Last year world press freedom deteriorated significantly. This is the bottom line of the report for 2001 of the Reporters Without Borders international organization whose goal is to protect the freedom of the press. The year 2001 was worse than the previous one according to most statistical indicators, says the release of the Institute of Mass Information, which represents RWB in Ukraine. Thus, 489 journalists were arrested in 2001 (vs. 329 in 2000) and 716 were threatened and harassed (510 in 2000); there were 378 reported cases of press censorship (295 in 2000) and 77 arrests of journalists. The only exception is the number of journalists killed, which is one lower than in 2000, 32 slain in 2001.
Simultaneously, even in democratic countries the freedom of the press showed signs of shrinking in 2001, the IMI release continues. This is a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent antiterrorist actions for many media outlets in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In many countries control over the work of foreign journalists has been tightened. The authorities in China, Saudi Arabia, Burma, North Korea, and Vietnam closely watch the activities of foreign journalists.
Another ominous trend typical for many countries is that crimes are committed against journalists with impunity. Most of investigations of the murders of journalists produced no results, with their contractors undetected and staying at large. Ukraine has been named among such countries.
For the second year in a row, the RWB report mentions Ukraine among seven European countries where the killings of journalists occurred in 2001. “This time the victim is Ihor Aleksandrov whose tragic death puts Ukraine alongside Northern Ireland, Kosovo, and the Basque Country,” the IMI release says.
The picture for Ukraine is not overly optimistic, although there are some positive changes concerning the freedom of the press. This was indicated by the preliminary results of the monitoring of the freedom of expression in Ukraine carried out by the Institute of Mass Information. Andriy SAICHUK, editor of IMI’s Internet publication, told The Day about some of the positives. According to him, just as in 2000, five journalists were killed last year in Ukraine, three were arrested (the same three in 2000), charges were brought against thirteen journalists (ten in 2000), there were thirty-nine cases of censorship, direct or indirect harassment (thirteen in 2000), and twenty-eight beatings of journalists (thirteen in 2000). One of the major conclusions of the RWB monitoring is that no significant changes have taken place in the attitude of the Prosecutor General’s Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and State Security Service toward investigating serious crimes committed against journalists. In the assessment of the IMI representative, there is a certain positive in that media-related cases reach courts, and some of them have already been won by journalists and media outlets, notably, by Vedomosti (Kirovohrad) and Agent (Kramatorsk). In Mr. Saichuk’s opinion, this is an indication that the relationship between the authorities and media is gradually coming onto a new level where conflicts are resolved by courts. Still, he noted, much depends on the integrity of judges who try such cases. In addition, Mr. Saichuk mentioned such a negative trend as eliminating opposition community media outlets by using administrative pressure and opaqueness in the work of the present National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting. Decline in the number of conflicts between the mass media and tax authorities was also named as a positive tendency.
COMMENTARY
Nina KARPACHOVA, Verkhovna Rada Ombudswoman for Human Rights:
That Ukraine was listed among the countries where journalists are killed is disappointing, but it’s true. Already in the first report of the Ombudswoman on the observance of human rights and liberties in Ukraine there was a special chapter on this issue where we stressed the threatening scale of violence which could be critical both for journalists and the country. We stressed then that almost all high-profile murders of journalists have not been investigated by law enforcement. Heorhy Gongadze’s case is a telling example. As Ombudswoman, I was involved in the case and continue to keep track of it now, including the plight of Gongadze’s family and, in particular, that of his mother, Lesia Gongadze. I spoke in court when the prosecution denied granting her victim status and it was only in court where Gongadze’s mother managed to defend her rights. I was also involved in the decision on whether to preserve the body found in Tarashcha (supposedly that of Gongadze). During this summer’s visit to Ukraine of Mr. Menard we were close to reaching a decision to bring in foreign experts to carry out (on Mrs. Gongadze’s demand) another examination of the body. This is the last chance for the mother, family, and Ukraine itself to attain the truth. During my recent meeting with the President of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, Mr. Valionis, he pledged every support for the autopsy. As everybody knows, the Council of Europe has approved a decision providing for additional investigation of the Gongadze case and our president has accepted it.
In 2001 journalist Ihor Aleksandrov was killed. You can open my report at page 214 to see that we classified this case as a court order violating a journalist’s right to carry out his professional duties. The authorities should have reacted at once, instead of waiting for the murder to happen. When law enforcement agencies assure us that it was a chance murder I do not believe it, because back in 1998 there was a real threat to Aleksandrov for performing his journalistic obligations. What happened in 2001 was a retaliation. Such facts should be analyzed by law enforcement, executive, and public. But how can the public do it, when denied objective information on such high-profile cases?
There is the freedom of the press in Ukraine but what kind of freedom is it? In its present form, it can really be a threat to our democracy. Let us take the case of television journalist Z. Antonik. I have submitted my protest on this case to Supreme Court Chairman Mr. Boiko as there are many suspicions that the investigation was biased and the journalist was not implicated in the crime. Now the court’s role is to consider this complicated case objectively.
Similarly, when the constitutional rights of employees of the Luhansk-based Efir-1 Television Company were infringed, I appealed to the Prosecutor General’s Office, stressing that on July 5 the Luhansk City Council adopted a decision to liquidate the company and create a new one, with the company employees filing a plea with the court claiming that the decision was illegal. Under the law, the liquidation had to be suspended pending consideration of the protest by court, but it was not. The authorities dragged their feet on the issue until the journalists went on a hunger strike, and the Ombudswoman jointly with the Reporters Without Borders stood up to support the rights of Efir-1 journalists. When the health of some journalists was at risk I had to interfere in the hunger strike, calling the support of the Ministry of Health. Today I received the GPO’s answer to my appeal where it justifies the actions of the Luhansk City Council, citing the law on self-government whereby the liquidation, restructuring, and changing production profile of enterprises, institutions, and organizations owned by communities are within the exclusive jurisdiction of city councils.
City authorities can close or open entities but they must have a good reason for it. This is why the journalists who appealed to court have a point. Will we again wait until some of these journalists are also killed? Today, the authorities have deliberately put up barriers to Efir-1 work. (Incidentally, last Saturday Efir-1 journalists stopped their hunger strike which they began back on November 14, 2001. Their statement, quoted by UNIAN, says, “Even such an extreme form of protest as a hunger strike did not make the authorities put the law above the selfish interests of certain groups and individuals.” The television company staff believes, however, that the hunger strike has achieved its objective, with assurances of support coming from the public, political organizations, Ukrainian and foreign journalists, people’s deputies, and international human rights organizations — Ed.). The case of Ihor Aleksandrov was played out according to much the same scenario. This is why all infringements on the freedom of expression must be the concern of not only journalists and the public, but also law enforcement and the authorities. Seeking justice in Ukraine is a very difficult task. Journalists are in the front ranks of this campaign and, instead of providing arms for media people, the authorities must provide the conditions for them to obtain justice.
