Основниот граѓански суд во Скопје од 1 септември 2019 ќе ја смени досегашната добра практика за постапување по предметите поврзани со слободата на изразување, односно за тужбите за клевета и навреда против новинари. Досега тужбите за клевета против новинари беа судени од тројца обучени судии, кои од 2012 година, кога беше донесен Законот за граѓанската одговорност за клевета и навреда, создадоа една добра судска пракса, почитувајќи ги одредбите на законот и секако применувајќи ја практиката на Европскиот суд за човекови права од Стразбур, кој покажува висок степен толеранција кон новинарите поради важната улога на медиумите во едно демократско општество. По септември годинава, предметите за клевета против новинарите и медиумите ќе ги судат сите судии вработени во овој суд.

Новинарската заедница и адвокатите што досега застапуваа новинари пред Граѓанскиот суд се загрижени дека ваквата одлука на судот може да ја загрози добро изградената судска пракса поради тоа што другите судии не се обучени за постапување по овие предмети, согласно судската пракса на Европскиот суд во Стразбур.

Извршниот директор на Здружението на новинарите на Македонија (ЗНМ), Драган Секуловски, смета дека ваквото решение е избрзано затоа што на судиите што ќе ги судат тужбите за клевета на новинари, претходно требаше да им се обезбеди напредна обука поврзана со концептот на клевета и навреда и праксата на Европскиот суд во Стразбур.

– За разлика од порано, кога само тројца судии во Скопје судеа за клевета и навреда, сега сите судии може да го прават тоа и ова само по себе е ризик дека не сите судии ја имаат експертизата за оваа специфична тема – предупредува Секуловски.

Инаку, според податоците со кои располага ЗНМ, пред Граѓанскиот суд во Скопје има околу 35 тужби за клевета против новинари. Секуловски е задоволен како досега судиите ги решаваа тужбите.

– Во последните години и немало казна што била второстепена со огромни нематеријални штети кон новинарите, што, за жал, било случај во минатото – заклучува тој.

Според него, тоа покажува дека клеветата и навредата, како инструмент за притисок кон новинарите, се користи сè помалку во последните години.

И адвокатот Лазар Сандев, од Адвокатската канцеларија „Медарски“, која со години застапува новинари пред македонските судови за тужби за клевета и навреда, ја фали судската пракса создадена во Граѓанскиот суд во Скопје и Апелациониот суд во Скопје, бидејќи во случај кога се утврдува одговорност за сторена навреда или клевета, судиите не досудуваат големи и несразмерни износи за надомест на нематеријална штета, туку често се утврдува одговорност, но не се досудува справедлив надомест – нематеријална штета за повреда на честа и угледот.

– Ова е добар механизам, кој е воспоставен од Европскиот суд за човекови права и е во насока да не се создаде т.н. ефект на ладење (chilling effect), со кој новинарите во иднина би биле под страв да пишуваат за теми од јавен интерес – оценува тој.

Адвокатската канцеларија „Медарски“ застапува вкупно шест новинари, уредници и издавачи. Според долгогодишно искуство во застапување новинари, Сандев го фали пристапот на граѓанскиот суд и скопската апелација кон слободата на изразување.

– Тие ја разбираат Европската конвенција за човекови права и, најважно, примената на стандардите утврдени во пресудите и одлуките на Европскиот суд за човекови права при Советот на Европа – вели Сандев и додава дека ваквиот позитивен однос на тројцата судии што досега ги решаваа тужбите за клевета против новинари е поради тоа што тие имаат посетувано доста обуки организирани во Македонија и во странство.

– Тие реално го применуваат нивното знаење во оваа област – смета Сандев.

Реформата на Законот за граѓанската одговорност за клевета и навреда беше една од прашањата во итните приоритетни реформи на европскиот експерт Рајнхард Прибе во врска со слободата на медиумите во 2016 година. По четири години, ова прашање воопшто не е отворено од страна на македонската влада.

