Slapp: Shadowy legal actions are being used to silence the media

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Daphne Caruana Galizia protest 3

Journalists who dare to investigate powerful people or companies are facing increasingly expensive legal threats to stop them publishing.

Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Maltese investigative journalist who was assassinated in October 2017, was just one reporter who fought against these lawsuits. Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Slapp) lawsuits are not new nor are they limited to the media world, but they are incredibly powerful.

Daphne’s son Paul said: “Slapp lawsuits are designed to remove the truth from circulation by making it too expensive to assert. Malta’s political and business elite used them extensively against my mother Daphne Caruana Galizia who always stood her ground but, as an independent journalist, paid a heavy price in terms of stress, time wasted and money spent on her own defence.”

Leading freedom of expression advocates are worried about the power of these lawsuits and the way they are being used to stop publications.

Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index, said: “Having a media that is free to investigate corruption and abuse of power – and free to publish the results of those investigations – is fundamental to democracy. These vexatious lawsuits – deliberately aimed at preventing journalists from carrying out such work – must be stopped.”

Jonathan Price, a barrister with Doughty Street Chambers, said: “Media plurality and diversity are essential to a functioning democracy. But bloggers, citizen journalists, small-scale specialist publications and NGOs are most vulnerable to Slapp activity. A large corporate entity or wealthy individual is able to outspend and out-resource these independent media outlets well before any substantive court decision as to the merits of a particular case. All parties are aware of this inequality of arms, and just that simple awareness is enough to deter many small publishers from investigating and reporting on large corporates and wealthy individuals.

He added: “So there is the visible, practical censorship that is achieved by tying media organisations (of all sizes) up in spending time and money on possibly baseless litigation. And there is the self-censorship applied by the smaller publishers so as to avoid the dread of receiving a lengthy, highly aggressive letter from expensive libel lawyers.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A small Maltese news outlet, The Shift News, is fighting against Slapps and campaigning for legal changes in Malta to give more protection to journalists covering public interest stories. Opposition MPs in Malta are seeking to use a private member’s bill to change the law to stop international lawsuits being used to prevent Maltese journalists covering stories.

This comes after The Shift News was threatened with a lawsuit for an article about the alleged involvement in a scandal by the company Henley and Partners, which has been awarded a multi-million dollar contract to act as agent for a scheme through which  Malta makes European citizenship available. Henley and Partners threatened legal action against The Shift in the UK and the US unless an article about the company’s alleged involvement in a passports-for-cash scandal in Grenada was removed. Henley and Partners deny any wrongdoing. The Shift News refused and instead published the threatening letter.

These kind of lawsuits are a problem in other countries too. For example, Albanian investigative journalists Besar Likmeta and Aleksandra Bogdani were sued for defamation by an influential judge and his wife. The journalists work for reporter.al, an investigative reporters’ platform in the Albanian language.

Fighting such lawsuits is extremely expensive – far too much for all but the largest media outlets. The result is censorship doled out by those with money: news and articles fail to appear, without anyone realising what has happened. Journalists are even told they must not mention these lawsuits or they will face further legal action.

A cross-party group of MEPs are now calling for new EU legislation to deter such lawsuits. “We are committed to the protection of investigative journalists and media freedom across the EU and will pursue this issue until Anti-Slapp EU legislation is in place,” they said.

Flutura Kusari, legal advisor to the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, said that “in a Slapp lawsuit, the plaintiff does not aim to win a case, rather than to intimidate and discourage reporters from further reporting by placing them in long and costly judicial processes”.

There are some signs that the European Parliament is worried about the problem in a damning report recently published after a delegation of MEPs visited Malta. It identified many failings, including concerns about the effectiveness of the fight against corruption, with few investigations resulting in criminal prosecutions, and the weak implementation of anti-money laundering legislation. “The brutal assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia was aimed at instilling fear in everyone, especially those involved in investigating and prosecuting cases of money laundering and corruption,” it said.

This is not just a problem in Europe, but in the USA there is some protection for journalists against vexatious legal actions. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, some US states, including California, Georgia and Texas, have laws that discourage lawsuits.

The use of expensive lawsuits to stop journalists reporting a story with a strong public interest is not a new tactic, but we must redress the balance against media investigations.

Joy Hyvarinen is head of advocacy at Index on Censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1516373343229-cbca273b-69ee-8″ taxonomies=”18782″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Chechnya: Immediately release human rights defender Oyub Titiev

Oyub Titiev

Oyub Titiev

We, members of the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP), are deeply concerned at reports of the arrest of Oyub Titiev, head of Human Rights Center Memorial’s Grozny office in Chechnya on highly dubious narcotics charges. We call for his immediate and unconditional release and dropping of all charges.

