Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yerevan Press Club Weekly Newsletter - 11/04/2004

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yerevan Press Club Weekly Newsletter - 11/04/2004

    YEREVAN PRESS CLUB WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

    OCTOBER 29 - NOVEMBER 4, 2004

    HIGHLIGHTS:

    WHAT SHOULD MEDIA OF ARMENIA AND SOUTH CAUCASUS DO?
    Interrelations of Politics, Society and Media in Armenia
    The Tbilisi Declaration on Libel and Freedom of Information

    THIRD "PRESS CLUB" SHOW

    JOURNALISTIC ASSOCIATIONS CONDEMN THE ATTACK ON "ARAGATS ASHKHAR" NEWSPAPER

    "INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS" STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN THE SUIT AGAINST
    YEREVAN MUNICIPALITY

    LEGAL CONTRADICTION CAN RESULT IN IMPRISONMENT

    "RESPUBLIKA ARMENIA" RENEWED ITS PUBLICATION

    "AREVATSAGHIK" IS FIVE YEARS OLD


    WHAT SHOULD MEDIA OF ARMENIA AND SOUTH CAUCASUS DO?

    In the previous issue (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, October 22-28, 2004) we
    informed about the conference held on October 25-26 in Tbilisi "21st Century
    Challenges for the Media of South Caucasus: Dealing with Libel and Freedom
    of Information", which was organized by the OSCE Representative on Freedom
    of the Media and the OSCE Mission to Georgia.

    Below the report of the President of Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardian
    "Interrelations of Politics, Society and Media in Armenia" is presented, as
    made on the first day of the conference, followed by the Declaration on
    Libel and Freedom of Information, adopted by the results of the conference
    on October 26 by its participants.

    INTERRELATIONS OF POLITICS, SOCIETY AND MEDIA IN ARMENIA

    The ordinary people in Armenia regard the press and journalists just like
    they do in any normal country - namely, as the well-behaved children feel
    about the cod-liver oil: they are not very fond of it, but they do realize
    that it is a useful thing and should be consumed with moderate dosage.
    However, there are categories of population - let them conventionally be
    called "the bad guys" - who, while not liking this "cod-liver oil", are
    trying to change its nature according to their own tastes and to get instead
    Coke, vodka or some other liquid. Unfortunately, it is these categories that
    keep all the main resources of the country, also those that determine the
    media situation.

    Once the Armenian press of the early 1990s somewhat departed from the
    selectionist experiments it had suffered for seventy years of the Soviet
    era, the politicians of the new generation undertook the breeding of the
    type of mass media convenient for themselves, - rather these were the
    political parties of the independent republic, possessing the resources for
    decision-making. It is they that made up the decision-making elite during
    the first years of independence. By mid-90s the country had practically no
    news media; they were replaced by propaganda media. Each newspaper attempted
    to prove that the party or the political group that was behind it was the
    only one protecting the national interests, and all its opponents were
    leading the people to disaster. The effort of protecting the narrow party
    and group interests was led by the state-owned propaganda media. And when
    the power structures did not manage to gain an overwhelming advantage on the
    purely ideological front, they moved the dispute into a sphere, where their
    arguments proved to be irreversible: bans and demolitions of opposition
    press, creation of economic, bureaucratic and legal obstacles for the latter
    not to be able to overcome. The utmost example in this regard is the
    simultaneous closure of over a dozen opposition media in early 1995.

    This abuse of freedom of expression could not leave the attitude of the
    audience to the press unchanged. If in 1991-1992 queues that lasted for
    hours stood in front of the newspaper stalls, and the print runs of the
    newly appearing publications reached 50-70 thousand, during the subsequent
    years the readers' demand for print periodicals started to go down. For some
    time the ordinary people, trying to get the "cod-liver oil" they needed,
    were deceived by taking some kinds of Coke or other liquids instead. Then,
    having realized they were deceived, they arrived at their aims by mixing
    everything offered: having gone through the coverage of the same event or
    the problem in publications of different stances, one could try and get an
    objective picture. However it was getting increasingly difficult to filter
    out the real information out of the intensified flow of propaganda "Coke"
    and called for titanic intellectual effort, moreover, was associated with
    expenses too high for an ordinary Armenian wallet.

