“The ongoing prosecution of Julian Assange jeopardises media freedom everywhere in the world”, says the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), in a joint statement ahead of his appeal hearing in London on 20 and 21 February. The IFJ and EFJ, which represent nearly 200 journalists unions’ and associations, have opposed Assange’s extradition since the publication of the US incitements under the US Espionage Act.

The charges relate to Wikileaks publication in 2010 of the Iraq and Afghan War Logs. These provided an extraordinarily detailed account of US military actions between 2004 and 2009. The logs included episodes such as that now known as the ‘Collateral Murder’ video, in which US soldiers in a helicopter gunned unarmed civilians, killing 12. The US accuses Assange of obtaining this footage by means that violate the Espionage Act – and others.

Dominique Pradalié, IFJ president says: “I have twice met with Julian Assange in Belmarsh and it is clear to me that he has suffered grievously for far too long. In April he will have spent five years in a British prison despite having been convicted of nothing. The actions for which the US is seeking prosecution are clearly journalistic. The conviction of Julian Assange would threaten us all”.

Maja Sever, EFJ president said: “Journalists and their unions have recognised since the outset that Julian Assange is being targeted for carrying out tasks that are the daily work of many journalists – seeking out a whistleblower and exposing criminality. We stand with journalists of every political persuasion and nationality and say that Assange should be freed at once”.

The hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 20 and 21 February. It will consider an appeal against the UK Home Secretary’s decision to extradite Assange, and the decision of Judge Baraitser to reject much of the case against extradition, which was handed down in January 2021. If Assange’s application is upheld, then a full appeal will be heard later in the year. A hearing at the European Court of Human Rights is also possible, although such hearings are at the discretion of that Court, and are rarely granted.

Source: EFJ

The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) continues its campaign against the “law of dangerous intentions,” also known as “Lex AP,” which we consider an attack on the journalistic profession and public interest, and we demand its withdrawal,” said Hrvoje Zovko, the president of the CJA, at a press conference where concerns were raised again about “Lex AP,” or the dangers of amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by Prime Minister Andrej Plenković’s government.

Zovko also stated that the CJA does not agree to any changes to that law, deeming them “cheap political tricks,” and reiterated that the journalists’ professional association presented its demands at a protest two weeks ago, from which they will not back down.

The president of the CJA also condemned Prime Minister Plenković’s statements attacking the media that published messages between the new Chief State Attorney Ivan Turudić and former state secretary Josipa Rimac (formerly Pleslić).

“Mr. Plenković has once again expressed his ambition to be the chief editor of all Croatian media. After everything that has been published, it is now clear why Ivan Turudić was so fiercely advocating for the original version of ‘Lex AP’,” said Zovko.

He also questioned, “if the prime minister already believes that we have not learned anything relevant from what was published,” why is he so “angry” about the publication of this data and “accuses the media of corruption.” He also stated that if that law passes in the Parliament, the CJA will launch a campaign and call on all journalists to continue publishing information in the public interest. He also expressed his horror at the fact that they did not receive guarantees from the authorities and that laptops and mobile phones could still be confiscated from journalists, their content searched, and criminal proceedings initiated against journalists.

“The CJA will use all legal means; we will not wait for such a procedure to be concluded finally but will seek an opportunity to stop the process at the very beginning and review such a legal provision before the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg,” Zovko said. He also stated that “Lex AP is a shot at the public interest,” and that all those who vote for it will be considered by the CJA “responsible for the state’s aggression against public interest and the journalistic profession,” concluding that if they “want to arrest us (journalists) in 2024 – they can go ahead, and we’ll see how the whole thing ends.”

Toma: Journalists Already Feel the Consequences of “Lex AP”

CJA member and journalist at Jutarnji list, Ivanka Toma, raised a number of specific objections to the already amended proposal “Lex AP” and the issue of the responsibility of journalists and their sources in disclosing information from investigations.

“What is a fact is that the law, which is only between two readings and is far from being enacted, already has its consequences that I feel in everyday work because it has started to happen to me that people say: no, let’s not talk about it on the phone, maybe we’ll talk about it some other time when we see each other. So, there is already a noticeable reluctance, already there is fear,” said Toma.

Toma also added that it is evident that the government does not want to give up on this law.

