ZAGREB, 19.12.2018. – Regionalna platforma Zapadnog Balkana za zagovaranje medijskih sloboda i sigurnosti novinara, koja zastupa više od 8,000 članova, poziva relevantne hrvatske institucije da hitno i detaljno istraže prijetnje upućene novinaru Ivanu Žadi iz Virovitica od strane Ivana Đakića. Regionalna  platforma također očekuje od instiitucija da garantuju sigurnost i zaštitu svjedocima u slučaju protiv Ivana Đakića.

Tokom oktobra 2018., Ivan Đakić, sin Josipa Đakića, člana Hrvatskog parlamenta, prijetio je novinaru Ivanu Žadi u dva navrata. Prvu prijetnju uputio mu je verbalno u javnosti pred više svjedoka, dok je druga upućena putem društvene mreže Facebook. Ivan Đakić objavio je na Facebook da Ivan Žada „u zadnjih dvije godine piše razno razne nebuloze, gadosti, neistine i gluposti o mome ocu“ te da je za svog oca “spreman i u zatvoru završiti DOŽIVOTNO ako treba”. Također je upozorio novinara „a ti si dobro razmisli“.

Ivan Žada prijavio je ove prijetnje i državno tužilaštvo započelo je istragu. Ali, negdje usput, u novembru, zastrašio je svjedokinju i ona je to prijavila. Stoga, Regionalna platforma očekuje od policije da garantuje sigurnosti žrtvi kao i svim svjedocima u ovom slučaju i od državnog tužilaštva da bude brzo i detaljno u istrazi ovog slučaja.
Broj napada na novinare u Hrvatskoj raste; u protekle četiri godine registrovano je više od 50 slučajeva prijetnji i fizičkih napada.

Svaki napad na novinare, je napad na javni interes, demokratiju i prava svih građana.
Skoplje – Beograd – Podgorica – Priština – Sarajevo – Zagreb, 19.12.2018

Udruženje / udruga BH novinari

Sindikat medija Crne Gore

Hrvatsko novinarsko društvo

Udruženje novinara Kosovo

udruženje novinara Makedonije

Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije

BELGRADE, 27.12.2018. – When the trial for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija started on 14 January 2014, the  government announced that the investigation will continue to apprehend and put to trial all those that participated in the journalist’s murder.  The current president of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, then said: “No one will be exempted” from justice. However, no one else until now except the original four has been accused.

Boss, best man, and a defense witness

Perhaps the case of Branko Crni, one of the leading members of the ruling SNS, best illustrates the (un) willingness of the ruling elite to bring to a close the Ćuruvija murder case and other crimes from the time of Slobodan Milošević, in whose government Vučić himself, as the minister of information, also participated. The current president was the initiator of an undemocratic law against media freedom in October 1998.  Ćuruvija’s newspapers – Daily Telegraph and The Weekly European were the first victims of this law. Branko Crni was the first deputy head of the now accused former head of the State Security Service Marković and the chief operating officer of Serbia’s spy agency under Milošević. After the now ruling SNS came to power in 2012, he was often mentioned as a potential candidate for the post of a deputy or advisor to the Security Informative Agency (the new name for the State Security Service).

However, due to his reputation not only in Serbia, but also abroad, this has not happened for the time being. However, his reputation did not prevent him from being, as an informal counselor, to this day a frequent guest at Kraljica Ana Street in Belgrade, where the Security Informative Agency headquarters is based. After October 5, 2000 (The day of the Serbian democratic revolution against Milošević’s dictatorship), Crni was included in the preliminary criminal investigation for the murder of Ćuruvija. After the actual trial started in 2014, he will only appear in the capacity of a witness, and for the defense team. At the trial, he not only testified in favour of his best man, Milan Radonjic, now accused for organizing the murder, but also in favour of all indictees. In his testimony before the court, Crni attacked the prosecution witnesses from the State Security, in particular Stevan Nikčević and Vladimir Nikolić, trying to discredit them. For example, for Nikčević, Crni claimed that he allegedly bribed members of the State Security to illegally provide him with information.

During a long pre-trial procedure for the murder of Ćuruvija, which lasted 15 years, Crni was in contact with witnesses from the State Security all the time. One meeting of Crni with the indictees and witnesses was also recorded by listening devices. In February 2006, in the Belgrade night club “Varadero”, Crni, met with Kurak, now accused as a killer, and a witness Slaviša Arsić, who before the meeting gave evidence about the murder of Ćuruvija to a police inspector Dragan Kecman. Kurak then concluded: “Kecman should be wacked.” At the trial, inspector Kecman testified that Arsić, who was the bodyguard of Crni, was threatening him at the time. Via mobile phone base stations, it was determined that Crni and Radonjić spoke four times on the day of the murder of Ćuruvija and specifically after the crime was committed.