Titiev is highly respected in the international human rights community, as well as in the North Caucasus, where he is part of a small group of brave human rights defenders still working to uncover and document grave ongoing human rights violations. Titiev has led Memorial’s work in Chechnya since the horrific murder of his colleague Natalia Estemirova in 2009. In recent years, he received numerous threats aimed at making him quit human rights work. Now, his life and safety are in jeopardy.

According to reports, Oyub Titiev was brought to the Kurchaloi district police department shortly after his car was stopped and searched near the Khymuk bridge around 10:30 am on Tuesday 9 January. Titiev’s lawyer has been informed that he is being charged with the illegal possession of drugs, reportedly a large amount (180 grams) of marijuana.

Similar trumped-up charges have previously led to several years’ imprisonment for activists and independent journalists in Chechnya. Framing people for drug crimes has become an increasingly frequent tactic used by Chechnya’s authorities to punish and discredit their critics in the eyes of Chechen society.

The Civic Solidarity Platform is a network of more than 90 human rights organizations working across the OSCE region. We consider the suggestion that a highly experienced human rights defender such as 60 year-old Oyub Titiev would travel around Chechnya with any amount of drugs in his car to be absurd, and to be evidence only of the tactics employed by Chechen authorities against principled and hard-working human rights defenders. We believe Chechen authorities are seeking to frame Titiev and close down the extremely important work of Human Rights Center Memorial in the region by means of threats and harassment.

Russia is under an obligation to respect and enable the work of human rights defenders. An important resolution in the UN General Assembly – adopted by consensus on 24 December 2017 – “Calls upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to arbitrary arrest and detention, including of human rights defenders, and in this regard strongly urges the release of persons detained or imprisoned, in violation of the obligations and commitments of States under international human rights law, for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, including in relation to cooperation with the United Nations or other international mechanisms in the area of human rights”.

The undersigned members of the Civic Solidarity Platform call on Chechen authorities as well as central Russian authorities to immediately release Oyub Titiev and stop his persecution as we believe that he is being punished solely in retaliation for his legitimate and peaceful human rights work. Furthermore, we call on authorities to ensure the safety of Memorial staff in Chechnya. Furthermore, we call on authorities not to hinder but to assist brave individuals such as Titiev in their work to uncover grave human rights violations in the North Caucasus region.

We call on international organizations and foreign governments to follow Titiev’s case closely and to bring our concerns to the attention of the authorities in the Russian Federation. Russia must abide by its international human rights obligations and OSCE commitments.

Signed:

  1. Advisory Centre on contemporary international practices and their implementation in law ”Human Constanta” (Belarus)
  2. Albanian Helsinki Committee (Albania)
  3. Article 19 (United Kingdom)
  4. Association UMPDL (Ukraine)
  5. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Lithuania)
  6. Belarusian Helsinki Committee (Belarus)
  7. Bir Duino (Kyrgyzstan)
  8. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria)
  9. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
  10. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
  11. Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
  12. Centre de la Protection Internationale (France)
  13. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
  14. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
  15. Crude Accountability (USA)
  16. Freedom Files (Poland/Russia)
  17. Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims-GCRT (Georgia)
  18. German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
  19. Helsinki Association Armenia (Armenia)
  20. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (Armenia)
  21. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia)
  22. Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia)
  23. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
  24. Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan)
  25. Human Rights Center “Viasna” (Belarus)
  26. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
  27. Human Rights Matter (Germany)
  28. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
  29. IDP Women Association Consent (Georgia)
  30. Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
  31. Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (Azerbaijan)
  32. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
  33. International Protection Center (Russia)
  34. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (Kazakhstan)
  35. Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative (Ukraine)
  36. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
  37. Macedonian Helsinki Committee (Macedonia)
  38. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
  39. Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Netherlands)
  40. Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
  41. Notabene (Tajikistan)
  42. OMCT – World Organisation Against Torture (Switzerland)
  43. Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan)
  44. Promo LEX Association (Moldova)
  45. Protection of Rights Without Borders (Armenia)
  46. Public Association Dignity (Kazakhstan)
  47. Public Verdict (Russia)
  48. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Azerbaijan/Georgia)
  49. Solidarus (Germany)
  50. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
  51. Women of the Don (Russia)

Montenegro: When investigative journalism ends up behind bars

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96761″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]This article was originally published by Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso.

Read in Italian.