“Between the two readings, they came up with adding another provision stating that there will be no criminal offense if the disclosure of information from investigations is in the interest of the victim, in the interest of defense in criminal proceedings, or in some other predominantly public interest. However, this is just smoke and absolutely changes nothing,” Toma concluded.

In the following, we present a detailed analysis and specific objections by Ivanka Toma regarding the Violation of Secrecy of Proceedings Article 307 and the negative consequences of Lex AP, as well as all the pitfalls and dangers it poses for journalists, journalism, sources, and ultimately the public.

Violation of Secrecy of Proceedings
Article 307.

(1) Whoever unlawfully discloses what they have learned in a previous criminal proceeding, court proceeding, misdemeanor proceeding, administrative proceeding, proceeding before a notary public, or disciplinary proceeding, which is considered secret under the law or a decision based on the law,

shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.

(2) The punishment under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be imposed on anyone who, without the permission of the court, discloses the course of proceedings that are secret by law or have been declared secret by a court decision, or anyone who, without the permission of the court, discloses the course of criminal proceedings against a child, criminal proceedings for a criminal offense committed against a child, or proceedings deciding on the protection of the rights and interests of the child, or discloses a decision in that proceeding.

Article 307a

“Unauthorized Disclosure of Content of Investigative or Evidence-Collecting Action”

“A judicial official or public servant in a judicial body, police officer or official, defendant, lawyer, trainee lawyer, witness, expert, translator, or interpreter who, during a previous criminal proceeding that is considered non-public under the law, unlawfully discloses the content of an investigative or evidence-collecting action with the aim of making it publicly available, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.”

(2) The commission, assistance, or instigation of the criminal offense under paragraph 1 of this Article cannot be committed by a person performing journalistic work.”

The promise was added that another paragraph will be included in the second reading stating that there will be no criminal offense if it is done in the interest of the victim, in the interest of defense in criminal proceedings, or in some other predominantly public interest.

If Lex AP were already in force, my colleagues Marin Dešković and Slavica Lukić, who published the content of the messages exchanged between the former mayor of Knin, state secretary, and former high-ranking HDZ member Josipa Pleslić (formerly Rimac), and the appointed Chief State Attorney Ivan Turudić, would have already been questioned several times as part of investigative interviews.

In the case files labeled “Conversations Rimac – Turudić, Unknown perpetrator,” lists of both colleagues’ phone numbers for the past six months would already be included, and perhaps a preliminary list of possible suspects who provided the content of the messages extracted from Josipa Rimac’s messages would have been compiled.

Colleagues would find it very difficult to perform their jobs because everyone would avoid them like the plague, fearing that any contact with them might attract attention and that they might be suspected of colluding with the media.

Although the insertion of public interest as a reason for excluding unlawfulness initially sounds like a retreat and a pseudo-guarantee to the media that they will not be subjected to repression for publishing information from investigations, it is not. Neither with this addition, nor with the previous one which explicitly excludes journalists as possible perpetrators, instigators, or accomplices in the act of unauthorized disclosure of the content of investigative or evidentiary actions, are journalists protected from persecution and repression.

We are already feeling the negative consequences of the law, even at a stage where not even half of the expected procedure has been completed.
Enough has already been said about Lex AP, so I will focus on the elements that will make the insertion of predominantly public interest a dead letter on paper, with journalists being the first target of repressive bodies.

1) Firstly, it should be known that for unauthorized disclosure of investigative or evidentiary actions, an investigation would be initiated ex officio. If such a law were already in force, on the same day that Jutarnji list published the content of the messages exchanged between the judge of the High Criminal Court Ivan Turudić and former state secretary Josipa Pleslić (formerly Rimac), the deputy municipal prosecutor in Zagreb would have opened a case file and ordered investigations.

2) In such an act, the purpose of the investigation is to identify the perpetrators of the criminal offense. In this particular case, the person who made the messages accessible to the journalists of Jutarnji would be sought.

3) The journalist who published the story would be the most concrete lead for investigators, and every prosecutor or police officer would start with the journalist.

4) As part of the investigative actions, the prosecutor, or the police officer if entrusted, can call the journalist for an informational interview, not just once, but as many times as they deem necessary. They can obtain lists of their phone contacts, call in colleagues, editors, etc.

