COMMITTEE TO PROTECT
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
ON THE SITUATION WITH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS OF JOURNALISTS AND MEDIA IN ARMENIA
Quarterly report of the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression
(April-June, 2016)
The Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression regularly submits to the public its reports on working environment and issues of Armenian media and its personnel, on the status of the freedom of expression and on the violations of the rights of the media and the journalists. This report refers to the second quarter of 2016.
BRIEF SUMMARY
The second quarter of 2016 was a period of stormy discussions of the legislation regulating the activity of media during elections. In general, these discussions did not bring positive results. After all an electoral code was adopted, which contains a number of provisions unjustifiably limiting the activity of media. In this respect the only positive fact can be considered that from the draft amendment and changes envisaged in the RA “Law on TV and radio” introduced in one package along with the RA electoral code, we managed to remove the additional punitive power envisaged for the National committee on TV and radio to suspend the license of a TV company in case of identifying two violations during the election.
In terms of regulating the activity of media, the statement made by the heads of 15 media outlets on June 2, was remarkable, which raised problems that need additional discussions and optimal solutions.
During the mentioned period, the CPFE continued to oversee the criminal case filed on the facts of hindering the professional activity and exercising physical violence against the journalists and cameramen during the police actions on Baghramyan Avenue on June 23, 2015. By CPFE assessment, it is ineffective and fictitious: one year after the incidents when 21 staff members from media outlets were identified as victims, there is no suspect or defendant. Whereas on December 6, on the referendum day for constitutional amendments, the picture of filed criminal cases on similar violations is different: they were sent to court. Different approaches by the investigating body to the “June 23” and “December 6” cases are due to the fact that in the case of the first the police officers should be charged, including high officials, and in the second case - civilians. In Armenia, according to the formed bad tradition, police officers who violate journalists’ rights are not punished.
In the second quarter of 2016, three cases of physical violence against the media employees have been registered (there was none in the first quarter). The quantity of cases of pressure against the media outlets and their representatives is 10, which is twice as less as in the first quarter. This difference is due to the reduction of lawsuits against the media outlets and journalists: during the first quarter of this year, 11 new cases were taken to proceeding, and in the second quarter - only one. In April-June of this year, five violations of the right to receive and disseminate information have been registered, which is less by five than in the previous quarter.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR THE MEDIA
The specificity of the second quarter of the current year was that only one court case was brought against a media outlet. In 2010, after decriminalization of insult and defamation, when torrent of such claims started, this was an exceptional thing. In this respect, April-June can be assessed as comparatively quiet period for the media activity.
At the same time, several scandalous cases were registered, in respect to which criminal cases were filed against the representatives of media, by the way a serious charge, i.e. extortion. On May 3 and March 20, the law enforcement paid attention to editors and employees of “Analitik.am” and “Hzham.am” websites respectively. Press circulated names of some other websites as well, which supposedly could also be charged for similar criminal acts. It is noteworthy that representatives of such suspicious websites in no way responded to such publications.
Unlike the first quarter, a number of physical violence cases against journalists were registered in the second quarter, which enables insisting that absence of similar violations in a period is not a pattern or positive tendency, but just an exception.
Both local and international reputable organizations responded to the cases of violence. Eight Armenian journalist organizations, as well as Dunya Miyatovich, OSCE representative on Freedom of Media, made a statement in relation to illegal use of force by the police against the cameramen of “1in.am” website on April 22. Dunya Miyatovich expressed her concern about the aforementioned incident and exhorted Armenian authorities to ensure the right of the journalists for safe coverage. “Inflicting violence on mass media, in particular by the representatives of law enforcement, is unacceptable”, - Miyatovich said.
Contemptuous attitudes by the authorities to this issue is evident in that both in the second quarter, as well as in the previous one, no progress was noticed in the criminal case filed on the facts of hindering the professional activity and exercising physical violence against the journalists and cameramen during the police actions on Baghramyan Avenue, Yerevan, on June 23, 2015. The pre-investigation identified 21 media journalists and cameramen as victims, however, a year after the incidents there are no suspects or victims.
In contrast to this, criminal cases filed on the fact of hindering professional activity of Diana Ghazaryan, journalist from “Hetq” website, and Anush Mkrtchyan, journalist from “Liberty” radio-station on December 6, 2015, on the Constitutional referendum day, have been sent to court.
According to CPFE, the difference in the fate of “June 23” and “December 6” criminal cases is conditioned by the fact that in case of the first police officers should be charged, including high officials, and in the second case - civilians. In our case, as it is well known, it is not accepted to punish representatives of law enforcement hindering activity of journalists.
Gradually it is becoming a common phenomenon by the high officials to use expressions containing insult and disgust in relation to media employees.
In this respect during the mentioned period, a number of famous people distinguished themselves. The top of this phenomenon was the by the RA chief of police to Siranuysh Papyan, journalist from “1in.am” website. Referring to this incident the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression and seven partner organizations made a statement expressing their resentment, and demanded “to publicly apologize to journalist Siranuysh Papyan and not to say insulting expressions to journalists.” In relation to public insult, the journalist brought a claim to court. CPFE lawyer will be her advocate.
The second quarter was a frantic period for the new Electoral code and in terms of discussion of provisions related to activities by media outlets included in the package of draft laws. Initially, Article 65 of the draft EC stipulated that on the election day no more than eight local observers and media representatives concurrently could be present at the polling stations. This was an unjustified limitation for free coverage of elections, which was severely criticized by the journalist community.
CPFE, along with partner organizations (Yerevan Press Club, Media Initiatives Center) developed joint proposals and introduced them to the working group established by the authorities. This document stipulated giving up all types unjustified limitations, instead to apply a procedure at the CEC for accreditation of journalists and cameramen covering elections, which will be based on the lists introduced by the editorial offices, as well as distinguish between the journalists’ and observers’ activities.
However, on May 25, when the Parliament passed the RA Electoral code along with the introduced legislative package, it became clear, that proposals made by three journalist organizations were completely distorted. On June 3, in this relation the CPFE, Yerevan Press Club and Media Initiatives Center made a statement, which says: “A code has been passed, which seriously restricts the activity of the media outlets and brings in discrimination among them; the ideas in the proposals made by the civil society, in particular professional journalistic organizations, have been distorted, while creating illusion of cooperation with them…”
In June, during the discussions in the format 4+4+4 (government coalition, non-governmental parties and NGOs) resumed with the mediation of EU, when the reforms in the EC were again tackled upon, neither the governmental, nor the opposition representatives wanted to add the issue of lifting unjustified limitations for mass media to the five urgent issues on the table. As a result, the new final version of the EC, in terms of ensuring the freedom of media outlets’ activity, became much worse than the previous code.
At the same time, efforts by the CPFE and the partners succeeded: they were aimed at removing dangerous provisions from the draft law stipulating changes and amendments in the RA “Law on TV and radio” introduced in one package along with the RA EC. First and foremost is refers to the right given to the National TV and radio committee to exercise additional punishment during the election campaign, i.e. suspension of a TV company’s license, by the way without a court ruling. Based on the proposals developed by the journalist organizations and submitted to the Parliament, that provision was removed from the draft law.
The same happened to the demand, according to which during the electoral campaign cable TV companies were allowed to re-broadcast only the programs of free broadcasting TV companies that got license from the NTVRC. Unfortunately, this unjustified limitation was replaced by another meaningless provision by the authors of the bill, but at least that was not dangerous for the cable TV companies.
The statement made on June 2 by the heads of 15 electronic and printed media outlets, also referred to the issues of regulating the activity of media outlets, with which they expressed their concerns about the situation in online media. The statement says that the situation in this field has become awful. According to editors, a number of websites, introducing themselves as an online media outlet, act beyond the laws and moral norms.
In particular, the editors point out that those websites do plagiarism and violate the copyright through which the result of work by other media outlets is appropriated. The editors see the solution changing the RA Law “On the dissemination of mass information”, they urge the tax bodies to oversee the activity of the online media outlets and payment of taxes from advertisement proceeds, as well as to refuse the application for accreditation to cover the work of various public entities by the media outlets that do not meet the aforementioned conditions.
In general, sharing the concerns of the heads of 15 media outlets, the CPFE considers that the existing laws sufficiently regulate both protection of copyright and the issues of introducing itself to public by mass media, i.e. making necessary information about itself public. It is a different issue that the aforementioned websites do not meet the requirements of the law and are not charged. Of course, the law on mass media can be improved, but it is more important to solve the problems raised by the editors through applying the case law, as well as self-regulating mechanisms, which, unfortunately was ignored by those who signed the statement. The editors’ requirement to bring the aforementioned websites to the tax field is to some extent vulnerable, as that problem exists in almost every editor’s office: it is well known that overwhelming majority of media outlets, like any other business in Armenia, has its “shady” portion, some have more, some have less.
By the way, the economic situation of the editor’s offices continues to concern the managers like a chronic disease. It is because of the financial reasons that on June 8 “ArmeniaNow” electronic periodical stopped functioning. A portal, which was founded in 2002, had its own audience and was one of the quality media outlets in Armenia.
In the second quarter of 2016, the government continued providing free decoders to socially insecure families to receive digital TV signals. In accord with the concept of passing from analogue to digital broadcasting adopted in 2009, this process was to end until 2015; however, the solution of the problem got delayed, again for economic reasons: the state was not able to raise funds for that.
Assessing the legislative, economic and political environment of the activity by Armenian media outlets, the reputable “Freedom House” international organization, in a report published on April 27, again put Armenia among the countries not having free media, by the way with one point regress.
A week before the “Freedom House”, “Journalists without borders” international organization published its report, which, strangely enough, registered 4 point progress for Armenian media outlets. This is not the first case when these two organizations have contradictory assessments. This is the reason that CPFE, when assessing the situation, exclusively relies on collected facts and data.
VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF JOURNALISTS AND MEDIA OUTLETS
Violations of the rights of journalists and media outlets during the second quarter of 2016 are introduced below, according to the following classification of the CPFE:
· Physical violence against journalists,
· Pressure on the media outlets and their personnel,
· Violations of the right to receive and disseminate information.
To some extent, this classification by the CPFE is conditional. In particular, sometimes hindering the receipt and dissemination of information goes along with violence against the journalist. Such facts are referred to the type of violation to which they are quite close to, according to the authors of the report. Nevertheless, the applied classification enables more comprehensive and pronounced introduction of the general picture of violations of the rights of journalists and media outlets.
During the second quarter of 2016, CPFE has registered three cases of physical violence against the staff of the media outlets (there were none in the first quarter). The number of cases of pressure against the media outlets and their representatives was 10, which twice less than in the first quarter. By the way it is due to the fact that the number of claims against mass media and journalists on the bases of insult and defamation stipulated by Article 1087.1 of the RA Civil code. Only one new court case has been registered in the second quarter.