JOURNALISTIC COMMUNITY AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT “ON MASS COMMUNICATION” BY THE PARLIAMENT
On March 26 the draft RA Law “On Mass Communication” was submitted to the consideration of the extraordinary session of the RA National Assembly. As it has been reported, the first version of the draft, developed by the RA Ministry of Justice and approved by the Government on February 7 last year, caused a huge protest wave of the media and journalistic associations of the country, was negatively assessed by local and international experts. Further the document was revised (also taking into account some demands of the journalistic community), approved on November 7 and introduced to the Parliament in mid-November, 2002. During the December hearings at the NA the Armenian media and professional organizations, including Yerevan Press Club, once again introduced their proposals on both the content of the draft and the preferability of its consideration after the parliamentary elections in May 2003.
Despite this, on March 24 RA President Robert Kocharian signed a decree of summoning an extraordinary parliamentary session the next day, the agenda of which, in addition to other issues, included the first hearing of the draft “On Mass Communication”.
The decree of the President raised another wave of discontent. On March 25 and 26 a number of opposition newspapers (in particular, “Aravot”, “Orran”, “Haikakan Zhamanak”, “Ayzhm”, “Iravunk”), similarly to March last year (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, February 23 – March 1, 2002), were issued with an appeal: “No to Censorship! Remove the Draft Law ‘On Mass Communication’ from Circulation!”
On March 26 and the subsequent days of the ordinary parliament session the representatives of “the fourth estate” took part in a demonstration and pickets, organized by National Press Club, by the NA houses. The main demand of the rally participants was the removal of the draft from the agenda and its consideration only after the parliamentary elections on May 25.
Eventually, the voting on the draft “On Mass Communication” did not occur due to lack of quorum.
It is important to note that on March 21 the NA Vice Speaker Tigran Torosian announced that the draft law “On Mass Communication” received the positive assessment of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Yerevan Press Club addressed this structure for clarification. The Deputy Secretary of the CE Venice Commission Thomas Markert informed us that the Venice Commission did not represent any assessment of the draft, and what was meant were probably the last comments of the experts of the CE Directorate General of Human Rights (DG II) made on May 17 last year. In the comments it was particularly stressed that “consensus among media professionals on different provisions of this law is more important than a quick adoption”. Thus, the Council of Europe realized that the timeframes it has set are not a dogma, if the public has serious objections to the document.
Yerevan Press Club fully shares the opinion of the media and professional associations who believe that in the current tense political situation and the controversies on the draft “On Mass Communication” being present, its adoption today is not opportune and must be delegated to the new Parliament.
As to the contents of the draft, in the opinion of YPC, some provisions continue to cause serious concern, in particular, with regard to the fact that the law must regulate the activities of traditional media – also to comply with the commitments of Armenia to the Council of Europe. Meanwhile, the draft regulates the dissemination of the information in general, also via Internet.
Secondly, the required transparency of media funding is also doubtful. Technically, it corresponds to the international standards, however, the journalist community of the country fears that this provision will be applied selectively and can become a method of exercising pressure on the unwanted media. The lawmakers must take these fears into account seriously.
FIVE TV COMPANIES CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT
On March 31 “Dar 21”, “ARMENAKOB”, “TV 5”, “Yerevan” and “EV” TV companies challenged with the Chamber for Civil and Commercial Cases of the RA Court of Cassation the decision of the Commercial Court of March 14. As it has been reported, the Court refused securing the suit of the five broadcasters versus the National Commission on Television and Radio, filed due to the refusal of the latter to return them their application packages for the broadcast licensing competition for revision (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 8-14, 2003).
This confirmed the anxiety we voiced previously that the broadcast licensing competition for five UHFs in Yerevan announced as far back as on October 15, 2002, will be delayed again, and the opposition “A1+” TV company, a bidder in the competition, will again be refused the chance to get back on air before the parliamentary elections. Consequently (and this is validated by the monitoring of Armenian media coverage of presidential elections), the possibility for the public to get diverse opinions will again be reduced to minimum, namely the few opposition newspapers with petty print runs.