5) The law determines the deadlines for completing the investigation, but not for investigative actions. This means that investigative actions can last until the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution expires. In this case, it would be 10 years from the commission of the offense. Hypothetically, if the law were already in force, the police could periodically call in and interrogate Jutarnji’s colleagues until 2034 to determine who provided them with the messages exchanged between Turudić and Rimac.

6) The Chief State Attorney could theoretically assess that the data from the investigation was published in the public interest and that the elements of a criminal offense were not fulfilled. However, this will not happen for several reasons:

• According to the State Attorney’s Office Act, these are matters of greater importance, and prosecutors are obliged to inform the higher state prosecutor’s office about them, meaning that the assessment of the existence or non-existence of public interest will be made in the office of the Chief State Attorney and his opinion will be passed down the hierarchical ladder to the prosecuting attorney in charge.
• Even if prosecutors were left to independently assess the existence of public interest in publishing information from the investigation, they would certainly not do so, but would initiate proceedings and leave such an assessment to the court. The point is that no prosecutor has ever encountered questions of public interest during their education and entire career, conducted a proportionality test, or even listened to a lecture on the subject.

7) Finally, if the court eventually, in the criminal proceedings, assesses that there was a public interest in publishing the information from the investigation, so much time will pass that such a court assessment will become irrelevant. Because what good is it if the court eventually says that there was a public interest in the correspondence between Turudić and Rimac, if that conclusion comes a year after the end of their mandate as Chief State Attorney?

8) Simply opening investigations to journalists, media, and ultimately the public, which has the right to be accurately and timely informed, causes irreparable damage. Every potential whistleblower who believes that the institutions are so infected that anomalies will only be corrected under public pressure will think twice before approaching a journalist if they know that the police and prosecutors will search their contacts and collaborators.

The state of media freedom in Serbia has not improved, this is the conclusion of the latest Alternative Report on the implementation of the revised action plan for Chapter 23 published by the Independent Journalists Association of Serbia (IJAS). Law enforcement is ineffective, journalists work under pressure, and the state violates media pluralism.

In the report entitled “Freedom of Expression and Media Pluralism 2023” it was stated that, although according to the Report on the Implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23, all activities are successfully implemented, in reality the activities of the authorities, in the part that concerns the protection of journalists and media legislation, are not sufficient to contribute to a better situation in this area. As stated, “journalists and media workers are still the target of a large number of threats and attacks, as well as various types of pressure that affect them and make it difficult for them to do their job, which leads to them still feeling unsafe”.

Journalists who perform their work professionally are constantly the target of various pressures and targeting, especially by high-ranking public officials, who instead of condemning the attacks, further aggravate and encourage them. While the actions and omissions of police officers at protests, as well as years of lack of responsibility for such omissions, further affect the feeling of insecurity of journalists and mistrust in institutions, according to this document.

IJAS notes in the Report that, although the new media laws have brought good solutions, the emphasis should be placed on implementation, since the implementation of the law stood out as one of the biggest problems in the previous period.

In particular, concerns are expressed about the state’s return to media ownership and the legalization of previous violations of the law by the state-owned company Telekom Srbija, as well as the state’s influence on the media market.

The evaluations of the success of the implementation of a total of 13 analyzed activities differ in many ways when comparing the evaluations given by the competent institutions, i.e. those given by the Council for Monitoring the Implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23, and the evaluations given by IJAS as an organization that monitors the safety of journalists and media freedom.

Recommendations for improving the media environment

In the Alternative Report, IJAS gave recommendations for improving the media environment and more effective implementation of the Action Plan for the implementation of the media strategy.

As stated, it is necessary for the activity holders in the Revised Action Plan for Chapter 23 to adopt the recommendations of the Coordinating Body for the implementation of the Action Plan.

It is necessary to measure the effectiveness of laws and other documents, as well as the contribution to the achievement of general goals related to the safety of journalists and the institutional framework for the functioning of the media.

Amendments to legal acts should be implemented in accordance with the solutions from the Media Strategy. Also, it is necessary to adopt a new action plan for the implementation of the Media Strategy for the period from 2024 to 2025.

Recommendations related to improving the safety of journalists are: the full and effective implementation of all signed agreements and mandatory instructions of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, training of police officers on the treatment of journalists and media workers at public gatherings, self-initiated submission of reports by competent authorities and their greater involvement in solving cases of murder of journalists.