During the trial for the murder of Ćuruvija police investigators and individuals from the State Security testified about numerous pressures and obstructions by the secret service. Dragan Kecman, Mile Novaković and Dragan Karleuša from the police, and Zoran Stijović, Stevan Nikčević and Vladimir Nikolić from State Security. Kecman, who has been conducting the investigation since 2004, said that the witnesses from the State Security were “scared for their lives”, citing specific situations. Novaković and Karleuša, who conducted the investigation in 2001, testified that the State Security was obstructing them and that they even tried to throw the inquiry off the track. Stijović, who arrested the now accused Radonjić in 2001, said that he subsequently came to know that he was ” a target of the killers who came across the Drina [referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina]”. He questioned Marković in 2001, and testified about that: “Marković was frightened and scared about his safety and that of his family.” Stijović, who was seriously committed to fulfill the priorities of the government of Zoran Đinđić (Serbian Prime Minister assassinated in 2003 while in office) at the time, to resolve political killings, was removed from the case in the second half of 2001, and subsequently a target of persecution expelled the State Security.

Return of Major Fića

The contacts between the former State Security leadership, including not only Crni, with secret service witnesses only strengthened after the official launch of the investigation for the murder of Ćuruvije in January 2014. Thus, when the investigation was initiated, a telephone conversation between Dragan Filipović- Major Fića, who was in Shanghai, was recorded with the defendant, accused for murdering  Ćuruvija, Miroslav Kurak, who was at the time located in Africa. After that Filipović spoke to Mirjanom Marković, the head of the notorious Yugoslav United Left party and the widow of Slobodan Milošević, who was targeted in the pre-trial procedure for ordering the murder of Ćuruvija.

Filipović was a close associate of all four accused for the murder of Ćuruvija. At the time of the murder, he was the deputy head of the Second Department of the State Security Agency and adviser for “special operations” (in his own words “special operations” meant – assassinations) of the accused head of State Security Marković. In the Second Department of the State Security, he served as a second in command to Radonjić, who from that position went on to become the Chief of the State Security for the capital city Belgrade, and for a short period just before the murder of Ćuruvija he performed both functions. Moreover, Filipović, as the Deputy Head of the Second Department, was a superior to Romić, charged as an accomplice to the murder. Filipović was also in charge for the co-operation between the State Security and the Unit For Special Operations (Special operations armed force attached to the State Security whose leadership is sentenced for the murder of the Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic), where Kurak was an instructor.

In his book “Anatomy of the Globalist Stench”, Filipović not only acknowledged that he was Marković’s adviser for assassinations, but also described how the State Security’s leadership politically changed sides after the democratic revolution on October 5^th 2000. He wrote that after the election victory of Vojislav Koštunica over Slobodan Milošević, he attended a meeting of the State Security leadership where it was agreed: “To recognize Koštunica’s victory and to rely further on radicals (the author’s remark:” radicals “are the Serbian Radical Party from which the ruling SNS emerged in 2008) and national forces “. In the same paragraph, Filipović justifies the murder of Ćuruvija, repeating Mirjana Marković’s lies from November 1998 when she publicly called Ćuruvija a traitor, arguing that he supported the United States in their wish to bomb Serbia.

“He publicly supported the American bombing, calling it a democratic act,” he said. “This was probably the reason he [author’s remark: Ćuruvija] was killed somewhere at the beginning of the war [author’s remark: referring to the 1999 NATO bombing campaign of Serbia], in the break between the two, ‘democratic bombings’. For his death, the globalists blame the State Security alone, although, objectively, it could have been organized and carried out by any of the patriotic groups that were dozens at that time in Serbia, “writes Filipović.

Through his nephew Marko Blagojević, the current Serbian ambassador to Cyprus, and the 106^th on the ruling SNS on the list for the last parliamentary elections, Filipović maintains contact with the authorities. Many years earlier, Filipović hired his nephew Blagojević as a driver in the reserve of the Unit for Special Operations (JSO – see above). Blagojević, who was also his uncle’s driver for a while, had a fast-paced career in the diplomatic service since the SNS came to power. First, without an open competition for a position, he was appointed as adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivan Mrkić, then he was the Secretary General of the Ministry, subsequently appointed as Ambassador of Serbia to Cyprus in early 2017.