Извршниот директор на ЗНМ тврди дека во 2018 година Владата презела обврска да работи на измени и дополнувања на законот, но потоа неочекувано таквата активност била избришаната од Планот 18, кој се однесуваше на итните реформи, со објаснување дека „голем дел од медиумските реформи се направени или се во тек и оти нема потреба да стојат во овој документ“.

Секуловски открива дека во меѓувреме во Министерството за правда е формирана комисија за ревизија на Законот за клеветата, меѓутоа од формирањето во пролетта 2019 година не одржала ниеден состанок. Оправдувањето од Министерството е дека во моментов се чека изработката на анализа за измените на оваа регулатива од страна на консултант. Анализата требало да вклучи и интервјуа со засегнатите страни, кои, поради корона-вирусот, не можеле да се направат и затоа изработката на анализата е одложена до крајот на септември.

За разлика од Владата, ЗНМ со ЕУ и Советот на Европа, во мај и јуни годинава, организира две онлајн-консултации на тема законски измени за дела клевета и навреда, на кои учествувале група новинари што биле тужени или што известуваат на оваа тема. Освен тоа, на овие вебинари присуствувале и адвокати што застапуваат новинари и судии што суделе предмети за клевета против новинари. На консултациите учествувале и претставници на други медиумски организации, но и претставници на Министерството за правда, Академијата за обука на судии и обвинители, како и независни локални и меѓународни експерти на темата.

Од досегашните дискусии, Секуловски претпоставува дека евентуалните измени на Законот за граѓанската одговорност за клевета и навреда ќе се однесуваат на бришење на делото навреда или на поинаков законски третман кон навредата споредбено со клеветата.

– Генерално, мислам дека овој закон треба да претрпи мали измени затоа што во пракса покажа дека ги исполни очекувањата, а треба особено да се работи и понатаму на подобрување на неговата имплементација од страна на судот, особено во делот на роковите и уште повеќе во делот на праксата на ЕСЧП – смета извршниот директор на ЗНМ.

Тој очекува делот на позитивната дискриминација кон новинарите да остане поради природата на новинарската професија и фактот дека новинарите се поизложени на тужби за клевета.

Според него, треба внимателно да се пристапи кон законските измени за да се избегнат непромислени решенија кои може повторно да се злоупотребуваат од разни центри на моќ за заплашување на новинарите и за поттикнување самоцензура.

И адвокатот Сандев има позитивно мислење за квалитетот на Законот за клевета, кој има елементи на англосаксонскиот правен систем. Ако постои одредена правна празнина или спротивност на одредбите на законот со примената на членот 10 од страна на Европскиот суд за човекови права, законот налага примена на Европската конвенција за човекови права на Совет на Европа.

– Законот што е во сила во моментов, дава пошироко поле на интерпретација кога постои судир на правото на приватност (правото на репутација) vis-a-vis слободата на изразување. И правнички, сметам дека овој закон дозволува поинакво правно резонирање, бидејќи слободата на изразување не можеш на хартија да ја ограничиш, а особено не слободата на мислата и на вредносниот суд – оценува Сандев.

Тој смета дека има простор законот да претрпи една измена, поточно членот 18, каде што се предвидени максимални казни, и тоа за новинар 2.000 евра, за уредник 10.000 евра и за издавач 15.000 евра.

– Сметам дека износите се превисоко поставени за нашиот стандард, особено за платите што ги имаат новинарите и уредниците. Замислете еден медиум да се казни 15.000 евра. Тоа значи затворање на тој медиум – предупредува Сандев.

Адвокатот тврди дека единствениот проблем што постоеше досега при примената на законот беше околу легитимацијата на интернет-портали, кој е решен со заклучок на четирите апелациони судови во Северна Македонија. Тој заклучок им наложи на сите судии во земјата да ги прифатат тужбите за наводни клевети против новинари објавени на порталите. По ваквиот заклучок, судовите почнаа да ги процесуираат сите тужби против новинари, без разлика за кои видови медиуми работат. Со ова, станува беспредметно порталите да се регулираат со Законот за медиумите.

Автор: Насер Селмани

Текстот е изработен во рамки на проектот „Опсерваторија на медиумските реформи“, што го спроведува Фондацијата за интернет и општество „Метаморфозис“, со финансиска поддршка на „Фондацијата Отворено општество – Македонија“.

