Гражданска бдителност за по-добри институции
InstiGuard is an independent civic documentation platform. It examines how public institutions communicate, decide, and follow through — and makes that record easier to find, read, and question.
What is InstiGuard?
InstiGuard documents matters of public interest connected to institutional accountability, access to public information, administrative practice, and the implementation of administrative and court decisions.
The platform works from documents: official correspondence, administrative acts, court decisions, and verifiable public sources. Every publication separates what is established, what is claimed, what an institution has stated, and what remains unanswered.
InstiGuard is not a court, a regulatory authority, or a political organisation. It does not determine legal, disciplinary, or personal liability. Its role is to make the available record clear, traceable, and easier for citizens to follow.
The full approach is set out in our Standards.
What We Document
InstiGuard brings together case-based documentation, public records, and practical context. The sections below lead to different parts of that record.
Documented cases presented with timelines, source materials, institutional positions, and a clear status of what is known, disputed, or still unresolved.
Articles examining public decision-making, administrative practice, deadlines, implementation, and questions that arise when documented obligations do not produce a clear practical result.
Materials on requests for public information, institutional responses, refusals, public records, and the practical use of access-to-information procedures.
Civic observations, follow-up questions, and public-interest issues that benefit from clear documentation and sustained attention.
Public decisions do not remain on paper. They shape the conditions of everyday life.
Why It Matters
For citizens, a delayed response, an unclear rule, or an inaccessible document can have real practical consequences.
Clear information and accountable decision-making make it easier to understand what has happened, who is responsible for the next step, and what options remain available. They also help institutions identify gaps, explain their actions, and correct mistakes where correction is needed.
Civic oversight is not hostility towards public administration. It is a democratic practice: asking informed questions, following the available record, and expecting public authority to be exercised openly, fairly, and with care.
Our Manifesto
Гражданска бдителност за по-добри институции
Public trust is not demanded; it is earned. It grows through transparency, reasoned decisions, equal treatment, and a willingness to respond when citizens identify a problem.
Public decisions should be understandable, traceable, and open to scrutiny. InstiGuard supports timely access to information, clear institutional communication, and public records that help citizens understand how decisions are made.
Institutions and public bodies should be able to explain and justify their decisions, actions, and omissions. A final court ruling or legal obligation should lead to meaningful practical compliance, not merely formal acknowledgement.
Public services, procedures, and infrastructure should be accessible on fair and non-discriminatory terms. Administrative convenience should not become a reason to exclude people from equal treatment.
Our publications are grounded, wherever possible, in documents, official correspondence, legal acts, court decisions, and verifiable public sources. We distinguish clearly between established facts, documented claims, institutional positions, analysis, and questions that remain unanswered.
Civic oversight is not hostility towards public administration. It is a democratic practice that identifies gaps, asks clear questions, follows institutional responses, and supports correction where correction is needed.
Как работим
InstiGuard follows a documented and transparent editorial approach. Open the summary below to see the principles that guide the preparation and updating of our publications.
We work from primary sources whenever possible, including official correspondence, administrative acts, court decisions, public records, and other verifiable materials.
We distinguish between established facts, documented claims, institutional positions, analysis, and questions that remain unanswered.
Where a publication raises material questions about an institution or a person, we seek to include an available response or clearly state when no response has been received by the publication date.
We publish visible updates when a case develops, when relevant new information becomes available, or when a factual correction is necessary.
We take care to remove personal data that are not necessary for the public-interest purpose of a publication.
For the full methodology, including verification, corrections, right of reply, and personal-data protection, read our Standards.