After a long exile in Shanghai, where he was after the “Saber” campaign in 2003 (massive law enforcement operation that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Đinđić), Filipović temporarily returned to Serbia in December 2015. Vuk Drašković, the leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO), who was himself repeatedly a target of the State Security assassins, spoke about Filipović ‘s arrival to the country.

“Filipović returned to, with intimidation or in some other way, perhaps by bribing witnesses and judges, overturn the indictment for the murder of Ćuruvija and ensure in the Appellate Court the acquittal for Radonjić, Romić and Stevan Basta for the Budva assassination attempt on myself.”

Fear and witnesses amnesia

Some witnesses from DB in proceedings for the murder of Ćuruvija on the trial started to suffer from sudden amnesia, and some of them refused to answer, stating that they are threatened. For example, in February 2016 Aleksandar Radosavljević forgot his statement during the investigation. Radosavljević, who was participating in a secret following of Ćuruvija, in investigation in 2007 testified that near the crime scene he saw a white “golf”, for which was established that it was used by the accused Romić. At the trial Radosavljević said that he does not remember seeing the car. On the question of the deputy prosecutor in charge Milenko Mandić in which of the cases secret monitoring of the State Security Agency, except Ćuruvija and Ibar highway (killing of four SPO-opposition party members on 3 October 1999) ended whith murder, Radosavljević said: ”I do not want to put myself in danger”.

Snežana Jovanović,  judge of the Special Court, was then reminded that he had the right not to answer to questions by  which he would expose himself to criminal responsibility and shame. He used this right. Key witnesses Ulemek and brothers Simović talked about threats and the feeling of danger at the end of September 2016 at the trial, but they did not change earlier testimony. Ulemek repeated the same accusations, but also stated that he was threatened to withdraw from testifying.”I do not want to say who, I can deal with it myself”, says Ulemek. Accused Romić asked him if he was threatened by him, Ulemek  replied: ”Directly not, maybe you did and maybe you did not.” Romić then asked him if the accused Kurak threatened him  to what Ulemek replied:” I don’t know. He did not introduce himself and who was sending whom we shall see”. The brothers Miloš and Aleksandar Simović, who in investigation confirmed the testimony of Ulemek, at the trial said they fear for the safety of their families if they would talk a lot. Miloš said that he will stick to the testimony given during the investigation, but refused to answer to questions.

“My brother and I have received threats through our family to stop testifying…On television I saw Prime Minister Vučić at the conference when he said he wanted to shed light on all crimes of the past. I believed it will happen this way”, testified Miloš, while Aleksandar Simović said only: ”I do not want to bring my family in a position to have any problems because of my statements.”

Controversial Court decisions

In October 2016 one decision of the Court in another trial had an important significance for the process for the murder of Ćuruvija. Radonjić and  Romić,  who are being tried for the murder of Ćuruvija, and Stevan Basta were under strange circumstances freed from charges that they helped in an attempted murder of Vuk Drašković in Budva on 15 June 2000. What was unusual that the Court in this trial did not allow evidence from trials for political killings in which a final verdict convicting the accused had been reached. First of all, in the trial for the Budva attempted assassination of Drašković, three members of JSO (Unit for special operations) were sentenced as perpetrators, while Radomir Marković and Milorad Ulemek Legija were sentenced as organizers of the murder. In the verdict, late Slobodan Milošević was identified as  the one giving orders for the murder, in whose case it is stated that he asked for the killing of his political opponents  was indentify who asked for killing his political opponents.

The most important in this process for assassination of Drašković in Budva is not the release of Radonjić and Romić, who are on trial for the murder of Ćuruvija, but Basta who was seen as a possible cooperative witness. Specifically with conviction the prosecution would have something to offer to Basta, who was the coordinator of State Security Service for media monitoring,and that in turn to testify for murder Curuvija.

Tri-person panel of the Special Court-chairperson Snežana Jovanović and the members of the panel Vladimir Mesarević (son of the former president of the Supreme Court Nata Mesarević) and Dragan Milošević decided in July 2017 to replace the prison custody for Radonjić and Romić in proceedings for murder Ćuruvija with house arrest and the “ankle monitor”. They came out of prison, but the Court of  Appeals dismissed the appeal by the prosecution, which already at the initial ordering of custody showed that the accused as former high officials of State Security Service can easily obtain false documents, change their identity and influence the witnesses. Veran Matić, President of the Commission for Investigating Murders of Journalists, whose work was decisive for starting the trial for the murder Ćuruvija, said that the accused have friends and associates who owe them and that could affect the trial.

 “Assigning house arrest before hearing all witnesses, the two accused certainly used for their benefit, because they were able to communicate freely with the accused Kurak who was at large, but also with other witnesses. That is why the Commission considers that the Trial Chamber violated clauses of the Law on Criminal Procedure justifying their exemption “ said Matić.

