VZCZCXRO4889
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHSQ #0146/01 0531525
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 221525Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY SKOPJE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7091
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE 0214
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUESEN/SKOPJE BETA
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 3752

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SKOPJE 000146 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL MK
SUBJECT: MACEDONIA'S LUSTRATION LAW: OPENING PANDORA'S BOX? 
 
 
SUMMARY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Parliament unanimously adopted on January 22 a 
Lustration Law that is likely to make it difficult for those 
accused of having once served as informers to clear their 
name, or to fully exercise their constitutional right to 
employment in the public sector.  International observers are 
concerned about the timing of the law, and about the ability 
of Macedonian institutions to implement it in a non-partisan 
and fair manner.  End summary. 
 
LUSTRATION LAW PASSED WITH BACKBENCHERS' SUPPORT 
 
¶2. (SBU) On January 22, the Macedonian Parliament passed the 
Law on Determining Additional Conditions for the Performance 
of Public Function (Lustration Law).  The law --which 
commentators characterized as a law no political party could 
afford to oppose-- was adopted unanimously by those present, 
with 73 votes "in favor."  At the moment the voting began, 
however, 23 MPs left the hall and failed to vote.  Notably, 
the group of 23 included 10 Parliamentary party leaders and 
four party whips. 
 
LUSTRATION FOR ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Lustration Law followed in the footsteps of 
Macedonia's 2000 Law for the Opening of the Police Files, 
which made it possible to identify the victims of the old 
Yugoslav regime (1944-1991), but did not reveal information 
on the informers.  The new law is applicable to elected 
officials at the state and local level, judges, lawyers, law 
enforcement and military officials, as well as diplomats and 
university professors.  Candidates for such positions, or 
persons who currently occupy such positions, are to undergo 
"verification" of whether they once served as informers or 
users of information obtained by state agents during the 
period August 1944 to February 6, 2008, the day the 
Lustration Law entered into force.  Article 4 of the law 
defines an "informer" as one who knowingly, secretly and 
continuously worked with the clandestine services in the 
country by collecting damaging information on persons for 
political or ideological reasons, and which resulted in 
financial and/or professional gain for the informer. 
 
PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE AND SELF-INCRIMINATION COMBINED 
 
¶4. (SBU) According to the law, any candidate for a public 
function, or a person who currently works in such a function, 
must submit a certified statement affirming that they either 
were, or were not, an informant during the period covered. 
That statement is then verified by an 11-member "politically 
independent commission," which is to be elected by Parliament 
to a five-year-term within 60 days from the day the law 
enters into force.  If a candidate for a public elected or 
appointed office affirms he was/was an informer, then that 
person has to retract his/her candidacy.  The same applies to 
current officials covered by the law.  Non-submission of the 
statement automatically disqualifies candidates from pursuing 
public office. 
 
¶5. (SBU) A candidate or currently serving official who 
disagrees with the commission's decision may appeal to a 
first instance court within eight days.  The court does not 
have access to classified materials, however, which will make 
it difficult for judges to decide on the merits of the case 
since many of the relevant files are classified.  The 
commission also publishes the names of candidates for public 
office who have failed to submit a certified statement in the 
State Gazette.  The commission publishes the names of persons 
who currently work in one of the functions covered by the law 
whose statements regarding their informer status are "judged 
to have been false."  It also refers their names to the 
appropriate state organs "for further processing," including 
filing criminal charges.  The law imposes penalties for 
tampering with archive files and other information related to 
the lustration process. 
 
THE PROPONENTS: NAME AND SHAME THE INFORMERS 
 
¶6. (SBU) The driving force behind the Lustration Law 
initiative has been Liberal Party's President Andov. A 
seasoned Macedonian politician and former high level Yugoslav 
communist converted to anti-communist, Andov has been 
polishing his lustration pedigree since 1995, when he 
proposed a parliamentary declaration to apologize to all the 
victims of communism in Macedonia.  Such a declaration was 
adopted in 2006 and provoked a strong negative public 
reaction in Macedonia. Andov believes the new Lustration Law 
 
SKOPJE 00000146  002 OF 002 
 
 
will make Macedonia's governance structure more democratic by 
removing persons from public office who were closely 
associated with the former Yugoslav intelligence structures. 
 
¶7. (SBU) According to Lustration Law co-drafter and current 
GOM Spokesman Bocevski, the new law is a symbolic "naming and 
shaming" of informers, which should start a much-needed 
dialogue in society and "help reform the intelligence 
community."  Asked about the timing of the law, Bocevski 
asserted that the public was ready to get rid of the "old 
networks" of former state informants currently working in 
government, adding that current or future public officials 
verified to have acted as informers during the period 
stipulated would be banned from their public positions. 
(Note: Such a ban from taking part in public life would 
violate Article 62 of the Constitution, on the irrevocability 
of a member of parliament's mandate. End note.) 
 
POTENTIAL PITFALLS 
 
¶8. (SBU) Even though most politicians supported the passage 
of the Lustration Law, the absence of many party heavyweights 
from the voting hall on the day it was passed highlighted 
concerns over how the law will be applied.  Independent MP 
Esad Rahic, who voted for the law and who chairs the 
Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence Oversight, told 
Poloff that the law would affect only "the small fry." 
According to Rahic, most files on informants already have 
been destroyed or transferred to private collections. (Note: 
GOM Spokesman Bocevski has told us he estimates there are 
about 15,000-30,000 suspected informants in Macedonia. End 
note.)  Opposition SDSM VP Jani Makraduli, however, who left 
the plenary session during the voting, expressed concern that 
the law might threaten the security of the country and create 
additional "bad blood" in an already tense political 
situation. 
 
COMMENT 
 
¶9. (SBU) The drafters of the Lustration Law lauded its 
passage as an "act of historic proportions."  After a two-day 
media blitz, however, nobody, except for the international 
community, seemed to be paying much attention to the new 
legislation.  Our NATO, EU and OSCE contacts share our unease 
regarding the legal inconsistencies in the law and the 
significant potential for its misuse in a political 
witch-hunt against government opponents.  They express 
concerns also about the explosive issues and different 
interpretations of historical events that the new law may 
trigger, concluding that the timing of the passage of the law 
was "unfortunate" given other government priorities and 
regional developments. 
 
¶10. (SBU) We will monitor the formation of the special 
Lustration Law Commission, which is scheduled to be formed by 
March 30, 2008.  We also will press the GOM for impartial and 
non-partisan application of the lustration process.  Our 
assessment is that the GOM will not rush to implement the 
law, given the potential pitfalls and the clumsy legal 
framework that will hamper judges' access to classified 
information that could either implicate or exonerate 
suspected informants from Macedonia's past. 
MILOVANOVIC