Module Learning Objective

explain who may know the reporter’s identity

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: explain who may know the reporter’s identity. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. Trust depends on identity protection and proper response to pressure. Anonymity differs from confidentiality. Latvian law includes direct and indirect adverse consequences, threats and attempts, subject to the protection conditions.

An anonymous recipient does not know identity, although indirect details may reveal it. Responsible people may know identity during confidential handling and must protect it. Formal identification requirements do not exclude section 10(3) protection for a later-identified reporter.

Apply the following rule: Section 6(1) requires identifying information for formal reports. However, since 2026 section 10(3) protects people initially reporting without those requirements who are subsequently identified as whistleblowers and meet the statutory features. Section 11 requires pseudonymisation after recognition subject to exceptions, restricted access and proper identity protection. Anonymity differs from confidentiality.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Explain identification, logs, dialogue, recipients and limits. Do not promise anonymity where identity is mandatory. Check attachments and event details and align guidance with actual functions. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

An unnamed report describes a meeting attended by only the reporter and one other person. The handler recognises identification risk and restricts circulation. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does an absent name prevent identification? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Events, role or attachments can reveal identity. Assess the whole account and explain possibilities and limits accurately.

One mistake to avoid is: promising anonymity without checking actual data.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The site promises anonymity but requires name and an identity-document copy. How should the contradiction be corrected?

Distinguish anonymous submission from formal reporting with section 6 data. Identification requirements do not themselves justify a document copy. Explain section 10(3) protection for a later-identified person and section 11 pseudonymisation. Align functionality, wording and minimisation.

National Legal Framework: Trauksmes celšanas likums, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.