Otherwise, for the same Chamber of the Special Court – Jovanović, Mesarović and Milošević, the Supreme Court of Cassation established that during the acquittal Luka Bojović violated the law in favor of the accused as a leader of the Zemun clan responsible for three murders. Prior to this, the release of Stanko Subotić Cane for whom Vojislav Šešelj and dissidents progressives said that he is financier SNS was also controversial. The Supreme Court also found a breach of law in favor of Subotić, who was originally acquitted by the same Special Court. This Special Court acquitted twice the judge Blagoje Jakšić and while doing it violated the law.

On the trial for the murder of Ćuruvija this Chamber is twice, on 24. april and 12. june 2018, allocated from the court records key physical evidence-discs with registred calls with mobile base stations which established that Kurak and Romić were at the scene, which contradicted their alibi. Court of Appeals in Belgrade annulled the first solution Chamber of the Special Court,explaining that”the evidence was not obtained illegally,as erroneously determined by the court of first instance.”However this does not prevent the Special Court to reallocate that evidence. Finally the decision was reversed and included in the evidence by the Court of Appeals’.

“First, the preliminary proceedings judge accepted the indictment and the evidence in which there are discs with recorded locations of accused. Then the trial court accept this indictment at the beginning of the trial. However the same Chamber later ruled that the evidence excluded from the trial, because in their conclusion, it was illegally obtained”,recalls Veran Matić.

Also the same Chamber excluded from evidence the minutes from the interogation of two important witnesses, who have since died-Cvijetin Milinković duty chief of the Center State Security Service Belgrade, on the day of murder Ćuruvija take duty book,and Zoran Pavić the Mayor 9th Department for secret escort. This proof too was included back in the trial proceedings by the Court of Appeal on the request of the prosecution.

Also this Chamber at the end of trial refused to hear police inspector Dragan Kecman who led the investigation. First he was questioned only on the manner in which he came to obtain the discs with data from mobile base stations. Then member of the Court panel Dragan Milosević, who rarely questions witnesses, began in very sharp way to ask questions and even got into an argument with the inspector. Kecman was then questioned again at request of the prosecution,but the judge Jovanović interrupted not allowing him to go into detail.

Propaganda and pressures

Veran Matić said that in his capacity as President of Commission for investigation of the murders of journalists publicly announced from the facts “that the Trial Chamber clearly leads the process so that accused will be acquited, given the persistence of the decisions which are key evidence excluded despite the decision of Appellate Court.”He reminds us that for his oppion he was sharply attacked by the Lawyers Association of Belgrade. Lawyer’s Association of Belgrade, the part that is led by attorney Jugoslav Tintor and by the defense attorneys of the accused for the murder of Ćuruvija.

“They even sought to establish as criminal offenses the violation of the presumption of innocence, with imprisonment up to three years. My conviction was joined by Judges Association and the High Judicial Council. Later in public debate it was concluded that there was no violation of the presumption of innocence and pressure on the court. The Trial Council refused to take all the evidence to the end and announced the quick conclusion of the process” said Matić.

He notes that at the end of trial, they began to prepare a public opinion for the acquittal.

“In the weekly Illustrated Politika, which is owned by the state, text relativizes the case of murder Ćuruvija and claims that there is no evidence against the accused. The same author of the text(Đorđe Martić),just a few days before the murder took place, wrote a text that falsely accuses Ćuruvija for asking for the bombing of Serbia.Today the same author fiercely attacks independent media from the same positions banning them in 1990’s”said Matić.

In last text in Illustrated Politika Veran Matić and Ljiljana Smajlović-also a member of the Commission ,and friends of the killed Ćuruvija, are attacked in the most primitive manner. Prior to that in daily Politika on May 19,2017, a text in which Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić is blamed for the  murder of Ćuruvija appeared. Đinđić in reality insisted on launching an investigation into the murder of journalists.The author of articles in Illustrated Politika and Politika is Đorđe Martić who was a witness in the trial for murder Ćuruvija, and the editor of the Express Politika as the propagandist of Milosevic’s regime at the end of 20 century.He, as editor of Express Politika approved the shameful text “Ćuruvija greetings bombs” which was the prelude to murder of journalist,because it was published just three days before the liquidation.This text,as it was established,was published on the order of Mirjana Marković.Text was then read in the state television news bulletin. Propagandist Martić,at the trial testified on July 2016,continued to falsely accuse the murdered Ćuruvija,

“Ćuruvija had close ties to those who bombed us,so I did not have the moral right not to publish the text…The journalist and I talked and I advised him to put it in text,”Martić testified,who two years later complates trial at end continual dirty propaganda work as well as before Ćuruvija murder.