    Thus the newspapers became increasingly adequate to the tastes of "the bad
    guys" and were becoming elite reading, accessible only to professionals that
    synthesize "cod-liver oil" out of any "liquid". The ordinary reader is
    getting all the farther from the press, trying to replenish the information
    vitamin reserve out of other sources. By the findings of a sociological
    survey, conducted in the end of the last millennium, "conversations with
    acquaintances" were rated as third information source in Armenia. A popular
    satirist of Soviet times Semion Nariniani would have called this source "AAS
    ('An Auntie Said') news agency". The reasons for the popularity of AAS in
    the Communist past are well-known to us, but its persistent survival during
    the epoch of freedom of expression and plurality says nothing good about our
    society.

    Certainly, the journalists themselves have tried to comply with their
    professional mission and still are: to provide up-to-date and objective
    information on all the most important events to the audience. But they
    succeed in these attempts only occasionally, and mostly, contrary to what
    their masters expect them to do. A very typical example is the situation
    after the terrorist attack on the Armenian Parliament five years ago, when
    the country was almost completely beheaded. While the masters of the
    Armenian press (and not only) were at a loss and were trying to get a sense
    of direction in the drastically changed political environment, the media
    behaved as their journalistic conscience told them, and the public got
    everything that it should have got from news media during this short period
    of one or two days. But as soon as the new political priorities were
    defined, the journalists and the media - both the print and electronic
    ones - were again divided into confronting camps, and the natural
    media-product was again replaced by a surrogate.

    The very common phenomenon in the post-Soviet Armenia is the accusations of
    the education system, allegedly failing to meet the needs of media in
    promising young journalists. Some colleagues are trying to explain all the
    problems of the Armenian journalism by this very circumstance. The issue, in
    reality, is not that, although the journalistic education system certainly
    does call for much improvement. The professional skills of journalists
    corresponds to the demand that is formed by the Armenian press of today. The
    nature of the work in it, unfortunately, is not always stimulating the
    aspiration towards heights of professionalism, towards standards defined by
    the leading media of the world.

    The problems, primarily, are centered around the sources of the media
    existence, the traditional question of who pays the piper. The rough
    analysis of the market yields the following picture: the first place in
    terms of material resources of media, at a huge distance from other sources,
    belongs to various sponsorship, investments of financial and business groups
    (the lion share making the subsidies from several oligarchic groups); the
    second place is taken by advertising revenues, that are almost fully
    absorbed by the television, other media types get only the leftovers from
    the "king's dinner"; the third place is taken by direct subsidies from state
    budget, and here the unrivaled consumer is the Public TV and Radio Company
    of Armenia, whose line in the budget is more significant than that of the
    National Academy of Science; the fourth place is taken by funding that comes
    directly or indirectly from parties and political blocs; the fifth is the
    revenues generated by marketing the media production; the sixth is the
    assistance of international organizations and foundations. If one tries to
    differentiate the sources as to which of them demand quality, "good"
    journalism (returning to the terminology used in the beginning of the
    presentation, "the cod-liver oil"), and which call for "bad" journalism (all
    other liquids), the resources of "the bad guys", that is, the ordered of
    "bad" journalism, will be obviously more powerful: these are the first, the
    third and the fourth lines in the rating of main sources.

    It goes without saying that the differentiation proposed is very
    conventional: the Public Television and Radio, by the funding from state
    budget occasionally do air some quality programs, and on the other hand, the
    payment for advertising services is often a disguised form of political
    sponsorship. But the general situation is not changed because of that: the
    media revenue, generated due to an order of certain political, oligarchic
    circles, is significantly higher than the revenue, generated by meeting the
    broad consumers' demand for up-to-date and impartial information. What we
    have as a result is the broad gap between the supply, imposed by the main
    ordered, and the mass demand. By the findings of repeated researches, the
    first lines among the subjects covered by the press were taken by various
    issues of inner politics. Yet, the public was primarily interested in
    international affairs and social issues that took the 6th and 11th places,
    respectively, among other subjects that received media attention. And
    however eager the media professionals are, they do not often get the chance
    to correspond to the best standards of journalism and the expectations of
    the society.

