rights of Persons Persecuted and Imprisoned for Upholding Ideas on Macedonian People’s Distinctiveness and Statehood and Members of Their Families (2002), also known as Law on Redress for People Repressed by Communist Regime. Chronology of laws that imply the concept of decommunization of the society and dismantling the past also includes the Declaration on apologizing to victims of the regime in the period 1945-1990 (2006). A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 163

In terms of categories of persons15 targeted by lustration, this chronology of laws includes the Law on Transformation of Companies with State Capital16 as relevant to the lustration law. When linking transformation of state capital in post-socialist countries and lustration process, one must stress the implementation dynamics, hesitation, motivation and political structures’ role in the process, as well as social consequences, in particular violation of workers’ rights. In the privatization period, but today as well, there was no value-classification of the transformation process, since all discussions on this process end with (re)assessment of state arbitrariness and the role of governing political elites. Period of transformation and privatization in Republic of Macedonia is often treated in black-or-white terms as “honest-dishonest game”, while in citizens’ collective memory this period is rendered as dark episode in the country’s economic development.

Law on Transformation of Companies with State Capital, but also other laws17 related to the privatization process, were – to a large extent – proposed by then-ruling party Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), and – for most part – they were adopted with political consensus, while transformation – as long and complex process – was extended to mandates of several governments (led by both, SDSM and VMRO- DPMNE). Making due consideration of broadly exploited discussions on consequences of and manner in which transformation of companies with state capital was pursued, conclusion is inferred on existence of different perceptions between citizens and political parties. Citizens remember this process as dark period for employees and citizens’ standard of living, while political elites are divided over debating their guilt or innocence in the process. Discussing privatization in correlation with lustration is not unknown to transition period in post-socialist countries. Transition’s

15 2012 lustration law, under categories of persons subject to lustration, also includes persons and their relatives who have acquired ownership over 5% of assets in companies with state capital, pursuant to the Law on Transformation of Companies with State Capital. The term “their relatives” implies natural persons who are related by marriage or adoption, i.e., children and parents, brothers and sisters, half-siblings, grandparents and grandchildren, or relatives twice removed; had lived in partnership for five uninterrupted years in relations parent-guardian and child, foster parents and foster children; daughters-in-law, sons-in-law or parents of spouses. 16 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”no. 38/1993, 48/1993, 21/1998, 25/1999, 81/1999, 49/2000, 6/2002, 31/2003, 38/2004, 35/2006, 84/2007; 17 Law on Restructuring Companies with Operative Losses (1995), Law on Trans- formation of Companies and Cooperatives Managing Agricultural Land (1996) and Law on Privatization of State Capital in Public Enterprises (1996). 164 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

effects are almost identical in all Central and Eastern European countries. Thus, transformation of state capital, its consequences and benefits are part and parcel of all political debates and contentions on the role of then- current political elites in the process, casting suspicions that somebody’s capital acquired under difficult social and economic conditions is not a result of laws’ application.

Given that lustration is not an institute of criminal law, a dilemma is raised on whether, in case an owner (or person related to him/her) of at least 5% private capital acquired in the transformation period has been determined to have collaborated with state security services, will be issued a lustration measure on prohibiting him/her to perform public office? Also, unclear remains the kind of limitation for public office performance to be imposed, i.e., which authority should initiate the procedure on dismissing the person concerned.

Law on Denationalization represents another type of restitution or correcting injustices made on behalf of the state and on the detriment of citizens’ right to possession in the former system. Decommunization character18 of this law, as a concept closely related to lustration, is seen in the commitment to reinstitute tenure rights over property that has been expropriated after 2nd August 1944 by means of different laws and regulations, i.e., confiscated by the state for the purpose of establishing societal ownership over production assets. Law’s enforcement was extended due to citizens’ interest in submitting denationalization applications. In March 2012, Ministry of Finance announced that denationalization process in Republic of Macedonia is completed.19 In that, government’s statement stresses the aspect of Macedonian society’s

18 in the broadest sense, “decommunization” means all political and legal strategies aimed to eradicate communist heritage in the social and political system. Hence, decommunization concerns: 1) prohibition to establish political parties of communist ideology and political parties to include the word “communist” in their name; 2) elimination of symbols pertaining to the socialist regime (renaming of streets and parks; removing of monuments, etc.); 3) criminal prosecution of former party functionaries, agents of secret police and services, on the grounds of having committed criminal acts and abuses; 4) exoneration of victims of the former regime, by public apology and material redress; 5) opening the archives of secret security services; 6) lustration; and 7) restoration of confiscated property – restitution or denationalization; Appel, Hillary, (2005), Anti-Communist Justice and Founding the Post-Communist Order: Lustration and Restitution in Central Europe, East European Politics and Societies, 19 (3), 379-405. 19 emphasizing that they [authorities] have resolved the last of 30,744 denationalization cases in total, in first-instance procedure; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 165

decommunization by correcting a major historical injustice for around 500,000 citizens, who were expelled from their own properties 50 years ago for the interests of state and socialistic self-governance. Despite dominantly positive evaluation of denationalization as presented by authorities, its implementation in practice has been marked by numerous unsolved problems that affect citizens. Analysis of court protection of human rights in administrative disputes20 shows that 40% of lawsuits motioned in front of the Administrative Court in 2009 and 2010 concern matters in the field of denationalization and expropriation. Official data from the Administrative Court indicating that half of lawsuits motioned have not been resolved by the end of 2011 cast additional shadow on denationalization’s track record.21 Also, in contact with the media, citizens who submitted denationalization applications remarked about series of problems they are facing.22 In our opinion, the government should present a report on law’s implementation in full, where it should provide information on the number of total denationalization cases solved in favour of restoring property tenure to its owners and issuing evidence (tenure deeds). Answer to this question could reveal that denationalization process, just as lustration, is selectively applied and discriminates on the basis of political affiliation, due to: 1) bureaucratic procedures in place; 2) undefined hierarchy of bodies competent to implement denationalization; 3) political party suitability and protectionist approach in processing and deciding on denationalization applications.23

20 “More Efforts for More Efficient Courts – Court Protection of Human Rights in Administrative Disputes”, Foundation Open Society – Macedonia, 2012, available at: http://soros.org.mk/dokumenti/Poveke_trud_za_podobar_sud_ MK.pdf 21 Ibid; 22 incompetent, corrupted and non-transparent work of public administration, acting on direct order by the Denationalization Coordination Commission, in one word – inefficient; Lost battle for restitution of property, if found on attractive location and is subject of interest for a person close to government; Administration Court’s slow pace of decision-taking due to high number of appeals: “Bitter taste of denationalization”, Utrinski vesnik, 1.1.2008. 23 all these remarks go in favour of indications made by the Council of Europe, as it emphasized that “disrespect for principles of the legal state and the rule of law in dismantling the past and the heritage of former regimes would not lead to strengthened democracy in the countries where lustration laws are implemented. Manoeuvring procedures and principles on equality and non- discrimination for the benefit of giving priority based on ideological and political suitability of people who exercise lustration-related rights can be qualified by same attributes used to describe opponents of democracy and human rights violators.” 166 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Dosta Dimovska, former Minister of Interior, stresses that Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service is “the first step towards building a legal framework that would limit authorities’ use of the police to follow citizens” and that the law protects the identity of persons who participated in creation of dossiers or were informants. However, on the request of persons concerned, MOI is prepared to also disclose data on snitches.

“Macedonian Parliament unanimously adopts Law on Opening Dossiers Kept by SDB: dossiers will be open to citizens “, Utrinski vesnik, 23.6.2000

Adoption of Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service24 (hereinafter: Law on Treatment of Dossiers) enabled insight into around 15,000 dossiers25 of persons kept by the former State Security Service, i.e., Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (DBK) at the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia, in the period from 1945 until 30th June 2000. Law entitles any person who is citizen of the Republic of Macedonia (in person, or through a legal proxy, in cases of deceased persons, i.e., their spouses, children, parents or grandchildren of any familial line), or persons who in the period 1945-1991 held citizenship in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but originate from Republic of Macedonia, to request access to and insight into their personal dossiers, should they believe such dossier was created and kept by SDB, i.e., DBK. Enforcement of this law is of extreme importance for the lustration process that followed. Namely, Law on Treatment of Dossiers provided an opportunity, although stipulated as exception, for persons who exercised their right to insight into their dossiers, to be informed about the names of officers who worked on dossier-creation, upon submission of a separate request. Otherwise, prior to allowing access to and insight into personal dossier, the law obligated Ministry of Interior to cover and make unreadable data on officers who worked on dossier-creation, as well as of those who supplied information to SDB, i.e., DBK, for that purpose.

After having performed insight within the law-stipulated deadline, i.e., by 13th July 2001 the latest, or if the person concerned has not expressed such interest, personal dossiers and microfilm-recorded materials

24 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 52/2000 from 5.7.2000; 25 state Archive of Republic of Macedonia was handed over 14,572 dossiers placed in 1,101 archive cases. State Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1617/1 from 16.5.2007; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 167

concerning them were to be handed over to permanent possession of the State Archive of Macedonia, only after being assessed in terms of their historical, scholar or cultural values by a special commission established by the Government of the Republic of Macedonia.26 On the day documents are transferred, they are no longer considered official secret pursuant to the Law on Internal Matters and are regulated under Law on Archive Materials. Personal dossiers, microfilm-recorded materials and electronically processed data from personal dossiers without any historical, scholar or cultural value were adequately destroyed pursuant to regulations of the Ministry of Interior within a period of six months following 13th July 2001, i.e., by January 2002 the latest. Additionally, the law stipulated deletion of electronically processed records (of personal dossiers and microfilm-recorded materials) handed over into possession of the State Archive due to their historical, scholar or cultural value. Problem in understating lustration process in the context of the Law on Treatment of Dossier lies in non-existence of official documents (minutes, reports) that provide basis for determining the type of dossiers handed over to the Archive, following assessment of their value performed by a governmental commission. In that regard, there is only one response from the State Archive no. 03-1583/2 (24) from 17.8.2012, which reads: “State Archive of Republic of Macedonia, after having checked documents from the stock ‘Ministry of Interior’, has determined that it does not dispose with the information requested, i.e., State Archive does not dispose with collaborator dossiers“. This response is very important in regard to today’s lustration and actions taken by the Commission for Verification of Facts, as analysis of its performance clearly indicates that in 1,444 cases the Commission was granted direct insight into dossiers stored by the State Archive27, but has not requested such insight in dossiers stored by the Intelligence Agency.28

26 comprised of: Mihajlo Kosturanov, head of department at UBK, Commission President; Svetlana Kostova, chief analyst at UBK; Valentina Markovska, independent analyst at UBK; Vera Dimitrievska, independent analyst at UDB; Remzi Saliu, head of Administration for Protection against Serious Forms of Organized Crimes; academician Blaze Ristovski; Zoran Todorovski, Ph.D, Di- rector of the State Archive of RM; Vasil Jotevski, Ph.D, senior scholar associate at the Institute of National History – Skopje, and Ramzi Abdulji, scholar advisor to the Institute of National History – Skopje, all members, nominated by means of the Government’s Decision no. 17-1247/7 from 27.3.2002; 27 State Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1583/2(11) from 12.9.2012; 28 Intelligence Agency’s FOI response no. 03-495/2 from 25.7.2012; 168 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Doubts in legal enforcement of the Law on Treatment of Dossiers are further fuelled by the fact that the Government, by means of a decision, has established the commission tasked to select personal dossiers as late as one year after the Law on Treatment of Dossiers ceased to create rights and liabilities for persons concerned. Does this mean that during law’s enforcement period, July 2000-July 2001, such commission was not in place? What makes this process unreliable is the response obtained from the State Archive29 in relation to Archive Director’s participation in this commission, as it has noted that such duties were performed in the second half of 2000. Unclear remains how it is possible for the Government’s decision on commission’s establishment to be dated March 2002, while the Archive Director participated in its work during the second half of 2000?

Additional supervision over procedure on treatment of personal dossiers was to be performed by a parliamentary committee30 on overseeing legality of activities taken in proceeding with personal dossiers, established by the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia. This parliamentary committee was never established, although MOI was obliged to present it with monthly and periodical briefs, on committee’s request. Once the Law on Treatment of Dossiers’ validity period expired, MOI was to present the Parliament with a final report on its implementation. OIM did not submit such report to the Parliament, although it was prepared to assign it a classification designation of strictly confidential. By means of decision no. 102-3757/1 from 19th January 2007, MOI rejected access to this report, which was confirmed by the Administrative Court31, which in its disposition on rejecting the appeal lodged against MOI’s decision offered an argument that it is a matter of classified information designated as strictly confidential.T o present, the Parliament has not presented any information or assessment on MOI proceedings and law’s implementation.

Thus, unknown to public are data that are important for the current course and proceedings on the part of lustration-competent institutions, such as: (1) What is the exact number of personal dossiers, microfilm- recorded materials and electronically processed records, which (then- current) governmental commission, comprised of competent and expert

29 state Archive’s FOI response no. 03-950/2 from 10.4.2007, available at: http:// www.spinfo.org.mk/images/sluchai/Drzaven_arhiv_na_RM/2007/Slu- caj_45-2/Odgovor.pdf 30 comprised of MPs from political parties represented in the Parliament and representatives of other bodies; 31 constitutional Court’s Decision U. No. 3478/2007; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 169

persons,32 decided to hand over in possession of the Archive of Republic of Macedonia? Do relevant minutes exist from such meeting and were they presented (as legal obligation pursuant to Article 17, paragraph 3) to the parliamentary committee on overseeing legality of actions taken in proceedings with personal dossiers? (2) What is the exact number of dossiers, microfilm-recorded materials and electronically processed records which, after being assessed by the commission, were destroyed (Article 18), pursuant to MOI’s regulations, and do adequate minutes exist for that purpose? and (3) Did MOI delete electronically processed records on personal dossiers and microfilm-recorded materials related to these dossiers (Article 18, paragraph 2 and Article 16) which, after being assessed by the commission, were handed over in possession of the Archive of Republic of Macedonia and do adequate minutes exist for that purpose?

