|
 |
| UN Photo/Jenny Rockett |
On 26 October 2010, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr Frank La Rue, presented his report on the protection of journalists and press freedom to the General Assembly's Third Committee. It was the first time that the mandate had ever reported to the General Assembly, and Mr La Rue used the opportunity to single out and denounce those States with the worst records of providing protection for journalists. In particular, he named the 12 States with the highest rates of impunity for unresolved murders of journalists, which, in descending order, are Iraq, Somalia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Afghanistan, Nepal, the Russian Federation, Mexico, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, and urged them to investigate all violations thoroughly and to prosecute perpetrators. He also called out the six most dangerous countries for journalists in 2009 as the Philippines, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Mexico and the Russian Federation. Lastly, he identified Iran, Ethiopia and Somalia as the main States which journalists have fled from to avoid risks to their lives.
During the interactive dialogue, many of the singled-out States criticised the report's accuracy, or disagreed with its conclusions. Ethiopia asserted that fleeing journalists are leaving for other reasons than persecution, and that journalists may be imprisoned for criminal matters. Iran called the report inaccurate and exaggerated, and the Russian Federation claimed that there was no impunity since their justice system functioned effectively. Pakistan and Iraq regretted the approach of bundling together countries in regard to impunity, and chastised the Special Rapporteur for not distinguishing between journalists killed by indiscriminate terrorist attacks as opposed to State forces.
In response, the Special Rapporteur urged States expressing scepticism about his reporting to invite him for visits, and said that nothing would make him happier than to find himself mistaken. Regarding terrorists being responsible for the killing of some journalists, the Special Rapporteur emphasized that the obligation of the State is to investigate, beginning with the assumption that the journalist was targeted. The implication is not that the States are killing journalists, but rather that such killings are not investigated. In response to Ethiopia, the Special Rapporteur noted that penalties for defamation should be a civil fine, not criminalization (with rare exceptions for incitement to violence, etc.).(1) Several States tried to rebuff the Special Rapporteur's conclusions by pointing to the free speech protections in their national constitutions (Ethiopia Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation). However Mr La Rue countered that it was the effectiveness of the law that mattered, rather than the presence of constitutional or legal protections, and stressed that States must take corrective measures when the law is violated.
As a counterpoint to the slew of defensive comments, other ‘named’ States responded more constructively. For example, Mexico agreed to establish more adequate mechanisms as required by the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations, and the Philippines said the Government was addressing the issues. Many States also expressed their general support for the Special Rapporteur’s concerns about impunity for violence against journalists (2) (Norway, Guatemala, EU, Sweden, Pakistan, Switzerland, Denmark), and inquired how the Special Rapporteur and the international community could contribute to ending it (Norway, Denmark). The US asked whether the Special Rapportuer saw a link between the improper use of human rights standards to justify suppressing freedom of expression and impunity.
To help combat impunity, the Special Rapporteur underscored the need for a strong and independent judicial system, but also recommended that States create an early-warning and urgent response mechanism for the protection of journalists. Several States requested elaboration on this emergency response system, its function, and good practices (Canada, Sweden, Algeria). In his report, the SR suggested that it could be an official State Commission with an independent budget composed of high level State representatives related to security, territorial administration, human rights, and representatives of media associations and relevant NGOs. During the dialogue with States, Mr La Rue also recommended looking at Columbia’s effective system for protection of journalists and human rights defenders, which even provides funds to evacuate a journalist if necessary. He recalled that journalists are often threatened or followed prior to incidents of violence, so a window of opportunity exists to take steps to protect them, and this kind of mechanism could thus save lives. He did not address the US question.
During a discussion on trends about the protection of journalists in armed conflict, the EU inquired about the new concept of ‘zones of intense conflict’ raised by the Special Rapporteur in his opening statement. Though human rights law still applies in situations with a high level of violence that may not have reached the threshold of armed conflict (e.g.; intense violence in drug warfare and between street gangs, etc.), the Special Rapporteur said that protection for journalists in this area could be explored further. However he stressed that the creation of new treaties or the granting of special status to journalists under international law would actually lead to less protection. Elaborating on standards may require a precise definition of “journalists”, which could require journalists to be duly accredited by a public authority. (3)
The discussion on the protection of journalists in armed conflict also generated questions on how to effectively follow up on Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006), which condemns attacks against journalists in conflict and reiterates the obligation of all sides to protect journalists as civilians (Norway), and on how the UN could respond to the report’s concerns (Denmark). The protection of journalists should be a priority, and the Special Rapporteur suggested that various UN bodies, including the Security Council, the Human Rights Council (which in June held a panel on journalists in armed conflict) and the Third Committee, could coordinate efforts and request a special report on the protection of journalists.
The Special Rapporteur also highlighted the importance of protecting citizen journalists (4) and the key role they can play in providing on the ground, real-time information. Related to this, he said that he intended to submit a thematic report to the Human Rights Council next year on freedom of expression on the internet. Several States welcomed this initiative while noting their concern over State practices seeking to limit access to the internet (Switzerland, Germany, UK). A major issue raised was ethics and professionalism. Some accused the media (Ethiopia) and citizen journalists (Pakistan) of lacking both; others stressed the important role that standards and ethics can play in self-protection (Switzerland, UK); another asked what level of standards citizen journalists should be held to (Algeria). The Special Rapporteur noted that citizen journalists are not professional journalists in the sense of being trained, but are critical because of their awareness of their communities and access to information. He also underscored his support for journalists’ adherence to high ethical standards as both a method of self-protection and to protect against worsening a situation by inflaming passions or hatred. The Special Rapporteur did not directly respond to questions about the measures the international community could take to protect citizen journalists (EU, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany), except to encourage the building of a ‘culture of peace and respect’.
(1)The Special Rapporteur provided an example in the case of David Isaak, a journalist who fled to Sweden but then was imprisoned upon his return, to counteract the claim by Ethiopia that journalists have not fled the country and/or been punished for defamation of the Ethiopian Government. However the Ethiopian representative corrected the Special Rapporteur and noted that Mr Isaak was in Eritrea, not Ethiopia.
(2) In his opening statement, the Special Rapporteur noted that the number of journalists and media personnel killed in 2009 was the highest number since 1992, and that perpetrators have enjoyed total impunity in 94% of those cases.
(3) This may be one of the reasons the Special Rappoorteur tends to refrain from referring to journalists as human rights defenders, since a growing problem for defenders is the use of registration policies to restrict their work.
(4)In his report the Special Rapporteur states there is no universal definition of citizen journalists. However, the concept is usually understood as independent reporting, often by amateurs at the scene of an event, which disseminated globally through modern media, most often the Internet. (See paragraph 62 of A/65/284) |
