Justice should be transparent. Justice should be fair. These two elements go hand in hand. Law students recently suggested that the conclusions and recommendations of magisterial inquiries into sudden deaths and crimes involving abuse by people in public administration should be public. Always.

In a policy paper launched last week, the Law Students’ Association suggested that the outcome of such magisterial inquiries should be published on an online portal, even if redacted.

This would maintain a balance between the rights of those investigated (who retain the presumption of innocence at inquiry stage) and the public’s right to information on matters that impact society.

Laura Chetcuti Dimech, head writer of the report, said “the secrecy during the inquiry process is important but the time has come to polish up these laws to come in line with the principles of human rights”.

Inquiry conclusions and recommendations are usually only published in extraordinary cases. “But it is a fact-finding exercise that can address society’s concerns,” she said.

As we have seen over recent months and years, this secrecy does breed concerns – and conspiracy theories.

Isabel Bonnici, the mother of construction victim Jean Paul Sofia, endorsed the students’ call to publish inquiries. In her case, the magisterial inquiry into her son’s death was only published because, following public pressure, the prime minister pledged to publish it once he obtained a copy from the attorney general.

If the students’ suggestions were in place right now, it would also mean that the recent magisterial inquiry into the Vitals deal would be published – or at least parts of it.

Ultimately, this is also what some of the parties investigated want. Former prime minister Joseph Muscat, former minister Konrad Mizzi and former chief of staff Keith Schembri are among dozens facing criminal charges filed following the recommendations of that inquiry.

A few days ago, Muscat turned to the court to make public the details of the inquiry, insisting it will prove that the case against him is built on “conjecture, lies, twisting of facts and hearsay”.

Earlier this month, a court had granted Muscat access to the parts of the inquiry he is mentioned in. More recently, Schembri and Mizzi claimed their rights were being breached when the attorney general and the police refused to hand them “important documents” from the Vitals inquiry.

As the students outlined in the policy document, the investigation is confidential until concluded. To gain access, one must either be the attorney general, a concerned party or the concerned party’s legal representative. In any case, these people must obtain the court’s special permission.

Another suggestion made by the law students is that victims and their next of kin should automatically get access. They suggest granting them the right to access information automatically (without having to file formal requests) from the inquiry stage. At the moment, victims’ rights start once criminal proceedings start.

While some might argue that laws cannot be changed to accommodate one-off cases – such as a high-profile hospital scandal or tragic death – it must be a basic right to know why a loved one died or why an individual is about to be subjected to years of court proceedings.

And if the inquiring magistrate or attorney general decide not to proceed with criminal action against someone, the rationale backing that decision ought to be transparent and clear: to any victims’ family and to the concerned society they form part of.