Irreparable damage on the lustration process is caused by non-fulfilled reporting obligations on the part of authorities competent to supervise enforcement of Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service. This is reflected in deformities that are in continuation related to attempts to deal with past, but also to actual barriers for lustration’s implementation today. Incomplete database and records used as basis to determine (non)collaboration with state security services, which was a result of law-regulated destruction of personal dossiers, microfilm-recorded materials and electronic documents in 2000/2001, raises concerns about political motives behind the lustration process, accompanied by selective and illegal implementation. Finally, justified is the question on whether lustration of persons whose documents are stored at the State Archive is illegal, having in mind the FOI response obtained from this institution that they do not store collaborator dossiers, but only those kept for persons of interest to State Security Service. Consequences caused by failure to implement this process have exceptionally negative effects on today’s lustration process.

Law on Rights of Persons Persecuted and Imprisoned for Upholding Ideas on Macedonian People’s Distinctiveness and Statehood and Member of Their Families is also known as Law on Redress for People Repressed under Communist Regime. This legal solution is both directly and indirectly connected to Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service, but also to other laws that stipulate rights (exoneration) of special category of people who were under duress during the previous regime due to their political ideologies. However,

32 See footnote 26. 170 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

the problem with understanding ideologies makes it difficult to accept that National Liberation War fighters, as well as people persecuted for VMRO’s ideals, political prisoners and deportees during the Cominform period need to be equally exonerated (in moral and material terms). At numerous debates held, arguments were offered that “exoneration of people imprisoned and persecuted for upholding ideas on Macedonia’s statehood and distinctiveness does not render less significant merits of NLW fighters” and that “it is a matter of collision between two ideologies, pro-Yugoslav and pro-Macedonian, which in the previous regime were not forbidden, but represented basis for actions from political and ideological positions”.33

In terms of assessing lustration’s implementation, it can be concluded that all shortcomings originating in the manner in which Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service is enforced are directly related to all other legal solutions governing establishment of facts on whether a person should be exonerated or lustrated. Determining the status of imprisoned, persecuted, interned and referred to forced labour, on one hand, and determining the status of secret informant, secret collaborator, order-issuer and order-executor, on the other hand, must be based on insight into documents for these people kept by state security services and other bodies (court, penitentiary, archive). Therefore, it must be emphasized that competent bodies (information holders) are obliged to enable access to documents (minutes, reports) on whose basis the type of dossiers and number of registered persons from records destroyed or handed over would be determined. If this had been done (but was not), today there would be no dilemmas on establishing the status of “victim” or “collaborator” as part of lustration process, and there would be no dilemma on the type of documents used as basis to establish (non) collaboration with state security services.

Chronology of laws related to the concept of dismantling the past also include the Declaration on apologizing to victims of the regime in the period 1945 - 199034, adopted by the Parliament on 7th April 2006. It reads: “Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, as state body and on behalf of the state, hereby expresses regret and apologizes in public to citizens and members of their families who in the period from 1945 until the organization

33 “Exoneration of victims of communism”, Todor Cepreganov, Direc tor of the Institute of National History, Globus, issue no. 16 from 12.2.2008. available at: (http://www.globusmagazin.com. mk/?ItemID=2EAF0581F6E70E42A3BCBE0385411DAC, (last accessed in July 2012). 34 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”no. 45 from 7.4.2006; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 171

of first parliamentary elections in 1990 had been inflicted injustice by means of criminal prosecution acts or other forms of repression, who had been convicted without reasonable grounds and evidence, and without being tried in legal procedure or by manipulating the legal procedure, and by violating their fundamental rights. Parliament deems necessary to create legislative and other legal bases to determine individual cases of unjustifiable repression of citizens and conditions for fair redress for injustices inflicted. For the purpose of realizing commitments assumed under this declaration, Parliament advocates for records on punitive and other measures taken in the period 1945-1990 and kept by MOI to be made available to repressed citizens, members of their families and their legal proxies, Ministry of Justice, Public Prosecution and the courts. Having in mind the role of the Communist Party of Macedonia as the only real political subject during the political regime from 1945 until the adoption of the Law on Amending the Law on Civil Organizations and Citizens’ Associations from March 1990, Parliament indicates the need for archive of this societal and political organization to be made available to all entities referred to in this declaration, as precondition for clarifying cases that concern them. “ 172 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Chapter 2 (Un)Befitting Context for Lustration Process in Macedonia

As is the case with sociological theories, the analysis should avoid generalization of circumstances under which lustration process is carried out in one country to other cases. Any attempt to apply certain theoretical models and research results to another case and in another environment must make due consideration of specificities and societal context in that country. Additional reason for this analysis not to deal in detail with comparative experiences is the fact that Macedonian public already had the opportunity, as part of other publications,35 to get familiarized with lustration processes and circumstances under which they were implemented in other post-communist states.

Thus, the character of lustration in Republic of Macedonia is determined by factors that affect: (1) society’s and state’s attitude towards its past; (2) context and time when lustration process started; and (3) government’s motivation to pursue legal regulation of lustration as complex, multi-fold and controversial process. Most important circumstances underlying lustration’s implementation include:

35 Here, reference is made to Politicka Misla issue no. 27 “20 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall”, published by Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis”, available at: http://www.idscs.org.mk/ images/stories/politicka_misla/politicka_misla_27.pdf; “Regional Reports: Western Balkans” in Dismantling Hidden Histories: Lustration in the Western Balkans, FOSIM and Lustration in Republic of Macedonia – Comments on the Law on Additional Criteria for Public Office Performance, by Zoran Jankulovski and Marjan Madzovski, published by Kultura. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 173

1. In Republic of Macedonia, lustration process is not understood as process on dismantling the past in its true meaning, but as process of vetting people who were, are or aspire to perform public offices, by determining their (non)collaboration with state security services. Lustration corresponds to vetting, which concerns scanning or evaluation for possible approval or acceptance of persons who perform or run for public offices, in order to determine their collaboration with secret services’ apparatus. This evaluation is made by the Commission for Verification of Facts, in collaboration with state bodies that should confirm a person’s (non)collaboration with state security services from ideological and political reasons. 2. Republic of Macedonia’s independence during the dissolution of former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was peaceful, while governance transfer was pursued by means of democratic parliamentary elections. This fact imposes the dilemma on the need to request responsibility from then-current holders of power, in particular because of the peaceful transfer of governance, which neutralizes the need for responsibility, unless visible and serious human rights violations had been committed in the course of it.36 Hence, lustration process in Republic of Macedonia is late, and from today’s perspective (21 years after the independence), it inevitably results in counter-effects and abuses for political party interests. 3. In order to understand Macedonian society’s attitude towards its past and acceptance or non-acceptance of lustration as political process, it should be noted that large number of citizens would better accept oblivion, rather than engage in setting accounts with the past..37 4. Likely is that lustration, in the form and manner under which it is implemented in Republic of Macedonia, is not a generally

36 s. Huntington stresses that if communists did not surrender power voluntarily and if mass protests of citizens and violence escalations had forced them to do so, then there is need for criminal prosecution and responsibility of people in power at that time. (Huntington, Samuel, (2003), The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Yale University Press). 37 In Republic of Macedonia, confronting the consequences of previous authoritarian regimes is generally considered not very important, because the period after 1945 is regarded as period of state establishment and consolidation, and therefore as positive development in the history of our nation. “Regional Reports: Western Balkans” in Disclosing Hidden Histories: Lustration in the Western Balkans, FOSIM, pg. 31; 174 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

accepted and justified process that should democratize the society, primarily because of the fact that the former system was not characterized as “hard communism”, as was the case with regimes in Central Europe.38 Albeit obvious and registered political persecutions and engagement of secret services in preventing critical expression and social-political dissatisfaction, the economic development, citizens’ living standard, self-governance as form of collective organization and action, right to free movement (emigration), free health care and access to free education, evocate pleasant feelings about life during socialism with citizens from former Yugoslav territories.39 This provides the basis for indications that lustration concepts applied in some European countries cannot be replicated in our societal, political and historical context. Nevertheless, there are no publicly available research studies on citizens’ support for the lustration process initiated in Macedonia in 2009. 5. Lustration law was adopted with consensus in 2008, and later this was the key argument used by the Parliament in defending the law before the Constitutional Court. Societal and political conditions under which the law was adopted were given due consideration by the Court and resulted in its decision that the law, in its entirety, is in compliance with the Constitution. Later, in 2011 and 2012, ruling majority in the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, in the midst of harsh political confrontation with its opponents (the opposition) and those of different mind, used lustration for achieving own party goals. Legislative interventions made in regard to lustration’s time scope and expanded list of public offices and persons subject to

38 Williams does not stress manner in which power was overthrown, but its character while it lasted. Namely, if socialist governance allowed certain degree of citizens’ self-organization, actions of dissidents and free emigration, there would be no expressed desire to “settle accounts”, i.e., the society will choose the path of oblivion and will draw a line”. (Williams, K., Fowler, B., Szczerbiak, A., (2005.), Explaining Lustration in Central Europe: A ‘Post- communist Politics’ Approach, Democratization, 12(1):22-43). 39 results of different public opinion surveys show that citizens of the Republic of Macedonia in general, and Macedonians in particular, hold great nostalgic sentiments for former Yugoslavia. On the question when was life better, nowadays or in Yugoslav times, around 80% of interviewees responded that life was better in Yugoslav time”. Vankovska, B., “Lessons from the Case of the Republic of Macedonia” in Disclosing Hidden Histories: Lustration in the Western Balkans, FOSIM, pg. 139; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 175

lustration were pursued in 2011 and 2012 and were not supported by the opposition.40 6. In case the lustration process escalates into open political confrontations, where human rights are endangered along with threats to operation of the legal state and the state’s security system, influential international organizations are expected to intervene. In Macedonia’s case, such involvement is not noticeable. Reason thereof is the fact that the international community still deems the lustration process in the way it was initially defined and considers it an obligation, albeit not a precondition for Europeization of Republic of Macedonia. However, it should be noted that some diplomatic representatives expressed interest in being informed on the course of lustration process led by the Commission for Verification of Facts.41

40 elster J. stresses that politicians who are in power rarely resist the temptation to use lustration for discrediting their political opponents (the opposition). With change of government, the opposition reciprocates in the same manner. This creates a circle that extends lustration’s duration and scope of application. According to advocates of this position, there are three ways to exit this “vicious circle”. First, political parties must discontinue the circle themselves, by establishing certain coalitions, or by giving power to socialist or ideologically similar parties. Second, the Constitutional Court can declare the law as unconstitutional and the third way implies intervention of an international organization, such as the European Union. (Elster, J., “Coming to Terms with the Past” (1998.), 39(1):7-48;) 41 ambassador of Germany in the Republic of Macedonia publicly reprimanded competent authorities of disregarding presumption of innocence in the lustration process and that the process is condemning and labelling people in advance. Although not confirmed in public, there are reasonable beliefs that the reason behind the withdrawal of the Greek Consul from Republic of Macedonia by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Greece is publication of the dossier “Veterinarian”, where it has been admitted that foreign citizens were operative targets of security services in the Republic of Macedonia. 176 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Chapter 3 Application of Lustration Laws

3.1. Lustration’s scope of application

3.1.1. Lustration’s time scope One of the main characteristic of lustration laws is timeframe of its application. Given that lustration’s goal is to protect the fragile democracy, this goal ceases to be valid once democracy in the society is consolidated. Lustration laws’ timeframe of application also stems from the need to maintain its role of preventing and avoiding repressive actions towards those affected by lustration. This is reflected in legal provisions that govern timeframe of lustration’s application (period when performance of certain office is prohibited), i.e., set forth the deadline by which lustration measures’ validity expires.42

As regards lustration’s time scope, Guidelines to ensure that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, which are part of Mr. Severin’s report referred to in Resolution 1096, include: (a) lustration should be imposed only with respect to acts, employment or membership (in bodies for whom recommendation is given below to be subject to lustration), occurring from 1 January 1980 until the fall of the communist dictatorship;43

42 timeframe of application stipulated in Czechoslovakian laws referred to the end of 1996. Czech Parliament extended this time scope until 2000. Timeframe for lustration law’s application in Albania was set for 2002, in Hungary – 2004, and the German law that concerns Stasi documents was valid for 15 years, i.e., by end of 2006. 43 this recommendation was made on the assumption that unlikely is for anyone who has not committed a human rights violation in the last ten years of the totalitarian communist register, to do so nowadays. (Guidelines, paragraph j) A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 177

(b) disqualification for office based on lustration should not be longer than five years;44 and (c) lustration measures should preferably end no later than December 1999.45 With few exceptions in Central and Eastern European countries, none of these recommendations were observed.

From the adoption of first lustration law in February 2008 to present, our legislation has introduced three variations on lustration’s time scope. First legal framework stipulated that lustration will concern the period from 2nd August 1944 (First session of the Assembly for People’s Liberation of Macedonia - ASNOM) until lustration law’s entry into effect, i.e., February 2008, and will be enforced for a period of five years from the Commission for Verification of Facts’ establishment46. Second legal framework stipulated that lustration will concern the period from ASNOM’s first plenary session until the end of law’s enforcement, i.e., February 2019. Most recent legal solution stipulates that lustration will concern the period from ASNOM’s first session until Law on Free Access to Public Information’s entry into effect, i.e., 1st September 2006. First and second timeframes of lustration process were examined by the Constitutional Court, which found them not in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia from 1991, i.e., not in compliance with the rule of law underlying the democratic order in Republic of Macedonia. In its 2010 Decision, the Constitutional Court determined: “... extension of lustration law’s time scope to cover the period after 1991, when the present Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia was adopted, when the democratic system based on power-sharing was built, which incorporates protection of human rights and freedoms as a fundamental value of the constitutional order that provides the foundations for normative rules and institutions on protection of individual human rights and freedoms, cannot be considered constitutionally justified”. Furthermore, late adoption of certain laws, such as Law on Courts and Law on Ombudsman, as essential legislation in protection of rights and freedoms, which – according to the Constitutional Law on Implementation of the Constitution – were to be adopted no later than six months from the Constitution’s proclamation, cannot be used as constitutional and legal arguments in support of extended lustration timeframe to cover the period after 1991. It should be noted that, in the Court’s opinion, lustration’s scope of application after the Constitution’s

44 this recommendation was made on the assumption that capacity for positive change in an individual’s attitude and habits should not be underestimated. (Guidelines, paragraph g) 45 Because by that time, new democratic system should be consolidated in all former communist totalitarian countries. (Guidelines, paragraph g) 46 commission for Verification of Facts was established on 15th January 2009. 178 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

adoption implies that: “lustration process would appear as modern alternative to the existing legal system and institutions established in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, and would thereby render the law void of its historical dimension and justification as legislative act aimed to correct injustices inflicted by system institutions in proceeding upon above referred and other examples of human rights violations47, that imposes lustration as permanent solution, which is not and has never been the purpose of the legislator, nor does it correspond with lustration’s essence.”