Opting for a retrial and a new evidentiary procedure would be a paradox – to prove what has already been proven. In fact, the point would be for all first-instance convicts to remain at large, Veran Matic, Chairman of the Commission for investigating the killings of journalists, told Cenzolovka, reiterating that the deep state governed by elements of the secret services is very strong.

The first, and so far the only, verdict for the murder of a journalist in Serbia is attempted to be overturned before the Court of Appeals by the lawyers of the convicts and the Deputy Prosecutor for organized crime. They appealed the decision of the Organized Crime Department of the High Court in Belgrade from April 2019, which sentenced four members of the State Security Department to a total of 100 years in prison for the murder of journalist Slavko Curuvija on April 11, 1999.

If the verdict against the four convicted for the murder of Ćuruvija falls, what message will that be to the families of the victims, the freedom and security of journalists, but also to the whole society?

The decision is on the Court of Appeals. Last weekend, the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation expressed a clear expectation from the Appellate to confirm the verdict and for the murderers of Slavko Ćuruvija to finally be in prison.

Due to the role he played as the Chairman of the Commission for investigating the killings of journalists in passing a conviction during five years of difficult trial, we asked Veran Matic what he expects from the Court of Appeals, which will discuss this case on July 7, 8 and 9.

Veran Matić: The Trial Chamber of the Court of Appeals had enough time to carefully study the evidentiary procedure during the trial and to study the verdict with adequate care. I consider that during the first-instance proceedings, solid evidence and facts were presented which undoubtedly indicate the guilt of the accused.

I think that deciding on a retrial and a new evidentiary procedure would be a paradox – to prove what has already been proven, and in fact, that it makes sense for everyone to remain at large and for the court decision to become irrelevant whenever it is made.

For that reason, I believe that the Court of Appeals will confirm the first-instance verdict condemning the perpetrators and organizers of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, and those who are alive and whom the prosecutor accused.

I also expect that the measure of house arrest will be abolished and replaced by a measure adequate for a convicted person under this verdict, which would mean that convicted persons return to detention units, and not wait for „execution“ of their sentence and spend time at home for commiting such a serious crime.

Cenzolovka: You believed that the prosecutor would ask for the maximum sentences and immediate detention of Milan Radonjić and Ratko Romić in the appeal to the Court of Appeals, and he asked for the verdict to be annulled. Do you believe that the Prosecution has the strength to achieve a higher degree of satisfaction of justice, to prove who pulled a trigger and who ordered this murder?

Matic: I have no reason at this time to doubt the objectivity of the Trial Chamber of the Court of Appeals. I see the decision in which the Court of Appeals would return the procedure to the beginning as dangerous. I am afraid that in that way the trial so far would turn into a farce – a trial for the sake of a trial.

The first instance court accepted that Rade Markovic requested, and Radonjic ordered the murder.

I often (during the trial) had the impression that the murdered Curuvija and his family members, who insisted on resolving the case, are on trial, along with the Commission and members of the Working Group that worked on the investigation of this crime in an attempt to establish justice.

Guided by the experience from the first instance procedure so far, I am worried that a retrial would actually be a mere prolongation of this procedure. I will remind you that in this procedure, there were numerous obstructions and pressures to separate crucial evidence from the overall evidence.

It clearly shows that there is still a great influence of people from the time when Slavko Ćuruvija was killed, with a strong need to devalue and make no sense of this case, and thus to release those convicted in the first instance for this crime.

I was extremely surprised by the prosecutor’s appeal, requesting the retrial. My opinion is that this is the worst option.

I will not claim that his appeal is not legally substantiated, I will not pretend to be a greater lawyer than him, but I do not understand the legal logic of the prosecutor. He asked for a conviction, he got a conviction, and then suddenly he asks for the entire trial to be annulled and for everything to start from the beginning after twenty years. That is not justice. Delayed justice is denied justice.