    The attentive reader noticed that, as compared to the period described by me
    at the beginning of this presentation, today the stance of Armenian media is
    determined not by the political parties but by the oligarchic circles. This,
    to a certain extent, changes the nature of journalism, and one can argue
    whether it is for better or for worse. In mid-1990s we all felt bad about
    the polarization of print media (propaganda media) by their party
    preferences. But in that case the attitude, the approaches of the press to
    certain matters were, in general understandable and clear at least to a part
    of the audience. While the purposes, the interests of oligarchic clans, the
    clashes of which are reflected in media and increasingly determine the
    content of the publication, are not recorded in any statutes, programs,
    manifests, and the public is much less aware of them than of party
    platforms. Thus, getting tired of the exchange with mysterious messages
    through media between the various groups of oligarchic super-elite, the
    audience has to resort to entertaining reading and viewing and confines
    itself to TV news, including Russian TV news, to satiate its information
    hunger. And this is despite the fact that in the person of Armenian public
    such media would have had a grateful reader. The turbulent developments of
    the recent years, the existence of numerous problems both within the country
    and on the regional level, the traditionally high literacy rate condition
    the active interest of people to the processes underway. However, the
    information hunger is not being satiated, because of which the print media
    suffer too, losing circulation, and so does the country in general, not
    using the civil potential of the nation. A certain vicious circle is thus
    created: the press needs a broad readership to gain financial independence
    from political sponsors, and the mass consumer is only ready to pay the
    press that is up to his interests, and not to the interests of a narrow
    group of the rich. Apparently, the media should break through this circle,
    but up to now the rare attempts to refuse the guaranteed feeding-rack and to
    go into the open sea of civilized information market were unsuccessful.

    While the media market has this specifics, there are, unfortunately,
    representatives of our profession that have relaxed and are trying to get as
    much pleasure as possible. Those who are satisfied with the remuneration
    received, manage to look quite respectable. Those, who think themselves to
    be at a disadvantage and deserving a greater piece of oligarchic pie, resort
    to various forms of journalistic blackmail, being insistent in their work
    with the paying object until he is mature enough to understand that one must
    share what he has... Yet, this task is a very delicate and risky one. Not
    all the potential sponsors respect the criminal code, and, not having the
    necessary skills, arguments, patience, the media blackmailer, instead of the
    piece expected runs the risk of getting a brain concussion and advice to
    never practice journalism (if what has been described has a right to be
    called journalism).

    There is also an optimistic view at the situation. It proceeds from a thesis
    that there is no complete independence of media, and one should only speak
    about the independence of media from the state. If the share of the state in
    media ownership and expenses reduces, and that is the trend now present in
    Armenia, this already signifies some progress. In reality, the existence of
    60 private broadcasters is impressive, but this apparently must refer not
    only to the legal status but also to who stands behind them and how it is
    reflected in the content of the programs. And the important thing is the
    television, since it, as noted above, dominates the news dissemination, and
    therefore, plays an enormous role in the formation of public opinion. The
    statement "who controls the TV air, owns the power" is truly justified in
    case of Armenia. The owners of the majority of private national and
    metropolitan TV channels, at least among those that have political
    influence, are major businessmen, who are in some way related to power. Add
    to this the most powerful, in terms of its coverage, Armenian medium, the
    Public TV and Radio Company, headed by a Council, appointed personally and
    solely by the President of the country. Also, take into account the fact
    that among the advertisers and the advertising agencies the prevailing
    position is again taken by entrepreneurs who are sympathetic to the
    authorities. And it will be clear to you, that the status of "private" and
    "public" do not at all coincide with the concepts of "independent" and
    "politically neutral".