The Ministry of Information and Telecommunications should strengthen capacities and activities in the process of implementing solutions from the Media Strategy and with the aim of more effective monitoring of the application of media laws.

It is necessary to create conditions for effective co-financing of media projects in accordance with new legal solutions and fully transparent functioning of the Media Registry.

It is necessary to monitor the implementation of the new Law on Electronic Media and greater independence of Regulatory authority for electronic media (REM), and the competent ministry must establish additional legal guarantees that will ensure that the influence of state ownership through Telekom does not threaten the diversity of media content.

You can read the report entirely at the following link FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND MEDIA PLURALISM.

Action Plan for Chapter 23

The Action plan for Chapter 23 is used to present the activities that Serbia should implement in a certain period of time during the negotiation process for joining the European Union. Following the recommendations of the European Commission from the Screening Report for Chapter 23, in April 2016, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Action Plan for Chapter 23. The Action Plan was revised in 2020.

The recommendation of the European Commission for Serbia was to “adopt one or more detailed action plans that have a harmonized schedule, clear goals and deadlines, as well as the necessary institutional framework and adequate estimates of costs and financial allocations in the areas of justice, the fight against corruption and fundamental rights “.

In the part of the Action Plan related to fundamental rights, freedom of expression, including media freedom and pluralism, are recognized as priorities.

The Action Plan states that frequent threats and violence represent a serious threat to freedom of expression and media pluralism in Serbia, which is why stronger coordination of all competent authorities and raising awareness of the importance of protecting journalists both through training and prioritizing these cases is needed.

The Academy of Information Integrity, supported by NDI Kosovo and USAID Kosovo, held a discussion today on the topic “Financial sustainability of local media”.

The panel comprised Fatmir Menekshe from Radio Romano Avazo, Urall Boshnjaku from Mitropol, and Floranda Morina, a board member of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo. The session was moderated by Xhemajl Rexha.

Among the challenges faced by local media in Kosovo discussed during the session were operating without compensation and ensuring timely salaries for journalists. Menekshe highlighted the difficulties in achieving financial stability and advertising revenue, particularly for media serving the Roma community in Kosovo.

Boshnjaku emphasized the importance of being quoted by central media outlets to enhance visibility and stressed the need for copyright respect.

Morina suggested creating mechanisms to facilitate license payments for local and non-community media to address the imbalance in advertising support compared to national media. Additionally, concerns were raised about the potential obstacles posed by the draft law proposed by the Government of Kosovo for the Independent Media Commission.

The discussion aimed to explore ways to strengthen and support local media, ensuring they have the resources to represent the diversity and needs of all communities in Kosovo effectively.

BH journalists work to preserve the reputation and dignity of the journalistic profession, improve the rights and responsibilities of journalists, and respect the public’s right to information. It is for this reason that we fully support the journalist Julian Assange, whose extradition is sought by the United States of America (USA).

It will soon be five years since Julian Assange was jailed and tortured in Belmarsh Prison in London for releasing a large trove of classified US military records and diplomatic cables that Washington said put American lives at risk.

Julian Assange’s case is at a critical stage – his final appeal against extradition to the US will be before the UK’s High Court, with a hearing scheduled for February 20 and 21, 2024.

If he is extradited to the US, he faces extended solitary confinement in the Eastern District of Virginia, where he will be tried for “Espionage” for publishing information of public interest within the legal provisions that prohibit the defense of the public interest. If he is extradited to the USA, he faces a prison sentence of at least 175 years.

The campaign against the extradition of Julian Assange is supported by all human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ACLU, Reporters Without Borders, NUJ, IFJ, EFJ and Pen International. Their position is that the only fair outcome of this case would be to not extradite at all, since punishing Assange in an illegal manner would criminalize journalism and the publication of secret documents in the public interest. In general, the imprisonment of Julian Assange five years ago led to the restriction of media freedom around the world and the imprisonment of journalists in many countries.

As a sign of solidarity with Julian Assange, BH journalists declared him an honorary member of this association. BH journalists have also joined the social campaign against Assange’s extradition, and are calling on the US Government to drop all charges and allow him to return home to his wife and children.

The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) invites you to a webinar tomorrow, February 14, at 10:00 and 16:00 CET, to discuss the relevant facts, court events and legal arguments in this case.

If you want to participate, please register by sending an email to [email protected].

Awards for journalism: Almudena Grandes Special Prize for the Defense of the Right to Information 2022, Amnesty International Prize for New Media 2009 and Anticor Ethics Prize 2022.

The Coalition for Media Freedom calls on the management of Radio and Television of Vojvodina to declare their intentions regarding the further functioning of the provincial public service Youth Radio (O radio).

It is absolutely unacceptable that the employees of the O Radio newsroom learned about the RTV General Director’s “plan” to cancel that media from other media, without anyone from the management addressing them beforehand or explaining such a “decision”.

Publicizing the alleged decisions of the RTV management to shut down the RTV Youth Radio through third parties is unprofessional, frivolous, but also dangerous – because it reminds of the methods characteristic of authoritarian systems prone to autocracy.

If such a decision was really made, the way it was communicated is also unacceptable from the point of view of the RTV management’s responsibility towards the citizens who finance the provincial public service.

Such a decision, if it was made, contradicts the legal role of public services, the public interest and threatens media freedom.

We underline that the Law on Public Media Services specifically emphasizes the role of public service in achieving the public interest, and O radio is an example of media content that serves the public interest, an example that should be followed by other RTV media programs, and above all when it comes to informative content.

O radio is a multimedia platform intended for young people, which promotes the highest standards of ethics and profession, which does not hide reality and does not glorify political and other powerful people – that is exactly what a public service should do and what other program units should do as part of Public media institutions of Vojvodina (RTV).

The special value of O radio is that it addresses a young audience, a population that is absolutely marginalized in the public space, as confirmed by numerous relevant studies.

This year, this youngest media within the composition of RTV, was supposed to mark ten years since its establishment, and in the first decade of work, they were more than successful, which was recognized by the professional community.

They won the international competition of the European public services Radio battle in 2016. Twice the female journalists of O radio received the prize of the Novi Sad School of Journalism for the best young journalist.

They received the “Reflexia” award twice for ethical reporting on poverty, and were awarded several times for ethical reporting on mental health. They also received the “Hilda Dajč” award for 2023.

O radio is also part of the international network of Danube radio stations “Danube streamwaves”, which consists of media from Germany, Austria, Hungary and Serbia.

In the annual reports of the National Youth Council of Serbia (KOMS), O radio is repeatedly highlighted as a youth media that objectively and professionally deals with young people and topics that interest young people, primarily in the field of ecology, activism and mental health. It was especially pointed out that more than 90 percent of their content is a media initiative, that is, content and topics that they initiate themselves.

In less than ten years, around fifty young journalists have passed through O radio, most of whom, unfortunately, due to the “employment policy” did not get the opportunity to stay at O radio and RTV, but were forced to leave the provincial public service and today work in numerous other media.

The Coalition for Media Freedom expects a response from the management of RTV regarding the further status of O Radio and the employees in that newsroom.

We will inform the OSCE, the EU Delegation in Serbia, and all relevant journalistic and media international organizations about the events in the provincial public service and the announcement of the shutdown of the media aimed at young people – thus denying the realization of the public interest of this population and collapsing media freedoms.

The Coalition for Media Freedom: the Association of Media, the Association of Online Media (AOM), the Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina (NDNV), the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS), the Business Association of Local and Independent Media “Local Press”, the Slavko Curuvija Foundation and Branch Trade Union of Culture, Arts and Media ‘Nezavisnost’ 

Novi Sad – Belgrade, February 11, 2024

The Association of Journalists of Kosovo has been closely following the campaign initiated by the leadership of the Municipality of Prishtina against journalist Saranda Ramaj and KTV television. This campaign is in response to the publication of a series of land-exchange articles.

In a series of interviews, Mayor Pëparim Rama has accused KOHA of “disinformation”, while the Director of Urban Planning in the Municipality of Prishtina, Doruntina Maloku, has also made serious accusations.

Maloku attacked the KOHA group several times during the decision’s annulment hearing, saying, “Does this mean that there was an interest in passing this point or only after it was made public by certain media for purposes that serve group political and business interests.”

Meanwhile, some newly created Facebook profiles have posted derogatory posts against journalist Ramaj, while defending Rama and the Municipality of Prishtina.

These attacks and this language are unacceptable for AJK, and we invite the Municipality of Pristina to distance itself from these actions and provide an official and institutional response to address the claims that have been raised.