As regards lustration’s time scope, in its second decision from 2012, the Constitutional Court repeated its findings from the first decision, and deemed lustration’s validity period after the Constitution’s adoption in November 1991 as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, this time around, the Constitutional Court dedicated greater attention to another dimension of lustration’s scope that would enable law’s different application, i.e., would enable lustration measures to have different time scope of application for different persons, depending on the period when the Commission for Verification of Facts adopted the decision on determining collaboration with state security services. Notably, the Court indicates to the following: “instead of clear definition of lustration’s time period that would apply equally to all persons concerned, regardless of the time when Commission’s verification decision is adopted, it seems that lustration’s period, i.e., deadline for examining documents depends on the date when the Commission adopts the decision on determining whether a person fulfils additional criteria for public office performance, which – given the large number of persons who are obliged to submit statements on non- collaboration with state security services – is objectively extended to ten years from the Commission for Verification of Facts’ establishment, i.e., until 2019. This means that lustration would end in 2010 for some people, in 2011 for others, but it might end in 2019 (deadline for lustration law’s application) for yet third group of people”. In the Court’s opinion, this puts citizens covered by this process in unequal position.

Inequality in terms of lustration’s duration is even more prominent in 2012 Lustration Law. This law stipulates that current or former public office holders for whom the Commission, after having completed the verification process, has established that they had collaborated with state security services, will restrict their right to perform public office or public

47 Here, reference is made to the “interception” affair, following and interception of the political party VMRO-DPMNE, work of the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence; slow processing of workload at judicial authorities. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 179

service for a period that overlaps with law’s application. This means that lustration measure on prohibiting public office performance due to non- fulfilment of additional criteria would start at different times for different people, and would end at same time for all people. Hence, for example, lustration measure on prohibiting public office performance would be in effect for 7 years in cases of persons for whom the Commission has determined collaboration with state security services and adopted adequate decisions in 2012, but the same would be in effect for a period of only 3 years in cases of persons who would be subject of statement verification in 2016, or only one year for those who would be subject of statement verification in 2018. Such legal provision that allows unequal duration of measures imposed to persons in terms of eligibility for public office performance is contrary to the Guidelines referred to in Council of Europe’s Resolution 1096. Issue of different treatment of persons under 2012 Lustration Law should be deliberated by the Constitutional Court, as a petition48 for this purpose was already motioned in September 2012.

3.1.2. Categories of persons and offices covered by lustration As part of Resolution 1096 from 1996, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe urges the countries to take care that lustration measures are geared towards excluding from governmental power persons who held high positions in the former totalitarian communist regimes and those who cannot be trusted to exercise these competences in consistence with democratic principles, as they have shown no commitment to or belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to them now (Paragraph 11). Assembly thus suggests ensuring that lustration laws comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, and focus on threats to fundamental human rights and the democratisation process (Paragraph 13). This principle leads to the Guidelines to ensure that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, which are part of Mr. Severin’s report referred to in Resolution 1096.49 Guidelines include that lustration should be limited to positions in which there is good reason to believe that the subject would pose a significant danger to human rights or democracy, that is to say, appointed

48 http://www.mhc.org.mk/WBStorage/Files/Inicijativa_Lustracija.pdf 49 http://assembly.coe.int//main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/documents/ WorkingDocs/doc96/EDOC7568.htm 180 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

state offices involving significant responsibility for making or executing governmental policies and practices relating to internal security, or appointed state offices where human rights abuses may be ordered and/or perpetrated, such as law enforcement, security and intelligence services, judiciary and prosecutor’s office.50

In addition to its time scope, Macedonian lustration can also be examined in terms of persons, as well as public offices covered. 2012 Lustration Law stipulates that persons subject to lustration include: (1) candidates for public office holders; (2) current public office holders; and (3) former public office holders.A s for categories of public offices covered by the law, the list is long. Thus, public offices include: President of State; Prime Minister and members of the Government; MPs; mayors; members of municipal councils; officials who manage independent bodies; bodies within ministries; officials who manage administrative organizations and other senior civil servants nominated and appointed by the Government; senior civil servants pursuant to the Law on Civil Servants; managers with special duties and authorizations, military and reserve officers, sergeant majors in the Army of Republic of Macedonia, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior, penitentiary and correctional institutions, other police forces and Intelligence Agency; professors at higher education institutions; judges and public prosecutors; persons and their relatives who have acquired more than 5% of assets in state-owned enterprises pursuant to the Law on Transformation of Companies with State Capital and many more. For the purpose of this analysis, number of categories of offices (defined as public offices under the lustration law) that are subject to lustration amounts to 143. Legislator’s intention to lustrate the entire Macedonian society goes beyond Council of Europe’s recommendations contained in Resolution 1069 and its Guidelines.

It should be emphasized that in its opinion on 2008 draft-lustration law, Government of the Republic of Macedonia stated that category of persons with special duties and authorizations employed at the Ministry of Interior are not considered public office holders or nominated or appointed officers, and indicated that this category should be deleted. This proposal of the Government is contrary to Council of Europe’s recommendations, where it is noted that category of officials in state security services should be given priority in the lustration process. By pursuing actions, proposals and orders, these people have not only been able to act as direct or indirect perpetrators of human rights violations, but in terms of the

50 Ibid. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 181

lustration law they also appear as users of information obtained by means of secret collaboration with persons engaged by these services.

In its 2010 and 2012 Decisions, the Constitutional Court established that: “...the legislator holds legitimate right to stipulate special criteria for performance of certain public offices, precisely defined by lawA ( rticle 5), and is entitled to assess the merits and justification thereof in order to ensure and protect the public interest, according to which additional criteria are stipulated with a view to prevent these persons from performing such offices...“ Knowledgeable of this position, it should not come as surprise the fact that the Court did not ex officio initiate procedure on examining the constitutionality of the long list of public offices subject to lustration. However, the Constitutional Court initiated a procedure and in 2010 revoked law provisions that stipulate lustration’s scope to also cover officers in political parties, members of associations and foundations and religious communities and religious groups, on the grounds of conflict with constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens to free association. Here, it should be stressed that Parliament’s communication submitted to the Constitutional Court in response to initiatives motioned on assessing constitutionality of 2008 lustration law read that participation in public life of political parties, citizens’ associations and foundations, religious communities and religious groups constitutes sufficient reason for these categories of persons to be subject to optional lustration (lustration by free choice on the part of said entities). Such arguments, in the Court’s opinion, could not affect the constitutional position of these entities as independent and separate from the state. This response issued by law’s initiator is unacceptable, having in mind that lustration law should aim to examine individuals who are in position to make decisions on human rights abuses or violations, rather than those who participate in public life.

In 2012, the Constitutional Court assessed that journalists, attorneys-at- law, notaries and mediators should not be subject to lustration as well.

Many categories of public offices covered by our lustration law may raise problems in terms of justification for their inclusion; however, in our country raising problems about public offices for which clear and unambiguous guidelines are given by in-country and international authoritative institutions seems all too easy. Thus, Council of Europe’s Guidelines clearly indicate that lustration should not apply to elective offices, unless the candidate for election so requests. Moreover, Guidelines point that lustration should not apply to positions in private or semi-private organisations, since there are few, if any, positions in such 182 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

organisations with the capacity to undermine or threaten fundamental human rights and the democratic processes.

Interesting is the fact that in its reports, the Commission for Verification of Facts does not include statistics on procedures per categories of public offices. This is important in order to identify whether the Commission, at least in terms of prioritizing persons to be subjected to statement verification, has adhered to Council of Europe’s Guidelines concerning persons who are covered by lustration law. Decisions announced as information for public office holders on their obligation to submit statements and deadline thereof could serve as basis in the attempt to develop list of priority offices in whose cases the Commission has taken actions.51 In that, it should be noted that the Commission did not have legal grounds to set deadlines for submission of statements by various public office holders. List of calls to various public office holders is, as follows:

Category of public office Date of call’s Submission publication deadline in Official Gazette President of the Republic of Macedonia, 1st to 30th Members of Parliament, municipal mayors 28.7.2009 September and mayor of the City of Skopje, Prime 2009 Minister and Members of the Government.

Judges in the Supreme Court, Appeals Courts, Administrative Courts and Basic 25th January Courts, Members of the Judicial Council of to 25th the Public of Macedonia, Public Prosecutor 21.1.2010 February of the Republic of Macedonia, Members of 2010 the Council of Public Prosecutors and public prosecutors.

Chairmen and members of municipal 5th May to 5th 28.4.2010 councils and City Council of Skopje. June 2010

51 2012 Lustration Law does not include the obligation on submitting statements on non-collaboration, but rather stipulates that appointment committees at public bodies submit a list of persons whose collaboration with security services is subject to verification. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 183

Governor, Deputy Governor, Members of the Council of the National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia, and senior management at the National Bank; Secretary-General, Deputy Secretaries General and senior civil servants in the Parliament of the 10th January Republic of Macedonia, Secretary General to 10th and senior civil servants in the Cabinet of 5.1.2011 February the President of the Republic of Macedonia; 2011 general and state secretaries appointed at other institutions and bodies; secretaries of municipalities and secretary of the City of Skopje; members of the Macedonian Academy of Science and Art; and heads of diplomatic missions abroad.

Members of Council, Executive Board, Executive Director, employees at the Public 1st March to 28.2.2011 Broadcasting Service and Members of 1st April 2011 Broadcasting Council.

Former holders of public office (obligation Published 8th March to stems from 2009 amendments to Lustration in daily 8th April 2011 Law) newspapers

Persons who perform offices and hold authorizations at other public organizations, activities and services of public interest 1st December registered pursuant to law; media founders 28.11.2011 2011 to 31st and staff journalists, editors at broadcasting January 2012 companies and non-profit licensed broadcasting operators and press founders and employees.

Table above shows that when setting priorities not only did the Commission fail to observe Council of Europe’s recommendations concerning persons who are subject to lustration law, but it resorted to lustrating exactly those persons that should not be lustrated, i.e., elected officials.

In spite of Constitutional Court’s decision from April 2012, which inter alia revoked the law provision stipulating lustration’s coverage of former officials, the legislator decided to re-integrate these provisions in the lustration law from July 2012. Namely, assessing the constitutionality of law provision according to which former officials are subject to lustration, the Constitutional Court entertained a discussion on the purpose of lustrating former officials, and has therefore – in the decision taken in 2012 – stated: “...question is raised whether former public office holders 184 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

who are not deceased should be subject to lustration just because they are former public office holders and what is the purpose of their lustration given the fact that the law should apply only to public office holders in the current democratic system?”. Furthermore, the Court stated that: “... if former public office holders appear as candidates for public office, they would be nonetheless obliged to submit statements on non-collaboration with state security services pursuant to the law, just as any other candidates; such measure is justified and aims to provide and protect the public interest”. On this account, the Court found that this provision leads to violation of moral integrity and dignity of the person protected by the Constitution, without reasonable grounds and needs thereof, discriminates and puts them in unequal position to other citizens, which is not in compliance with the rule of law and equality of citizens before the Constitution and laws.

Although not essential, additional problem that provides space for manipulation is the fact that lustration law defines public offices that are subject to lustration based on present or current public office titles, thereby making it difficult to apply to former public office holders whose titles are not indicated in the law. Imprecise and vague laws leave room for different application, and thereby for different treatment of citizens.

3.2. Commission for Verification of Facts: Operational set-up and procedure on determining collaboration with state security services

Above-referred Guidelines to ensure that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, which are part of Mr. Severin’s report referred to in Resolution 109652 suggest that lustration should be administered by a specifically created independent commission of distinguished citizens, nominated by the Head of State and approved by Parliament. These guidelines are insufficient to provide specific answer as to what independent commission or other body implies. However, in-country and

52 http://assembly.coe.int//main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/documents/ WorkingDocs/doc96/EDOC7568.htm A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 185

international practice shows that body’s independence can be assessed based on its: (a) formal and legal separation from government; (b) financial independence; (c) manner in which commission staff is appointed (nomination and selection); (d) professional performance of the office; and (e) possibility for investigating.

In the case of the Commission for Verification of Facts some of these criteria are met, in particular it operates as an independent body whose members were appointed based on an open call announced by Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, followed by a list of possible members. Commissioners were appointed by the Parliament on 15th January 2009, nearly a year after lustration law’s entry into effect.A ccording to the first legal solution, the Commission was not envisaged as professional body, but 2009 amendments to the law introduced changes whereby commissioners perform their duties as professional engagement. Commission operates with insufficient budget, and it has duly noted this in its six-month reports. Commission’s budget represents an item from the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia and is therefore subject to budget adjustments and cuts.