    The authorities, naturally, do not rely on the abstract sympathy of the
    broadcasters, it needs institutionalized guarantees. The main control
    function is performed by the National Commission on Television and Radio,
    the members of which, similarly to the members of the Council of Public TV
    and Radio Company, are appointed personally and solely by the President of
    the country. This body that distributes the frequencies by competition and
    is to control the compliance of the private broadcasters with their license
    terms and the RA legislation. It is to account for the loss of 8 broadcast
    licensing competitions by one of the oldest and most popular Armenian
    channels, "A1+", which has been out of air for two years and a half already
    simply because its work could not be controlled from above. The practical
    impossibility to follow all the provisions of the legislation for the
    broadcasting companies allows the Commission to punish or forgive them at
    its own discretion. Owing to the well-constructed system, the authorities
    manage not only to influence the content of the TV programs but also the
    change of ownership of the companies. That is, without the "highest"
    approval, no TV companies can be bought or sold.

    Certainly, this all occurs with no verbalization and most often looks quite
    decent, as the civilized legal norms require. But not everyone believes it.
    In case of "A1+", for some reason, the various local and international
    organizations are addressing the President of the country, and he has to
    explain that this very National Commission on Television and Radio that he
    has formed is an independent structure and he, however fond he is of the TV
    channel that has lost air, cannot influence the decisions of NCTR. There was
    even more puzzlement in the response of the presidential administration to
    the recent address of the President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
    Thomas Dine with a request to assist the TV program cycle, produced by the
    radio company by a preliminary agreement with a private TV company, yet
    suspended, to get back on air. The Spokesman of the RA President was very
    explicit in telling Mr. Dine that "the RA Law "On Mass Communication",
    adopted in 2003, excludes the possibility of any intervention of the
    government into the professional activities of the press..."

    While I do have my own vision of the recent incident, I will not be
    commenting on it. I will only indulge myself to say a few words about the
    Radio Liberty, or, rather, its Armenian Service. Four years ago here, in
    Georgia, in Gudauri, a major conference, organized by Radio Liberty was
    held. I was invited along with my colleagues from Azerbaijan and Georgia to
    tell the conference participants from different countries what the media of
    our region are. The request to present first my organization was answered by
    me to the effect that the mission of Yerevan Press Club is to create
    conditions when there would be no need in Radio Liberty. In other words, for
    our own media to get to a level, when the foreign radio voices are unable to
    compete. But I also calmed down my colleagues, noting that it looks like we
    will not arrive at this goal soon. At least, even now, the programs of the
    Radio Liberty Armenian Service are notable for their professionalism,
    objectivity and are permanently popular with the listeners. (Actually, the
    radio station is also very convincing in denying the opinion that the
    problems of Armenian media stem from the lack of good journalists. Almost
    all our young colleagues who come to Radio Liberty progress very soon and
    prove that in a creative climate, when their work is valued and they are
    only required to perform their professional duty well, they are quite
    capable of working on the level of their western peers.) Unlike the
    audience, the authorities of Armenia are not very fond of this radio
    station. In 1995-1996, during the rule of the previous RA President, the
    re-broadcasting of Radio Liberty Armenian Service on the state radio was
    temporarily prohibited. Further, all attempts of Radio Liberty to initiate
    TV projects on various channels failed. This is another illustration of how
    the authorities regard the media out of their control, particularly, when
    the latter ones are able to exercise obvious influence on the public
    opinion.

    In my presentation I deliberately stressed the problems that the media
    development in the country stumbles across. The representatives of Armenia
    press, similarly, I think, to their colleagues in Georgia and Azerbaijan,
    cannot as yet report accomplishments with regard to freedom of expression.
    This is done by the leaders of our countries, and they hardly need our help.
    Moreover, the accomplishments are still fragile and the problems are
    fundamental. Since Armenia has found itself a bit ahead of its neighbors in
    South Caucasus in the reformation of media legislation in compliance with
    commitments to the Council of Europe (I mean not the qualitative aspect, in
    terms of actual freedom of expression we are probably behind Georgia, but
    the quantitative aspect of the reforms), I do recommend my colleagues to
    study not only the experience of advanced European countries, but also ours,
    so as to avoid at least some of the "traps" that can transform the most
    liberal procedures into mechanisms of restricting the freedom of expression.
    This recommendation refers primarily to the European experts that help our
    countries to improve the laws: they find it even harder, than we, in our
    countries, to determine these "traps" in the drafts submitted for expert
    evaluation. And the acquaintance with the practical effect of certain legal
    provisions on the specific post-Soviet South Caucasus soil is particularly
    important for them.

