|
English Language Page During election periods, those currently in power who run for re-election, attempt to minimize opportunities of their opponents to publicize their election campaigns in, for example, the most widely read newspapers. Thus, the Chestnoye Slovo newspaper was denied distribution, without explanations and in violation of an agreement with the publisher (50). Publication of Dalnevostochnyye Vedomosti (Primorsky territory) was halted because of a complaint filed with the regional election commission by a candidate running for the Territorial Duma, G. Lazarev. (51) Representatives of local law enforcement authorities justified these actions based on the “provision of a future court decision,” but this may not be used as justification. Thus, it is possible that justified attempts to comply with election legislation that aim to guarantee “equal electoral rights” lead to violations in the sphere of freedom of the press, thereby depriving voters of the right to information. The editorial board of Kazanskoye Vremya, a weekly newspaper which is disloyal to the administration of the republic and publishes various materials compromising the current power, was subjected to illegal actions of law enforcement authorities of the republic. The newspaper’s issues containing material on elections of the President of Tatarstan, designated for distribution in the republican province, were seized for violations of the Administrative Code in absence of a court certification (52). Apparently, violation of the rights of the media in the sphere of dissemination of information, in particular preventing circulation, is one of the methods of pressure used, especially when considering that Kazanskoye Vremya weekly is in opposition to the President of Tatarstan. Attempts to stop distribution of publications capable of turning public opinion against those currently in power occur in the Russian regions. On the order of the head of the Lipetsk regional postal service department, N. Pisarev, circulation of one of the issues of the Lipetsk newspaper, Metallurg, was not delivered to the Dobrovsky district. This issue contained an article criticizing actions of the head of the district administration, A. Glazunov. Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a central publication, conducted an independent investigation into the administration of the Smolensk region’s links to criminal milieu. Results of the investigation were printed in the article “Battle for Smolensk,” in one of the newspaper’s issues. Every issue on sale at newsstands in Smolensk was bought up (53). Information directly related to residents of Smolensk became available only to subscribers of this newspaper. The natural result of such illegal actions, which violated the constitutional right to information, was the citywide distribution of photocopies of this article. Access to Information Transparency in the “Administration of Justice” (Article 9), guaranteed by the Civil Procedure Code, is limited in a number of Russian Federation subjects. The Leninsky court of the Tomsk region has developed a Circular “On the Order of Admission into the Court Building” that limits access of mass media to court hearings. According to this circular, a representative of the media is obliged to inform the chairman of the court of his or her arrival and then proceed according to instructions of the judge (54). The Verkh-Isetsky court of Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk region) also decided to limit journalists’ access as of January 1, 2002. A representative of the media is allowed to attend a court hearing only if he or she can show a “memorandum signed by the chairman of the court (55).” Introduction of court passes directly contradicts current legislation and limits access to information for media representatives, as it also does for any other citizen. A correspondent and a photographer of the newspaper Toliattinskoye Obozreniye, who happened to be in the building of the Avtozavodsky District Court (Samara region) waiting for the beginning of a hearing, were apprehended by courtroom security and detained for three hours on the basis of “not having been authorized by the court to conduct videofilming in the corridors of the building (56).” Apprehension of the journalists was illegal as a judge’s authorization is necessary only for videofilming in the courtroom during a hearing. Because of the apprehension, the planned material for the new item was not collected, since by the time the journalists were released the court procedures had been completed. The accusation against the journalists was absurd, and the actions of police officers that abused their power and thus prevented them from conducting their professional activities contradict Clause 2 of Article 144 of the RF Criminal Code (57). Journalists of the NTV television company working in the Primorsky territory also encountered difficulties while attempting to gather information. Generally, the situation in the Primorsky territory cannot be characterized as complying with the norms of the federal mass media legislation or with the principles of freedom of speech. On the contrary, in 2001, a number of objective circumstances, first and foremost the energy crisis, negatively affected the development of the freedom of the media. Commenting on the local radio about the coverage of the energy crisis in the region by journalists of the central channels, Vladivostok Mayor, Yu. Kopylov, took the liberty to directly threaten media representatives and to blame them for all regional problems and lack of objectivity (58). Local authorities make every effort to protect themselves from the press. Methods exercised by the Primorsky territory authorities vary from banning attendance of official events to assault and battery by security guards. For example, on June 7, 2001, several NTV journalists, awaiting arrival of the former Governor E. Nazdratenko at the airport of Vladivostok, were physically assaulted by a security guard of the Vladivostok Mayor and suffered public humiliation combined with obscene invectives coming from Yu. Kopylov himself. Although this incident was aired by numerous central channels, Yu. Kopylov did not apologize to the journalists, and the criminal charge of hooliganism against him was never satisfied due to lack of corpus delicti (59). During the Mayor of Vladivostok’s meeting with striking laborers, Yu. Kopylov demanded that all videofilming be stopped and NTV journalists be thrown out of the building, without giving any explanation for his demands (60). Information Production According to the Fund “Public Opinion,” the percentage of Russian citizens who positively view the introduction of censorship has grown to 57% (61), as compared to 49% in 2000. There is a lot of information coming from numerous regions regarding attempts of the local population to establish institutions performing censoring functions. The “public councils” established in the Voronezh region and North Osetia that were mentioned before are one such example. Based on television monitoring, family-territorial councils in the city of Omsk concluded that it was necessary “to clear from the television all violence, brutality, and sex.” These statements were backed by the numerous signatures of citizens that they had collected (62). The fact that the initiative group addressed their petition to the power structure indicates that Omsk residents rely more upon the power structure to resolve this problem than they do on the media. They expect to be granted legal authorization to perform censorship functions. The solution to this problem within the framework of a civil society and cooperation between the media and citizens’ groups might have been more effective and at least would not have contradicted current legislation. Another striking example is a petition by the legislators of the Oryol region to President V. Putin, the Russian Federation Government, and the Russian Federation Federal Assembly, which was made in reaction to multiple complaints by “representatives of ordinary people” to the Oryol Governor, E. Stroyev (63). In this petition, the deputies insisted that “mandatory ethical and aesthetical censorship of mass media” be instituted. It is possible that certain media do abuse certain information, but appealing to authorities requesting that censorship be re-instituted may not be the most effective way to find an optimal solution. Local authorities striving to control information contents use their resources in conducting legislative activities to financially support the media. The Kommunar newspaper (Ussuriysk, Primorsky territory) disagreed with a draft agreement prepared by the regional administration and Town Council of Ussuriysk, which requires the preliminary screening of articles published by the newspaper describing activities of the regional and local authorities (64). The newspaper petitioned the regional department of the Russian Federation Ministry of the Press requesting that the draft agreement undergo a legal review. The above-mentioned clause of the agreement was found to contradict Federal Law “On Mass Media.” Local authorities then decided not to publish their official materials in this newspaper, which can be regarded as a refusal to financially support this periodical. Utilization of administrative resources in the development of legislative acts and the subsequent pressure exerted on the newspaper can be viewed as an interference with the professional activities of journalists. In acting within legal bounds, law enforcement agencies dealing with high-technology (P-departments) and economic crimes have unlimited possibilities to exert pressure against media and to interfere with editorial boards. Being authorized to control observation of the copyright law, employees of law enforcement agencies verify computers of media editorial boards to see if they use any counterfeit computer software and databases. It is practically impossible to prove or disprove whether a software application is counterfeit or not. Therefore, when law enforcement officers conclude that a counterfeit software application has been used, they requisition computer’s hard-drive. Such inspections often result in preventing certain media outlets from conducting their professional activities. The Kovrovye Vesti newspaper had published an article containing material compromising to local authorities, which in turn demanded that their honor and dignity be protected in a court of law. On July 3, the editorial board of the newspaper underwent a four-hour long inspection searching for counterfeit software applications installed on their computers. The prosecutor authorized this inspection. As a result, eight computers were taken for further examination (65). Another lingering problem that still pervades Russian media is the disappearances and murders of journalists because of their professional activities. In 2001, three journalists disappeared and twelve were killed (66). The majority of criminal cases involving disappearance and murder remain uncovered by the press. Among such cases are the disappearance of the editor-in-chief of the Kurganskiye Vesti newspaper, V. Kirsanov (Kurgan region); the disappearance of the editor-in-chief of the Moskovsky Komsomolets — Smolensknewspaper, S. Kalinovsky (Smolensk); murder of the editor-in-chief of the Novy Reft newspaper, E. Markevich (Reftinksy settlement, Sverdlovsk region); murder of the journalist of Pskovskaya Pravda, A. Pivovarov (Pskov region). According to observers of the Glasnost Defense Foundation, these cases have political implications (67) due to the fact that the professional activities of the disappeared and murdered journalists brought numerous facts compromising certain representatives of the power into the spotlight. The Reporters Sans Frontieres (international NGO) has assessed the situation regarding freedom of speech in Russia as deteriorating. The growing number of journalists who disappeared or were assaulted or murdered supports this conclusion. Therefore, the Reporters Sans Frontieres have decided to establish a permanent press center in Russia in order to join their efforts with the Glasnost Defense Foundation in protecting rights of journalists and freedom of the media (68). (1) The Gazprom company was a large shareholder and at the same time creditor of the holding and its member-companies. Inability to pay off a multimillion debt served for the Gazprom as legal grounds for claiming the controlling interest and the right to manage the holding’s mass media. (2) Interpol officially declared that it viewed demands of the Russian party politically motivated and refused to apprehend him. See New Summary of the Center of Extreme Journalism at www.cjes.ru; www.ntvru.com (October 24, 2001). (3) See the chapter “Freedom of Conscience” in the Collection of Reports Human Rights in Russian Regions — 2000. (4) “Vladimir Gusinsky Obtains Opportunity to Regain Control Over NTV.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (May 28, 2001, ¹41); “Picket and Police at NTV Studio.” Prima (April 4, 2001, ¹288). (5) “OAO “Gazprom-Media” Completes Legal Procedure of Acquisition of Ownership Rights to Its Media Assets.” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 28, 2001). (6) A. Etres, “Playing Poker for Mass Media: “Gazprom” Tries to Trap Turner, Merdoc and Kirch.” Financial Times Deutschland — http://www. inopressa.ru/details.html?id=6132 (7) See the chapter “Freedom of Speech and Access to Information” in the Collection of Reports Human Rights in Russian Regions — 2000. (8) “Putin Let the TV-6 Situation Take Its Course,” http://lenta.ru (January 15, 2002). (9) Interview of B. Berezovsky to the “Echo of Moscow” Radio. Federal News Service (January 11, 2002). (10) As it has been noted before, by late January 2002 the plans to sell shares of the television company announced by representatives of the Gazprom-Media remained unexecuted. (11) “President Signs Decree Establishing Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Network.” NTV — www.ntvru.com (August 13, 2001). (12) On January 31, P. Kovalenko, member of the RF State Duma Committee on Informational Politics, declared that providing Chechen troops and their leaders with opportunities to express their views in Russian newspapers was inexcusable and identified it with “those targeted at support of the Chechen troops.” What caused some Deputies to apply to the Minister of Press, M. Lesin, was an interview with A. Maskhadov published by Kommersant daily and Internet-based Grani.ru. In late February, Nezavisimaya Gazeta also published an interview with A. Maskhadov which caused the negative reaction of presidential aid, S. Yastrzhembsky and on March 2 the RF Ministry of Press gave an official warning to the newspaper. On August 31, S. Yastrzhembsky made a presentation in which suggested that amendments be made to the existing legislation which would prevent mass media from disseminating information originating from Chechen troops. This was caused by another interview with A. Maskhadov published by Kommersant daily. On October 31, he made a more concrete statement implying “self-limitation from informational pantophagy” and raising the issue of boundaries of the freedom of speech in the circumstances of the anti-terrorist operation. For more information, see “Monitoring of Violation of Rights of Journalists and the Press and Conflicts Associated with Coverage of Events on the Territory of the Chechen Republic.” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (2001). (13) For more information, see “Monitoring of Violation of Rights of Journalists and the Press and Conflicts Associated with Coverage of Events on the Territory of the Chechen Republic.” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (2001). (14) “Duma Adopts Amendments to Law “On Mass Media.” Kolokol.Ru — http://www.kolokol.ru/R/P/1318 (December 21, 2001). (15) Initially, it was presumed that all tax benefits for mass media would be abolished and a 20% VAT tax would be introduced just like with all other commercial entities. Therefore, the 10% VAT tax is viewed as a tax benefit. But in fact, what we have been dealing with since January 2002 is not a beneficial 10% instead of a 20% VAT tax rate, but rather introduction of taxation for mass media. (16) See: “Rules of Accreditation of Representatives of Mass Media with the RF Presidential Aid S. V. Yastrzhembsky” at www.ntvru.com/. (17) The RF Union of Journalists states that the text of rules established by the military command “…has never been supplied to any of the newspapers which send their employees to the North Caucasus. See: “Explanation of Colleagues: Game without Rules” at www.ntvru.com/. (18) “Anna Politkovskaya Requests that Lawsuit Be Initiated on the Fact of Her Apprehension.” Lenta.ru (February 22, 2001). “Russian Marine Wanted to Shoot a Journalist of Novaya Gazeta” Using the “Grad” Artillery Mount.” Russian News Bureau (February 22, 2001). (19) Chairman of the Chechen Government, S. Ilyasov, Justified Actions of the Federal Troops by A. Politkovskaya’s “Simply Having Problems with Transportation and Communication.” See: “Monitoring of Violation of Rights of Journalists and the Press and Conflicts Associated with Coverage of Events on the Territory of the Chechen Republic — www.gdf.ru (2001). (20) “Monitoring of Violation of Rights of Journalists and the Press and Conflicts Associated with Coverage of Events on the Territory of the Chechen Republic” — www.gdf.ru (2001). (21) Ibid. (22) “Monitoring of the Glasnost Defense Foundation” — www.gdf.ru (Spring 2001). (23) Ibid. (January 2001). (24) “Tax Authorities Accumulating Dossiers on Journalists Pending Accreditation” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 26, 2001). (25) “Rights of Kalmykia Journalists to Be Revised. Based on the Decision of the RF Supreme Court, They Will be Taken Care of by the Highest Judicial Instance of the Republic.” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 30, 2001). (26) “Oh, but This Is a Very Piquant Government!” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 2, 2001). (27) “Journalists and the Ministry of Press Clear the Air in the Court of Law” Saratovskiye Novosti Information Agency (January 4, 2002). (28) Amendments require that the journalist is to “operatively and truthfully cover activities of the city Council” and “inform the population of the city on decisions made by the city Council.” See: “Glasnost Defense Foundation Thinks that Achinsk is the Most Disputable City in the Territory” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (October 19, 2001). (29) Rossiysakaya Gazeta (July 12, 2001). (30) The conversation between the correspondent and the city head and administration officials was confined to the following: “We will not let you in here, please do not attempt to get into the building!” — quoting V. Vorobyov, “Code Red.” Nash Listok — http://www.nps.monnet.ru (2001). (31) Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (August 7, 2001). (32) “Federal Law “On Mass Media” Was Not Written for Omsk Authorities. Officials of the Regional Administration Fighting Freedom of Speech.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (February 26, 2001, ¹28). (33) Moskovsky Komsomolets (June 30, 2001). (34) “Deputies of the Regional Duma Forbade Videofilming of Their Sessions” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (February 2,2001). (35) Based on materials of RTR (September 7, 2001). (36) G. Putanov, “Five Meters to Air.” Izvestia (September 4, 2001, ¹161). (37) Ibid. (38) D. Gevorgian, “Extra-Departmental Security Protecting Freedom of Speech” Kommersant (September 4, 2001, ¹161). (39) “Court Instances Preoccupied with Search of “TVK” Owner” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 5, 2001). (40) See: “Letter of the OECD Representative on Freedom of the Mass Media to the RF Minister of Foreign Affairs,” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (May 25, 2001). (41) Two criminal cases were supplemented with the previous three and deal with “exerting violence against police representatives.” Note, that “the suggestion to come over and provide explanations” to the prosecutor was made by a group force of 10 police officers.” See: I. Naidyonov, “To Beat the Journalist — To Love the Motherland.” Obschaya Gazeta (March 29, 2001, ¹13). (42) As it has been noted before, claims on protection of honor and dignity can be filed against a physical, not a legal entity. Physical entities can only be accused of damaging someone’s business reputation. (43) N. Vladimirova, “Television Journalist Admitted to Not Being a Criminal.” Kommersant (March 23, 2001, ¹51); “Court Admits Criminal Charges Against Journalist E. Mazhennaya “Ungrounded and Illegal” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (March 26, 2001, ¹32). (44) Novaya Gazeta (September 25, 2001, ¹69). (45) Glasnost Defense Foundation Monitoring — www.gdf.ru (February, 2001). (46) See: RF Criminal Code, Article 152, Clause 1: “A citizen has the right to demand in a court of law that any information damaging to his or her honor, dignity or business reputation be refuted should the one who has disseminated such information fail to prove that it is true.” Quoting: RF Criminal Code — Part 1 (Moscow: 1995). (47) “How Mezhdurechensk Court Serviced Kemerovo Governor.” Moskovskiye Novosti (November 20, 2001). (48) Ibid. (49) “Does “Shans” Have a Chance?” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (August 1, 2001). (50) “Chestnoye Slovo. The Newspaper for Normal People.” Sibirskiye Novosti: Information Agency (June 22, 2001). (51) À. Kalachinsky, “Censorship in Primorye.” Novye Izvestia (December 1, 2001, ¹219). (52) Sh. Idiatullin, “Explosive Power of the Printing Press.” Kommersant (January 19, 2001, ¹8); Ì. Khairullin, “Democracy Shaymiyev-Style.” Novye Izvestia (January 22, 2001, ¹9). (53) V. Pozharsky, “Who Controls Freedom of Speech?” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (March 16, 2001, ¹46). (54) V. Svinin, “Lenin’s, but Not The People’s” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (July 10, 2001, ¹123). (55) E. Rubtsova, “Journalists Not Allowed Into Courtrooms?” Novye Izvestia (December 29, 2001, ¹237). (56) Toliyattinskoye Obozreniye (September 27, 2001). (57) Clause 2, Article 144 of the RF Criminal Code: “Prevention of journalists from performing their professional duties by an individual abusing his or her authority implies a punishment up to three years in prison combined with deprivation of the right to occupy certain electoral offices.” Quoting: RF Criminal Code (Moscow: 1996). (58) À. Kalachinsky, “Kopylov — a Hooligan?” Novye Izvestia (July 25, 2001, ¹128). (59) Ibid. (60) “Exorcism of the Spirit of Glasnost: Vladivostok-Style. City Head Throws NTV Out of His Patrimony.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (January 15, 2001, ¹22). (61) “Russians Have Been Missing Censorship.” Vremya MN (March 23, 2001, ¹51). (62) “Responding to Numerous Requests of Television Viewers Censorship Can Be Resurrected on the Local Television.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (May 28, 2001, ¹41). (63) “Responding to Numerous Requests of Television Viewers Censorship Can Be Resurrected on the Local Television.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (June 13, 2001, ¹43). (64) S. Lebedev, “Nostalgia for Censorship.” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 21, 2001). (65) R. Gorevoy, “Counterfeit CD as a Drug.” Novaya Gazeta (July 16, 2001, ¹49). (66) See: “Results of the Glasnost Defense Foundation Monitoring” at http://www.gdf.ru/arh/mort/2001.shtml (67) N. Bakhroshin, “Who Commissioned Journalist’s Murder?” Versiya (July 10, 2001, ¹25); V. Belimov, “Deadly Investigation.” Vremya Novostey (September 21, 2001, ¹173); Å. Serenko, “One Smashes Skulls with a Pipe One Time Too Often in Volgograd.” Novye Izvestia (December 6, 2001, ¹222); À. Yegorov, “Pipe as Political Argument.” Novye Izvestia (December 21, 2001, ¹231). (68)“Reporteurs Sans Frontieres Will Take Care of Russia” Prima (June 16, 2001, ¹276). (50) “Chestnoye Slovo. The Newspaper for Normal People.” Sibirskiye Novosti: Information Agency (June 22, 2001). (51) À. Kalachinsky, “Censorship in Primorye.” Novye Izvestia (December 1, 2001, ¹219). (52) Sh. Idiatullin, “Explosive Power of the Printing Press.” Kommersant (January 19, 2001, ¹8); Ì. Khairullin, “Democracy Shaymiyev-Style.” Novye Izvestia (January 22, 2001, ¹9). (53) V. Pozharsky, “Who Controls Freedom of Speech?” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (March 16, 2001, ¹46). (54) V. Svinin, “Lenin’s, but Not The People’s” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (July 10, 2001, ¹123). (55) E. Rubtsova, “Journalists Not Allowed Into Courtrooms?” Novye Izvestia (December 29, 2001, ¹237). (56) Toliyattinskoye Obozreniye (September 27, 2001). (57) Clause 2, Article 144 of the RF Criminal Code: “Prevention of journalists from performing their professional duties by an individual abusing his or her authority implies a punishment up to three years in prison combined with deprivation of the right to occupy certain electoral offices.” Quoting: RF Criminal Code (Moscow: 1996). (58) À. Kalachinsky, “Kopylov — a Hooligan?” Novye Izvestia (July 25, 2001, ¹128). (59) Ibid. (60) “Exorcism of the Spirit of Glasnost: Vladivostok-Style. City Head Throws NTV Out of His Patrimony.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (January 15, 2001, ¹22). (61) “Russians Have Been Missing Censorship.” Vremya MN (March 23, 2001, ¹51). (62) “Responding to Numerous Requests of Television Viewers Censorship Can Be Resurrected on the Local Television.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (May 28, 2001, ¹41). (63) “Responding to Numerous Requests of Television Viewers Censorship Can Be Resurrected on the Local Television.” Glasnost Defense Foundation Digest (June 13, 2001, ¹43). (64) S. Lebedev, “Nostalgia for Censorship.” Center of Extreme Journalism — www.cjes.ru (November 21, 2001). (65) R. Gorevoy, “Counterfeit CD as a Drug.” Novaya Gazeta (July 16, 2001, ¹49). (66) See: “Results of the Glasnost Defense Foundation Monitoring” at http://www.gdf.ru/arh/mort/2001.shtml (67) N. Bakhroshin, “Who Commissioned Journalist’s Murder?” Versiya (July 10, 2001, ¹25); V. Belimov, “Deadly Investigation.” Vremya Novostey (September 21, 2001, ¹173); Å. Serenko, “One Smashes Skulls with a Pipe One Time Too Often in Volgograd.” Novye Izvestia (December 6, 2001, ¹222); À. Yegorov, “Pipe as Political Argument.” Novye Izvestia (December 21, 2001, ¹231). (68)“Reporteurs Sans Frontieres Will Take Care of Russia” Prima (June 16, 2001, ¹276). Back |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|