I think that there were other possibilities – there was no reason to ask for a retrial of the principals, organizers and executors and to prove again what was already proven by the first instance verdict. The Prosecutor could have requested that the verdict be partially upheld or that it be amended so that the Appellate Panel could establish a new factual situation that corresponds to the indictment and the evidence presented. But for those who are convicted, their guilt has been already proven.

The Trial Chamber of the Court of Appeals does not have to overturn the first instance verdict. It has been studying the case for a long time, three days of hearing the appeals are planned, and I believe that, taking into account the allegations and arguments from the prosecutor’s appeal, it will reach an adequate verdict.

The verdict is the first step in revealing the full truth

Cenzolovka: Is the satisfaction with the verdict, despite the fact that both the killer and the orderer remained unknown, an acknowledgment of impotence and acceptance of the reality that our judicial system is weak and the secret services are strong and full of criminals?

Matic: This verdict is something we could achieve under the given circumstances after so much time of obstruction of the investigation, and then during the trial. It happens rarely in the world that the head of the intelligence service has been accused and sentenced (for the time being, by the first instance verdict). It is rare for the murders of journalists to be exposed (even in 90% of cases, murderers and perpetrators are not detected). It is even less possible for anything to happen after so much time since the murder had passed.

The establishment of the Commission for investigating the killings of journalists, with the involvement of the media community in achieving justice, was unique in the world. That is why I am very pleased with this result.

I see the decision in which the Court of Appeals would return the procedure to the beginning as dangerous. I am afraid that in that way, the trial so far would turn into a farce – a trial for the sake of a trial.

I see this verdict as a basic framework of justice in this case, and as a first step. It is certain that this process will continue, now before the Appeal and later, probably through some more complaints of some of the actors. And that is the second phase of the fight for justice, for the truth about the murder of our colleague Slavko Ćuruvija.

If we do not continue to work on this case, on confirming the verdict, on revealing what has not been revealed so far when it comes to this crime, if we do not work on discovering the mechanisms of obstruction of the investigation… we risk losing what we have gained so far , because the judicial system is also weak, and I get the impression that it is getting weaker, and especially insensitive to older cases, criminals are perceived to be treated as heroes, the deep state governed by elements of the secret services is very strong. And all this is not a problem related to solving this case, but it affects the destiny of the entire society.

That is why this case is a symbol, a case presenting an indicator, and a case that we must not give up.

Cenzolovka: In your opinion, what would be the real dangers of repeating the trial for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija before the High Court if the Appellate Court makes such a decision?

Matic: During the trial, we had a lot of inexplicable decisions of the Trial Chamber, we did not get adequate cooperation from the representatives of the services who could provide more quality information. It was as if the „service“ had been guarded very carefully.

I recently read in a book by State Security Agency’s Deputy Director at the time of the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic, Goran Zivaljevic, who, for example, openly defends members of the Ninth Division of the DB (Secret Surveillance Unit) – with the thesis that they were just doing their job. He even goes as far as to discuss a speculation that they would do it even if someone ordered them to follow Mira Markovic, explaining what they would do in that particular case.

Moreover, he did not bother to analyze the testimonies of all those who accompanied Slavko Ćuruvija 48 hours before the murder, including a tour of the murder scene. We have not received any new information that would help further clarify this murder, although there are very clear indications that someone who was the last to withdraw from the street from the surveillance task had to see who entered the entrance, killed Slavko and simply left the crime scene…

This verdict is what could have been achieved under the given circumstances after so much time of obstruction of the investigation, and then during the trial. It is rare in the world that the head of the intelligence service is accused and sentenced … It is rare for the murders of journalists to be exposed.

In praising the members of the Ninth Department, Zivaljevic says „that they all could hardly wait to officially disclose what they know about this problematic monitoring of people from 1999“ … „I am convinced that they did not keep silent about anything, and why would they do that?”

My impression during the trial was that they kept silent. That they „forgot“ everything, and in fact, the solidarity of all participants was evident throughout the trial: the Intelligence Service Chief, Rade Markovic, the accused executors, defense lawyers, witnesses…

I often had the impression that the murdered Ćuruvija, his family members, who insisted on solving the case, the Commission and the members of the Working Group, which worked on the investigation of this crime, were being tried in an attempt to establish justice.