3.2.1. Are conditions in place for implementing fair procedures before the Commission for Verification of Facts? Possibility to examine and implement fair procedure is a key aspect addressed under this analysis, since Commission-led procedure governs the decision-making process on the rights of persons subject to verification and on measures that will render them temporarily non-eligible to perform public office. To a great extent, this interferes in individual’s private life and his/her right – under fair procedure – to assume certain (time-limited) responsibility for involvement in violation or restriction of citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms due to political, ideological or political party reasons (last ones are included as novelty in 2012 law).53

53 current legal competences of the Commission include: (1) to collect, examine, analyse and assess documents that contain information on people’s collaboration with state security services; (2) to publish names of candidates for public offices or public authorizations, former and current public office holders, or former and current performers of public services or authorizations whose collaboration with state security services has been determined; (3) to enable access for natural persons to information collected about them, on their request or on the request of their relatives; (4) to issue documents on collaboration of 186 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Any discussion about the procedure on determining non-fulfilment of criteria for public office performance must start from the legal conditions that need to be secured in order to determine that a person is not eligible to perform public office. According to 2012 lustration law, these conditions include:

(1) A person should be registered in dossiers kept by state security services in the Republic of Macedonia and by SFRY’s civil and military state security services, in the capacity of secret collaborator, operative link or secret informant for operative information collection that were subject to processing, storage and use by state security services, in automated or handwritten form of data collections and dossier inventories established and kept for certain persons, by means of which citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms had been violated or restricted due to political or ideological reasons during the communist regime, and due to political, ideological and political party reasons from 17th November 1991;54

(2) Collaboration is considered to mean conscious, secret, organized and continuous cooperation and activity with state security

natural persons with state security services; (5) to initiate procedure on the initiative of third parties; (6) to inform competent authorities about follow-up actions; (7) to adopt Rules of Procedure; (8) to develop six-month reports on its work and submit it to Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia; (9) to cooperate with similar international institutions; (10) to keep a register; and (11) to perform other tasks as stipulated by law. 54 article 4, paragraph 1 reads: any person subject to this law for whom it has been determined by the Com- mission that in the period from adoption of Anti-Fascist Assembly for Peo- ple’s Liberation of Macedonia’s (ASNOM) Declaration on Fundamental Rights of Citizens in Democratic Macedonia on the first session held on 2nd August 1944 until the date when Law on Free Access to Public Information entered into effect, has been recorded in dossiers kept by state security services in the Republic of Macedonia and by SFRY’s civil and military state security services in the capacity of secret collaborator, operative link or secret informant for operative information collection (hereinafter: information) that were subject to processing, storage and use by state security services, in automated or handwritten form of data collections and dossier inventories established and kept for certain persons and used to violate or restrict citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms due to political or ideological reasons during the communist regime or due to political, ideological and political party reasons from 17th November 1991 until the day Law on Free Access to Public Informa- tion entered into effect, shall be considered to fulfil criteria for having his/her right to run for or perform public office restricted. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 187

services, determined on the basis of a document, in the capacity of secret collaborator, operative link or secret informant (hereinafter: secret collaborator) in operative information collection that were subject to processing, storage and use by state security services...55

In order to obtain information on the manner in which the Commission implements the procedure on determining collaboration with state security services, i.e., how it determines that above-listed conditions are fulfilled, we addressed the Commission with Freedom of Information (FOI) applications. On one hand, such course of action was pursued because requested information was not included in Commission’s six-month reports and, on the other hand, because manner in which the Commission assesses fulfilment of said conditions is not stipulated by law.

Below are some FOI applications related to the procedure on assessing whether conditions are fulfilled to determine collaboration with state security services:

(1) In what form does the Commission receive materials on collaborator and informant dossiers (written documents, audio records, visual records, audio-visual records)?

(2) In how many cases has the Commission for Verification of Facts requested expert forensic on the basis of reasonable doubts raised in regard to certain dossier’s text, signature, stamp or paper’s date?

(3) What type of adequate technical equipment for listening audio records and audio-visual records does the Commission for Verification of Facts dispose with?

55 article 18, paragraph 4 reads: (4) Collaboration shall mean conscious, secret, organized and continuous cooperation and activity with state security services, determined on the basis of a document, in the capacity of secret collaborator, operative link or secret informant (hereinafter: secret collaborator) for operative information collection that were subject to processing, storage and use by state security services, in automated or handwritten form of data collections and dossier inventories established and kept for certain persons and used to violate or restrict citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms due to political or ideological reasons during the communist regime or due to political, ideological and political party reasons from 17th November 1991 until the day Law on Free Access to Public Information entered into effect, for material gains or benefits in employment or career advancement. 188 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

(4) Does the material received by the Commission for Verification of Facts from one of law-stipulated institutions specify the motive for collaboration?

(5) Does the material providing written evidence on the fact that a public office holder has accepted the role of collaborator or informant include whether such collaboration was voluntary or forced?

(6) Do materials reviewed by the Commission for Verification of Facts include the proposal for engaging a collaborator as prepared by officers and is this proposal accompanied by approval of such engagement endorsed by all higher instances?

(7) Does the Commission for Verification of Facts determine damages caused to a person for whom information has been collected through the network of collaborators or informants?

(8) Does the Commission for Verification of Facts, as part of its procedure on determining fulfilment of additional criteria for public office performance, analyse grounds for engaging a person in collaboration and grounds for terminating collaboration?

(9) In what manner the Commission for Verification of Facts, as part of its procedure on determining fulfilment of additional criteria for public office performance, determines mental pain caused to a victim for whom information had been collected?

(10) Does the Commission for Verification of Facts take into consideration collaborator’s or informant’s job position at the time of their collaboration?

Unfortunately, the Commission for Verification of Facts did not submit substantive response to any of above-referred FOI applications.56 Manner in which the Commission assesses data it was granted insight into,57 and manner in which it assesses whether conditions are fulfilled to determine that a person has collaborated with state security services, are an essential part of the procedure, on the basis of which the person

56 For more information on the manner in which the Commission for Verifica- tion of Facts responded to FOI applications, please see Chapter 3.3. Other bodies involved in lustration process. 57 For more information on the manner in which the Commission performs insight into dossiers, also see Chapter 3.3. Other bodies involved in lustration process. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 189

concerned can prepare his/her defence. Thus, it is of key importance for persons concerned to be able to obtain full insight into documents on whose basis the Commission has adopted its conclusions. Commission’s decisions on determining collaboration, which are based on a procedure that does not allow confrontation of evidence, can be contested on the grounds of violation to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to fair trial. Same article of the Convention sets forth standards requiring all (including administrative) procedures to ensure equality of arms (equal opportunities to access evidence and contest them) for both parties in the procedure.

Right of persons subject to verification to contestC ommission’s findings was regulated under 2008 lustration law, but the law did not guarantee concerned person’s full insight into documents contained in the alleged collaborator dossier. 2012 lustration law inversed these rights. Now, persons subject to lustration are not entitled to make a deposition or contest Commission’s findings, but all persons are entitled to access information collected for them on whose basis collaboration with state security services was determined. Procedure initiated in front of the Commission is now reduced to communication with state security services58 (for collection of data on persons subject to verification); with the Government, the Parliament and the State Electoral Commission; and other authorities or bodies competent for nominations and with officials who manage relevant bodies (for the purpose of informing them on the decision on determined collaboration). This legal procedure, where persons who are subject to verification are not given any rights in the course of proceedings for the purpose of protecting the public interest, is unprecedented in our legal system. Procedure under which the Commission for Verification of Facts acts is a special administrative procedure governed by principles such as: service-orientation; hearing of parties; accountability; protection of parties’ rights and protection of public interest; provision of assistance to ignorant parties, etc. However, it seems these principles are not upheld by 2012 lustration law.

As regards the right to access and insight in documents, dilemma is raised on the time when a person can exercise this right, i.e., whether it is possible for the person to equally participate in the procedure led by the Commission, having in mind that according to 2012 lustration law former and current public office holders do not know whether a verification

58 For more information on Commission’s communication with these bodies, see Chapter 3.3: Other bodies involved in lustration process. 190 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

procedure has been initiated about them until the Commission adopt a decision on determining their possible collaboration with state security services.59 In that regard, one must make due consideration of the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights in the case Luboch v. Poland60 where it has determined that the Public Interest Commissioner61 had been put in advantaged position due to having access to all relevant documents in the pre-trial and trial phase, while the person subject to lustration had limited access to documents and only in the trial phase. Equality of parties in the case was reconsidered as part of guarantees for fair proceedings, which is covered by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On this account, persons for whom the Commission for Verification of Facts has determined collaboration with state security services are only left with the possibility to communicate with the Administrative Court, by motioning an administrative procedure, i.e., by lodging a lawsuit to contest Commission’s findings. However, dilemma remains as to how persons who have been declared collaborators will present evidence, given that these are not in entirety made available to the Commission, since collaborator dossiers, as explained in Chapter 3.3 below, are kept at the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence, and not at the Commission. Thus, the Administrative Court should assume a corrective role in this quasi- inquisitorial procedure62, and ex officio secure all necessary materials that may serve as evidence in lustration cases, including classified information, for which judges should be given security certificates.

59 candidates for public office are vetted under a different procedure, as they know or should know that by running for office they are subjected to lustration procedure. 60 ectHR application no. 37469/05. 61 specialized body competent to appear as public prosecutor in lustration-related cases. From 2007, this body was replaced by the Lustration Bureau. 62 Lustration procedure and manner in which it is implemented according to the old and new law is a classic example of an inquisition procedure, where defendants have no possibility to defend themselves. Notably, all persons should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair procedure led before an independent decision-maker. Gordan Kalajdziev, PhD, “What does the new Law on Lustration bring? Dismantling the heritage of former communist regime or legalizing political revanchism?”, page 8. Available at: http://soros. org.mk/dokumenti/foom-inserter-za-lustracija.pdf A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 191

As regards the treatment of classified information in lustration processes, in the case Turek v. Slovakia63 the European Court of Human Rights has determined: „the Court recognises that, particularly in proceedings related to the operations of state security agencies, there may be legitimate grounds to limit access to certain documents and other materials. However, in respect of lustration proceedings, this consideration loses much of its validity. In the first place, lustration proceedings are, by their very nature, oriented towards the establishment of facts dating back to the communist era and are not directly linked to the current functions and operations of the security services. Thus, unless the contrary is shown on the facts of a specific case, it cannot be assumed that there remains a continuing and actual public interest in imposing limitations on access to materials classified as confidential under former regimes. Secondly, lustration proceedings inevitably depend on the examination of documents relating to the operations of the former communist security agencies. If the party to whom the classified materials relate is denied access to all or most of the materials in question, his or her possibilities to contradict the security agency’s version of the facts would be severely curtailed. Finally, under the relevant laws, it is typically the security agency itself that has the power to decide what materials should remain classified and for how long. Since, it is the legality of the agency’s actions which is in question in lustration proceedings, the existence of this power is not consistent with the fairness of the proceedings, including the principle of equality of arms. Thus, if a State is to adopt lustration measures, it must ensure that the persons affected thereby enjoy all procedural guarantees under the Convention in respect of any proceedings relating to the application of such measures.“ This was one of the reasons on whose basis the Court found violation to Article 6 of the Convention in the given case.

In the same case, the Court held that by not allowing the complainant access to all materials on whose basis he could present evidence, unlike the state, which had full access to the, implied unrealistic burden of proof on the complainant, regardless of the fact that in compliance with the national laws in Slovakia, the procedure he initiated implied that the applicant bears the burden of proof.64 According to the Court, such procedure is contrary to the principle of equality.

63 ectHR application no. 57986/00; 64 court protection in lustration cases led in Slovakia is governed by litigation laws. 192 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

European Convention on Human Rights is directly applicable in the national legal system and hence standards on fair trial must be respected in both, procedures led before the Commission and in procedures led before the Administrative Court.

3.2.2. Lustration in Macedonia: Protection of public interest or violation of the right to privacy? One of key issues in lustration process is balancing between protection of public interest, i.e., protection of the fragile democracy, and protection of privacy of persons subject to lustration. Court in Strasbourg reviewed lustration cases specifically in regard to violation to Article 8 of the Convention, i.e., the right to privacy. Issue of privacy already gained importance under Constitutional Court’s decision from 2010, whereby several provisions were revoked on the grounds of their non-compliance with Articles 11 and 25 of the Constitution65. Thus, in regard to the legal provision from 2008 lustration law stipulating that the Commission for Verification of Facts is obliged, immediately after the verification procedure is completed, i.e., once it becomes enforceable before competent court, to publish in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia personal data on the individual for whom it has determined to have been collaborator to state security services, the Constitutional Court established: “...it is a disproportionate solution that exceeds justification of stipulated special condition for public office performance and leads to violation of citizens’ moral integrity and dignity”. Furthermore, according to the Court: “law’s purpose is to prevent perpetrators of human right violations to hold public offices, which is achieved by informing competent authorities and institutions thereof, while public disclosure of data for these persons is considered disproportionate solution that exceeds justification of stipulated special condition for public office performance...” In addition, the Court believes that publication of data is a form of public stigmatization, which resembles sanction that may have consequences in all spheres of people’s lives, not just prohibition for public office performance, which is in fact the purpose of this law.

If one takes into consideration the arguments provided by the Constitutional Court in its 2010 Decision, which prohibited publication

65 article 11 of the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia protects the individual’s right to physical and moral dignity, while Article 25 concerns protection of privacy and personal and family life. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 193

of collaborators’ personal data in the Official Gazette, then less understandable is the solution contained in 2012 lustration law according to which decision that determines persons’ collaboration with state security services should be published on the Commission for Verification of Facts’ website. These decisions are published before their enforceability or prior to having decision’s legality examined in a procedure initiated before the Administrative Court. This shows that the Commission for Verification of Facts does not perceive itself as directly responsible for implementation of Constitutional Court’s decision from 2010 in regard to respecting the right to privacy. On the contrary, the Commission chooses to comply with the procedure as stipulated in 2012 lustration law, thereby making more serious violation to privacy. In this case, the Commission considers the ruling majority in Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia a greater authority than the Constitutional Court, although decisions taken by the latter are binding and final.

European Court of Human Rights, in a recent decision from 13th November 2012 taken in the case Joana Suzulc v. Poland66, concerning lustration, established that the right to privacy had been violated on the grounds that the State failed to fulfill its obligation to implement effective proceedings wherein the applicant will be given access to all relevant information concerning her and created by security services during the previous regime. In the same case, the Court reiterated that: “…there are obvious risks to the reputation of a person in a system where the files of the former security services are held by a State authority which has exclusive and unre- viewable powers to classify a person as a collaborator of those services”.