Jovo Martinović is a freelance investigative journalist in Montenegro, who has worked for a number of international outlets — National Public Radio, BBC, VICE, CBS, Canal Plus, The Economist, TIME, Global Post, BIRN — and is known for his reports on organised crime in Europe and war criminals in the Balkans. His investigations brought him in close contact with persons involved in drug-trafficking as well as members of the Pink Panthers, an international network of jewellery thieves.

In October 2015, he was arrested after being charged with drug trafficking and participation in a criminal organisation. The prosecution by the Montenegrin state – as well as the long, unjustified pre-trial detention – was highly criticised by international media freedom and human rights organisations. Martinović proclaimed his innocence and – as a well-known, respected investigative journalist – could convincingly state that the contacts were part of his investigation.

Martinović was released at the beginning of 2017 after 14 months in prison, but is still on trial, facing up to ten years in prison. Francesco Martino, a correspondent for Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, met him in Pristina, during a conference organised by Le Courrier des Balkans.

Do you see your case as unique, or as part of a general strategy to undermine freedom of the press in Montenegro?

In Montenegro, in these last years, several cases were registered of physical attacks against journalists, and in 2013 the premises of the leading independent newspaper Vijesti were bombed. So, yes, the media and journalists have been under pressure in Montenegro. My personal case was somehow different, probably because I have always worked for the Western media. The approach taken against me was definitely unique: no other journalist in Montenegro has spent fourteen and a half months in prison. Cases like mine have been registered in countries like Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela, where last year investigative journalist Braulio Jatar was accused of money laundering and imprisoned after appearing as an opponent of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.

In the past, were you ever “warned” to stop your investigations by representatives of the political power?

I was warned – to put it that way – several times in the past, when I worked in some investigations that were not particularly well-received, to say so. Sometimes, I was even suspected for reports which appeared in the foreign media that I had nothing to do with.

How were you treated during your long imprisonment?

I was treated fairly during my stay in prison. While filming a documentary film on the main defendant in my case, Dusko Martinović, I had been several times in prison to interview him, so they already knew me there. I enjoyed a fair treatment, and I didn’t receive any pressure from the prison staff while being detained.

How do you explain your incarceration? Which are the reasons for such a long time behind bars?

When I was arrested, I was working on a documentary film for the French channel Canal Plus about smuggling of weapons from the Balkans – Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular – into France, weapons that eventually ended up in the hands of terrorist groups. Back then, I was working on the Bosnian case and filming in Serbia, so our investigation wasn’t linked to Montenegro at all. I find it difficult to link it with my incarceration unless we’re speaking of pure communist paranoia on the part of someone in power. I rather believe that they used the documentary as an opportunity for pay-back for my non-compliance and “insubordination” in earlier cases.

You have always worked for international media rather than for local ones. Do you think this puts you in a more delicate position?

Yes, sure. Balkan governments are much more scared and worried about what big international media report about them than the local ones. So, working for international media puts you under a stronger pressure, because if governments or the security structures aren’t happy about the way a certain matter has been reported, the easiest way to retaliate is to put the blame on the local stringer.

What was the reaction of journalist’s organisations and the Montenegrin media to your arrest? Did you receive tangible solidarity?

Initially, local media picked the news from international organisations that wrote to the Montenegrin government on my behalf. In the beginning, the reaction was quite humble, maybe because I wasn’t really perceived as part of the Montenegro media community since, as I already stressed, I never worked for the local media. But when my incarceration was prolonged, Montenegrin independent media started to focus on my case and were very supportive. On the other hand, though, the state-controlled media basically ignored my story.

Do you think journalists and media in Montenegro are eager to support each other in defending freedom of speech in the country?

Montenegro is a small country with a small media market, so petty rivalries among journalists are quite common. Nevertheless, when it comes to serious matters like protecting media freedom, I think solidarity and mutual support prevail.

Is there any real room for investigative journalism in Montenegro? Are there concrete opportunities to denounce corruption, links between political power and organised crime, and effective channels to reach the public?

Sure, freedom of expression does exist and in these past years, some local media have done an extremely good job. There have been several good stories, scoops, which haven’t produced any big change in society yet. Of course, as in many other countries in transition, opportunities for good journalism in Montenegro are accompanied by risks and challenges. What’s worse, though, is that good investigations usually have no impact, even if they’re substantiated by facts and documents. In the Balkans, and particularly in such a small country as Montenegro, you don’t have the same public response to news criticising the government as in Western Europe. I think this is partly explained by a weaker democratic tradition.

Montenegro is currently an EU candidate state: do you think the European monitoring linked with accession negotiations is helping to improve media freedom in the country?

It’s difficult to give a clear-cut answer, but I believe the EU is generally playing a positive role. Endorsing a Western system of values in the framework of the EU accession process is relatively easy, while it’s way more challenging to actually implement those values, transforming Balkan countries into viable realms of rule-of-law.

This publication has been produced within the project European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, co-funded by the European Commission. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso and its partners and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The project’s page[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1512410060523-0e52f5ac-262f-7″ taxonomies=”9043, 4612″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

58 NGOs support motion for dismissal of PACE president Pedro Agramunt

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Pedro Agramunt

Pedro Agramunt. Credit: European People’s Party/Flickr

Update: On 6 October 2017, Pedro Agramunt announced his resignation as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

We, members of the NGO coalition the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP) and other NGOs across Europe, welcome the recent motion for dismissal of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Pedro Agramunt put forward by 158 members of the Assembly. We urge all its members to support this motion at the forthcoming session of the Assembly on 9 October 2017.

The no-confidence motion marks a historic opportunity to start the process of rebuilding PACE’s reputation as a defender of human rights and the rule of law.The Assembly has, for far too long, tolerated unethical and corrupt behaviour by some of its members,

The Assembly has, for far too long, tolerated unethical and corrupt behaviour by some of its members, as exposed in a number of credible investigative reports by several highly reputable NGOs and the media, most recently in the Azerbaijani Laundromat report by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and publications in over a dozen of media outlets in a number of European countries in September 2017. Unethical fostering of interests and corruption lasting for many years in PACE have strongly damaged the credibility of the Council of Europe.

The Assembly has allowed corrupt practices by certain governments of its member states, in particular Azerbaijan, to undermine its commitment to uphold fundamental values of human rights and democracy in the Council of Europe member states. This has dismayed human rights defenders in the Eastern Partnership states and beyond who looked to PACE and other representative bodies such as the European Parliament for support in defending these values.

The recent establishment of an independent external Investigation Body by PACE and plans to overhaul the PACE Code of Conduct for Members and to adopt declaratory requirements give us hope that the much-needed renewal of the Assembly will be irreversible and will not stop with the departure of the disgraced President. It also serves notice to all current and former members of PACE that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated and enjoy impunity. This process must continue after the end of 2017 when the Independent Body is due to report and should lead to an investigation of allegations of corruption by the law enforcement bodies at the national level.

The investigations by OCCRP and others show that democratic parliamentary assemblies in the free world must remain vigilant against threats to their integrity from unscrupulous and cynical governments. Otherwise, the hope and support that these assemblies can extend to political prisoners and democrats who are working for human rights, free and fair elections, and the rule of law in the Council of Europe countries and elsewhere will continue to be undermined.

Signed by the following organisations:

1. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
2. Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
3. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
4. Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan” (Kyrgyzstan)
5. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
6. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law (Kazakhstan)
7. Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
8. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Georgia/Azerbaijan)
9. Promo LEX (Moldova)
10. The Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Netherlands)
11. Centre de la Protection Internationale (France)
12. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
13. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
14. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
15. Human Rights Centre “Viasna” (Belarus)
16. Association UMDPL (Ukraine)
17. Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
18. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (Belgium)
19. Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia)
20. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Belarus/Lithuania)
21. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (Armenia)
22. Institute of Public Affairs (Poland)
23. Freedom Files (Russia/Poland)
24. Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights (Germany/Switzerland)
25. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria)
26. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative” (Ukraine)
27. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
28. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
29. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia)
30. Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
31. Public Association “Dignity” (Kazakhstan)
32. Human Rights Information Center (Ukraine)
33. “Protection of Rights without Borders” (Armenia)
34. Crude Accountability (USA)
35. DRA – German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
36. Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (IRFS) (Azerbaijan)
37. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
38. Albanian Helsinki Committee (Albania)
39. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine)
40. Sova Center for Information and Analysis (Russia)
41. Kosova Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (Kosovo)
42. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
43. Article 19 (United Kingdom)
44. Human Rights Matter (Germany)
45. Helsinki Association for Human Rights (Armenia)
46. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
47. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine)
48. Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan)
49. Women of the Don (Russia)
50. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
51. Media Rights Institute (Azerbaijan)
52. Batory Foundation (Poland)
53. International Youth Human Rights Movement
54. Institute for Peace and Democracy (Netherlands/Azerbaijan)
55. Monitoring Centre for Political Prisoners (Azerbaijan)
56. Democratic Civil Union of Turkmenistan (Turkmenistan/Netherlands)
57. Public Alliance “Azerbaijan without Political Prisoners” (Azerbaijan)
58. Humanrights.ch (Switzerland)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]