President Aleksandar Vučić has superficially fenced off the title star and title in Illustrated Politika,whose state is the majority owner. However,the state and its institutions have not extended the investigation yet to some more involved in murder Ćuruvija,and even after more than two years it has not been established who threatened key witnesses in process for killing Ćuruvija, as well as why some other witnesses felt threatened.

Branko Crni, Dragan Filipović, Franko Simatović-Frenki,state officials and institutions are silent about the activities of DB leaders from the time of killing Ćuruvija. The request was not repeated to Russia to extradite Mirjana Marković,who has never been heard on the occasion of murder Ćuruvija. Even a permanent working group for finding Miroslav Kurak , who is a direct perpetrator, was not even formed. Kurak is still on run.

The present government cannot hide its responsibility for this trial beyond the independence of judiciary, which is otherwise put in question both by the judges themselves and by international observers. That is why the final judgment in the case will also reveal the true attitude of authorities towards the murder Slavko Ćuruvija.

This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

Sarajevo, 25. decembar 2018. – Međunarodna organizacija za ljudska prava Civil Rights Defenders (CRD) osuđuje poteze vlasti u BiH kojima se ograničava sloboda građana na okupljanje, kao i prekomjernu upotrebu sile do koje je dolazilo u više navrata tokom privođenja učesnika protesta „Pravda za Davida“ i pokušaja da se okupljanje građana spriječi.

„Upotreba sile kakvu smo danas videli u Banjaluci zabrinjava, jer može značiti potpunu zabranu spontanih okupljanja građana. Odgovorne vlasti su dužne da osiguraju apsolutno poštovanje građana na slobodno okupljanje, u skladu sa Evropskom konvencijom o ljudskim pravima, kao i sa Opštom deklaracijom o ljudskim pravima Ujedinjenih Nacija. Pozivamo vlasti da javnosti saopšte razloge za današnja postupanja, uključujući objašnjenja za upotrebu sile, lišavanja slobode, i zabrane prilaska centru Trga krajina“, rekao je Goran Miletić, direktor za Evropu organizacije Civil Rights Defenders.

Policija je u nekoliko navrata u toku dana i večeri sprečavala okupljanja građana kako na Trgu Krajina, koji je bio ograđen policijskom trakom kako bi se spriječilo okupljanje građana, tako i u Parku Petra Kočića. Trg Krajina i Park Petra Kočića jedina su dva mjesta u Banja Luci na kojima su dozvoljena okupljanja.

Aktivisti grupe „Pravda za Davida“ ranije su u intervjuima za Civil Rights Defenders prijavili i druge vrste pritisaka kao sto je praćenje od strane policije Republike Srpske, prisluškivanje razgovora i uništavanja privatne svojine.

Udruženje “BH novinari”, partner Civil Rights Defenders-a, saopštilo je da je jutros priveden i novinar Vladimir Šušak, dopisnika BHT nakon što je fotografisao jednog od organizatora protesta i oca ubijenog Davida, Davora Dragičevića, kako u kolima Hitne pomoći napušta policijsku stanicu u koju je ranije priveden.

U septembru 2018. godine, protiv grupe građana „Banja Luka“ podnijete se prekršajne prijave za protestovanje na mjestu koje nije zakonom propisano kao odgovarajuće mesto okupljanja.

Civil Rights Defenders pozivaju vlasti u BiH da osiguraju da svi predstavnici institucija postupaju uz poštovanje članova 5. i 11. Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima kojima su definisana prava na slobodu i bezbjednost, i pravo na slobodu okupljanja i udruživanja, kao i preporukama OSCE/ODHR-a i Venecijanske komisije o slobodi okupljanja, koje u članovima 5.5 i 5.10 definišu proporcionalnu upotrebu sile i prava i ulogu medija.

PRISTINA, 26.12.2018 – The use of offensive language, blackmail, threats, dishonour and physical violence against journalists affect freedom of expression. Free expression continues to be endangered in Kosovo and almost throughout the Western Balkans. In our country, journalists continue to be shot by verbal attacks by senior public officials who try to fade or hide the truths.

However, despite the threats and offenses, the work of journalists does not stop, even that only pushes them to work harder. The same people think that the publication of offenses increases the pressure on those who offend and consciously not make the same actions.