    My speech would have been incomplete without proposing solutions to the
    problems raised. The situation analysis presented above shows that the main
    threat for the freedom of expression in Armenia today is the state and
    oligarchic monopoly of media, based not so much on power, but on
    pseudo-market and pseudo-legal mechanisms, that I tried to describe. And it
    is the formation of certain alternatives to this monopoly that the strategy
    of independent media development should build on.

    Firstly, these are measures on relieving the economical burden that the
    press shoulders. Armenian media are the only sphere that received nothing
    from the privatization of enterprises related to information and publication
    industries. Today the only unsold property is the state premises that the
    editorial offices rent. And the media should at least receive these
    facilities as property on advantageous terms. (The allusions to the need to
    replenish the budget through privatization are unsuitable here: if the
    enterprises with a real value of millions of dollars have been privatized
    for thousands of dollars, the budget can survive the not very big losses of
    privileges to the press.) The real estate ownership is an important basis
    for independent business. Moreover, annually, the RA state budget calls for
    a certain amount to support the independent media; however, it is
    distributed by some unclear principles. Meanwhile, the media community has
    long ago proposed to use these sums for the proportionate compensation of a
    part of the taxes paid by the press. This would stimulate the transparency
    of the financial management of media, the refusal of at least some of them
    to have "black" deals.

    Secondly, it is the encouragement of quality, objective journalism, the kind
    that the Radio Liberty programs are. It will find it difficult to change the
    information climate in the country alone, but if there are more positive
    examples, the situation will no longer look as hopeless. Thus, the $ 7.5
    mln, allocated by the USAID for the support of independent media during the
    coming 4-5 years, could have made a significant contribution to the
    implementation of this idea. This is quite a big amount of money for
    Armenian media market, and it could serve an effective counterbalance to the
    sources spent on "bad" journalism. However, the conditions of implementing
    this project as they have been defined by the USAID will hardly allow
    changing the media landscape in Armenia. Unfortunately, the examples of
    resource waste with good intentions, but with no adequate understanding of
    the needs of a specific county, are numerous. At the same time it may mean
    that there is an idle resource that can be made more active.

    Thirdly, it is the greater consistency of international structures that have
    an obvious influence on the processes in our countries. I mean, primarily,
    the Council of Europe and the OSCE. In 2000, a few months before joining the
    CE, the Armenian Parliament passed the Law "On Television and Radio" that is
    most bluntly contradicting several fundamental standards stipulated by the
    recommendations of the CE Committee of Ministers. Yet, this did not cause a
    very negative response of Strasbourg. And during the subsequent four years
    our Parliament, despite the numerous documents, demanding to improve the
    Law, not only failed to do so, but even made a number of amendments enabling
    the authorities to strengthen the control of the authorities over the
    broadcasting. However, judging from the last PACE Resolution on Armenia's
    honoring of its commitments, this sabotage is of little concern to
    Strasbourg. Such tolerance is hardly contributing to the implementation of
    true reforms.

    Fourthly, it is the introduction of the principles of self-regulation in the
    activities of Armenian media. The leading Armenian journalists are
    increasingly aware that they are unable to confront the dictate of
    oligarchic ethics alone, that they need self-protection from the laws and
    judicial practice that restrict the freedom of expression. To save their own
    industry from complete discrimination in the eyes of the society they are
    ready to propose their corporate ethics, their system of solving
    informational conflicts as an alternative. Overcoming the political
    dissociation of journalists is not a simple task, but the instinct of
    self-preservation of the profession, should there be competent intervention
    and stimulating on behalf of non-governmental organizations and
    international institutions, should work.

    As it can be seen from this incomplete list of measures to improve the
    situation of Armenian media, joint effort is necessary to consolidate state
    structures, the media community and international organizations. This work
    could be coordinated by a group, similar to the one created on the
    initiative of OSCE Office in Yerevan. Let us hope that it will not lose the
    momentum, gained in 2003.

    Boris NAVASARDIAN, YPC President
    Tbilisi, October 25, 2004

    THE TBILISI DECLARATION ON LIBEL AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

    On Defamation:

    - Executive and legislative authorities at all levels should systematically
    review all legal norms including laws, regulations, decrees and other legal
    instruments, that impose criminal and civil sanctions for defamation. This
    review should be in consultation with the judiciary, media and civil society
    organizations. The changes should include:

    - In Armenia and Azerbaijan, criminal defamation laws should be eliminated
    and replaced with appropriate and narrowly defined civil defamation laws. As
    a first step, at least prison sentences should be abolished including
    suspended ones. If decriminalization is not possible in the short term, all
    current cases should be stopped and a moratorium on further cases should be
    imposed. All persons imprisoned for these offences should be released and
    rehabilitated.

    - Public bodies should not be eligible to use defamation laws. Under the
    law, public officials and elected representatives should be prohibited from
    using defamation laws to suppress legitimate criticism of their activities
    or limit political debate.

    - Specific criminal and civil laws for insulting heads of state should be
    abolished.

    - Civil defamation laws should be revised based on established international
    standards and best practices. The burden of proving falsehood should always
    be placed on the person who is complaining. Even in cases of factual
    inaccuracies, there should be a defence of 'reasonable publication'
    available.

    - In parallel to decriminalisation, civil damages should be limited to what
    is clearly necessary only to repair the harm done by the defamatory
    statement and take into account the effect of the award on the ability of
    the defendant to continue to exercise their profession. Laws should define
    an upper limit for damages.

    - Media should develop, promote and observe professional and ethical
    standards. Governments should not obstruct efforts by media to establish
    professional bodies and create self-regulatory mechanisms.

    - Specialised non-governmental organisations should conduct ongoing
    monitoring and regularly report on the use of these laws. They should
    provide training to media on their legal rights and obligations.

    On Freedom of Information:

    Executive and legislative authorities at all levels should systematically
    review all legal norms including laws, regulations, decrees and other legal
    instruments, that affect access to information held by public bodies. This
    review should be in consultation with the judiciary, media and civil society
    organisations. The changes should include:

    Regarding Freedom of Information and Related Laws:

    - The adoption of a comprehensive law on Free Access to Information based on
    international standards should be finalised in Azerbaijan.

    - All three countries should develop a strategy jointly with the media and
    NGOs and a comprehensive strategy for the implementation of the laws.

    - All public institutions and government departments should establish
    procedures and mechanisms (training, public hours, appointment of
    information officers, setting up information management systems, creating
    and maintaining official web sites) to effectively enable the media and the
    public to access information held by the institution.

    - Official web sites should be established, maintained and regularly
    updated.

    - Oversight over the observation of these laws and standards should be
    ensured and carried out by parliaments, parliamentary commissions open to
    the public, commissions of public hearings and an independent information
    commission.

    - Laws should be developed to create an independent review mechanism to
    provide protection for 'whistleblowers'.

    Regarding State Secrets:

    - The State Secrets Acts and regulations should be amended in order to limit
    their applicability only to that information whose disclosure would
    significantly threaten the national security or territorial integrity of a
    nation.

    - Rules by which information is classified should be made public.
    Information should be classified within a short period of being created.
    Information classified as secret should be reviewed periodically and be
    declassified no later than 20 years after it was classified. Independent
    bodies which review classification decisions should be created, such as
    ombudsmen or information commissioners.

    - Criminal liability connected with the disclosure of state secrets should
    be limited in cases of public interest. Journalists should not be required
    to disclose their sources.

    The Judiciary:

    - The independence of the judiciary has to be strengthened in order to
    effectively enforce the right to freedom of information.

    The Media and NGOs:

    - Should promote awareness of access to information laws and monitor their
    use.

    - Investigate all illegal restrictions on freedom of information, attacks on
    journalists, cases of punishment of journalists for seeking and publishing
    information regarded to be of public interest.

    - The media should know their rights to access information under existing
    legislation and use those rights. Unlawful denials should be challenged and
    publicized.

    Tbilisi, 26 October 2004

    THIRD "PRESS CLUB" SHOW

    On November 1 on the evening air of the Second Armenian TV Channel the third
    "Press Club" show was issued. The cycle is organized by Yerevan Press Club
    under "Strengthening Democracy in South Caucasus by Free Expression",
    implemented jointly with "Article 19" international organization with the
    support of Open Society Institute.

    The head of leading media and journalistic associations of Armenia discussed
    problems related to access to information. The second central topic was the
    relations of European Union and Turkey, particularly, the issue of the
    possible start of negotiations on Turkey's accession to EU, recently at the
    focus of Armenian media attention. The program participants also spoke about
    the US presidential elections of November 2 - as an important world event
    that will most probably give rise to numerous comments in Armenian press.

    JOURNALISTIC ASSOCIATIONS CONDEMN THE ATTACK ON "ARAGATS ASHKHAR" NEWSPAPER

    On October 29 Yerevan Press Club, Journalists Union of Armenia and Committee
    to Protect Freedom of Expression issued a statement condemning the attack on
    the Chief Editor of "Aragats Ashkhar" newspaper Vardevan Grigorian (see YPC
    Weekly Newsletter, October 22-28, 2004).

    "On October 27, 2004 at Tsaghkahovit village of Aragatsotn region the Chief
    Editor of "Aragats Ashkhar" newspaper Vardevan Grigorian was beaten by the
    head of the Aragats Fire Prevention Department and his deputy for a piece
    published. The case is particularly out of the ordinary as the same person
    (the head of the fire prevention department) had also exercised violence
    against Vardevan Grigorian five years ago and received an administrative
    punishment for that.

    This is already the second case of violence against regional media
    representatives in the course of October and comes to prove the point of our
    previous statements - that the lack of punishment gives rise to new crimes,
    and their wave has now started to cover the regions of Armenia.

    Yerevan Press Club, Journalists Union of Armenia and the Committee to
    Protect Freedom of Expression condemn the incident with Chief Editor of
    "Aragats Ashkhar" and demand the law enforcement bodies to conduct an
    objective investigation and to punish those responsible", the statement of
    the three journalistic associations says.

    "INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS" STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN THE SUIT AGAINST
    YEREVAN MUNICIPALITY

    On October 29 the RA Court of Cassation secured the suit of "Investigative
    Journalists" NGO versus the municipality of Yerevan. On September 23 the
    organization challenged with the supreme jurisdiction body of the country
    the ruling of the RA Court of Appeals of September 16, 2004, that had left
    the decision of the court of primary jurisdiction of Center and Nork-Marash
    communities of Yerevan of June 21 unchanged. As it has been reported, the
    courts of primary and secondary jurisdiction did not secure the demand of
    the plaintiff to the Yerevan administration to provide it with documents
    necessary for journalistic investigation: the resolutions of the
    municipality of 1997-2003 on the constructions in the public green zone
    around the National Opera and Ballet Theater (see details in YPC Weekly
    Newsletter, September 17-23, 2004).

    The Court of Cassation ruled to send the case back to the consideration of
    the Court of Appeals with a new composition. Thus, the "Investigative
    Journalists" along with the public at large now have a chance to finally get
    an answer to the question: what were the legal grounds behind the boost in
    construction of entertaining institutions in one of most beautiful and once
    the greenest spots of Yerevan?

    LEGAL CONTRADICTION CAN RESULT IN IMPRISONMENT

    On October 28 the Chairman of "Investigative Journalists" NGO Edik
    Baghdasarian made an address to the Head of Investigation Division of the
    Police Department of Center community of Yerevan Artavazd Ghazarian. The
    address voices a protest against the involvement of Edik Baghdasarian as a
    witness on the case of assault on a leader of "Intellectual Forum" Ashot
    Manucharian on April 22, 2004. The resolution on this was made on September
    15 by the Senior Investigator of this Police Department Arsen Ayvazian.
    Having reminded that he is a journalist on professional duty, Edik
    Baghdasarian notes in his address that after each publication on the case
    Investigator Ayvazian summons him to interrogation and demands to disclose
    the information sources. The head of "Investigative Journalists" further
    informs the Head of Investigation Division about his refusal to give
    testimony and to disclose information sources. "I stated this to the
    investigator, too, saying I am not going to disclose any source, primarily
    not to endanger the safety of these people", Edik Baghdasarian stressed in
    his statement. His refusal to appear as witness was motivated by the
    journalist by Article 5 of the RA Law "On Mass Communication", protecting
    the right of the journalist to non-identification of information sources.

    As YPC was told by Edik Baghdasarian, he is ready to bear responsibility for
    a refusal of testimony, since the safety of the information sources is more
    important for him. It should be noted that Article 339 of the RA Criminal
    Code ("Refusal from Testimony") stipulates a fine of 50-100 minimal salaries
    or reformatory labor for up to a year or imprisonment for up to two months.

    YPC Comment: The demand of investigative bodies to the journalist to
    disclose the information sources reveals a serious legal contradiction.

    On the one hand, Part 1 of Article 5 of the RA Law "On Mass Communication"
    says: "Those engaged in communications activities and journalists are not
    obliged to disclose information sources, but for the cases stipulated by
    Part 2 of this Article". In Part 2 of the same Article the possibility of
    source identification was only provided for in case of "a court ruling on a
    criminal case, so as to disclose a grave or a particularly grave crime, if
    the need of criminal and legal protection of the public interests is higher
    that the public interest in non-identification of information sources and
    the alternative ways of protecting public interests are exhausted. In this
    case, upon the motion of a journalist, a closed-door court hearing is made".

    On the other hand, Article 86 of the RA Code of Criminal Proceedings ("The
    Witness") does not provide for journalists as individuals who cannot be
    involved in the case and interrogated as witnesses.

    Therefore, the journalist can be imprisoned for the refusal to be a
    witness - in this case to disclose the information source, the
    confidentiality of which is guaranteed by the Law on the journalistic
    profession. This legal contradiction has arisen as the Code of Criminal
    Proceedings was adopted by the Parliament in July 1998, while the Law "On
    Mass Communication" was passed five years after, in December 2003. To
    eliminate it, an appropriate amendment should be made into the Code to
    enable the representatives of the "fourth estate" to preserve the
    confidentiality of information sources.

    "RESPUBLIKA ARMENIA" RENEWED ITS PUBLICATION

    Since November 3 "Respublika Armenia" newspaper renewed its publication. The
    three-month timeout (since August 1) of the newspaper was due, primarily to
    the staff replacements in the editorial team. In particular, on September
    24, by the decision of the founder of the newspaper, "Hayastani
    Hanrapetutiun-Respublika Armenia" CJSC, Yelena Kurdian was appointed to the
    position of the Chief Editor, replacing Vardan Aloyan who assumed a new job
    (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, September 24-30, 2004). The volume of the
    newspaper remains the same, 8/A3 pp., and so does the periodicity of
    issuance - twice a week.

    "AREVATSAGHIK" IS FIVE YEARS OLD

    On November 2 in Yerevan the fifth anniversary of "Arevatsaghik" monthly
    newspaper for children and adolescents was celebrated. The specific of the
    newspaper is first of all that its publication process directly involves
    children and adolescents, also disabled.

    Yerevan Press Club congratulates "Arevatsaghik" and wishes it further
    success and prosperity!


    When reprinting or using the information above, reference to the Yerevan
    Press Club is required.

    You are welcome to send any comment and feedback about the Newsletter to:
    [email protected]

    Subscription for the Newsletter is free. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
    this mailing list, please send a message to: [email protected]

    Editor of YPC Newsletter - Elina POGHOSBEKIAN
    ____________________________________________
    Yerevan Press Club
    9B, Ghazar Parpetsi str.
    375007, Yerevan, Armenia
    Tel.: (+ 374 1) 53 00 67; 53 35 41; 53 76 62
    Fax: (+374 1) 53 56 61
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Web Site: www.ypc.am
Working...
X