We all remember the attempt to reach a verdict by the decisions of the Trial Chamber, even before the end of the trial, by removing key evidence from the trial itself, twice, which the Appellate returned to the trial by its decisions.

We can imagine how many new cases of amnesia, how many amended statements and testimonies will be, in case of process returning to its beginning. In the case of the trial of the President of the Municipality of Grocka Simonović and others for setting fire to the house of journalist Milan Jovanović, we saw that, despite the confession of the actors, delaying the trial created space for influencing witnesses and perpetrators and, of course, everyone changed their statements.

At the same time, Romić and Radonjić are under house arrest, but with much more freedom, not to mention Kurak. All this time, there was no targeted search for him, although there were information about his whereabouts.

I think that otping for a retrial and a new evidentiary procedure would be a paradox – to prove what has already been proven, and in fact, that it makes sense for everyone to remain at large and for the court decision to become irrelevant, whenever it is made.

Veran Matić (foto: Nebojša Babić)

Journalists lose if there is no solidarity 

Cenzolovka: Two years ago, during the first-instance trial of the murderers of Slavko Ćuruvija, you accused the Trial Chamber of obstructing the procedure. Because of that, you were jointly attacked by judges and lawyers, and the Belgrade Bar Association even demanded the introduction of imprisonment and fines for journalists who comment on the court proceedings. According to your opinion, to what extent is public interest and pressure important in trials in which journalists are victims?

Matic: I deeply regret the fact that so few of our colleagues followed the trial of those accused of the murder of Slavko Curuvija. This was a chance to show solidarity, to learn something, to gain experience. I am sorry that the associations did not have professional monitoring of the trial itself, including the distribution of information globally, in a systemic manner, because this was a trial that was precedent, stirring an international interest.

I regret that our media did not take more time to follow this trial in depth, analytically and investigatively. I’m also sorry that I didn’t see journalism students, their professors in the audience … this was a unique opportunity for them to learn something new, a big lecture.

I do not understand the legal logic of the prosecutor. He asked for a conviction, he got a conviction, and then suddenly he asks for the entire trial to be annulled and for everything to start from the beginning after twenty years. That is not justice.

I have the same bitter impression following some other cases, trials … where we should witness specific support from the media community.

At the last hearing, the victims, colleague Milan and his wife, were again victimized by the arsonists from Grocka. It was extremely important to them that I was present at the trial, that we could talk, hear some advice, words of comfort, solidarity. To see that they are not alone.

And in general, I think that many political and court decisions are made when assessing „public opinion“, public reactions, etc., and if there is no clear position of the media community, showing support constantly, clearly and visibly, then the other side will prevail in reaching decisions.

Cenzolovka: At the trial for setting fire to the house of journalist Milan Jovanović, we recently witnessed the classic victimization of victims, where the judge allows the defendants’ lawyers to humiliate the victim with questions. What are your experiences from trial monitoring?

Matic: My impression is that in most cases, defense lawyers rule the courtrooms. We are under the impression that no one could do anything to them. Zora Dobricanin seems to be regularly late for trials and has experienced no sanctions for that oversight. It is as if nothing has happened, and the trial is late, with constant obstructions from lawyers whose sentences are meaningless when they are there, and they usually are not present.

At the trial of Simonović, one gets the impression that the bench on which the prosecutor and the injured party’s lawyer are sitting are in a completely defensive situation. Defense attorneys act as a team, uniquely, they radiate assuredness – as if they know the outcome in advance… A judge often looks like someone who cares more about the tricks of defense attorneys than about achieving justice, protection of victims…

Delayed justice is denied justice

I always draw a parallel with the position of women who have been raped and who have to participate in legal proceedings, which look like new violence. With that in mind, it seems understandable that victims, even when they have clean cases, avoid resorting to justice. That is a frightful fact for the rule of law.

Not to mention the institution of the „protected witness“, who in various cases, when it comes to war crimes, not only were not protected, but become classic victims of those who had to guard them.