Verbal objections to journalists and their reactions

Bujar Vitija, journalist in ‘Shneta’ has been threatened and offended by University Clinical Center of Kosovo staff. Zenel Kuqi, Procurement Officer at UCCK has offended and threatened because of an article published in the newspaper while Isber Ademaj, a child surgeon at UCCK, insulted Vitija after having called for a death baby case.

Vitija thinks insults are being made to repel or frighten journalists.

“Offenses against a journalist are not something new and I believe that each of us is confronted on many occasions. But it’s not that I’m offended to keep in mind whence the insults came to me. I have reported two cases at Kosovo Journalists Association, while the first one was in the Police because there was a threat. I hesitate to file charges against these offenses due to court proceedings ” said Vitija.

Further, he has called on journalist colleagues to be more cooperative in these cases and to publish the news when one of them is offered in order to increase the pressure on many of these people or institutions.

The threat followed by insults by the mayor of Mitrovica, Agim Bahtiri has pushed the journalist of ‘Metro’, Shkumbin Kajtazi to denounce him to the police.

“The threat to me would be common knowledge of the nature of our work if he did not come from a mayor. Knowing that the public duty threatening has more responsibility, I have dealt with it more seriously. For this, this threat of scolding has pushed me to report it to the police. The police took the case and went to interview Mayor Agim Bahtiri. The police have filed criminal charges, while the prosecution is still investigating and I do not have any announcement as to whether the filing of an indictment is near, “he said.

Kajtazi has clarified the circumstances of how the event happened that has affected his sister unjustly leaving the workplace.

“An ordinary working day, I published an article for an employee as chief of cabinet. This information was confirmed by some people within the cabinet and close people of the mayor. Bahtiri, about half an hour after the article, calls me in the phone and begins to insult in the threatening context. His language, apart from offensive, by the police was considered a threat. To put it right, this threat and insult did not bother me at all. However, concern began when with Bahtiri’s influence he was unjustly fired my sister from her workplace, just because I was her brother. On this occasion, how to confirm that it was done for revenge, the Inspectorate has turned into her workplace, “said Kajtazi.

He added that he did not expect much of this case, but stressed that he would also seek public apology from Agim Bahtiri for threatening and abusing him and his sister before the court.

‘Express’ journalist Kaltrina Zymberi last year was offended by Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj. During a media conference, Zymberi asked Haradinaj for declaring the United States of America that they would not support any other demarcation agreement, except what was signed in 2015. After that, the prime minister has suggested to journalists ‘go to school and read more, because you are not understanding things correctly. ‘

She says the statement community was offended by the journalists’ community.

“Personally I did not feel insulted but as a community yes. The Prime Minister is not the media editor-in-chief to tell us what and what not to ask. Moreover, there is no bad question but a bad answer yes, “Zymberi said.

According to her, no lawsuit should be filed for insult, but the cabinet of officials should advise more and not protect the bosses as in the abovementioned case.

“The prime minister’s apology has been imminent but also was a bit ignorant. Well, this approach has changed with time and today we have the prime minister if I can say the most accessible of all time, “she concluded.

‘You are UDBA (The secret service of Yugoslavia)’, was the offense of former deputy Fatmir Shurdhaj to the Insider’s journalist Besian Beha.

Beha was offended after asking Shurdhaj for the affair in the case of ‘Pronto’.

“There are often cases when public officials behave badly and use derogatory and offensive words. Personally, I was once more insulted by a former deputy minister and former deputy Fatmir Shurdhaj, who is accused in the Pronto case. I tried to contact him and ask him for the expectation from this case before the first trial session. He did not refuse to answer but said to me, “You are UDBA”. Despite attempts to clarify what I was asking him for the case that he have been accused, he continued with the words “I know who asked you to call me”.

The right to file a lawsuit

Lawyer, Arianit Koci, says that freedom of expression can not have absolute status, the same as other rights and freedoms. According to him, it is disturbing when it comes from public authorities as rights and freedoms are solely confined to power.

“Despite the challenges of a different nature, I believe that there is a standard of freedom of expression in Kosovo, which should be advanced and promoted. This requires comprehensive maintenance. Therefore this issue is dynamic and should not be seen as a mathematical achievement. So it requires institutional and non-institutional engagement, “said Koci.

The lawyer states that since 2008, defamations and insults are treated as civil offenses, which were previously treated in legal terms as criminal offenses whose prosecution was carried out with the proposal of the injured party.

“As stated in advance, for actions that consist in defamation and insults, they are not considered criminal offenses, but civil offenses against which can be determined by decision of the competent court the wealth sanction. So the court according to the lawsuit of the party which considers that it is libelous to it and that it is slandered as a result of declarations of public character, the party may seek compensation in the name of moral damage.”

Koci adds that legislation enable every individual to protect his / her personal integrity through the right to a legal remedy, such as a civil lawsuit against defamation or insult.

Rrahman Paçarizi, a university professor and vice president of the Press Council, thinks reports between institution officials and journalists are always complex. According to him, what can be considered an offensive language against journalists occurs most of the cases without the blame of journalists.

“We are witnessing that the insults of state leaders against journalists, in situations where the prime minister or the president are embarrassed and instead of the response they have been offended by journalists. I think Kosovo politicians are bravery for such actions, following the example of Albania’s Prime Minister Edi Rama, who was applauded by kosovans journalists when he brought unprecedented arrogance to a group of Kosovo journalists” Paçarizi said.

He stressed that such access to journalists is also offensive to the public.

“I believe that journalists cannot accept this standard of communication and should make this clear to politicians by boycotting demonstratively in cases when they try to behave that way. Such access to journalists is, in fact, offensive to the public, and the courage of journalists to punish them will be followed by a retribution or public awareness of it. ”

Offenses against journalists making fuss

About two years ago the then prime minister, Isa Mustafa, reacted to the article “Brother of Prime Minister Mustafa Asylum Seeking in France and Germany” written by journalist Vehbi Kajtazi calling him “son of the bi***” because he said the journalist was dealing with his brother is in poor health.

Another case is the offense of Hysen Durmishi, member of the ‘Vetevendosje’ Movement. Durmishi in 2016 through a Facebook post, stated that ‘journalists should be dragged’. The same one day later repented and said that the post had been written by nervousness.

“Waste Journalist” has called journalists Donika Gashi, member of ‘Vetevendosje’. Her reaction came after the ‘Insajder’ Newspaper report about the insults she directed to the LGBTI community.

Officials against journalists do not leave the current prime minister, Ramush Haradinaj. He during a media conference suggested to reporters to “go to school and read more, as they are not understanding things.”

The latest is the clash of journalist Adriatik Kelmendi with President Hashim Thaci. Thaci called him liar and libel reporter.

Author: Valmira Vranoci

This article is a production of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo under the project “Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for Advocating Media Freedom and Journalists Safety”, funded by the European Union. The content of this publication can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

SARAJEVO, 26.12.2018.-When we want to focus on certain issue or topic, some thesis or discussion, we often quote great philosophers, writers or intellectual historical figures. Although I rarely do this, maybe this time I shall make an exception and shortly shape myself as one of the above mentioned “quotes” for the beginning.

Ludwig von Mises in his “Almighty State”’ in 1944 said:” “It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech.” Or François-Marie Arouet Voltaire: ”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

BiH is indeed a divided society where everyone has his/her own truth about the past, her/his own understanding of present time and future visions. Right to freedom of expression is no exception to this, despite the fact that freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite Voltaire’s opinion and statement, we unfortunately often limit each other’s right to freedom of expression.

Our development is mutating – we need more time

Today, we aspire developed democracies and we freely, without boundaries, express ourselves, as this process is not easy to accomplish all the time, because we sometimes get lost on the way and our development process is mutating, making us thus look like confused adolescents, or rather teenagers, as we could no longer consider ourselves as little and young, being far away from big ones. Still, the current approach is completely different comparing to what it was in the period from 194 to 1945, but also different from the period between 1945 till the ’90s.

Back then; this issue was truly considered a taboo, regardless of how some people look at this. We may consider ourselves privileged to some extent since we openly talk about this subject. What does actually freedom of expression mean and can it be limited? Are we allowed and entitled to impose self – censorship or demand punishing or fining those that also use freedom of expression? Can we ask for bans or request the prohibition of mutual, rough, sharp, joint argument-based, often straight and insulting, but also public discussions launched by journalists and authors with different opinions and views?

Do we, in this liberty of ours, require ban or prevention of pluralism as specific idea market; can we demand interdict of freedom of public opinion expression amongst those with different views? Shall we, in our desire and eagerness for democracy and our selfish exclusivity of rights to our own opinion only, eventually become an anti-pod of our own and personal ideas? Shall we evoke new terror upon others? Are we going to forget that conflicts between political and literary sides entered our history, with Antun Gustav Matoš on one hand, and Gjalski, Marjanović, Hranilović, Begović, Ujević, and Kovačić on the other hand?

Can you imagine that great Tin Ujevic, in his “Death of Julius Caesar”, refers to Matos as to “long – time and eternal odious”, “original monkey”, “unique crow”, “plagiarist of Barrès and Baudelaire”? Ma- to on the other hand returned by calling this Vrgorac bohemian poet with “crystal cube of brightness”, similar names, comparing him with”the dog sitting along the road and barking at every single person passing that way”.

Krleza also criticized poetry by Aleksa Santic, even by writing in necrologies form, and he was also mocking other poets, including Ducic and many others. Matvejevic unscrupulously mocked Aralica, Stankovic and even Pesorda, who decided to press charges against Matvejevic for defamation and he won. The dilemma is present even today and these controversies and polemic sometimes appeared rough, exceeding all standards of polemic discourse and sometimes they seemed slightly easier. All in all, polemic remained an ongoing process even if its content offended or insulted others.

But really, we should realize that this is how things appear today because we still have – freedom of expression at our disposal.

Limiting freedom of expression, but also limiting the right to professional work

“Vucko”, a 1984 Sarajevo Winter Olympic Games mascot, proved disastrous for Elma Kazagic, editor and host of “Mreza”, an FTV political magazine. For those willing to know and find out about the background of this case and without wider explanations, they should watch “Mreza” magazine TV political magazine, broadcasted on 13 February 2018 and everything should eventually become clear to them. After this particular date, nothing was the same for Elma anymore. Only two years before this date, Elma was awarded with “Journalist of the Year” award, due to editing, hosting and reports from “Mreza”.

What can we say about the fact that the Center for Investigative reporting (original CIN) had been waiting for months for the information that should have been provided by public institutions? However, this was not some kind of a joke – accusations followed one another, pursuant to the Law on Free Access to Information, so the official authorities, from the same public institutions, “blow hot and cold” and accordingly began to provide information literally on the same day upon request.

What would you say about the thesis that this topic, regarding the issue of the process of renaming certain street names in Mostar, primarily renaming the present street names with the names of very suspicious historical figures from infamous, Ustasha WWII period, represented nothing but the political will by the leading political parties in Mostar, as this specific and sensitive topic cannot even be a subject to professional writing; instead of accepting facts rather than accepting “the only politically biased” solution? What would you say about the fact that a female journalist was banned from entering the RS Assembly facilities?

During the press conference, the questions she had asked were not answered; instead she “dared” to ask any question about such issues! Individuals and governing authorities referring to themselves as to democratic, and those that imposed these on – liberties, could be instead referred to as pure idiots. Just as Gerhard Oberschilich, an Austrian journalist referred to Haider, Austrian Liberal Party leader after his Nazi – based breakdown, European Court of Human Rights set this journalist free, concluding that journalist can express journalists’ critics directed to a public figure. Those, more liberate media house, could conclude that the European Court agreed that Heider was an idiot.

Unfortunately, journalists are capable of misusing freedom of expression

Do you remember “freedom of expression by tripping over” by Petra Laszlo, a female Hungarian reporter? During the report making about the stampede of misfortunate and poor refugees, she coldly tripped over a man who was holding a child in his arms at the time. She also kicked a young Syrian girl. Petra defended herself in court by stating that she had to “defend herself”, but still, she was finally found guilty and was sentenced for three year probation period. Monisha Rajesh, ”The Guardian” female journalists expressed her own opinion and views (along with many others) regarding the victory of Donald Trump and these views, posted on her Twitter profile, seemed very radical. She wrote that “it was time to assassin Trump”.

She was accordingly fired, and her profiles on Twitter and Facebook were de-activated, although she was not sent to court for the open invitation for murder. Hague Tribunal verdict to six Croatian political and military leaders showed and confirmed how keen we were, as far as the use of hate speech was concerned, and the fact that many journalists were neither immune to hate speech use nor could have been considered an exception to this, rather wide occurrence of sudden hate speech appearance. The left wingers criticized “Ustasha” biased followers celebrating that “he died miserably form the drinking flask liquid”, while right-wingers replied and responded by insulting “dirty Muslims, so-called Bosnian Mujahedeen followers etc”. They both called each other fascists and perhaps this was the closest to the truth.

Instead of a Conclusion

Is freedom of expression in BiH, the way BiH is shaped now, limited? The answer is yes. Can we express ourselves freely; determine our expression without fear and work in order to minimize these limitations and boundaries? Yes, we can. Can this, to some extent, display a sign of democracy; a democracy that we failed to see, prior to independent, modern, sovereign and the free state of BiH? Yes, it can.

Should we persist and insist on the continuous development of ourselves in the first place, and then followed by the society which we live in? Always. Just like Ivo Andric once said: ”All Drina Rivers in the world are curved. We shall not have time to align them and make them flow right. We shall never stop aligning them”.

This text is a part of E-Bulletin–the third edition of the special serial of BHJ online bulletin implemented as part of the following project: Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX).