21 Nov 2014 | Azerbaijan News, News, Politics and Society
Impunity is a festering sore on freedom of the press. Harassment, violence and murder of journalists are problems around the world — even in Europe, as Index’s project mapping media violations has shown. The numbers speak for themselves: of the 370 media workers murdered in connection with their job over the past ten years, 90% have been murdered without their killers being punished. Many of these crimes aren’t even investigated.
Ahead of the International Day to End Impunity, journalists from across the world told Index why impunity is such a danger to free expression and a free press.
Kostas Vaxevanis, Greek investigative journalist, HOT DOC, and 2013 Index award winner
Impunity generates corruption and its enemy is the one thing that exposes and threatens it: the freedom of the press.
The HOT DOC is currently facing 40 lawsuits mainly from ministers and politicians in an attempt to shut us down as journalists. We reveal scandals like one with the minister of justice, a former judge who committed an “error” that granted amnesty to officials who had abused public funds, and instead of answering in public as required as politicians, we are being sued. We pester the courts and despite winning lawsuits, we need more than 80,000 euro per year for court expenses.
Heather Brooke, British-American journalist and 2010 Index award winner
It is a problem that journalists around the world get threatened, intimidated and killed just for doing their job.
These crimes, like any other crime, need to be investigated. If not, it sends a message that this is okay; that the law is only for certain people. It is an implicit acceptance of this behaviour.
If we want to have a strong press, threats, intimidation and murder of journalists can’t be seen to be implicitly condoned by the state. It’s a dangerous message. It makes people frightened to ask tough questions, and if that happens, you are on the way to shutting down a robust press.
Kareem Amer, Egyptian blogger and 2007 Index award winner
I come from a country where we have a lack of justice. The executive power controls the parliament and the justice system. People feel that if they get mistreated or oppressed by those in power nothing will protect them or bring them justice.
Not only people who express their opinions suffer from a lack of justice. People from different backgrounds who have a different way of thinking and different interests also don’t trust the justice system. Those who have more power can easily avoid punishment and take revenge against victims who tried to get their rights through judiciary system.
Officially, police officers don’t have any kind of formal immunity. According to the law they can be questioned if they violate the rights of people by torturing or murdering. But, in fact, all those accused of killing protesters and torturing prisoners managed to avoid being punished, with a few exceptions.
I feel that it’s not safe to express your opinions freely in a country where people can easily avoid punishment.
I have been sentenced to four years in jail for writing two articles and publishing them on the internet, and during that time I have been through physical violence and mistreatment committed by security forces. I reported it but no one has been questioned or punished. That made me feel that there is no justice in my country and that it is easy to be humiliated and tortured and you will not get protected, since the judiciary system is practically part of the executive power and the judges do what the authorities want them to do.
Rahim Haciyev, Azerbajiani journalist and acting editor of 2014 Index award winner Azadliq
Rahim Haciyev, deputy editor-in-chief of Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
Freedom of expression is the basis of all other rights and freedoms. Free speech is something all authoritarian regimes are worried about as it threatens their existence. That is why freedom of expression is specifically targeted by authoritarian regimes. If there are no free people, there is no freedom of expression. Free speech is a precondition for journalists to be able to work in full strength and thus fulfill their functions in society. Authoritarian regimes organise permanent attacks on journalists with impunity. A free journalist armed with freedom of expression is a threat to an authoritarian regime, this is why perpetrators receive awards, not punishment for oppressing journalists’ rights. This process leads to self-censorship, and journalists stop being carriers of truthful information, which in the end affects society.
Nazeeha Saeed, award-winning Bahraini journalist, who was tortured in police custody
Impunity is a threat to free expression because journalists and people who report the facts on the ground will feel danger, and if no one gets punished for crimes against journalists or others it establishes a systematic impunity culture. Feeling insecure is something bad, it stops people from having a normal life, functioning and expressing themselves.
Endalk Chala, Ethiopian blogger and co-founder of the Zone9 blogging collective (of which six members are currently imprisoned for their writing)
Impunity is a threat for free expression on many levels. In my experience I have seen impunity when it cultivates self-censorship. Let’s take the case of Zone9 bloggers. Since their arrest there are a lot of people who tried to visit them in prison, take a picture of them, attend their trial and tweet about their hearings but all of these have invited very bad reactions from the Ethiopian police.
Some were arrested briefly, others were beaten and it has become impossible to attend the “trial” of the bloggers and journalists. No action was taken by the Ethiopian courts against the bad actions of the police even though the bloggers have contentiously reported the kinds of harassment. As a result, people have stopped tweeting, taking pictures and writing about the bloggers. Apparently, the volume of the tweets and Facebook status updates which comes from Ethiopia has dwindled significantly. People don’t want to risk harassment because of a single tweet or a picture. This self-censorship could be attributed to impunity, which is pervasive in Ethiopia.
Impunity also causes a lack of trust in the Ethiopian judicial system. I don’t trust the independence of the Ethiopian justice system. I have never seen a police man/woman or a government authority being prosecuted for their bad actions against journalists. The Ethiopian government has been prosecuting hundreds of journalists for criminal defamation, terrorism and inciting violence but not a single government person for violating journalists’ rights. This tells you a lot about the compromised justice system of the country.
Andrei Soldatov, Russian investigative journalist and co-founder and editor of Agentura.Ru
Russia is known for its traditions of self-censorship. Despite what the laws say, the rules are explained in a quiet voice in some unmarked cabinets. Sometimes the rules are even not explained, and journalists, editors and owners of media have to constantly guess what is allowed at that moment. Not everyone is allowed to ask directly, so we are all in the game about signals sent by the authorities.
Journalists are beaten and killed in Russia, and this provides plenty of room to send such signals to the journalistic community. You don’t need to explain that investigative reporting in the North Caucasus is not allowed anymore: you just need to turn the investigation of Anna Politkovskaya’s assassination in 2006 into a show trial, where the assassins are duly found guilty, but the question of masterminds is never answered. You could be sure, the signal would be taken correctly.
Fergal Keane, Irish journalist, BBC foreign correspondent and 2003 Index award winner
Impunity allows the enemies of free speech to threaten, torture and kill journalists secure in the knowledge they will never be called to account. I can’t think of a greater threat.
Veran Matic, B92 board of directors chairman and B92 news editor-in-chief
In my 25 years of experience in Serbia, I have been editor-in-chief of a media outlet that was banned on several occasions and I have been arrested.
Impunity directly encourages and expands violence towards journalists. The culture of producing fear is the most efficient form of censorship. One unsolved murder creates space for implementing the next one without any threat for the executioners. In the meantime, the media gets killed/eliminated in the process.
The lack of discontinuity with Slobodan Milosevic’s authoritarian regime had left room for impunity to remain intact.
Less than two years ago, I decided to make a kind of a breakthrough when it comes to impunity. I proposed the establishment of a mixed commission composed of journalists, members of the police and members of the security information agency. We managed to bring the 1999 murder of Slavko Curuvija to a phase where official indictment was brought, along with arrest of all suspects in this murder case. The 2001 murder of our colleague Milan Pantic is also in the final stage of investigation. A 1994 assassination — of Dada Vujasinovic — is being reviewed by the National Forensic Institute from The Hague because local institutions have compromised themselves in this case.
In the same way as impunity restricts freedom of speech, solving of these cases, at least 20 years later, will surely contribute to journalists being encouraged to do their job in the best possible way. Of course, I am not counting here on the new problems with which journalists and media face, and that call for finding new models of financing high quality journalism for the sake of public interest, worldwide.
The team behind Pao-Pao, a Chinese website focusing on internet freedom issues
This year, we have seen a rising number of Chinese journalists, academics and human rights lawyers detained, threatened and arrested simply for speaking out online. While Chinese regulations on freedom of speech need to be closely examined, tech companies also play an important role in the deterioration of freedom of speech in China.
While Chinese tech companies are under the tight control of the Chinese authorities, there exists a culture of impunity in the western tech companies, especially when they are doing business in China. When we worked with our partner GreatFire to launch a FreeWeibo iOS application last year (an app to deliver uncensored content from Weibo, the largest social media platform in China), Apple decided to remove the app from their Chinese iTunes store. The only reason given was that Apple received a request from the Chinese authorities. This June, LinkedIn censored user posts deemed sensitive by the Chinese government on the global level, far beyond Beijing’s censorship requirement, even though LinkedIn does not have servers in China.
It would be the start of the end if these global tech companies start removing content simply because they do not want to upset their business relationships with China. It is crucial to hold these companies accountable for their behaviour. Otherwise it will further erode freedom of expression, not only for China, but also for the whole world.
The International Day to End Impunity was set up in 2011 by free speech network IFEX, of which Index on Censorship is a member, with the aim of demanding accountability and justice on behalf of those “targeted for exercising their right to freedom of expression”.
This article was originally posted on 21 November 2014 at indexoncensorship.org. It was updated at 14:09, 24 November to include the response from Pao-Pao.
12 Nov 2014 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, Azerbaijan Statements, Campaigns, Statements
Mr Ilham Aliyev
President of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Avenue 7
1005 Baku
Republic of Azerbaijan
Fax: +994124923543 and +994124920625
Email: [email protected]
Mr President,
As the Chairmanship of the Council of Europe by the Republic of Azerbaijan draws to a close, we, the undersigned members and partners of the Human Rights House Network (HRHN) and the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders, call upon the Azerbaijani authorities, through you, Mr President, to put an end to the unprecedented repression against civil society. We call upon you to immediately and unconditionally release all civil society actors currently detained due to their engagement in human rights work and for raising critiques against Azerbaijan’s authorities, including and especially human rights defenders Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov, and Intigam Aliyev. Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli must also be released, as their detention is solely due to their monitoring of elections in the country, including the latest Presidential election of 9 October 2013.
This summer, one after the other, the main leaders of civil society were arrested. Many others decided to flee the country, rather than facing court hearings, of which the outcome is well known in advance. Few others have been forced into hiding in the country.
Leader of the Legal Education Society, human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev was sentenced on 8 August 2014 to pre-trial detention for 3 months on the same charges as those held against human rights defenders Rasul Jafarov, who was arrested on 2 August 2014 for tax evasion, illegal business and abuse of authority. On similar charges, Leyla Yunus, and her husband, Arif Yunus, were arrested on 30 July and 5 August 2014 respectively. Charges of State treason are additionally held against Leyla Yunus. Furthermore, the lawyers of Leyla Yunus and Intigam Aliyev were called as witnesses against their clients and hence bared from being their defendants. Very few lawyers agree to take up politically charged cases in Azerbaijan, a country in which the Bar Association is controlled by the Ministry of Justice and has disbarred lawyers such as Intigam Aliyev himself.[1] On 6 November 2014, the lawyer of Leyla Yunus, Alaif Hasanov, was sentenced to 240 hours of community service due to his public statements about the detention conditions of his client. Leyla Yunus has indeed faced psychological and physical abuses in detention, from detainees and from prison officials.
Earlier this year, the regional civil society leader Hasan Huseynli was sentenced to 6-years imprisonment[2] and the leaders of the only independent election monitoring organisation in the country, Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli, were sentenced to respectively 5 years and 6 months and 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.
Facing investigations and charges, many other human rights defenders fled the country or are in hiding from authorities, as they know they will not enjoy a fair hearing in court.
The authorities have also targeted other respected human rights voices in the country, such as the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS), a leading media rights NGO in the country. IRFS’ leader, Emin Huseynov, is well known and an internationally recognised human rights defender, facing similar charges as the other human rights defenders. On 5 November 2014, the 67-year old mother of human rights defender Gulnara Akhundova was summoned to the Office of the General Prosecutor. She was extensively interrogated about her daughter’s human rights activities. Following this interrogation, the Office conducted a search in the apartment registered as Gulnara Akhundova official address in Baku, which is her mother’s apartment. The few other independent voices left are also facing investigations and can be arrested at any given time.
On 10 November 2014, the blogger Mehman Huseynov, brother of Emin Huseynov and also an IRFS employee, was stopped and interrogated at the Baku Airport and later released. He was arrested in relation to an on going investigation against him, based on which he was issued a travel ban.[3] He is still not allowed to leave the country.
On 5 November 2014, the Nakhchivan City Court decided to end the investigation into Ilgar Nasibov. On 21 August 2014, Ilgar Nasibov was beaten in the office of the Democracy and NGO’s Development Resource Center in Nakhchivan. He suffered multiple fractures and injuries and to date remains in dire need of treatment. In an often-used strategy against critical voices, the police filed a lawsuit against him on charges of deliberately inflicting serious damage to health (article 127.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan). We believe Ilgar Nasibov should be compensated for the pain he suffered and immediately provided with adequate medical support.
Politically motivated detentions of activists of the youth opposition movement NIDA must also end, as well as those of inter alia journalists Rauf Mirkadirov and Hilal Mammadov[4] and political activist Tofiq Yaqublu. On 30 October, the opposition journalist Khalid Garayev was sentenced to 25 days in detention on charges of hooliganism and disobedience to the police.
All of those human rights defenders are respected internationally and received various recognitions. Those do not protect them from the repression, just as the worrying health condition of a few does not deserve any special treatment in the eyes of the authorities. We are also extremely worried to hear that the heath conditions of Leyla Yunus and Intigam Aliyev have greatly deteriorated. We believe that the conditions of their detention have had a detrimental effect on their health, as it appears that both have still not been provided adequate health care to address their respective illnesses. Intigam Aliyev has recently complained of increasing pain and Leyla Yunus is suffering a severe diabetics.
Repression of civil society: systemic problem remaining unaddressed
Unlike claims made internationally, Azerbaijan is not “on a journey towards human rights, to which it is committed.”[5] For a few years, Azerbaijan has repeatedly and by various international mechanisms been called upon to reform its legislation to prevent any crackdown on civil society.
In 2009 already, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed its concern over the “extensive limitations to the right to freedom of expression of the media, the closure of independent newspapers, and the removal of licences to broadcast locally for a number of foreign radio stations. It also remains concerned at reports of a pattern of harassment and criminal libel suits or hooliganism charges against journalists.”[6] The Committee was indeed shedding light on a wave of repression against media workers in the country, which included also the banning of foreign media, such as Voice of America and the Azerbaijani coverage of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Another wave of repression then touched upon the presence of international non-governmental organisations in Azerbaijan. In July 2009, the Azerbaijani authorities made amendments to the Azerbaijani NGO Law, which state that registration of foreign NGOs in Azerbaijan “is processed based on the agreement signed with the organisations”. It followed with the adoption of the new decree of 2011, with the aim to set criteria for concluding such agreements. Based on that legislative evolution, on 10 March 2011, authorities ordered the Human Rights House Azerbaijan (HRH Azerbaijan) to cease all activities in Azerbaijan until concluding an agreement with the authorities. In an opinion on the legislation, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) comes to the conclusion that the 2009 amendments to the Azerbaijani NGO law and the 2011 decree setting new requirements for foreign NGOs overturn the efforts to meet international standards and mentioned the registration of foreign NGOs among the most problematic aspects.[7]
Instead of committing to the Venice Commission’s findings, and to the execution of so many judgements of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression and association, Azerbaijan continued to adapt its legislation affecting human rights defenders and their NGOs. As the Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF) highlighted in its intervention at the United Nations Human Rights Council on 10 September 2014, several United Nations independent experts have repeatedly called for a revision of Azerbaijan’s legislation regulating the registration and funding of non-governmental organisations, declaring them as contrary to international human rights law and the standards in regard to the right to freedom of association.
The legislation became the pretext to arrest independent human rights defenders and to freeze the bank accounts of dozens of other NGOs.[8] When repeatedly questioned on Azerbaijan’s record at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on 24 June 2014, you have argued, Mr President, that the country has no political prisoners, basically aiming at saying that actions are taken within national legislation by an independent judiciary. The notion of “arbitrary detention” lato sensu can however also arise from the law itself or from the particular conduct of government officials. A detention, even if it is authorized by law, may still be considered arbitrary if it is premised upon an arbitrary piece of legislation or is inherently unjust, relying for instance on discriminatory grounds. United Nations and Council of Europe mechanisms and experts have repeatedly underlined that Azerbaijani legislation violates the country’s international obligations and standards, and hence the practices of authorities in applying such law is in violation to international human rights law, to which Azerbaijan says it is committed to.
It is in the backdrop of these repressive policies that you, Mr President, accepted to reestablish a working group on political prisoners under the auspices of the Council of Europe. The composition of the group discussing the issue is of great concern, given the fact that many of those independent human rights defenders who in the past worked on the issue of political prisoners are now behind bars, especially Leyla Yunus and Rasul Jafarov, who from prison on 8 August consolidated a list of 98 people detained on politically motivated charges.
Council of Europe chairmanship and reprisal against human rights defenders
The interrogation and search that took place following Gulnara Akhundova’s participation in a hearing of PACE’s Committee of Legal Affairs is a clear example of reprisal against human rights defenders perpretrated by Azerbaijani authorities. Another case of reprisal against those participating in events of international organisations is the harassment of investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova.[9] Most recently, she was recently arrested on charges of criminal defamation but later released. Leyla Yunus, Intigam Aliyev, Rasul Jafarov and Emin Huseynov are also well known names to the Council of Europe. They cooperate with its institutions, met the Secretary General at various occasions and provide information to the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and to PACE rapporteurs. In June 2014, when you, Mr President, addressed PACE, Emin Huseynov, Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev together organised a side-event in Strasbourg, critical of the Azerbaijani human rights record. Previously already Azerbaijani authorities proved using reprisal against those raising human rights violations in Strasbourg: the order to HRH Azerbaijan to seize all activities followed the side-event organised at the January 2011 session of PACE by HRH Azerbaijan.
The rotating chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which Azerbaijan assumed for six months, is thought of as an occasion given to each of the Council’s 47 members to act as a role model in the implementation of European human rights law. It is a unique chance to prove a country’s commitment to the very spirit of the Council of Europe, its “devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of [Europe’s] peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy” as stated in the Statute of the Council of Europe of 5 May 1949, to which Azerbaijan adhered. Instead, during the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan embarked on an unprecedented repression of civil society.
Any country chairing the world’s strongest regional human rights protection mechanism has a duty to show good faith in the implementation of the its judicial mechanism; Azerbaijan has instead appealed one of the strongest judgements issued by the European Court of Human Rights on the pre-trial detention of Ilgar Mammadov, Chairman of the Republican Alternative Movement (REAL). In its judgement of 22 May 2014, the Court found that the criminal procedure against him is retaliation to critical public statements he made. In a rare move by the Court, it found a violation of Article 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which obliges States to act in good faith and prohibits them from restricting rights for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The Court’s Grand Chamber rejected Azerbaijan’s appeal, but Ilgar Mammadov remains in detention. The pre-trial detention of Ilgar Mammadov had the same justification as the one against Leyla Yunus, Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev. Recently, their pre-trial detentions were extended. Azerbaijan should instead review its policies in regard to the excessive use of pre-trial, in accordance with the Ilgar Mammadov judgement.
On 24 June 2014, you, Mr President, told PACE that “[the authorities of Azerbaijan] respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.” The chairmanship of the Council of Europe by the Republic of Azerbaijan will instead remain stained with the lack of execution of the Court judgements and the mark of repression since July 2014 against Azerbaijan’s civil society.
The detention of Intigam Aliyev is a grave sign of non-cooperation with the Court. Intigam Aliyev is a prominent human rights lawyer engaged in the defense of human rights by providing legal defense, initiating strategic litigation, and training lawyers and providing human rights education. The work of Intigam Aliyev is essential in the promotion of human rights and democracy-building in Azerbaijan. He has strived for legal protection of victims of human rights violations for more than 15 years and has to date represented them in proceedings before the Court in more than 200 cases (around 40 cases are currently awaiting decision). He has succeeded in a number of cases concerning voting rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial and has served as a trainer in nearly 100 training courses for judges, lawyers, journalists, and representatives of non-governmental organisations. The Committee of Ministers recently requested “detailed information on all criminal charges pending against [Intigam Aliyev],” which is indeed a sign of its dismay over this detention.[10]
As Azerbaijan’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe draws to a close, we call upon the Azerbaijani authorities, through you, Mr President, to put an end to the unprecedented repression against civil society.
We specifically call upon you to immediately and unconditionally release all civil society actors currently detained due to their engagement in human rights activities and for raising critiques against Azerbaijan’s authorities, especially human rights defenders Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev. Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli must also be released.
We further call upon you to put an end to the harassment and attacks against human rights defenders, journalists and activists, and lift all potential charges against them, including Emin Huseynov, Mehman Huseynov and Khadija Ismayilova.
Yours sincerely,
Due to the risk of retaliation against Azerbaijani human rights defenders, we decided not to indicate the names of the Azerbaijani NGOs who worked on preparing the present letter.
Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Belarusian Association of Journalists
- Belarusian Helsinki Committee
- City Public Association “Centar Supolnaść”
- Human Rights Centre “Viasna”
Human Rights House Belgrade (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
- Lawyers Committee for Human Rights YUCOM
- Civic Initiatives
- Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
- Policy Centre
Human Rights House Kiev (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Human Rights Information Centre
- Center for Civil Liberties
- Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
- Social Action Centre
- Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
Human Rights House London (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Article 19
- Index on Censorship
- Vivarta
Human Rights House Tbilisi (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Article 42 of the Constitution
- Caucasian Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Studies
- Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims
- Human Rights Centre
- Union Sapari – Family without Violence
Human Rights House Oslo (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Health and Human Rights Info
- Human Rights House Foundation
Human Rights House Voronezh (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Charitable Foundation
- Civic Initiatives Development Centre
- Confederation of Free Labor
- For Ecological and Social Justice
- Free University
- Golos
- Interregional Trade Union of Literary Men
- Lawyers for labor rights
- Memorial
- Ms. Olga Gnezdilova
- Soldiers Mothers of Russia
- Voronezh Journalist Club
- Voronezh-Chernozemie
- Youth Human Rights Movement
Human Rights House Zagreb (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- APEO/UPIM Association for Promotion of Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities
- B.a.B.e.
- CMS – Centre for Peace Studies
- Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past
- GOLJP – Civic Committee for Human Rights
- Svitanje – Association for Protection and Promotion of Mental Health
The Rafto House in Bergen, Norway (on behalf of the following NGOs):
The House of the Helsinki Foundation For Human Rights, Poland (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
About the Human Rights House Network (www.humanrightshouse.org)
The Human Rights House Network (HRHN) unites 90 human rights NGOs joining forces in 18 independent Human Rights Houses in 13 countries in Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, East and Horn of Africa, and Western Europe. HRHN’s aim is to protect, empower and support human rights organisations locally and unite them in an international network of Human Rights Houses.
The Human Rights House Azerbaijan is one of the members of HRHN and served as an independent meeting place, a resource centre, and a coordinator for human rights organisations in Azerbaijan. In 2010, 6’000 human rights defenders, youth activists, independent journalists, and lawyers, used the facilities of the Human Rights House Azerbaijan, which has become a focal point for promotion and protection of human rights in Azerbaijan. The Human Rights House Azerbaijan ceased all its activities following an order of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 10 March 2011.
The Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), based in Oslo (Norway) with an office in Geneva (Switzerland), is HRHN’s secretariat. HRHF is international partner of the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders and the Balkan Network of Human Rights Defenders.
HRHF has consultative status with the United Nations and HRHN has participatory status with th
[1] In 2005, Intigam Aliyev was rejected in his application for membership to the Azerbaijan Bar Association despite being completely eligible to be accepted to the Bar under the national laws. Intigam Aliyev challenged this unlawful refusal by applying to the national courts, which, however, ruled against him.
[2] We welcome the release of Hasan Huseynli following the presidential pardon of 17 October 2014 for 80 prisoners in Azerbaijan, among which were also the members of the NIDA movement, Shahin Novruzlu, Elsever Mursalli and Bakhtiyar Guliyev.
[3] Mehman Huseynov was awarded in 2013 with the Press Prize Award from Fritt Ord Foundation and the Zeit Foundation. His travel ban was issued days before he was to travel to Oslo to receive his prize. More information available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/19355.html.
[4] In its opinion delivered on 27 March 2014 on the detention of Hilal Mammadov, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the charges are “based on Hilal Mammadov’s legitimate exercise of the right of freedom of expression (…) and that the violations of international law relating to the right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Hilal Mammadov an arbitrary character” (decision available in the Working Group’s report A/HRC/WGAD/2013/59). He was arrested on 21 June 2012 and sentenced to five years in prison with the accusation of “illegal selling of drugs”, “high treason”, and “incitement to national, racial, social and religious hatred and hostility”.
[5] Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United Kingdom Tahir Taghizadeh, in The Guardian, 6 November 2014, available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/azerbaijan-journey-towards-human-rights-committed.
[6] Concluding Observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to the review of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 13 August 2009, paragraph 15, UN doc. CCPR/C/AZE/CO/3.
[7] Opinion no. 636 / 2011 of 19 October 2011. More information available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/17215.html.
[8] In its interim resolution CM/ResDH(2014)183 of 25 September 2014, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe reiterated its concern over the arbitrary application of criminal legislation to limit freedom of expression, stating that “the present situation raises serious concerns, in particular on account of the reported recent use of different criminal laws […] against journalists, bloggers, lawyers and members of NGOs”, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2239635&Site=CM.
[9] Most recently, harassement against Khadija Ismayilova increased, including a travel ban imposed on her. She was also excessively searched and obstructed at the airport in Baku, upon her return from a PACE session in Strasbourg, where she spoke at a side-event on 2 October 2014. More information available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/20515.html.
[10] Interim resolution CM/ResDH(2014)183 of 25 September 2014, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2239635&Site=CM.
2 Nov 2014 | Campaigns, Russia, Statements
Aleksandr Bastrykin
Head of the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation
The Investigative Committee of Russian Federation
105005, Russia, Moscow, Technicheskii Lane, 2
Sunday 2 November 2014
Dear Mr Bastrykin,
RE: Request for investigation into the murder of Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev to be transferred to the Central Investigative Department of the Russian Federation’s Investigative Committee.
On the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists (2 November) we, the undersigned organisations, are calling upon you, in your position as Head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, to help end the cycle of impunity for attacks on those who exercise their right to free expression in Russia.
We are deeply concerned regarding the failure of the Russian authorities to protect journalists in violation of international human rights standards and Russian law. We are highlighting the case of Ahkmednabi Akhmednabiyev, a Russian independent journalist who was shot dead in July 2013 as he left for work in Makhachkala, Dagestan. In his work as deputy editor of independent newspaper Novoye Delo, and a reporter for online news portal Caucasian Knot, Akhmednabiyev, 51, had actively reported on human rights violations against Muslims by the police and Russian army.
His death came six months after a previous assassination attempt carried out in a similar manner in January 2013. That attempt was wrongly logged by the police as property damage, and was only reclassified after the journalist’s death. This shows a shameful failure to investigate the motive behind the attack and prevent further attacks, despite a request from Akhmednabiyev for protection. The journalist had faced previous threats, including in 2009, when his name was on a hit-list circulating in Makhachkala, which also featured Khadjimurad Kamalov, who was gunned down in December 2011. The government’s failure to address these threats is a breach of the State’s “positive obligation” to protect an individual’s freedom of expression against attacks, as defined by European Court of Human Rights case law (Dink v. Turkey).
A year after Akhmednabiyev’s killing, with neither the perpetrators nor instigators identified, the investigation was suspended in July 2014. As well as ensuring impunity for his murder, such action sets a terrible precedent for future investigations into attacks on journalists in Russia. ARTICLE 19 joined the campaign to have his case reopened, and made a call for the Russian authorities to act during the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) session in September 2014. During the session, HRC members, including Russia, adopted a resolution on safety of journalists and ending impunity. States are now required to take a number of measures aimed at ending impunity for violence against journalists, including “ensuring impartial, speedy, thorough, independent and effective investigations, which seek to bring to justice the masterminds behind attacks”.
While the Dagestani branch of the Investigative Committee has now reopened the case, as of September 2014, more needs to be done in order to ensure impartial, independent and effective investigation. We are therefore calling on you to raise Akhmednabiyev’s case to the Office for the investigation of particularly important cases involving crimes against persons and public safety, under the Central Investigative Department of the Russian Federation’s Investigative Committee.
Sadly, Akhmednabiyev’s case is only one of many where impunity for murder remains. The investigations into the murders of journalists Khadjimurad Kamalov (2011), Natalia Estemirova (2009) and Mikhail Beketov (who died in 2013, from injuries sustained in a violent attack in 2008), amongst others have stalled. The failure to bring both the perpetrators and instigators of these attacks to justice is contributing to a climate of impunity in the country, and poses a serious threat to freedom of expression.
Cases of violence against journalists must be investigated in an independent, speedy and effective manner and those at risk provided with immediate protection.
Yours Sincerely,
ARTICLE 19
Amnesty International
Albanian Media Institute
Association of Independent Electronic Media (Serbia)
Azerbaijan Human Rights Centre
Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
Center for National and International Studies (Azerbaijan)
Civic Assistance Committee (Russia)
Civil Society and Freedom of Speech Initiative Center for the Caucasus
Committee to Protect Journalists
Glasnost Defence Foundation (Russia)
Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor (Armenia)
Helsinki Committee of Armenia
Human Rights House Foundation
Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan”
Memorial (Russia)
Moscow Helsinki Group
Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Index on Censorship
International Partnership for Human Rights
International Press Institute
International Youth Human Rights Movement
IREX Europe
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law
Kharkiv Regional Foundation – Public Alternative (Ukraine)
PEN International
Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
Reporters without Borders
The Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims
World Press Freedom Committee
cc.
President of the Russian Federation
Vladimir Putin
23, Ilyinka Street, Moscow, 103132, Russia
Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation
Yury Chaika
125993, GSP-3, Moscow, Russia
st. B.Dmitrovka 15a
Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation
Alexander Konovalov
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
119991, GSP-1, Moscow, street Zhitnyaya, 14
Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights
Mikhail Fedotov
103132, Russia, Moscow
Staraya Square, Building 4
Head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Dagestan
Edward Kaburneev
The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Dagestan
367015, Republic of Dagestan, Makhachkala,
Prospekt Imam Shamil, 70 A
Ambassador of the Permanent Delegation of the Russian Federation to UNESCO
H. E. Mrs Eleonora Mitrofanova
UNESCO House
Office MS1.23
1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15
1 Oct 2014 | Magazine, News, Volume 43.03 Autumn 2014
An Egyptian man takes a photo of a large anti-Morsi protest in Tahrir Square, Egypt (Photo: Phil Gribbon/Alamy)
Imagine this: a journalist with her own news drone camera that can be sent to any coordinates in the world to film what is going on. Imagine a world where you had the ability to programme a whole set of drone cameras to go and film a riot, a rally or a refugee camp.
Imagine being able to set off your smartphone down a dangerous river, encased in a plastic bottle, to take photos that might prove the water is carrying disease or is not safe to drink. How about drone cameras that you can leash to your GPS co-ordinates to follow and film you or someone else? Those worlds should not be hard to imagine as they exist already, and, in some cases, those facilities are already being used by journalists.
The future of journalism is going to build on technologies we already have. But we must remember it isn’t really about the technology, but about what it can help us deliver. When the subject of the future of journalism is discussed it often turns to whizzy gadgets but the debate about whether the public ends up being better informed and better equipped happens less often.
The information superhighway, as the internet was once called, was supposed to give individuals amazing access to knowledge that they couldn’t access before, from historical documents to live video footage. And it has.
But the thing that most of us didn’t bargain for was that it would mean we had so much stuff coming at us. We no longer knew where to turn, our eyes and ears were full, a welter of “news” snippets became impossible to absorb, and as for analysis, well, who had time for that?
The reality of exciting new technology is that it is coming to the market at a time when the public appears to value journalists less, and can turn to Twitter or Facebook or citizen journalists to find out what’s going on in the world. Journalists; who needs them when we can find out so much for ourselves? It’s a reasonable question, and of course good and determined researchers can find out plenty of information for themselves, if they have hours to spend. But then again journalists have a whole set of tools and training that should mean they are better than the average member of the public at finding out facts and analysing reports as well as presenting the end results.
Journalists are trained and practiced at interviewing, asking the right questions and drawing out relevant pieces of information. These are rarely acknowledged skills but you have only to switch on a phone-in programme or watch a set of parliamentarians try to quiz a witness at a committee to know asking a good question is not as easy as it might seem. Knowing where to look for evidence and sources is not always so simple as putting any old question into Google either. Then there is analysing charts, graphs and tables; this should be a particularly valued set of skills. When it comes to recognising a story, then the good old reporter’s nose comes in handy. And writing up and compiling a story so that it makes sense and tells the story well is perhaps the most underrated skill of all. Good writing is sadly underappreciated.
With a toolkit like that, it is not surprising that governments around the world would rather journalists weren’t at the scene of a demonstration, or sharpening up their introduction of a story about a government cover-up. Perhaps that’s why governments around the world from the USA to China make it especially difficult, or particularly expensive, for journalists to get a visa. And that’s why journalists are targeted, watched, held captive, and in some horrific cases, such as with US journalist James Foley, murdered. Increasingly journalists are working on a freelance basis from war zones and conflicts. As our writer Iona Craig reports from Yemen, this can leave you exposed on two levels – without the protection of being a staff member of a huge news organisation, and without any income if you can’t file stories. That exposure to pressure, and possible violence, also affects bloggers operating as reporters, and is something that worries OSCE’s Dunja Mijatovic (interviewed in our latest magazine), who brought journalists from different countries together in Vienna last month to discuss what needs to be done.
Journalists are still needed by societies, what they do can be very important (although sometimes very trivial too). At the same time that job is changing. In this issue Raymond Joseph’s fascinating article shows how African newsrooms with little money are able to use low-cost technology such as remote-controlled drone cameras to monitor oil spills, as well as less-sexy-sounding data analysis tools to help reporters find out what is going on. He also reports on how newsrooms are working closely with citizen reporters to bring news from regions that were previously unreported. Work being carried out by Naija Voices in Nigeria, and by our Index 2014 award winner Shu Choudhary in India, shows how technology can help augment old-fashioned reporting, getting news to and from remote areas.
News reporting is also taking different forms to reach different audiences, as was brought home to me at the Film Forward conference in Malmö, Sweden, this summer, when US journalist Nonny de la Peña and Danish journalist Steven Achiam showed the audience how interactive news “games” and cartoon-style films are new forms of reportage. Achiam’s Deadline Athen is a journalism game that allows the player to become a journalist in Athens, collecting information about a riot and shows the choices that are available; it gives the players options of where to find out and source the story. La Peña uses her journalistic skills to engage “players” in the experience of being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, using real news sources to inform what the “player” experiences so that it is similar to what prisoners experienced. Both Achiam and La Peña argue that these type of approaches will engage and inform different audiences in finding out about the world, audiences that would not be minded to read a newspaper or watch the TV news.
There’s not yet a journalism ethics handbook that covers these approaches. Both La Peña and Achiam are award-winning journalists and have merged their existing set of research skills with a different style. Both talk about sourcing information for their news films, and La Peña offers links to evidence for her virtual-reality storytelling.
These pioneering approaches so far only have small audiences compared to TV news, but will undoubtedly challenge journalists of the future to learn new skills (video and animation look increasingly like core modules).
Interviewing, research and legal knowledge are always going to part of the mix; they are the skills that give journalists the tools to find out what others would rather they didn’t. And that skill package is always going to be vital.
Read the contents of our future of journalism special here. You can buy the print version magazine or subscribe for £32 per year here, or download the app for just £1.79.
You can also join our magazine debate at London’s Frontline Club on 22 October (free entry, but please book).
This article was published on Wednesday 1 October at indexoncensorship.org