3.3. Other bodies involved in lustration process

Idea that democratic states must open dossiers kept by secret security services and adopt relevant laws on access to these dossiers was imposed in all countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Namely, by means of Resolution 1096 from 1996, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe welcomes the opening of secret service files for public examination in some former communist totalitarian countries. It advises all countries concerned to enable persons affected to examine, should they wish to do

66 ectHR application no. 43932/08 194 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

so, files kept for them by the former secret services.S cope and manner of using dossiers of secret collaborators and access thereto depends on the resolution of conflict between: (a) individual’s rights to protection from abuse of personal data; and (b) right of public access to information that concerns dossiers of public political officials. This conflict was resolved by the Hungarian Constitutional Court under decision no. 60/1994. According to jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Hungarian Constitutional Court determined that the past of public political officials is “data of public interest” pursuant to Article 61 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the public has the right to this information. So, dossiers kept by secret services must not be destroyed or be held in strict secrecy in a democratic state based on the rule of law. Right to access to information concerning persons who are not public figures exclude unrestricted access to information. Distinction between public interest information and information that should be kept secret is a “political decision”, by means of which the state exercises its discretionary right to regulate its national legislation.67

The dilemma concerning ethical aspects of using compromising materials in the interest of justice and reliability of information contained in dossiers is best reflected in the question on whether dossiers should be destroyed or protected as strictly confidential, which also implies prohibition to use information therefrom. There are different positions on this issue. Some believe that dossiers are the only source of information on operations of communist secret security services and therefore should not be destroyed. Their destruction or total secrecy does not guarantee protection from leaking in public of compromising data “arranged” by former and current secret service officers. This only extends the influence of former communist structures.68

As regards use of dossiers kept by secret security services in the context of proving “guilt” in lustration process, particularly important is the question on the manner in which they are kept. It is recommended that dossiers of security services used in lustration process should be kept by

67 oltay, E., (1994), Hungary’s Screening Law, RFE/RL Research Report 3:15. 68 an example includes the public scandal caused by L`Express, claiming that in the period 1953-1963, former Minister of Defense in France, Charles Hernu was “KGB agent” (A.-A. Allen, (1996), Responsibility and Justice after the Czech Transition: The Policy of Lustration, Princeton University, 32); or the scandal concerning the Mayor of Vienna, Helmut Zilk, for whom some Czech politicians claimed in the media to be former collaborator to Czechoslovak secret services (Erich Inciyan, „Des documents sovietique confirment que Charles Hernu a travaille pour l’Est“, Le Monde (17. 11.1997)); A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 195

a non-political institution “that would control access to archives and will not have any impact on the individual’s fate”.69 As regards proper keeping of secret services’ archives, it is recommended that an institution (office, agency) should be established independent from political influence and ruling parties’ wishes. This institution should be comprised of independent experts who, on the request of the body responsible for lustration’s implementation, will check whether archives contain data confirming that public office holders were collaborators to secret services. Data whose validity is determined would be submitted to the body (“Lustration Commission”). Germany has established such system of keeping archived documents at the Office of the FederalC ommissioner Preserving the Records of the Stasi (Ministry for State Security) of the GDR70, but that is not the case in Macedonia.

State security services in Macedonia (Administration for Security and Counterintelligence at the Ministry of Interior, Sector for Security and Counterintelligence at the Ministry of Defence71, Intelligence Agency) and

69 However, most post-socialist countries have tasked their respective ministries of interior with keeping and organizing these documents. This means that ruling political parties have access to confidential data, and they often do not resist the temptation to publish data concerning their political opponents. there are many cases where archives of secret security services were abused for political purposes. For example, in Poland before the 1990 elections, when then-Deputy Minister of Interior Jan Ruml, publicly accused President of the National Party, Joseph Bartonchki, of being active collaborator to the Secu- rity Service (Služba Bezpieczinstwa). Accusations followed claiming that Jan Ruml’s party, i.e., Civil Forum, wishes to undermine the growing pre-election popularity of the National Party. In 1992, in Poland, Minister of Interior, An- thoni Macierewicz, in the Government presided by Jan Olszewski, submitted to Parliament three lists that included names of highest officials who were secret police collaborators during socialism. One of the lists included the name of President Lech Wałęsa. The scandal erupted for two days before motion of no confidence in the Government was passed. Prior to this, Olszewski held a press conference where he dramatically stated that secret police agents want to overthrow the government. Several days later Parliament appointed committee tasked to investigate the motives behind this scandal. In Hungary, there was also abuse of secret police’s archives. Former Prime Minister, József Antall, abused secret police dossiers to accuse his political opponents József Torgyán and István Csurka of collaboration with secret police. Cases of abuse of secret service archives are indicative of the work of Ministries of Interior and ruling parties’ access to documents. Large affairs with dossiers of collaborators with secret services in all countries in Europe have occurred as precursors to respective lustration processes. 70 http://www.bstu.bund.de/DE/Home/home_node.html. 71 2012 lustration law refers to this body as the Military Service for Security and Counterintelligence at the Ministry of Defence. 196 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

the State Archive of Republic of Macedonia are obliged to cooperate with the Commission for Verification of Facts in determining (non)collaboration with state security services. By law, they are obliged to enable the Commission direct insight into and give at its disposal all relevant data, files and other documents pursuant to conditions laid down in the Law on Classified Information.72 In the context of this obligation for cooperation among institutions, i.e., Commission’s obligation to perform direct insight into and dispose with relevant documents, in order to determine (non)collaboration with state security services, by end of July 2012, FOSM submitted a total of 238 Freedom of Information (FOI) applications to competent institutions. FOSM relied on the Law on Free Access to Public Information as methodology tool to collect data on implementation of 2008 and 2012 lustration laws, because on one hand, start of this law’s application (September 2006) corresponds with lustration’s time scope, and on the other hand, transparency of institutions should be guaranteed after that date. Nevertheless, total number of complaints lodged in relation to non-responded FOI applications (69% of cases) indicates that access to information is not exercised. In order to present transparency level of competent institutions and their willingness to implement lustration process in compliance with international human rights standards, this analysis includes parts of responses received from institutions. In our opinion, these responses suggest that lustration is not implemented in the spirit of the legal state based on the rule of law.

Overview of FOI applications submitted, responses received, and complaints lodged (by 14.9.2012):

Number Number of Number of of FOI Institution responses complaints applications received lodged submitted Commission for Verification of 119 119 119 Facts

Intelligence Agency 28 28 1

72 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”, no. 9/2004, 113/2007, 145/2010, 80/2012; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 197

Administration for Security and Counterintelligence 29 29 8 at MOI Sector for Security and Counterintelligence 28 0 28 at Ministry of Defence State Archive 28 20 8 Basic Court Skopje I (Misdemeanour body) 7 7 0 Total 239 203 164

Although it responded to all 119 FOI applications, in 83 cases the Commission for Verification of Facts reiterated that our FOI applications are developed in the form of question that requires an answer and therefore the Commission for Verification of Facts is uncertain as to the form stipulated by the Law on Free Access to Public Information under which the application can be subsumed. As regards remaining 36 FOI applications, the Commission did not mind the question form used, and its responses referred us to its website, i.e., link leading to its six-month reports. It is important to note that at the time when the Commission referred us to its website (18 September), it was fully aware that it was two months late in fulfilling its obligation on adopting and publishing the report concerning the period 15th January – 15th July 2012!73 Or, for example, on the question about the number of requests to check facts for people who did not submit statements on non-collaboration with state security services submitted by the Commission to the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence, relevant response contained yet another reference to its reports, albeit being aware that these reports do not contain the requested information. On this account, obvious is that the key actor in lustration law’s implementation does not intend to inform the public about the manner in which it leads this important process that should enable further democratization of Macedonian society. Evidence in support of this conclusion is seen in restricted access to minutes from Commission’s meetings, with the explanation that these

73 commission for Verification of Facts’ FOI response no.07-3347/1 from 18.9.2012; 198 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

are classified information74. How it is possible for Commission’s minutes75 to be classified documents, when they do not contain anything more than what can be inferred from the Register of Lustrated Persons, which is available on Commission’s website? This publicly available register also includes Commission’s decision (before becoming final and enforceable!), indicating the fundamental reason for declaring a person collaborator to secret services, i.e., Commission’s conclusions.

3.3.1. Administration for Security and Counterintelligence at the Ministry of Interior FOI responses from the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (UBK)76 submitted through the Ministry of Interior are to a large extent imprecise and general. Thus, on the question about the number of requests made by the Commission for Verification of Facts upon which UBK acted, the response read: “UBK acted on all requests submitted by the Commission.”77 Similar responses were obtained in respect to deadlines for UBK to act on Commission’s requests, i.e., UBK adhered to all law-stipulated deadlines.78 It is important to stress UBK’s response on declassification of documents, notes and other information relevant for lustration’s implementation. Namely, UBK responded that: “declassification of documents, notes and other information has been performed with a view to implement Law on Treatment of Personal

74 commission for Verification of Facts’ communication no.07-2646/64 from 27.7.2012; 75 according to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission for Verification of Facts, minutes include basic information about its meeting, proposal motioned and conclusion inferred, voting results and special opinions. 76 Pursuant to provisions from Law on Internal Affairs (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”, no. 118/2009) and Rules of Procedure adopted by the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence, UBK is competent to perform internal affairs related to security and counterintelligence. Security and counterintelligence affairs include counterintelligence activity, prevention and protection against terrorism, protection against other activities aimed to jeopardize or overthrow democratic institutions established with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and aggravated forms of organized crime that originate from or are directed towards system’s democratic institutions established by the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and that could endanger or affect state’s security. 77 item 1 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012; 78 item 2 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 199

Dossiers Kept by State Security Service”79 and that: “declassified documents (dossiers, analytical materials, files, collections), including dossiers of collaborators to state security services, is handed over in possession of the State Archive of Republic of Macedonia”.80

This response is contrary to the one provided by the State Archive no. 03-1583/2 (24) from 17.8.2012, where it was indicated that: “after having checked documents registered under ‘Ministry of Interior’ stock, the State Archive concludes that it does not dispose with the requested information, i.e., the State Archive does not dispose with collaborator dossiers”. These responses emphasize inconsistencies in institutions’ responses and raise concerns about legal and process security in lustration’s implementation, and raise the question on where are collaborators’ dossiers at the moment?

Moreover, the Ministry of Interior denied access to information81 in relation to following FOI applications:

1. What is the number of collaborator dossiers disposed by UBK?; and 2. What is the share of dossiers on collaborators operating until 1991 from the total number of collaborators’ dossiers? UBK-provided explanation indicates that: (a) number of collaborators and (b) share of collaborators operating until 1991, are considered “classified information designated as strictly confidential, pursuant to the law”82. How it is possible for the number of collaborators to be classified information knowing that collaborator dossiers were declassified and handed over to the State Archive, as previously indicated in MOI’s FOI response? (See paragraph above, MOI’s response). Such behaviour in public on the part of MOI righteously imposes the need to discuss reliability of documents used to determine (non)collaboration with state security services of persons subject to lustration. Procedures’ essence is to legitimize lustration process by providing adequate and proper opportunity to test evidence presented against a person, as well as to abandon practices of taking for granted documents obtained by state security services. Therefore, on the account of possible criminal abuses, the organized legal system must guarantee that concerned persons have the right to expert forensics of materials. This issue deserves special attention, having in

79 item 10 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012, pg. 4; 80 item 12 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012, pg. 4; 81 FOI application no. 11-558/28 and no. 11-558/29 from 27.6.2012; 82 decision on denying access to public information no. 15-47493/1 and no. 15- 47489/1 from 6.8.2012; 200 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

mind events related to alleged falsification of dossiers concerning leaders of Democratic Union for Integration as collaborators to secret security services.83

Also, UBK was addressed with FOI applications related to documents made available for insight into the Commission, as follows: (1) Does UBK enable direct insight into documents for the Commission as part of the procedure on determining facts on (non)collaboration with state security services?; (2) In how many cases has the Administration allowed such insight?; (3) When given direct insight into documents, was the Commission examining original documents or copies?; and (4) Does the Commission have access to the Register of Collaborators?84 MOI’s response85 indicated that UBK enables the Commission “insight into and reviewing of original documents, notes and other relevant data, but only for a specific person”.86 However, as regards the exact number of cases in which UBK allowed the Commission to make direct insight into data, the response instructed that such information should be requested from the Commission87. If so, why did UBK inform about “keeping internal records on time and person concerned for which Commission Members performed insight in documents”.88

Most important information provided by MOI, which raises doubts about lustration process’ legitimacy, concerns the Commission for Verification of Facts’ inability to make an insight in the Register of Collaborators89 kept by MOI, having in mind that the Commission is competent to determine persons’ (non)collaboration with state security services. Notably, MOI’s response clearly indicates that: “UBK does not allow the Commission access to the Register of Collaborators”.90 UBK has still not responded on the question concerning the document from collaborator dossier on whose basis the Commission verifies his/her collaboration

83 For more information see “Chronology of Important Events, Statements and Newspaper Articles Related to Lustration in Macedonia”, Timeframe: January 2011: 84 FOI application no. 11-558/13, no. 11-558/14, no. 11-558/17 and no. 11-558/18 from 27.6.2012; 85 MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012; 86 items 5 and 8 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012, pg. 2; 87 item 6 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012, pg. 3; 88 item 17 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012, pg. 6; 89 uBK’s Register of Collaborators also includes basic data on collaboration relations (name, surname, pseudonym, date of registration and date of deregistration). For more information see Chapter 4. 90 item 6 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012, pg. 4; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 201

with state security services, and how many times did the Commission ask UBK’s experts for an opinion. UBK forwarded these questions to the Commission, although - in our opinion - it is very important for UBK to answer them due to several reasons:

1. For the purpose of fair and professional implementation of lustration, UBK must enable “expert and correct reading of documents it had created”; 2. UBK must pay due attention to possible violations of its operative work and more importantly to possible violations of human rights that might arise from improper reading of documents; and 3. UBK must keep records on Commission’s requests for document reviewing and persons concerned with these reviews. Development of this analysis on lustration process’ implementation and law’s application, necessitated information on the Commission for Verification of Facts’ preparedness to cooperate with experts from UBK and the expert public, as well as its practices on inviting them to participate in Commission’s meetings. MOI responded that by 6.8.2012, the Commission has not invited any UBK expert to participate on its meetings.91

UBK has an important role and task in lustration process because on one hand, it appears as creator of documents (collaborator dossiers), which is the basis for determining (non)collaboration of persons and participates in reviews requested by the Commission, while on the other hand, MOI officers with special authorizations are also subject to lustration. In this context, it should be emphasized that Council of Europe’s recommended creators of dossiers should be a priority in terms of categories of persons subject to lustration.92. At the same time, dilemma and concerns are raised

91 item 14 from MOI’s FOI response no. 47492/1 from 6.8.2012; 92 Guidelines to ensure that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, which include that lustration should be limited to positions in which there is good reason to believe that the subject would pose a significant danger to human rights or democracy, that is to say appointed state offices involving significant responsibility for making or executing governmental policies and practices related to internal security, or appointed state offices where human rights abuses may be ordered and/or perpetrated, such as law enforcement, security and intelligence services, judiciary and prosecutor’s office. For more information see Chapter 3.1.2: Categories of persons and offices covered by lustration. 202 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

that MOI employees are not prioritized in the lustration process, and even if they are, the question is raised on who will lustrate order-issuers and creators of collaborator dossiers when there are no guarantees that they will disclose themselves.