I know that the price of independence, conscientiousness in performing the profession is consistently very high, but each of us has that in mind when he starts doing his job – journalistic or judicial, prosecutorial. There is no rule of law if there is no consistent aspiration for justice to happen. There is no journalism without the consistent role of watchdog of public interest at any cost.

Unfortunately, just as in our profession, we have more and more journalists protectors of the ruling political establishment instead of watchdogs of the public interest, in the judiciary, we have a tendency to protect the interests of the ruling oligarchy and other powerful people, not justice.

Nothing is solved without public pressure

Cenzolovka:  What do you expect from judges, and what from prosecutors when it comes to murder trials and attempted murders of journalists, and to what extent do they meet your expectations?

Matic: All murders with political motivation must have their epilogue. Unfortunately, I am under the impression that each of these murders, e.g. from the 1990s – from police generals, numerous police inspectors, the Minister of Defense, the General Manager of JAT, a high-ranking State Security officer Gavrilovic, were deliberately left without prosecution. As well as numerous war crimes cases. The same would have happened with the case of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija if there had not been strong pressure from journalists and active participation through the Commission for investigating the killings of journalists. Judges and prosecutors also belong to the segment of society which is a strong indicator of the state the society is in. And those involved in investigating corruption or prosecuting ordered murders with a political background or war crimes are most often under police protection.

That is why it is necessary to pay special attention to prevention, when it comes to the safety of journalists, prosecutors, judges, police officers… Instead of encouragement, we have a gradual withdrawal of all these professions from the jobs that they should perform in the most dedicated way possible, but there is no social consensus, even in the government itself, on the uncompromising prosecution of all those who break the law or pose a threat to security, and by this inaction, we get a practical collapse of the justice system.

If we do not continue to work on this case, on confirming the verdict, on discovering what has not been revealed so far, if we do not work on discovering the mechanisms of obstruction of the investigation, we risk losing what we have gained so far. The deep state governed by elements of the secret services is very strong.

Cenzolovka: How do you consider the position of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime that it cannot take over the investigation into the murder of journalist Milan Pantić, as proposed by the Commission for investigating the killings of journalists?

Matic: I get the impression that there is no political will in solving the case of the murder of Milan Pantic, as there was in the case of solving the murder of Slavko Curuvija. I can’t understand the reasons for that. Resolving this case is complex, difficult, but that is why the Special Prosecutor’s Office was established.

I don’t know whether taking over this case by the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime would solve the case, but I could testify that everything was done. This is my impression that it is halfway there, that the Working Group at the Commission has done a great job in the investigation, but it has reached a maximum and now it is necessary to add new directions that can be opened by the Special Prosecutor’s Office.

Cenzolovka: What, in your opinion, are the main causes of court inefficiency?

Matić: Scheduling hearings every month in just two or three days, with the reason that there is not enough capacity in terms of space, was the most common explanation for the slow progress of the process. And that is something that can be solved. I don’t understand why it is not resolved. In order for justice to be served, it must happen in a short period of time. None of the evidence presented during the hearing required any special conditions. I didn’t often understand „eating time“ in presenting evidence – a lot of idleness, questions that reveal nothing, answers that present clear obstruction, etc.

Over time, from a strong determination to make a final verdict happen effectively of that inviolably expressed desire, relativization prevails very quickly, and the defense machinery commence its work, turning in time that inviolable desire into a mild recommendation… And then, the public reads political will or public opinion… It certainly affects court panels, Presidents of the Court…

Mixed messages are confusing, and everyone who is susceptible to monitoring these signals begins to hesitate. From the completely clear police-prosecutor’s picture of the case of the burning of Milan Jovanovic’s house, through the attitude of the former mayor of Grocka Simonovic, who acts as a government in the courtroom, threatening the prosecutor, and not reacting to such behavior, one got the impression that this former member of the ruling party still possesses an immense political power. At the local level, the policy has not changed significantly. The state did not send a signal to help rebuild the house of the damaged…

There are fewer and fewer statements about the need for an efficient trial. Even after the last hearing, you can see Simonović’s offensive, which is not limited by anything