APRIL 2 MARKED A YEAR SINCE “A1+” TV COMPANY IS DEPRIVED OF AIR
April 2 completed a year since “A1+” TV company was not issued a broadcast license. Founded in 1991, “A1+” was the only TV channel of general nature having 24-hour air and actually the only of the electronic media in the capital that openly and consistently opposed the authorities. During the whole this year the TV company attempted to get back on air, participating in a new competition that has all the chances of getting into the Record Book of media-authorities clash, in the nomination of “the most legally frozen”. During the whole this year the journalistic community, the public and political forces of the country, reputable international organizations waged struggle to get “A1+” back on the TV screens. And during the whole this year the journalists of the TV company displayed solidarity, so rare in our hardly survivable life: they and their families went on a slim diet, but did not quit. We wish we could say: guys, wait a tiny bit more, and you will put on your TV clothes and take the mikes and cameras out of their boxes…
INVESTIGATIVE BODIES DEMONSTRATE THE VIDEO RECORDING OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF THOSE CHARGED WITH TIGRAN NAGHDALIAN’S ASSASSINATION
On March 27 the Public Television of Armenia aired the recording of the examination of Armen Sargsian and others, arrested on the charge of organizing the assassination of the Chairman of the Council of Public TV and Radio Company of Armenia Tigran Naghdalian, committed on December 28, 2002 (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 15-21, 2003 and March 8-14, 2003). In the opinion of the investigative bodies, the testimony of Armen Sargsian (the brother of Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian, killed during the terrorist attack on the Parliament in October 27, 1999 and of Aram Sargsian, a member of the Political Council of the opposition “Republic” party) proves his involvement in the crime.
Meanwhile, the opposition forces announced the video aired by PTA was fake.
THE CENTRAL BANK AND “ARAVOT” DAILY RECONCILED
On March 25 at the court of primary jurisdiction of Center and Nork-Marash communities of Yerevan the proceedings on the suit of Central Bank versus “Aravot” daily continued. As it has been reported, the Central Bank instituted a legal action demanding to oblige “Aravot” to publish a refutation on a number of pieces telling about the misconduct of the CB officials (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 8-14, 2003 and March 15-21, 2003). At the subsequent sessions (March 26 and April 1) the parties debated and the possibilities for a reconciliation agreement were discussed.
At the session of April 2 the reconciliation agreement was read out. According to the document, the respondent assumed the commitment of publishing in the coming two issues the text of refutation of articles “How Much Does the Position of the Department Head at the CB Cost?” (January 21) and “For the Information of Incorruptible Officials” (February 11), as presented by the CB. The plaintiff assumed the obligation not to challenge the other pieces published by the newspaper before April 3. The refutation was published by “Aravot” in the issues of April 3 and 4.
HEARINGS OF THE SUIT OF “ARDSHINBANK” VERSUS “ARAVOT” STARTED
On March 27 at the RA Commercial Court the proceedings on the suit of “Ardshinbank” versus “Aravot” daily started. As it has already been reported, the bank demands to oblige “Aravot” to pay ,000 as compensation for the damage caused by a number of articles published by the newspaper (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 8-14, 2003). According to the bank management, these publications caused the annulment of its deal with “Converse Bank”. At the session “Aravot” filed a counter-claim – demanding to acknowledge the agreement on the deal of the two banks invalid, as its signing violated the RA Law “On Banks and Banking Activities” and other legal and normative acts.
The next court session is to be held on April 10.
THE JOINT PROJECT OF JOURNALISTS AND LAWYERS
On March 25-27 in Gudauri, Georgia, the trilateral meeting of representatives of the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression (Armenia), Baku Press Club and the Association of Young Lawyers of Georgia, which implemented a joint project “Harmonization of Media-Related Legislation of the Countries of South Caucasus with European Standards”. The project was supported by the South Caucasus Cooperation Program of Eurasia Foundation.
At the meeting the presentations of the partners on the legal regulation of media activities in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the progress with regard to the implementation of the commitments of the three countries to the Council of Europe with regard to media legislation as well as proposals on the improvement of the legislative framework for media and its harmonization with the common international standards were discussed.
The meeting concluded the preliminary, contact project that served a basis for the partners to develop a more extensive program of joint work.
NEW REGIONAL INITIATIVE TO STUDY KARABAGH PROBLEM LAUNCHED
On March 27-29 in Gudauri another working meeting was held. The meeting was organized under the bilateral project of Yerevan and Baku Press Clubs “Possible Resolutions to the Karabagh Conflict: Expert Evaluations and Media Coverage”, supported by the OSI Network Media Program. Having started in February 2003 and scheduled for a year, this project is a certain continuation of the initiatives of 2001-2002 for a research on Karabagh conflict held by single methodology. At the meeting the representatives of YPC, BPC and Stepanakert Press Club discussed the course of the five-month monitoring (March-July) of the coverage of Karabagh conflict resolution process by the media of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Mountainous Karabagh. The methodology of the expert research to be conducted in May by the three parties to determine the attitudes of the influential political and public figures to the conflict resolution prospects was also clarified.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLISHED the ANNUAL Report on Human Rights Practices in armenia in 2002
On March 31 the U.S. Department of State released its annual report on human rights practices in different countries of the world in 2002, prepared by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
In the report on Armenia the situation of freedom of expression and press for the last year is described in almost the same words as in the similar report of the U.S. Department of State for 2001 (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 9-15, 2002), namely: ” while the Government generally respected freedom of speech, there were some limits on freedom of the press”; “publications presented a variety of views and the opposition press regularly criticized government policies and leaders, including the President, on sensitive issues such as the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and privatization”; “to avoid repetition of the retribution experienced in the past from powerful officials and other individuals, most journalists continued to practice self-censorship, particularly when reporting on major cases of corruption or national security issues”; “journalists remained cautious in their reporting, particularly about proceedings in the courtroom”; there was no censorship or restrictions on reception of satellite television and other foreign media, international newspapers and imported magazines; “the President’s office continued to influence state television news coverage significantly”, while “private television stations offered independent news coverage of good technical quality”, etc. As to the Public Television of Armenia, as the report for 2002 notes, it “took policy guidance from the Government”, “presented mostly factual reporting but avoided editorial commentary or criticism of official actions”.
By the assessment of the Department of State, the state publishing house and press distribution agency last year operated as commercial enterprises “with no visible government intervention”. The print media themselves operated with very restricted resources and none of the newspapers was completely independent from the interests of economic, political groups or individuals. “Because of prevailing economic conditions, total newspaper circulation was small (40,000 copies, by the Yerevan Press Club’s estimates, or approximately one copy per 85 persons)”, the report says.
“Opposition parties and politicians generally received adequate news coverage and access to broadcast media”, the Department of State believes. “In the run-up to the 2003 presidential and legislative elections, they have continued to have free access to media coverage”.
The process of licensing the broadcast media, in the opinion of the State Department, “is strictly governed by the 2000 Law on Broadcast Media, which appeared to be observed in practice, although it was not well understood by some sectors of the media or public”.
The report also noted the joint work of the Parliament Standing Committee on Science, Education, Culture and Youth Issues, Yerevan Press Club and “Internews” international NGO on the broadcast law. At the same time it was noted that while the amendments to the law passed in 2001 ” met many previously expressed concerns by media and human rights groups regarding freedom of the media, it still contains loopholes that could be used to impose greater control on the media by government bodies”.
The following incidents are quoted in the report as examples of freedom of expression and press violations: the assassination of the Chairman of Public TV and Radio Council Tigran Naghdalian on December 28 last year; the situation with “A1+” and “Noyan Tapan” TV companies, which were not issued broadcast licenses in April 2002; the grenade explosion in October last year that left the Deputy Director of Caucasus Media Institute Mark Grigorian with shrapnel wounds.
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS ON ATTACKS ON PRESS IN ARMENIA IN 2002
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) disseminated the annual worldwide survey “Attacks on the Press” in 2002.
The section on Armenia said in particular that in the run-up to presidential elections-2003, RA President Robert Kocharian, who was seeking another term, “muzzled dissenting voices in the press and called for more compliant media coverage of government policies”:
“As a result, journalists continued to face criminal prosecution, attacks, and censorship. Meanwhile, poor economic conditions drove some members of the press to ignore journalistic standards and sell their skills to the highest bidder – even if that meant being a mouthpiece for a powerful politician or businessman.”
The survey also notes that 2002 started with a controversy between the authorities and the journalistic community on the approval of the draft law “On Mass Communication” by the RA Government.
Among the negative incidents that occurred with the Armenian journalists and media last year, CPJ mentions the broadcast licensing competitions that deprived “A1+” and “Noyan Tapan” TV companies of frequencies as well as the legal actions that ensued; the grenade explosion that injured the Deputy Director of Caucasus Media Institute Mark Grigorian, and the assassination of the Chairman of the Public TV and Radio Council of Armenia Tigran Naghdalian that ended the year.
FORUM OF ARMENIAN PRESS OF EUROPE HELD
on March 21-23 in Bratislava (Slovakia) the Forum of Armenian Press of Europe was held for the first time. The event was organized by the Forum of Armenian Unions of Europe. In the meeting the representatives of media and journalistic organizations of Armenia and Armenian Diaspora took part. Among other issues, the event participants discussed the situation of the Armenian-language press in Europe, its role in retaining the language, culture and national traditions, the cooperation with foreign media, the coverage of the problems of Armenia in the Armenian media of Europe, and the problems of Diaspora in the media of Armenia. In the course of the work, the Forum outlined the directions of the further activities of the participants, in particular, the establishment of the common information network of Armenian media of Europe, the establishment of a press club of Armenian journalists of Europe, the compilation and publication of a reference book on Armenian media of Europe. To accomplish these tasks a professional committee was formed, comprised of representatives of media and journalists association of Armenia and Europe.
DAILY SUPPLEMENT TO “YERKIR” WEEKLY
Since April 1 “Yerkir Or”, the daily supplement to “Yerkir” weekly (the print organ of “Dashnaktsutyun” party) was issued. According to Gegham Manukian, responsible for the issue of “Yerkir”, the supplement will be published till the end of the parliamentary elections to be held on May 2.