3.3.2. Intelligence Agency Intelligence Agency performs analyses and research, collects and collates data and information relevant to security and defence of the Republic of Macedonia, as well as state’s economic, political and other interests. Intelligence Agency was established by the Law on Intelligence Agency93 adopted in March 1995, and was constituted on 1st January 1998.94 Entry into effect of this law cancelled several key laws governing the operation of state security services, which appear as bodies that should cooperate with the Commission for Verification of Facts in the lustration process95. With the establishment of the Intelligence Agency, MOI’s employees who were at that time deployed at the State Security Service (SDB), as well as employees from other services, were reassigned to the Agency. MOI authorized officers who were reassigned to the Agency had their time spent in performing activities and tasks with special duties and authorizations at the Ministry regarded as performing special duties and authorizations at the Agency. At that time, the Agency took over part of equipment, inventory, archive resources, documents and other operating resources from State Security Service at the Ministry of Interior. The fact that after its establishment, the Agency was handed over part of materials and archives kept by the State Security Service at MOI indicates that the Agency is an important factor in the lustration process as information holder.

FOI responses 96 provide the conclusion that the Intelligence Agency did not allow the Commission direct insight into documents, notes and other

93 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”, no. 19 from 6.4.1995; 94 intelligence Agency’s FOI response no. 03-510/2; 95 Law on Supervision over State Security Service, “Official Gazette of Socialist Republic of Macedonia” no. 26/89; Law on Internal Affairs, “Official Gazette of Socialist Republic of Macedonia” no. 45/72, 8/73, 31/74, 24/80 and 24/88; and “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”no. 36/91, 19/92; Law on State Security System’s Pillars, “Official Journal of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” no. 15/84 and 42/90; 96 For the purpose of developing the analysis of lustration process, the Foun- dation Open Society – Macedonia addressed the Intelligence Agency with 27 FOI applications. The Agency responded to all FOI applications concerning its cooperation with the Commission for Verification of Facts within the law- stipulated deadline. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 203

relevant data as part of the procedure on determining (non)collaboration of persons with state security services. This is due to the fact that the Commission for Verification of Facts did not request97 insight in Agency’s documents, which means that the Agency had no opportunity to enable the Commission insight into original documents.98 In order to analyse the lustration process and law’s implementation, important is to determine whether the Commission receives necessary documents from the Agency on whose basis it will determine conscious, secret, organized and continuous collaboration, although it has not requested access thereto. The Agency responded that as part of procedure on determining (non)collaboration of persons with state security services it presented the Commission only with one “notification”.99 In that, analysis of FOI responses obtained from the Agency clearly indicate that the Commission for Verification of Facts has not asked for its expert opinion100 or invited it to participate in Commission’s meetings.101

As was the case with UBK, which did not allow the Commission access to the Register of Collaborators102, the Agency acts in same manner103 and thereby opens a dilemma on how is it possible for the Commission to determine whether a persons was collaborator to security services or not if it is not granted access to the Registers of Collaborators kept by UBK and Intelligence Agency. In identical manner as UBK, the Agency also denied access to information on the number of collaborator dossiers it disposes with, and provided the explanation that it is “classified information designated as strictly confidential, whose disclosure could harm the agency’s future operation”.104

Last but not least important in regard to proper implementation of lustration, is the information on whether persons with special duties and authorizations employed at the Intelligence Agency submitted statements on non-collaboration with state security services at the time

97 agency’s FOI response no. 03-489/2 from 25.7.2012; 98 agency’s FOI response no. 03-499/2 to FOI application n, Reponses, No. 11- 559/16; 99 agency’s FOI response no. 03-488/2 from 25.7.2012; 100 Agency’s FOI response no. 03-504/2 from 25.7.2012; 101 agency’s FOI response no. 03-506/2 from 25.7.2012; 102 See explanation and MOI’s response related to Footnote 89 103 Intelligence Agency’s FOI response no. 03-498/2 from 25.7.2012 related to FOI application no. 11/559/15; 104 Agency’s decision on denying access to public information no. 04-532/1 from 3.9.2012; 204 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

when 2008 lustration law was in effect105, i.e., whether the Commission for Verification of Facts started screening these persons after 2012 lustration law entered into effect? All concerns in that regard are valid, as Agency employees, just as MOI employees, were not given a priority in the lustration process.

3.3.3. Security and Counterintelligence Department at the Ministry of Defence Security and Counterintelligence Department at the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Macedonia is also one of the bodies that should cooperate with the Commission for Verification of Facts as part of the procedure on verifying statements on (non)collaboration with state security services submitted by persons covered by lustration law. This Department is enlisted as body for cooperation in the lustration process because its predecessor in the previous political regime was the Yugoslav National Army’s Counterintelligence Service (KOS)106 at the Ministry of National Defence of SFRY. FOSM addressed this Department with FOI applications related to its cooperation with the Commission for Verification of Facts. By the cut-off date for this analysis inN ovember, the Department did not respond to any of these applications. This body was included in the analysis due to its role as information holder and cooperation collocutor to the Commission for Verification of Facts, but also because its employees with special duties and authorizations are covered by the lustration process. Again, starting from the Council of Europe’s recommendation about category of persons who should be given priority in the lustration process, i.e., creators of dossiers, inevitable is the question on who and when will lustrate holders and creators of documents on persons’ secret collaboration with state security services?

105

Although as part of its notifications the Commission for Verification of Facts never 106 asked these officers to submit statements (For more information see Chapter 3.1.2: Categories of persons and offices covered by lustration). Rulebook on organization, scope of work and operation of YNA’s security bodies from 24.4.1956 stipulates that this service was competent for counterintelligence protection of YNA’s headquarters, units, bodies and working organizations that work exclusively for armed forces’ purposes; detecting activity of internal enemies at Army’s structures; combating severe cases of attempts to break moral and political unity at YNA; protecting secrecy at headquarters and facilities by means of reassignment of responsibilities and tasks of military and political leadership bodies. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 205

3.3.4. State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia was addressed with FOI applications concerning its cooperation with the Commission for Verification of Facts and actions taken upon Commission’s requests. State Archive leaves the impression of uninformed subject in lustration implementation. FOI responses obtained from the Archive indicate that it does not know which and how many requests obtained from the Commission and related to review of dossiers concern persons who are candidates for public office, current or former office holders. Unlike the State Archive, the Intelligence Agency disposes with such information and provided a precise response. Thus, the Intelligence Agency informed that breakdown of requests from the Commission for Verification of Facts is the following: 2,802 requests concerned candidates for public office107; 2,482 concerned current holders of public office108, and as high as 4,984 requests concerned former holders of public office109. This ratio is important for the analysis in order to assess whether the Commission for Verification of Facts gives primacy to any category of persons subject to lustration, having in mind recommendations put forward by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.110 Conclusion is inferred that the Commission for Verification of Facts is more “concerned” with finding collaborators among former public office holders, rather than among current public office holders who hold positions liable to violation of democratic principles.

Unclear remains how it is possible for the State Archive not to know the category of person who is subjected to review by the Commission, but the Intelligence Agency is knowledgeable of it? Are these two bodies treated differently by the Commission for Verification of Facts? As was the case with other state security bodies, important is to know whether the Archive enables the Commission direct insight into documents and if so, whether the insight is performed into original documents. Commission’s behaviour differs in this regard; namely it has not required theI ntelligence Agency to enable insight into documents, but requested the State Archive

107 . 108 Agency’s FOI response no 03-492/2 from 25.7.2012; 109 Agency’s FOI response no. 03-493/2 from 25.7.2012; 110 Agency’s FOI response no. 03-494/2 from 25.7.2012; Resolution urging that the aim of lustration measures is to exclude persons who held high positions in the former totalitarian communist regimes from exercising governmental power if they cannot be trusted to exercise it consistently with democratic principles, as they have shown no commitment to or belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to them. 206 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

to enable access to and insight into 1,444 cases111, in “original documents” nonetheless.112

Aside that, most surprising information obtained from the State Archive and contradictory to UBK’s response, as concluded above, reads: “State Archive of Republic of Macedonia, after having reviewed documents from the “Ministry of Interior” stock, concludes that it does not dispose with the requested information,, i.e., the State Archive does not dispose with collaborator dossiers”.113 Given that, unclear is how did the Archive fulfil its obligation to respond to Commission’s requests on reviewing person’s collaboration with services, but also opens the dilemma about legal and procedural security in the lustration process. Moreover, unclear is also why principal documents on whose basis collaboration with services is determined come from the Archive, which on the other had responded that “[it] does not own registers of security services”.114 This information, in conjunction with previously referred responses from UBK and Intelligence Agency, indicate the conclusion that the Commission does not have access to Registers of Collaborators kept by these bodies, and point to the fact that these records of key importance in the lustration process have not been declassified or handed over to the Archive of Republic of Macedonia.

111 state Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1583/2 (11) from 12.9.2012; 112 state Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1583/2 (16) from 12.9.2012; 113 state Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1583/2 (24) from 17.8.2012; 114 state Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1583/4 (17) from 15.8.2012; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 207

Chapter 4 Security Aspects

4.1. Secret data collection

Several articles from the Law on Internal Affairs govern the general operation framework of Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (UBK) at the Ministry of Interior. Precise stipulation of manner of operation and resources made available to UBK is pursued by means of a bylaw that is considered classified information. Knowledge on UBK’s general operation framework is important, since it provides a clear overview on the extent to which UBK can take actions that affect human rights, pursuant to legal provisions in effect. Namely, the law stipulates that in the course of performing tasks within its competence, UBK’s employees can collect data, notifications and information from citizens, by using public sources, including insight into registers and data collections, as well as by applying specific measures and procedures on secret data collection. Data collection from citizens can be performed only with prior consent given by the person with whom the interview is conducted.

UBK can collect data by using secret collaborators (in the context of the lustration law). Collaboration with citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and with foreigners is established on voluntary basis and persons should not be forced to become secret collaborators to UBK. This provision was recently included in the Law on Internal Affairs and it stresses UBK’s legal obligation that in the process of engaging secret collaborators in terms of the lustration law (secret informant, secret collaborator) it must respect voluntary engagement as basis for establishment of collaboration relations. This article eliminates the possibility for collaboration relations to be established on the basis of compromising materials, but at the same time does not exclude collaboration established for material gains. These 208 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

precise stipulations represent basis for rejecting collaboration to UBK for persons who were forced to agree to collaborate in a manner other than voluntarily (patriotic sentiment, ideological and political reasons, etc.). However, practice shows that regulations and actions often collide, and consent to collaboration can happen under threat of compromising material, but in formal terms (upon previous agreement) this collaboration is registered as materially motivated. Consistent compliance with this legal provision implies criminal responsibility for coercion on the part of authorized officers at Ministry of Interior, i.e., UBK officers with special authorizations, given that recruitment for collaboration on the basis of compromising material violates the legally guaranteed right to voluntary collaboration.

Collaboration with citizens of the Republic of Macedonia is decided upon by the Director of UBK, on the basis of well-argued proposal submitted by the head of the relevant organizational unit at UBK. Engagement of foreigners as collaborators to UBK is decided upon by the Minister of Interior, on the basis of well-argued written proposal submitted by UBK’s Director. UBK reimburses material costs, personal and property damages incurred in the course of collaboration by the person engaged, while in cases of documented safety-related indicators of special significance secured by means of collaboration, the person engaged can be rewarded.

All data related to identity of person who engages in collaboration with UBK is classified information and is stored pursuant to regulations set forth in the Law on Classified Information and MOI’s Rulebook on Classified Information, as a bylaw. UBK keeps special “collaborator dossier”115 for all persons with whom it had established collaboration relations, which bears special designation and register number and is stored as classified information. Basic data on the collaboration relations (name, surname, pseudonym, date of registration and date of deregistration) are enlisted and kept at UBK’s separate Register of Collaborators, also considered as classified information. As indicated above, UBK and Intelligence Agency do not allow access to their Registries of Collaborators to the Commission for Verification of Facts,116 while the State Archive confirmed this assumption by indicating that it does not store state security services’ registries”.117

115 Milutunovik, V, Osnovni državne bezbednosti, Komunist, Beograd 1977; (Milu- tinovik V, Introduction to state security, Komunist, Belgrade, 1977); 116 For more information see Chapter 3.3: Other Bodies Involved in Lustration Process. 117 state Archive’s FOI response no. 03-1583/4 (17) from 15.8.2012; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 209

When performing duties falling within its jurisdiction, UBK can request information from other state bodies, public enterprises and other legal entities and make insight into their registers and information collections, pursuant to the law. State bodies, public enterprises and other legal entities are obliged to enable UBK unhindered performance of tasks falling within its jurisdiction.

In terms of lustration and sanctioning citizens’ collaboration with state security services, it should be noted that the methodology on collaborator dossiers creation and operative tactics of state security services have insignificantly changed from 1944 to date, and that manner of operation is almost the same, except for use of modern technical resources that improve their work and more sophisticated manner of approaching persons targeted as future collaborators. Only thing that has changed in this period is the minimum (rather formal) guarantee for respect of human rights in case the collaboration engagement is not based on voluntary consent.

Changes are also noted in regard to UBK’s fronts of operation, i.e., previous fronts of operation are replaced with new, i.e., they were renamed, although they follow same or similar characteristics of individuals and groups subject to operational processing by UBK. Fronts of operation pursued by the former State Security Service (SDB)118 were changed in

118 under the category of “internal enemy”, State Security Service has defined 11 subcategories: –– remnants of class structures (groups of convicts for offenses committed during the war, persons who in the post-war period participated in outlaw groups or were members of illegal organizations or groups, convicted persons who were agents of the occupier and its intelligence services, convicted spies for western intelligence services, links and supporters of fascist and extreme emigration, persons convicted of crimes on endangering society’s economic bases, as well as individuals convicted for so-called political crimes); –– clerical groups: Orthodox, Catholic, Islamic and small religious communities (fight against clericalism, which implies ideological and political beliefs and behaviour, assuming that the church’s interests are above the general societal interests, i.e., spreading anti-communist sentiments and fuelling national feelings and chauvinism among their believers, under the auspices of protecting people’s interests); –– nationalistic group (emergence of nationalist ideologies and chauvinist behaviour in relation to other Yugoslav peoples by means of spreading hate, distrust and suspicions towards other peoples and by glorifying behaviour of individuals pertaining to certain peoples in the past); –– Cominform group (Communist Information Bureau)(fight against ideological and political supporters of Cominform in the period 1949-1956, labelled Cominformists); 210 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

parallel with the political regime’s transformation, changed risks and threats against Republic of Macedonia’s security, and changed object of interest on the part of the service to continue working and following same persons and groups. However, what needs to be stressed and is important in understanding lustration is the front of operation called “internal enemy”, which implies that state security services’ interest is ideologically and politically motivated.

If in the past there were groups that collaborated from ideological and political reasons, as implied also in the Lustration Law, “voluntary collaboration with UBK from ideological and political reasons” is also present today. Therefore, following questions remain (un)answered:

1. Who defines and determines state’s internal enemies?; 2. Does category of “internal enemy” include persons who are determined by the state, i.e., state security services, on the basis of assessments concerning risks from their actions?; or 3. Does the ruling party, which influences priority-setting and manner of operation of state security services, determine “internal enemy”? Therefore, when discussing lustration sanctions for collaborators to state security services from ideological and political reasons in the past, it should be noted that ideological and political affiliation is a base for establishing collaboration relations between persons and state security services even today.

–– liberal group (fight against societal and ideologically-political nature of liberalism expressed by theses on spontaneous societal development, free competition of different interests in creating room for political pluralism and devaluing the role of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia); –– anarcho-liberal group (fight against group identified as overthrower of Yugoslavia’s constitutional order. Supporters to this idea are intellectuals from ranks of university faculty who consider themselves as “humanistic intelligence” or “New Left-Wingers”. Their idea is related to US strategy on “struggle for human rights and freedoms” and they are frequently associated with all anti-communist and so-called ‘dissident groups’.); –– bureaucratic and dogmatic group (fight against groups that resist development of self-governance in Yugoslavia. These groups demanded return of so-called ‘administrative socialism’, contemplating order and discipline in the society and return of ‘state’s strong grip’); –– civil right-wing group; alternative movements: peace, environmental, feminist and social mobility movement. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 211

Another unanswered question concerns whether collaborators who continued to collaborate from ideological and political reasons or are registered as collaborators to state security services after 2006 (i.e., beyond the time scope of lustration in Republic of Macedonia) will be sanctioned with lustration measure in a same manner as collaborators who operated in the period 1944 to 2006? Answer to this question raises doubts about goals and use of lustration process as designed and implemented in Macedonia. Same motives, damages, personal benefits, human rights violations and victims from the past exist even today, with only one addition, i.e., today’s sophisticated (in technical and technology terms) manner of operation of state security services result in more serious violations to human rights, but cannot be proved.

4.2. State security services’ records

Well-organized, contemporary and professionally kept documents must include records that could be a result of documentary processing of materials, and whose contents and method of registration of persons, objects, events, documents, measures or activities can be determined in advance. Records are an overview that indicates whether something exists, whether something has happened, or whether something has been done. Records must include certain units that are considered information holders and that are recorded. For example, records on persons are kept on the basis of units (persons); records on materials are based on units that are a type of document fund; in records on collaborators, the collaborator is the unit, etc. Second characteristic of records is their two- sided variableness: on one hand, they are continuously updated with new information on units, but on the other hand, units and information that have expired or that are no longer considered to be of interest are erased from the records.

Variableness of records is reflected in constant registration of new persons of interest for state security services, constant addition and deletion of persons from records when reasons or operational interest in further record-keeping for those persons have ceased to exist. Records on collaborators and operative links for state security services are kept in special manner and are governed by special rules. These records are kept at the head of organizational unit that uses these sources in its immediate work. Records on collaborators contain the following information: name

212 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

and surname, pseudonym, and front of operation for which the collaborator was engaged.119

Important tool for finding data about a person in state security services’ documents is the general alphabetical card-index. It is centralized information fund in the form of card-index, which contains basic data, documents, materials and funds concerning a person and kept by state security service, as well as indication on where they can be found. General alphabetical card-index contains only data on person’s name and surname, codename (pseudonym for collaborators) or false name, date and place of birth and citizenship of the person for whom data exist in the documents.

In addition to records, state security services also keep registers of document funds and they include document fund’s full name. For example, registers kept by the former State Security Service, today known as UBK, include register of dossiers kept for persons subject to operational processing, register of dossiers kept for persons subject to pre-operational processing, register of collaborator dossiers, register of document collections and register of archive funds.120

UBK’s complete documents are processed in a computer system and are recorded on microfilm or are otherwise adequately and technically processed, and are used in that form for daily operation. By rule, microfilm- recorded documents are destroyed, with the exception of documents that are considered of operative significance or are important in terms of security, historical, scholar and expert research. Once data contained in documents and dossiers are operationally processed, they are destroyed.121 Decision on destroying documents and dossiers is made by the Minister of Interior on the proposal from UBK’s Director. Actual destruction of these materials is done in front of a commission and is duly recorded in commission’s minutes.

Collaborative relation established between a person and state security service is legally protected and implies rights and liabilities for both parties. Therefore, when discussing UBK’s, one should take into account

119 For more information, see Frosina Remenski’s column “Ignorance is Strength, Ignorance is Power”, available at: http://www.sky.mk/stav/28360-Колумна- на-Фросина-Ременски-Незнаењето-е-сила,-незнаењето-е-моќ.html; (last accessed in August 2012); 120 Documents of the State Security Service, Center for Professional Education of Staff at SDB, Federal Secretariat of Internal Affairs, Belgrade 1973 121 article 21 of the RULEBOOK on Administration for Security and Counterin- telligence’s operation no. 10-4922 from 15.9.1998; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 213

its obligation on protecting dossiers of collaborators who are still active or inactive, but are not yet declassified.I n this context, any disclosure of the identity of state security services’ collaborators beyond the norms governing protection and storage of information concerning collaboration relations represents a breach to operation norms, while damages that may arise from identity disclosure are subject to criminal responsibility. Disclosing a collaborator’s identity beyond the procedures on protecting collaboration relations brings under question physical and psychological integrity and safety of the collaborator (individual level), and damages his/her reputation if collaboration relations were established on the basis of compromising material that reveals collaborator’s personal characteristics and preferences.

Disclosure of a collaborator to state security services can also cause damage to institution’s scope of work, due to the fact that such attitude towards collaborators would imply distrust in relations between collaborators and state security services and can result in boycotting, reduction or falsification of honest communication during the collaboration. It directly affects the state security services’ work, because it imposes difficulties in data collection through secret collaborators. Records on collaborators to state security services provide the overview of collaborators’ network used by a given security body in different fronts of operation.

As regards the lustration process, especially the procedure on verifying statements on (non)collaboration of persons covered by the law, bodies involved in such proceedings must adhere to the principle of expertise, competence, ethics and humanity in dealing with information upon which (non)collaboration with state security services is determined. Failure to adhere to these principles and rules by persons authorized to participate in the lustration process would raise concerns about the effect achieved by the overall process and the integrity of participants to cope with pressures and influences aiming to redirect priorities in this process.

Redirection and defocusing of lustration priorities are broadly present today, four years after lustration law was adopted, but revoked, only to enact a new law that entered into effect in June 2012. Application of the previous law and initial application of the new law are indicative of the deliberate and tendentious avoidance to comply with Council of Europe’s recommendation concerning “category of persons who should be given priority in the lustration process, i.e., persons who should be subject to lustration first”, such as employed authorized officers, as well as persons with special authorizations employed at state security services, who – in terms of the lustration law – appear in several roles: 214 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

1. Creators of information on collaborators; 2. Performers of operational measures and tasks, by means of which human rights had been violated; 3. Order-issuers who approved registration of collaboration on the basis of compromising material and under threat/coercion; 4. Order-issuers who used information supplied by means of secret collaboration; 5. Holders of information on collaborators and collaborators’ network; 6. Persons who assisted and prepared reports (rapporteurs) for the procedure on verification of facts; and 7. Persons covered by the lustration process. From the list of roles indicated above, the last item is not given priority in the lustration process, in order to guarantee that opponents to democratic development and direct violators of human rights had been removed from the lustration’s onset.

4.3. International cooperation concerning access to records in lustration process

The fact that until 1991, Republic of Macedonia was part of the Yugoslav Federation, with hierarchical set-up of security services (federal and republic), which implied centralized and decentralized records-keeping on collaborator dossiers, imposes the need for international cooperation with former Yugoslav Republics and Belgrade, as the headquarters of State Security Service (SDB) at the Federal Secretariat of Internal Affairs (SSVR) in that time.

SDB records were centralized and decentralized. Centralized records were established on the basis of information and data supplied for persons of interest for the security of former SFRY, and they were kept by Federal State Security Service at the Federal Secretariat of Internal Affairs SS( VR). These records were compiled on the basis of records obtained by State Security Service at the Republic Secretariat of Internal Affairs RS( VR) and State Security Service at the Provincial Secretariats of Internal Affairs (PSVR). Pursuant to pre-defined criteria, republic and provincial state A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 215

security services motioned proposals on persons’ enlistment in central records. State security services at the Republic Secretariat of Internal Affairs (RSVR) and Provincial Secretariats of Internal Affairs (PSVR) were also allowed to keep centralized records.

Decentralized records were kept by SDB at RSVR and PSVR, i.e., SDB’s centres and were used for operative needs of these services. Decentralized records of SDBs (republic and provincial) include all persons who have been proposed for enlistment in central records of State Security Service at the Federal Secretariat of Internal Affairs SS( VR), but also those who have not been enlisted in central records kept by the Federal SDB.

Understanding types of records kept by state security services at republic, provincial and federal level will facilitate potential interstate institutional cooperation between competent authorities tasked to implement lustration and between state archives in the states-successors of former Yugoslavia, in particular cooperation with Belgrade. From lustration process’s onset in Macedonia, the Commission for Verification of Facts raised the issue of cooperation with Belgrade and archives kept by Serbia’s Ministry of Interior. Law proposers say that the Commission is not competent to cooperate with foreign institutions and therefore this issue was not regulated under the lustration law, but was rather left to be regulated by the institutions as part of their international cooperation.

In the beginning, Prime Minister Gruevski promised that the Government will make every possible effort to make these documents available. Serbia’s State Archive has confirmed that it is open for cooperation, however it pointed out that principal dossiers of the federal State Security Administration (UDBA) are not in their possession, because they remained at their Ministry of Interior. Serbian police could not confirm how many federal dossiers have remained in their possession and whether they would make them available to Macedonian state bodies. They referred their Macedonian counterparts to submit an official request.122

This is needed for proper implementation of lustration, especially having in mind that the national archive is missing large portion of security services’ documents.

122 Lustration Commission is not competent to communicate with Belgrade, Vecer, issue no. 14193 from 4.9.2009. available at: http://www.vecer.com.mk/ default.asp?ItemID=B18FC5B5EB5B0A4FA7B2B64292263542 216 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

1. Lustration is one of the many measures used to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems, and implies opening of communist secret service’s documents for public insight. Some of the array of measures planned to dismantle the heritage of the former system in the country were partially or fully implemented (demilitarization, privatization, “denationalization”, decentralization, opening of victims’ secret political dossiers), but others were not implemented at all (criminal prosecution of individuals in parallel with victims’ exoneration, material redress for victims of totalitarian justice, opening and public insight into dossiers and registers of secrets collaborators, order-issuers and information users kept from ideological and political reasons). Determining the status of imprisoned, persecuted, interned and referred to forced labour on one hand, and determining the status of secret informant, secret collaborator, order-issuer and order-executor on the other hand, must be based on insight into documents for these people kept by state security services and other bodies (court, penitentiary, archive).

Recommendation 1: Transitional justice measures need to be focused on victims, and require adoption of regulations aimed to: a) exonerate victims of the former system and entitle them to redress; b) allow victims insight not only into their personal political dossiers, but also into other documents of communist secret services, including documents on secret collaborators, order-issuers, and users of information from political dossiers. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 217

2. Law on Treatment of Personal Dossiers Kept by State Security Service was adopted on 5th July 2000 (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 52/2000) and entered into effect on 13th July 2000. The issue on legal treatment of dossiers was raised by Pavle Trajanov, Minister of Interior, and was realized by his successor, Dosta Dimovska. Citizens are still not given access to the report on law’s implementation that enabled insight into personal dossiers kept by SDB in the period from 1945 until 13th July 2000, because this report is still considered “classified information designated as strictly confidential”. Therefore, unknown remains how many MOI dossiers were handed over to the Archive, and how many were destroyed by the parliamentary committee on overseeing legality of activities taken in proceeding with personal dossiers.

Recommendation 2: Report prepared by the parliamentary committee on overseeing legality of activities taken in proceeding with personal dossiers needs to be declassified, in order to determine how many people exercised their right to access personal dossiers, how many copies were made on citizens’ request, how many names of people who worked on personal dossiers were disclosed on citizens’ request, how many requests to keep dossiers secret were complied with, how many criminal charges were filed in compliance with the law, how many dossiers were handed over to the Archive, and what share of dossiers and electronically processed records on materials were destroyed. Answers to these questions are of great importance in preventing future abuses in the course of lustration, having in mind that Macedonian lustration is to a large extent implemented on the basis of personal dossiers transferred to the Archive.

3. State Archive denies that it disposes with collaborator dossiers. Director of the Archive confirmed in public that “[we] did not receive dossiers kept for collaborators to State Security Service, which remained in possession of the Administration for Security and Counterintelligence (DBK)” and “I fear that not all dossiers kept by DBK will be handed over”, as well as “I doubt that everything can be found in UBK’s archives”, (Utrinski vesnik, 27.12.2006). On the question whether political dossiers would be of benefit in the lustration process, Zoran Todorovski claimed that they would be of insignificant importance and would rather be used as additional material: “Main materials will come 218 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

from the Administration for State Security, where collaborator dossiers are kept”, (Utrinski vesnik, 25.11.2007). Dossiers and other documents related to communist secret services’ collaborators are still classified and are kept by current state security services. UBK and Intelligence Agency deny access to their Registers of Collaborators, as well as to data on the number of collaborator dossiers available, claiming that they are “classified information designated as strictly confidential, whose disclosure can harm their future operation…”.

Recommendation 3: Having in mind that the European Court of Human Rights confirms that restricting access to materials classified as confidential under the former regime is not in public interest (lustration procedures are oriented towards determining facts dating back to communist time and not directly related to current functions and operations of security services) and taking into consideration European Parliament’s Recommendation from 2012 that reads: “all documents indispensable for the lustration process should be permanently transferred to the Commission for Verification of Facts’ premises”, all documents on collaborators to communist secret services (including Registers of Collaborators) need to be declassified and transferred to the Commission for Verification of Facts’ premises (or other independent institution) where lustrators and citizens covered by lustration will have equal right to direct insight.

4. Lustration, by rule, is comprised of administrative measures governing treatment of persons who have not committed crimes liable to criminal processing in order to prevent them from performing public office due to violation of democratic principles. Administrative lustration measures introduced in Republic of Macedonia (from 2008 onwards) prevent individual liability to be proved in separate cases and do not protect presumption of innocence, but allow the lustration process to be subjected to political, media, and societal abuses. Commission for Verification of Facts is more “concerned” with identifying collaborators among former public office holders, instead of current public office holders who perform competences that might violate the democratic principles.

Recommendation 4: Having in mind that lustration’s purpose is not to punish the culprits, but to maintain the newly established democracy: a) lustration measures should be redirected to A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 219

target current threats to democracy or to human rights, i.e., towards persons who perform important state offices that might violate human rights or threaten the democracy; and b) existing measures should be implemented and accompanied with introduction of new measures aimed to prevent political, media, and societal abuses of the lustration process.

5. According to Council of Europe’s Guidelines on lustration laws based on the rule of law, lustration should be limited to appointed state offices that involve significant responsibility for making or executing governmental policies and practices concerning internal security, or appointed state offices where human rights abuses may be ordered and/or perpetrated (police, security and intelligence services, judiciary and prosecutor’s office). As absurd as it may sound, Macedonian lustration is implemented on the basis of “facts” produced and disclosed by non-lustrated security services, while the Lustration Commission assumes a passive role of “verifier” of “facts” that it does not possess nor has direct insight into services’ original documents.

Recommendation 5: Starting from the basic premise of Macedonian lustration law that “dossiers kept by state security services in the Republic of Macedonia and by SFRY’s civil and military state security services... that were subject to processing, storage and use by state security services... were used to violate or restrict citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms from political or ideological reasons in the communist regime...”, immediate priority in the lustration process should be given to persons who created, processed, kept and used security services’ dossiers from political and ideological reasons, as well as persons who currently create, process, use and keep dossiers, because they impose the greatest threat to human rights and the democracy, and have great potential to abuse the lustration process.

6. Instead of limiting categories of persons who are currently able to threaten human rights and the democracy, lustration law contains provisions that cover great number of categories of persons subject to lustration, including provisions that were revoked by the Constitutional Court as unconstitutional. Number of categories of public offices that are subject to lustration pursuant to the law accounts for 143. Legislator’s intention to lustrate the entire Macedonian society is to a great 220 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

extent beyond Council of Europe’s recommendations contained in Resolution 1069 and its Guidelines.

Recommendation 6: Having in mind that lustration (according to Council of Europe’s Guidelines) should not apply to positions in private or semi-private organisations, or positions with no capacity to undermine or threaten fundamental human rights and the democratic processes, law’s time scope must be limited in compliance with previous decisions taken by the Constitutional Court and Council of Europe’s recommendations contained in Resolution 1069.

7. Macedonian lustration law does not comply with Council of Europe’s Guidelines where it is indicated that lustration-based non-eligibility for office performance should not be longer than five years.

Recommendation 7: This item from the Guidelines must be implemented in the lustration law by means of amendments thereto.

8. Contrary to Council of Europe’s Guidelines that lustration’s time scope should cover “the period from 1st January 1980 until the fall of the communist dictatorship”, Macedonian lustration, as regulated under the new lustration law, covers the period from 1945 to “ten years from the Commission for Verification of Facts’ establishment”.

Recommendation 8: Having in mind that the Constitutional Court has already deliberated and decided that lustration law’s time scope should not cover the period following the adoption of the Constitution in 1991 the law should be amended in compliance with Constitutional Court’s decisions and Council of Europe’s Guidelines.

9. Constitutional Court has already stressed that there is no justified reason in lustrating former holders of public offices: “... unless they appear as candidates for public offices or are current public office holders, just as any other citizens who, contrary to former public office holders, have no obligation to have their statements verified, and therefore unclear is the need to determine whether they fulfil additional criteria for public office performance, i.e., what is the purpose for lustrating them...” (U. no.: 76/2011-0-1 from 28.3.2012). A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 221

However, those who voted in favour of 2012 lustration law refused to implement Constitutional Court’s decision, and new legal provisions re-introduced lustration of former functionaries, while the Commission for Verification of Facts started to lustrate not only former officials who are still alive, but deceased persons as well.

Recommendation 9: Lustration should be legally limited to cover only current public office holders, in compliance with Constitutional Court’s decision and the purposeless lustration of former officials must be discontinued immediately, including the absurd lustration of deceased public officials.

10. Macedonian lustration does not allow identification and lustration of persons who ordered, executed, or to a great extent assisted serious violations to human rights, and fails to screen high officers at organizations that during the communist regime committed serious violations to human rights (such as security services). Instead of focusing on perpetrators of serious violations to human rights during the communist regime, Macedonian lustration was primarily focused on “conscious collaborators”. Instead of concentrating on order-issuers, creators, processors and users of ideological and political dossiers in the communist regime, Macedonian lustration was primarily obsessed with pre- stigmatized “snitches”, without any efforts to clarify their role in serious violations to human rights.

Lustration Commission adopts decisions that certain persons fulfil “criteria for limiting public office performance”, after it has determined “collaboration with state security services”, and in that does not clarify: а) whether collaboration was due to ideological and political reasons; b) whether collaboration resulted in serious human rights violations that brought harm to other persons; c) whether sources of information knew that their behaviour had caused harm.

Lustration Commission has no intention to inform the public on the manner it leads this important process that should enable further democratization of Macedonian society. Evidence in support of this fact is the limited access to minutes from Commission’s meetings, on the grounds that these minutes are considered classified information. 222 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Recommendation 10: Having in mind that according to Council of Europe’s Guidelines, lustration of “conscious collaborators” is allowed only in respect to individuals who actually participated together with “services” in serious violations of human rights (caused great harm to others, and were aware or should have been aware that their behaviour causes harm), law amendments are needed with a view to prevent abuse of lustration and its focus on conscious collaborators (possible assistants), instead of actual perpetrators of serious violations to human rights (collaborators’ recruiters, order-issuers, processors, keepers, and users of ideological and political dossiers). Lustration of “conscious collaborators” should be legally restricted by introducing an obligation for the Commission to clarify their role in serious violations to human rights, which means to specify harm inflicted to others.

11. Instead of restoring the trust in state institutions, Macedonian lustration and its abuse has contributed to increased distrust in state institutions (primarily in the Lustration Commission, the Parliament, police, secret services, but also in the Constitutional Court and other courts). Instead of restoring the lost sense of justice, Macedonian lustration became a synonym for injustice, discrimination, violation of constitutional norms, disrespect for the rule of law, violation of the presumption of innocence and right to fair trial, as well as violations to other human rights. As part of lustration processes led by the Commission, persons subject to verification have no opportunity to confront and challenge evidence presented against them, are denied access to evidence that are (not) in their favour, are prevented to present own evidence, and do not have right to public hearing. Right to “equality of arms” and right to fair trial are not protected in procedures led in front of Macedonian courts as well. Recommendation 11: Lustration law needs to be amended in order to guarantee all human rights of persons who are subject to verification by the Commission for Verification of Facts, in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Lustration Commission’s capacity needs to be enhanced by means of legal amendments aimed to prevent appointment of persons without knowledge and experience in the field of human rights and freedoms as commissioners. A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 223 224 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A.-A. Allen, (1996), Responsibility and Justice after the Czech Transition: The Policy of Lustration, Princeton University;

2. Appel, Hillary, (2005), Anti-Communist Justice and Founding the Post-Communist Order: Lustration and Restitution in Central Europe, East European Politics and Societies, 19 (3);

3. David, R., (2003), Lustration Laws in Action: The Motives and Evaluation of Lustration Policy in the Czech Republic and Poland (1989.-2001.), Law and Social Inquiry;

4. David, Roman, (2004), Transitional Injustice? Criteria for Conformity of Lustration to the Right to Political Expression, Europe-Asia Studies, 56 (6), 789-812;

5. Dornbach, A., (1992), Special Reports: Retroactivity Law Overturned in Hungary, East European Constitutional Review, (1);

6. Dokumentacija Službe državne bezbednosti, Centar za strucno obrazovanje kadrova SDB, Savezni sekretarijat unutrašnjih poslova (SSUP), Brograd 1973;

7. Elster, J., (1998), Coming to Terms with the Past. A Framework for the Study of Justice in the Transition to Democracy, Archives Europeenes de Sociologie, 39(1);

8. Farley, Gail R. and William, Green (2002-2003) „Lustration, DE communization, and European Union Enlargement 2004“, In: Political Science 595, Winter Quarter, California State University, San Bernardino, CA;

9. Fuert, Francois, (1997), Prošlost jedne iluzije: ogled o komunističkoj ideji u XX stoljeću, Zagreb, Politička kultura; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 225

10. G. Halmai, L. Matjtenyi & K.L. Scheppele, „Confronting the Past: The Hungarian Constitutional Court’s Lustration decision of 1994“, (1991.) 1 East European Human Rights Review (1995);

11. Holmes, Leslie, (1997), Post-Communism: an Introduction, Cambridge, Polity Press;

12. Huyse Luc, (1995), Justice after Transition: On the Choices Successor Elites Make in Dealing with the Past, Law and Social Inquiry, 20 (1);

13. James, Harlod, (2008), Globalization, Empire and Natural Law. International Affairs,84 (3);

14. Kaminski, M. M. & Monika Nalepa, (2006), Judging Transitional Justice: A New Criterion for Evaluating Truth Revelation Procedures, Journal for Conflict Resolution,50 (3);

15. Killingsworth, Matt, (2009), Lustration in Poland: Coming to Terms with Totalitarian Past, CERC Working Papers Series, (1), 4-27;

16. Kommers, D., (1997), ‘Transitional Justice in Eastern Germany’, Law and Social Inquiry;

17. Komorowsky, Cezar, (2007), Poland’s new ≫lustration≪ law – a profound attack on democratic rights, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/ apr2007/pol-a18.shtml

18. Kosiev vs Savezna Republika Njemačka (1986.), 105 Europski sud za ljudska prava D. H. (Serija A) 1, 29 Anex Europskoj konvenciji o ljudskim pravima;

19. Letki, N., (2002.), ‘Lustration and Democratization in East-Central Europe’, Euro pe-Asia Studies, 54(4);

20. Milosavljević, Bogoljub (2006) Zakonsko pročišćavanje, Pravda u tranziciji, broj 7;

21. Milutinovik, V., Osnovi državne bezbedosti, Komunist, Beograd, 1977;

22. Oltay, E., (1994), Hungary’s Screening Law“, RFE/RL Research Report 3;

23. RULEBOOK on Administration for Security and Counterintelligence’s operation, no. 10-4922 from 15 September 1998;

24. Radica, Bogdan, (2006), Agonija Europe: razgovori i susreti, Zagreb, Disput; 226 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

25. RESOLUTION 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems, http://assembly.coe.int/main. asp?Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta96/eres1096.html

26. “Regional Reports: Western Balkans” in Dismantling Hidden Histories: Lustration in the Western Balkans, FOSM

27. Rzeplinski, A., (1992), A Lesser Evil: Attempting to design a fair lustration procedure, East European Constitutional Review, (3);

28. Samual, Huntington, (2003), The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Yale University Press;

29. Siegelman, Peter, 1995., The Problems of Lustration: Prosecution of Wrongdoers by Democratic Successor Regimes, Law and Social Inquiry, 20 (1);

30. Szczerbiak, Ale ks, (2002), Dealing with the Communist Past or the Politics of the Present? Lustration in Post-Communist Poland, Europe- Asia Studies, 54 (4);

31. Voermans W.; Albers, P. (2003), Councils for the Judiciary in EU Countries, Strasbourg: European Council for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ);

32. Williams, K., (2003.), ‘Lustration as the Securitization of Democracy in Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics;

33. Williams, K., Fowler, B., Szczerbiak, A., (2005.), Explaining Lustration in Central Europe: A ‘Post-communist Politics’ Approach, Democratization,12(1):22-43;

34. Commission for Verification of Facts’ operation report for the period 15.07.2011 – 15.01.2012;

35. Commission for Verification of Facts’ operation report for the period 15.01.2009 – 15.07.2009; A Closer Look at the Application of the Laws 227 228 MACEDONIAN LUSTRATION (1999 - 2012) – EVENTS, STATEMENTS, AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES