Calls to investigate purchase of two Serbian TV stations

By

-

07/12/2018

BELGRADE, 07.12.2018. – The Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS) has called for a quick investigation into the purchase of the TV Prva and O2 stations by the Kopernikus Corporation which is owned by the brother of a ranking ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) official.

Kopernikus sold its cable provider branch to the state-owned Telekom Serbia last month for a price of almost 200 million Euros which experts believe is much higher than the real value of the subordinate company.

The NUNS and some NGOs warned that this is a case in which media freedom and pluralism are being undermined but Culture and Information Minister Vladan Vukosavljevic says that “as far as he knows, the purchase of Prva and O2 was done in line with the law”.

Kopernikus Corporation owner Srdjan Milovanovic could soon become the top Serbian media mogul with two TV stations with national frequencies, three web portals, a radio station and nine cable TV channels. He sold his Kopernikus Technologies to the Telekom and then bought Antena Group’s media empire in Serbia for almost the same price in the space of just one month.

“This is intriguing and deserves a quick reaction by state bodies,” NUNS official Dragan Janjic said. The only quick reaction came for the Serbian President who appeared on the pro-government TV Pink morning show a day after the purchase of the two TV stations was confirmed.

Aleksandar Vucic said he only met Milovanovic, whose brother is the top SNS official in the southern city of Nis, on two occasions. A marketing agency close to Vucic’s SNS had a contract with Kopernikus to produce eight hours of programming on one of its channels prior to the 2012 elections.

Vucic added that the fact that Milovanovic’s brother is a ranking SNS official has nothing to do with the purchase of the TV stations.

Janjic said Vucic’s reaction to the Kopernikus purchase of two TV stations would give rise to suspicions. “Either he knew about it in advance or he is trying to arbitrate,” he said.

The Civic Initiative’s Maja Stojanovic agreed that an investigation should be launched. “The president does not have jurisdiction over this issue and it would certainly be good for state institutions such as the prosecution and relevant ministries to investigate and see if there was corruption,” she said.

Srdjan Milovanovic was asked for a comment by N1 but has put it off twice.

Suđenje za ubistvo Ćuruvije: Podaci sa baznih stanica demantuju optužene

By

IJAS

-

06/12/2018

0

BEOGRAD, 06.12.2018. – Ukoliko tokom sutrašnjeg nastavka suđenja za ubistvo novinara Slavka Ćuruvije počne iznošenje završnih reči, zamenik tužioca će imati priliku da istakne neke od najvažnijih dokaza koje je sud jedva prihvatio: podatke sa baznih stanica mobilne telefonije koji govore o tome da su Ratko Romić i Miroslav Kurak bili u blizini mesta zločina, da su sa Milanom Radonjićem intenzivno komunicirali, kao i da citira dnevnik dežurnog načelnika koji kaže da je Radonjić najavio i „druge mere“.

Posle nekoliko najava i odlaganja od septembra do danas, i gotovo sedam meseci žestokih rasprava oko nekoliko čudnih odluka suda, moguće je da na sutrašnjem nastavku troipogodišnjeg procesa za ubistvo novinara Slavka Ćuruvije napokon počne iznošenje završnih reči.

U aprilu su odbrana optuženih i tročlano sudsko veće (predsedavajuća Snežana Jovanović, Vladimir Mesarović i Dragan Milošević) pokušali da iz dokaznog materijala izuzmu možda i najvažnije dokaze u ovom predmetu.

Radi se najpre o delu traka koje nose podatke sa baznih stanica mobilne telefonije iz centra Beograda, koje pokazuju gde su se nalazili i sa kim su komunicirali optuženi pre, na dan i posle ubistva Ćuruvije 11. aprila 1999. godine.

Bilo je sporno i svedočenje Dragana Kecmana, policajca koji je istraživao ubistvo Ćuruvije od prvog dana, prikupio ključne dokaze i posle gotovo 16 godina istrage napisao krivičnu prijavu protiv optuženih, sve dok u novembru, posle iznenadnog obrta, sudsko veće njegovo svedočenje nije ipak dozvolilo.

Izjave iz istražnog postupka dvojice preminulih svedoka, koji su neobično važni za rasvetljavanje ovog slučaja, sudsko veće je takođe želelo da izbaci iz postupka. Radi se o svedočenjima Zorana Pavića, načelnika Devetog (pratećeg) odeljenja CRDB Beograd, i Cvijetina Milinkovića, dežurnog načelnika na dan ubistva Ćuruvije, koji je u dnevnik dežurstva (videti prilog) zapisivao sve što se događalo dok je jedna smena iz Devetog odeljenja RDB-a (ukupno 27 obaveštajaca) pratila novinara praktično do samog ubistva.

Apelacioni sud je u tom periodu čak tri puta odbacivao odluke prvostepenog suda i vraćao na ponovno odlučivanje, tvrdeći da dokazi kao što su trake sa baznih stanica i izjave policajaca o informativnim razgovorima sa sada preminulim pripadnicima RDB-a Milinkovićem i Pavićem ne treba da budu izuzeti iz ovog procesa.

Infografika: Cenzolovka

Radonjić Milinkoviću: Možda primenimo neku drugu meru

Tako da je, ako ne bude novih procesnih predloga i iznenadnih manevara učesnika ovog procesa, moguće da na sutrašnjem ročištu počne iznošenje završnih reči.

To bi značilo da tužilac, advokati dece Slavka Ćuruvije Jelene i Radeta, te Branke Prpe, koja je bila sa Ćuruvijom na dan ubistva, branioci optuženih i, na kraju, sami optuženi mogu da govore po sat vremena – na koliko je Snežana Jovanović ograničila njihova izlaganja.

U tom slučaju, prvi bi završnu reč izneo Milenko Mandić, zamenik tužioca za organizovani kriminal, koji je i potpisao optužnicu protiv četvorice optuženih – bivšeg načelnika Resora državne bezbednosti Radomira Markovića, načelnika CRDB Beograd Milana Radonjića, nekadašnjeg glavnog obaveštajnog inspektora u Drugoj upravi RDB-a Ratka Romića, te pripadnika rezervnog sastava RDB-a Miroslava Kuraka, kome se sudi u odsustvu.

Mandić bi trebalo da potvrdi valjanost najvažnijih dokaza koji pokazuju da je ova, kako piše u optužnici, „organizovana kriminalna grupa, u kojoj je svaki pripadnik imao unapred određeni zadatak i ulogu“, „po nalogu NN lica iz najviših struktura vlasti“, „sa umišljajem lišila života“ Slavka Ćuruviju.

Mandić je od juna 2015. godine, kada je suđenje počelo, izveo desetine svedoka iz javne i državne bezbednosti, kao i materijalne dokaze koji su trebali da pokažu na koji su to način četvorica pripadnika Službe organizovali i izvršili ovaj zločin usred NATO bombardovanja.

Među najvažnijim materijalnim dokazima su podaci sa baznih stanica mobilne telefonije koji su nedavno predstavljeni pred sudom. Novinari nisu imali prilike da ih vide, pošto su se izveštaji o veštačenju tih podataka smenjivali na ekranu u sudnici jako brzo, pa se tako javnost sa njima nije detaljnije upoznala.

Radi se o podacima koji, kako tvrdi zamenik tužioca, dokazuju da su 10. aprila 1999, na dan kada je, prema optužnici, planirana likvidacija novinara, optuženi imali intenzivnu komunikaciju, kao i da su se, dok je tog dana Ćuruvija sa Prpom bio u šetnji i na ručku u centru Beograda, Romić i Kurak nalazili u blizini mesta gde je Ćuruvija živeo, u Svetogorskoj 35 (u to vreme je to bila Ulica Ive Lole Ribara).

Tog dana, 10. aprila, ekipa koja je pratila Ćuruviju i Prpu nije na vreme izvestila načelnika beogradskog centra RDB-a Milana Radonjića da se oni vraćaju iz šetnje i da ulaze u svoj stan.

Radonjić je, inače, na tu dužnost postavljen svega nekoliko dana pre ovog zločina i jedno od prvih njegovih naređenja – usred bombardovanja – bila je usmena naredba Zoranu Paviću da 24 sata dnevno prati novinara. Paviću, koga je on sam nekoliko dana pre toga postavio za načelnika Devetog odeljenja, koje je za ovaj slučaj od presudne važnosti.

Zamenik tužioca je izveo nekoliko svedoka koji su potvrdili ono što on tvrdi u optužnici – da je Radonjić pozvao Zorana Pavića i Dragana Pavića (koji je vodio ovo praćenje) i da im je zamerio što nisu dovoljno često izveštavali. Tražio je od njih da sutradan, 11. aprila, izveštavaju na svaki minut, o bukvalno svakoj promeni kretanja Ćuruvije.

Nekoliko svedoka je tokom suđenja potvrdilo Mandićeve navode u optužnici da je takav način rada pratećeg odeljenja veoma neobičan, te da na taj način ni pre niti posle toga nisu taj posao radili.

Sutradan, 11. aprila, izveštavali su veoma često dežurnog načelnika u CRDB Beograd, Cvijetina Milinkovića, koji je o svemu izveštavao Radonjića, a najvažnije promene zapisao je i u dnevnik dežurstva (videti faksimil).

Milinković je u dnevnik dežurstva u 16.07 upisao: „Zove NC (načelnik centra, prim. nov.) prenosim mu ovo. Nalog – javiti mu odmah ako krenu kući, možda primenimo i neku drugu meru, kaže. Odmah sam preneo NO/IX da obavezno jave ako objekat krene kući.“

Jedina zakonita „druga mera“ u tim uslovima moglo bi biti hapšenje ili privođenje onog ko se prati. Slavko Ćuruvija je, međutim, nekih pola sata kasnije ubijen.

U 16.25, kako je Milinković upisao u dnevnik dežurstva, Radonjić je naredio nagli prekid praćenja.

U to vreme se Slavko Ćuruvija sa Brankom Prpom nalazio u Makedonskoj ulici, negde između zgrade Politike i Radio Beograda, blizu ulaza u današnju Svetogorsku ulicu.

Očigledno je trebalo nekoliko minuta da ova naredba bude sprovedena. Naime, policija je procenila da je Ćuruvija ubijen između 16.39 i 16.45 sati, ali od Radio Beograda do prolaza u Svetogorskoj 35, gde je zločin izvršen, ima tek nekih četiri-pet minuta normalnog hoda.

Kao što se može videti na grafikonu, naređenje o prekidu praćenja nije baš najefikasnije izvršeno. Naime, bar dvojica pratilaca Ćuruvije, takozvani pešaci, nisu čuli ili nisu dobro razumeli ovo naređenje, pa su ušli i u Ulicu Ive Lole Ribara (Svetogorsku) za Ćuruvijom i Prpom.

Vođa ekipe ovih „pešaka“, Svetozar Mirčević, koji je vozio jedan od dva automobila koji su pokupili pripadnike Devetog odeljenja (sivi opel astra), kolima je presreo dvojicu „pešaka“ tek u blizini ugla sa Vlajkovićevom, odnosno preko puta Ateljea 212. Jedan od „pešaka“, Saša Đurđević, pratio je Ćuruviju sve do Ateljea 212, gde mu je kolima prišao Mirčević i gestikulacijom pokazao da je praćenje prekinuto i da odmah uđe u opel. Istina, postoje i nagoveštaji da ih je pratio sve do mesta zločina, ali to na sudu, gde su svedoci često delovali konfuzno ili su se slabo čega sećali – nije potvrđeno.

Oni su, dakle, prošli Ćuruviju i Prpu u Svetogorskoj, u visini restorana „57“, mimoišli se i sa ubicama (o čemu nisu svedočili, odnosno rekli su da ih nisu videli), te se zaustavili na semaforu kod Takovske ulice, kada je Mirčević u retrovizoru video Ćuruviju i Prpu kako ulaze u pasaž kod broja 35. Tada je kolskom radio-stanicom javio šifru „važi 47“, koja, prema šifrarniku Službe, znači da objekat praćenja ulazi u zgradu u kojoj živi.

Svega nekoliko sekundi kasnije Ćuruvija je u tom prolazu ubijen. Mirčević pred sudom nije rekao da je u retrovizoru video i ubice. Sve skupa, na ovo javljanje nervozno je reagovao šef smene Nebojša Soković, koji je odmah preko radija naredio: „Pusti to, pusti to!“

Soković, koji je vozio drugi automobil sa „pešacima“, takođe je prošao pored Slavka Ćuruvije, pre nego što je, kao što se vidi na grafikonu, iz tadašnje Ulice Ive Lole Ribara skrenuo u Vlajkovićevu, zatim u Kosovsku, pa u Takovsku, i odvezao se do tadašnje trolejbuske okretnice pored Kalemegdana (na kraju Knez Mihailove ulice).

Dragan Kecman je, svedočeći pred sudom, preneo svoja saznanja da je tamo, kada se pronela vest da je Ćuruvija ubijen, ljudima koji su ga pratili rekao: „Dupe uza zid, niko ništa da ne priča“.

Oba automobila – i Sokovićev i Mirčevićev – morala su da prođu pored ubica: Ratko Romić i Miroslav Kurak, prema optužnici, čekali su u blizini raskrsnice sa Palmotićevom, blizu prolaza ka zgradi u kojoj je Ćuruvija živeo.

Da li su „pešaci“ videli ubice ostaće tajna, bar za ovo sudsko veće.

Radonjić 21 put zove Kuraka

Ali, bar kako zamenik tužioca navodi, to nije ostalo tajna i za bazne stanice mobilne telefonije (u to vreme Mobtela) u centru Beograda. One su, kako je to inspektor Dragan Kecman 2005. godine otkrio, zabeležile veoma intenzivnu komunikaciju sa brojeva telefona za koje je već ranije znao da su ih u to vreme koristili Milan Radonjić, Ratko Romić, Miroslav Kurak i Radomir Marković.

Pokazale su, takođe, da se Romić i Radonjić nisu nalazili tamo gde su tokom istrage tvrdili da su bili: Romić je rekao da je tokom 11. aprila, na dan ubistva, bio u Drugoj upravi, u Učiteljskom naselju koje se nalazi na Konjarniku, kao i da nije siguran da li je bio na porodičnom ručku u Borči ili je to bila večera.

Bazne stanice su, međutim, broj telefona koji je koristio locirale upravo u blizini mesta zločina.

Radonjić je na početku suđenja rekao da je bio u istoj zgradi Druge uprave na Konjarniku, te da je išao na ručak kod ženinih roditelja, blizu mesta gde je radio. Bazne stanice su ga smestile na različita mesta u gradu, sa kojih se čak 21 put čuo sa Miroslavom Kurakom.

Milan Radonjić je, prema dnevniku dežurnog načelnika (videti antrfile i faksimil), u 16.25 ekipi iz Devetog odeljenja naredio prekid praćenja.

Tada, prema zameniku tužioca, praćenje Ćuruvije i Prpe preuzimaju izvršioci ubistva. Podaci sa baznih stanica govore da se oni nalaze u blizini mesta zločina, kao i da Ratko Romić zove Miroslava Kuraka, koji čeka u blizini prilaza ka zgradi u kojoj živi Ćuruvija.

Već u 16.28 Radonjić je pozvao Miroslava Kuraka i razgovarao sa njim 9 sekundi.

U 16.38 Ratko Romić poziva Kuraka i priča sa njim 6 sekundi.

Romić odmah posle toga, u 16.39 poziva Radonjića i sa njim razgovara 8 sekundi.

Radonjić zatim zove Kuraka u 16.45 (17 sekundi), u 16.54 Romić zove Radonjića (11 sekundi).

Upravo je period ove intenzivne komunikacije, kao i mesto na kojima su Romića i Kuraka, kao izvršioce, bazne stanice locirale, ukazao istražiteljima i tužiocu da je Ćuruvija ubijen između 16.39 i 16.45 sati.

Tog dana, 11. aprila, bazne stanice su zabeležile čak 21 razgovor između Radonjića i Kuraka (Kurak je pozvao Radonjića tri puta, 18 puta je Radonjić Kuraka).

Ratko Romić se sa Radonjićem, na svoju inicijativu, čuo četiri puta. Svog kuma, Kuraka, pre ubistva je pozvao dva puta i jednom posle ubistva.

Zabeleženo je da je posle ubistva (u 17.20) Radonjić pozvao i Radomira Markovića, kao i njegovog zamenika Branka Crnog (u 17.11 i 17.22).

Tog dana se čuo i sa Frankom Simatovićem, visokim oficirom RDB-a, osnivačem Jedinice za specijalne operacije.

Četiri puta se te večeri čuo i sa operativcem RDB-a Momirom Gavrilovićem, koji je kasnije ubijen.

Radomiru Markoviću, Milanu Radonjiću i Ratku Romiću se danas, gotovo 20 godina posle ubistva Ćuruvije, sudi.

Kurak je, sudeći po pisanju pojedinih medija, u Tanzaniji, gde je fotografisan sa trofejima kao što su lavovi ili leopardi. Postoje informacije i da je 2011. godine u Adis Abebi dobio novi pasoš Republike Srbije.

DNEVNIK DEŽURNOG: MOŽDA PRIMENIMO I NEKU DRUGU MERU, KAŽE

Evo nekoliko citata iz dnevnika dežurstva, koji je 11. aprila, na dan ubistva Slavka Ćuruvije, u beogradskom centru RDB-a vodio dežurni načelnik Cvijetin Milinković.

– 13.55: NO/IX (načelnik Devetog odeljenja, Zoran Pavić, prim. nov.) izveštava da je „Ćuran izašao sa suprugom pešice“. Preneto NC-u (načelnik centra Milan Radonjić, prim. nov.).

– 13.56: NO/IX izveštava „Ćuran je kraj Politike“. Odmah preneto NC-u. Da ga obavestim čim negde bude „seo“.

– 14.15: NO/IX izveštava da se „Ćuran sreo kod Ruskog cara sa jednim bračnim parom, a zatim sa još jednim čovekom sa naočarima i bradicom. Sa parom kratak susret, a sa čovekom su pričali, a zatim se sa suprugom uputio Knez Mihajlovom“. NO/IX je javljao svaku promenu a NC je više puta zvao, ja mu prenosio.

– 14.45: U sklopu toga u 14.45 preneto mu od ZNC-a obaveštenje da je u vezi onih 5 kola sve u redu.

– 14.55: „NC je u 14.55 na sp. 21 35 (U/II).“

– 15.15: „NO/IX – Šetaju se kod Nebojšine kule. Čovek sa bradicom seo sa društvom u kafanu. Sve je pod kontrolom. Preneto NC-u, kaže da ga obavestimo ako negde sedne ili krene kući. Preneto NO/IX.“

– 16.05: „NO/IX – Ćuran i supruga ušli u Kolarac, tu sreli pomenute veze, bračni par i muškarca, odatle izašli i svak na svoju stranu. Još držimo vezu – muškarca.“

– 16.07: „Zove NC prenosim mu ovo. Nalog – javiti mu odmah ako krenu kući, možda primenimo i neku drugu meru, kaže. Odmah sam preneo NO/IX da obavezno jave ako objekat krene kući.“

– 16.10: „NO/IX – vratio se u objekat u Kolarac i seli su. Preneo NC-u. Nalog NC-a da mu javi ako ručaju. Preneo načelniku NO/IX taj nalog. NO/IX kaže da su kamerom snimili vezu – bradonju.“

– 16.22: „NO/IX – ručaju. NC-u preneo ovo. Kaže da će da se konsultuje pa će se javiti za 2 minuta.“

– 16.25: „NC – prekinuti rad prema objektu a vezu-bradonju nastaviti dok ne utvrdimo o kome se radi. Preneto NO/IX.“

Faksimil dnevnika dežurstva PDF

Faksimil kopije dnevnika dežurnog načelnika CRDB Beograd, koji je 11. aprila 1999. godine vodio Cvijetin Milinković. Ovde su njegove beleške u vreme ubistva Ćuruvije. Delovi teksta su obeleženi kasnije.

Three months in prison for the attack on journalist Sadiković

By

TUMM

-

05/12/2018

0

PODGORICA, 05.12.2018. – Judge Ivan Adamović sentenced Šemsa Pepić (52) from Rožaje to three months in prison for endangering the safety of journalist Sead Sadiković.

Judge Adamović stated in the reasoning of the verdict that the criminal offense was proved by the evidence presented during the trial.
During the trial, Pepić denied the act charged with the indictment. According to the indictment, Pepić jeopardized the life of Sead Sadiković was on December 25, 2017. After broadcasting the “Without Borders” show on TV Vijesti, when a museum owned by Husnija Pepic was shown, he called Sadiković on the phone and threatened to him.

According to the indictment, he threatened to Sadiković again on 17 January 2018 over a mobile phone again, asking him to apologize to the whole tribe of Pepić.

Previosly, brothers Ilhan and Hilmija Pepić from Rožaje were sentenced because of the attack on Sadiković. Judge of the Basic Court of Bijelo Polje, Dragan Mrdak, sentenced Ilhan to seven months in prison and Hilmi for four months. According to the indictment, on April 1, around 22.40, on Munib Kučević Street in Bijelo Polje, they activated a bomb in front of the Sadiković house.

Matic: It’s not true journalists can’t comment on courts

By

IJAS

-

04/12/2018

0

BELGRADE, 04.12.2018. – Veran Matic says it is not true that journalists should not criticize court decisions before their verdicts become final.

The president of the Commission Investigating Murders of Journalists also asked why the Higher Court is trying to silence the public.

In response to a statement by the Higher Court in Belgrade, which condemned his statements regarding the final stages of the trial for the murder of journalist Slavko Curuvija, Matic told Tanjug that he was “starting to dread the stubborn persistence with which the Higher Court is forbidding the commenting of court proceedings,” because, as he added, he fears that this is a political, not a legal issue.

“The judges know that with this they are not quarreling with the president of the Commission Investigating Murders of Journalists, but with the practice of the European Court in Strasbourg, whose decisions are in direct contradiction with the views of the Higher Court in Belgrade. It is a complete mystery to me why the High Court is doing it. Why ignore Strasbourg? Why deny Serbia’s citizens what all European citizens are entitled to,” Matic said in a written statement.

He thinks the panel of judges in the trial for the murder of Slavko Curuvija is “perfectly indifferent” toward the opinion of the Commission.

“Not only are they not under pressure, not only are they not worried or afraid, they seem indifferent toward the opinion of the Appellate Court, which is persistently returning the evidence that the panel is persistently and for unexplained, and I would say inexplicable, reasons rejecting,” added Matic.

He pointed out that the members of the Commission, headed by him, stand for respecting the presumption of innocence of the accused, just like the courts.

“But who can agree that journalists cannot criticize the negligence, the deliberate delays in proceedings, the ignorance of the law and the removal of evidence by persistently making controversial decisions that are favoring the defendants and are regularly annulled by a higher court instance,” Matic said.

He think that it would be very useful for the public to find out what the Higher Court has actually released its second statement in a week about, and what trust in the work of this panel it is talking about, after the decisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation.

Matic recalls that it was precisely this highest courtthat determined that the same trial panel (in the Curuvija trial) by acquiting the accused Luka Bojovic, violated the law.

“Instead of telling the public what they will do about that and how they will restore trust in the court, the Higher Court is attacking the practice of the European Court,” said Matić.

The Higher Court in Belgrade on Monday for the second time denounced Matic’s statements to the media concerning the trial of four defendants for the murder of Curuvija, pointing out, among other things, that is not permitted to criticize or comment on the decisions of a court in criminal proceedings that have not been finalized legally.

The Higher Court in Belgrade again condemned the statements of the President of the Commission for Investigating the Murder of Journalists Veran Matić, commenting on the trial of the trial chamber in the case of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, as well as earlier verdicts of the panel.

Matic has repeatedly commented on the final stages of the trial and the upcoming first instance verdict for the defendants charged with the murder of Churuvija.

Matić: Viši sud ne polemiše sa mnom već sa praksom suda u Strazburu

By

IJAS

-

04/12/2018

0

BEOGRAD, 04.12.2018. – Predsednika Komisije za istraživanje ubistava novinara Veran Matić izjavio je da počinje da ga “hvata jeza od tvrdoglave upornosti sa kojom Viši sud zabranjuje komentarisanje sudskih postupaka”.

Povodom saopštenja Višeg suda u kojem reaguju na gostovanje Matića i Jelene Ćuruvije Đurica u emisiji “360 stepeni” televizije N1, i pozivaju medije da sa posebnom pažnjom pristupaju prilikom izveštavanja i davanja izjava o krivičnim postupcima koji nisu pravnosnažno okončani, predsednikom Komisije za istraživanje ubistava novinara saopštio je da sudije znaju da time ne polemišu sa njim, već sa praksom Evropskog suda u Strazburu, čije odluke stoje u direktnoj suprotnosti sa stavovima Višeg suda u Beogradu.

“Za mene je potpuna misterija zašto to Viši sud radi. Zašto ignoriše Strazbur? Zašto građanima Srbije uskraćuje ono na šta svi evropski građani polažu pravo? Nije istina da novinari ne smeju da kritikuju sudske odluke do pravosnažnosti presude. Zašto Viši sud pokušava da ućutka javnost? Kažem da me od toga hvata jeza jer počinjem da strahujem da je ovde reč o političkom, a ne pravnom pitanju”, naveo je Matić.

Dodao je i da je potpuno jasno da je sudsko veće koje sudi optuženima za ubistvo Slavka Ćuruvije savršeno ravnodušno na mišljenje Komisije za istraživanje ubistava novinara.

“Oni ne samo da nisu pod pritiskom, ne samo što nisu zabrinuti ili uplašeni, oni su izgleda ravnodušni i na mišljenje Apelacionog suda, koji u postupak uporno vraća dokaze koje sudsko veće uporno i iz neobjašnjenih, a ja bih rekao neobjašnjivih, razloga odbacuje”, istakao je Matić.

Komisija za istraživanje ubistava novinara, nastavio je Matić, zalaže se za poštovanje pretpostavke nevinosti okrivljenih, ali ne može da se složi sa tim da novinari ne smeju da kritikuju javašluk, namerno odugovlačenje postupka, nepoznavanje prava i sklanjanja dokaza upornim donošenjem spornih odluka koje idu na ruku okrivljenima i koje redovno poništava viša sudska instanca.

Podsetio je i da je Vrhovni kasacioni sud utvrdio da je isto sudsko veće, oslobađajući optuženog Luku Bojovića, kršilo zakon. “I umesto da kaže javnosti šta će tim povodom uraditi i kako će vraćati poverenje u sud, Viši sud napada praksu Evropskog suda”, zaključio je Matić.

Public documents, closed for the public

By

AJK

-

04/12/2018

0

PRISTINA: 04.12.2018 Kosovo’s public institutions are among the only ones in the region who do not recognize the obligation for selection of documents into public and confidential.

Although the law on access to public documents foresees that at the time of the creation of a document, public bodies should set a clause if it is public or confidential; this practice is not implemented in practice.

For journalists and civil society, the lack of classification and refusal to provide access to public documents, has created an ongoing problem in carrying out researches and analysis.

The Kosovan government claims that only two requests have yet to be answered.

However, the journalist community believes that journalists do not apply for access to public documents because of a broad perception that they will not receive an answer.

Besnik Krasniqi, journalist at Koha Ditore, says that the institutions are characterized by a very low degree of transparency, while the Law on Access to Public Documents is implemented at the lowest level.

“This conclusion is not based solely on my experience, but also upon the allegations of many of my colleagues with whom we share the same profession. Further more, many credible local and international reports point to the same problem, including here the report about Kosovo, which is published every year by the European Commission, “he said.

Moreover, the already made requests still remain unanswered.

“Journalists insist, continually while addressing publicly about the violation of this right which is guaranteed by the Constitution and law. And that insist almost ends there. This is because journalists do not have the luxury to follow all the bureaucratic procedures provided by the law, until the right for access to a particular document is achieved. By the way, a very small number of media organizations have engaged lawyers who can follow this chain of complaints – which is, to address the problem at the office of the Ombudsman, and then at the courts” highlighted Krasniqi.

Data shows that since the coming of Ramush Haradinaj to power, his government received 53 requests for access to public documents, otherwise a very small number compared to the number of journalists who cover the work of the government.

“From the total number of received requests, after the view, full access was allowed to 36 requests, one request received partial access, 2 requests are still being viewed, and one request is unanswered” responded government’s spokeswoman, Donjeta Gashi.

Government work is being monitored by tens of journalists, while the lack of requests for access indicates that journalists have found other ways to get the documents needed for stories.

“In the absence of pursuing of this right, journalists lose a lot of time while providing the information required by the institutions. Journalists often use “clandestine routes” to get to documents that institutions do not want to share with the public. And, normally, it takes time and a network of resources within the institutions, “says Besnik Krasniqi.

Ministry of Infrastructure is the most closed institution

For years ‘Fol Movement’ has overseen public contracts and public spending. This organization concluded that there are a lot of problems with institutions to obtain official documents.

“Based on the demands we made, I can say that some are really correct and cooperative, while some institutions are far from improving compared with the past years,” says Mergime Demolli Nimani, at Fol organization.

She mentioned some concrete cases when the organization has had problems accessing the required documents.

“For us as FOL, the main obstacle in carrying out our work has been the Ministry of Infrastructure. This is due to the fact that during the monitoring of procurement procedures, very often we have requested access to different tender files but all have been rejected” said Demolli.

Major contracts, like the new highway toward Gjilan is expected to consume millions of euro that belong to Kosovo’s government.

This contract signed by the Ministry of Infrastructure under, Pal Lekaj continues to be partially open.

Although the law on access to documents stipulates that document seekers choose the form of access this contract has been allowed to Movement Fol only in certain parts.

“The Ministry of Infrastructure who initially rejected the request, then after the appeal to the Ombudsman and after we publicly declared that we have been rejected from access to the tender file for the construction of the highway Pristine-Gjilan-Dheu i Bardhë, they allowed us a partial access, so they did not gave us all the required documents. Also another request we sent is not yet answered “says Demolli Nimani.

The Ombudsman has a role in overseeing the law on access to public documents.

After refusing or not responding by the institutions, journalists and the public have the right to complain at this institution.

Since the beginning of the year up to now, 57 complaints have been viewed by this institution, all of them regarding the refusal of access to public documents.

“From January 2018 up to now, 57 complaints have been received, five of them were not suitable for acceptation” says Arjola Caka, from the Ombudsman Office.

Even this institution is convinced that access to the major contracts and projects is the main problem when accessing the public documents.

“According to our findings while investigating the complaints filed for access to public documents, we noticed that difficulties in accessing public documents are mostly related with public contracts of big projects,” added Caka.

According to Mergime Demolli Nimani, the state is very interested in hiding big contracts.

“Public contracts in most of the cases that we have monitored, especially the contracts that are worth millions, continue to remain closed”

Successful cases, only through courts

Kosovo institutions are obliged by court decisions to provide access to public documents in some cases.

The data show that the Government of Kosovo was obliged to create access to the bills of ex-Prime Minister, Hashim Thaqi for the need of Balkan Network for Investigative Journalism, BIRN.

After eight years, this organization has secured the necessary information that was released during this summer.

The Ombudsman has listed as stories of success, two BIRN lawsuits against the government. In these cases, though court decision, BIRN had gained access to spending bills, while Movement FOL filed a lawsuit against Ministry of Transportation related to the highway Morine-Merdare. GAP’s lawsuit related to the contract for distribution and the lawsuit of Union Federation of Pensioners against Ministry of Labor.

In January this year, GAP Institute had received the verdict by the Basic Court in Prishtina, which approved as grounded the GAP Institute’s accusation for not allowing access to public documents.

The Court found that the Ministry of Economic Development and KEC violated Article 41 of the Constitution and the Law on Access to Public Documents when they did not allow access to KEDS privatization assets and tender files for the Kosovo’s power plant ‘Kosova e Re’.

The Court concluded that even the unfinished documents are public documents in which access should be allowed, and has considered as unreasonable the response of Ministry of Economic Development, that the files of privatization falls into the category of confidential documents.

Furthermore, the court concluded that KEC has also violated the Law on Access to Public Documents when it refused to respond to the requests for transparency, arguing that the Law on Access to Public Documents does not apply for public enterprises.

This verdict obliged the Ministry of Economic Development to allow access within 30 days to privatized KEDS assets and tender documents related to the power plant ‘Kosova e Re’.

This verdict was rules only four and a half years after filing the lawsuit, while according to Berat Thaci from this organization, is overdue, given that during this period the privatization process of KEDS assets was completed and the asset list was made public after privatization.

“It is noteworthy that four hydropower plants were included in the KEDS privatization asset list, and their sale was kept secret from the public and the Kosovo’s Assembly. The GAP Institute and KOSID (Kosovo’s Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development) estimate that if access was allowed to KEDS assets at the time when the request was made, it would have prevented the damage done to the public interest. At the same time, we are sorry that after all these facts, the prosecution did not saw it as reasonable to sue the privatization process of KEDS” concluded Thaqi.

Author: Donika Voca Gashi

Small Grant Programme has successfully been completed

By

CJA

-

04/12/2018

0

Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and safety of journalists in the Western Balkans has the honour of presenting outputs of Small Grant Programme, which took place during years 2017 and 2018 within the bigger project “Protecting Media Freedom and Freedom of Expression in the Western Balkans”. Some of the content produced during that period will be presented during December on Safejournalists.net.

During 2017. and 2018. 15 projects were funded through the Small Grants Programme in two LOTs (4 regional and 11 national projects) in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo* and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

All projects have been implemented from October 2017 until September 2018 and they are now in their final review phase. The outputs of the Small Grants Programme vary from documentaries and investigative journalists’ stories to citizen-journalism schools and the establishment of non-profit media outlets. During the project implementation time, more than 1500 articles in 5 countries were published dealing with media freedom, it’s protection and Freedom of expression.
The objective of this small grants programme was to amplify advocacy efforts undertaken by local, national and regional civil society actors in collaboration with journalists and media organizations and to set topics of media freedom and journalists’ safety on mainstream agenda in the SEE region – more specifically Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Kosovo*, Montenegro and Serbia.

The Small Grants Programme supported locally and regionally rooted civil society initiatives, engaging human rights activists, journalists and media, aiming to protect the freedom of expression and freedom of media.

During December we will highlight some of the produced content.

The small grants programme was funded by IPA /EU with co-financing from the Croatian Government Office for NGOs and matching funds from grantees; it is part of a regional project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for Advocating Media Freedom and Journalists’ Safety implemented through partnership of five regional journalists’ associations and one journalists’ union– Independent Journalists Association of Serbia (IJAS), Association of BH Journalists (BHJ), Croatian Journalists Association (CJA), Association of Journalists of Kosovo (AJK), Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) and the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro (TUMM).

Croatian Journalists’ Association and its regional partner journalists’ associations thank all subgrantees and other participants for their interest and effort in engaging in the Small Grants Programme and for their cooperation throughout the whole application and project implementation process.

Медиумските реформи да се вратат во Планот 18

By

AJM

-

03/12/2018

0

СКОПЈЕ, 03.12.2018 – Здружението на новинари на Македонија протестира што Владата ги избриша медиумските реформи од Планот за приоритетни реформи 18. Објаснувањето на Владата дека медиумските реформи ги нема во реформскиот план затоа што измените и дополнувањата на Законот за аудио и аудиовизуелни медиумски услуги поминале владина процедура е апсолутно неприфатливо. Усвојувањето на законот за АВМУ во Собрание е заедничка обврска на Владата и на парламентарното мнозинство.

Ја потсетуваме Владата дека нејзината политичка волја да се бори против политиката на неказнивост на насилството врз новинари не е остварена. Од 59 напади на новинари во изминатите пет години само во два случаи напаѓачите се казнети додека останатите се неистражени, или половично истражени.

Неискрено е што Владата се обидува да ги злоупотреби заклучоците на Советот на Европската комисија за изоставување на медиумските реформи од Планот 18. Самата Европската унија нѐ информираше дека заклучоците на Советот во никој случај не значат дека медиумските реформи не се битни за нивната одлука за започнување преговори за членство со Македонија идната година.

Бараме од Владата да ги врати медиумските реформи во планот 18 и сериозно да се посвети на ветувањата дадени на новинарската заедница и на Советот на Европа за корекција на Изборниот законик, кој летоска беше изменет и дополнет без дебата и нетранспарентно.

Потсетуваме дека давањето можност со јавни пари да се финансира политичка пропаганда на партиите во медиуми за време на изборна кампања значи продолжување на политиката на владино рекламирање од претходниот режим во поинаква амбалажа. Таа мерка ќе ги одржи клиентелистичките врски меѓу партиите и сопствениците на медиумите и ги замолчува медиумите.

Законската можност Државната изборна комисија да го следи начинот на известување на онлајн медиумите за време на изборна кампања е апсолутно неприменлива и во спротивност со европските стандарди, кое може да има сериозни последици врз слободата на медиумите.

Shut up and abide: Bandage on the mouth for those with different opinion

By

BHJA

-

03/12/2018

0

SARAJEVO, 03.12.2018.-Freedom of speech and its limitations in BiH are impossible to observe other than from outside the prism of journalists’ economical and existential living conditions; including journalists’ chronic lack of knowledge and information regarding their own rights, and even rights that concern free access to information, but also impossible to observe without having considered the “slavery” that their media houses guide and entail towards the ruling and governing structures and powerful centers.

As a result of the above listed factors, journalists have been facing and encountering various obstacles (on a daily basis), that produce direct or indirect impact on the freedom of expression, starting with depriving of statements and announcements and banning of particular issues and topics through direct threats, until getting sacked and losing a job due to disobedience. After being asked to outline the greatest limitations that journalists face at present and which is more frequent: censorship or auto-censorship; journalists, professors, and analysts listed many different factors, but they all agreed that most jeopardizing limitations were those we set up to ourselves in relation with bans imposed by media houses.

They all agree that limitations of freedom of speech have become so deep, that journalists deliberately decided to avoid certain and (to some extent) even less important topics or issues that are criticizing and resenting, or even taking a risk with their employer who may decide to reject their story and find them due to their displayed level of enthusiasm. On the other hand, sometimes according to dictates imposed by higher powers, the entire reality is ignored with the purpose of displaying banality and to be taken away from headlines.

This is exactly what has been happening in case of mysterious death of David Dragicevic, where RTRS has openly been reporting and mainly biased towards the defense of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (the Police), thus ignoring the protests and rallies held at Krajina Square in Banja Luka, including SRNA news agency whose headline was: “Dragicevic had a fight, robbed the house and dived into the river”. Tanja Topic, a political analyst, claims that freedom of speech is (in our cases) limited in terms of disallowing and disabling certain media house representatives to have free access to particular public institutions venue or event, including the limitations in creating and making reports from these facilities, as far as certain case is concerned.

Another type of limitations is the lack of law implementation in regard to free access to information and depriving certain media houses with announcements or statements.

– The problem is best demonstrated through the division between “ours and theirs” (including their media houses), that is, “suitable” or “not – suitable”. Suitable are privileged and unsuitable are those that direct critics towards holders of certain political and governing or public function holders. I shall illustrate this through the simple case of World Press Freedom Day reception at the facilities of Mrs. Zeljka Cvijanovic (prime minister of the Republic of Srpska). Not all media houses and their representatives were invited there on this special day. At a certain point of time, certain warning letters circulated throughout the RS public institutions, with clear orders given to governing officials, regarding whether they can speak with particular media representatives and with whom they would not be allowed to speak at all, or give any statements or announcements. This kind of limitations in media freedoms and disabling certain journalists to perform their work duties and complete their tasks is very close to typical discrimination – says Mrs. Topic.

She said that it would be difficult to balance which is more present, censorship or auto-censorship and whether we are more keen to react to the latter (auto-censorship). The problem is that all of this has become normal and commonly accepted. Censorship has become more visible in public space. Certain centers and cabinets have been turned into editing offices and dictate and determine editing policies of particular media houses and this is not a secret either. We have had black, that is, the list of banned guests and collocutors on public broadcaster and this was openly admitted by Rajko Radovanovic, the RTRS General Manager.

– This is the modern way of patching the bandages on the mouth of individuals with a different opinion. We have seen some sort of rebellion in public, due to this. Worst of all is the fact that we have begun to treat this as regular and normal occurrences and accordingly accepted it – said Mrs. Topic.

As far as certain media houses and their silence is concerned, in regard with Dragojevic case, she claimed that eliding represents a great omission and failure, including public deceiving.

– Silence is sometimes louder and stentorian than great noise and sometimes it outlines and highlights important processes and venues. It would be wrong to believe that, if you remain silent and ignore something, to convince yourself as if that had never happened. Journalists sometimes appear as split- up personalities in this sense, placed between the hammer and the anvil. On one hand, they are imposed with pressures by editing policies, that is, pressured by the entrepreneurs (owners) with certain powerful centers backing them up and, on the other hand, pressured by their own, personal, individual and professional integrity. Everyone is entitled to have a choice, but the question is what each and every one of us decides to choose; comfort, safe and stable existence, and silence, that is, a choice of remaining solid and to live stable life with clear professional dignity with head up, which is asset that money cannot buy. Social media provide you with this kind of freedom; if you have no choice or, if you cannot work for other media houses, although this has certain limits as well. Limits can last until the moment, where it begins to disturb and bothers media houses, editors and entrepreneurs that journalists work for, and then this space shall be taken away from them for sure – she said.

Sinisa Vukelic, president of Banjaluka Journalists’ Club says that freedom of speech in this particular region suffers from identical diseases, including messy state administration and non – functional democracy.

– First of all, historically – colonized – dictatorship and criminal based power left consequences as far as public consciousness is concerned. Secondly, limiting the freedom of expression is directly related to the economic decline of both, readers and viewers on one hand, and decline of editing office on the other hand. When combined altogether, they compose a conglomerate of what we have today in the media market. Pressures, realistic and imaginary fear produced a censorship and strengthen auto-censorship even further. The boundary between censorship and auto-censorship is almost invisible; therefore it is very difficult to tell the difference between the two of them. Auto censorships operate in order to eliminate the censorship, so colleagues (workmates) believe that by this they might keep their dignity intact because no other party would erase and delete their work, shorten or shut off their TV programs, reports, articles or texts. Of course, they are mistaken and lose respect amongst professional journalists and these things are not easy to forget. Auto-censorship, on the other hand, is more dangerous. Open censorship evokes a resistance, produce creativity that helps journalists in discovering the way that would help the general public in receiving news regarding current affairs in their communities or their society. Auto-censorship is different in this sense because rules of professional conduct are obeyed and this creates the emerging of slight censorship as a result, censoring thus themselves – Vukelic claimed.

Borislav Vukojevic from the Faculty of Political Sciences in Banja Luka reckons that freedom of speech with us is mostly limited by narrowing the public space for different opinions.

– “For instance, what media houses fail to follow, it seems as it had never happened. Also, there are open and latent threats directed to journalists and citizens as well. Auto-censorship is increasing, although it is the product of “censorship organizational culture”’ in most media houses. Therefore auto-censorship would have never come to existence if it were not for censorship that had served as the “teacher” to auto-censorship and additionally transmitted and transferred to employees. This is best illustrated through the “Dragicevic case” that has best displayed a true and genuine picture of media houses and this should be stated and released openly. RTRS, as the public broadcaster, began to cover this case while making reports as part of “political biasing” on the Krajina square, desperately trying to put all rallies, gatherings and public protests in the context of “destabilizing and ravaging. I found that there was plenty hypocrisy in this case because they should not have defended themselves by stating that Police Ministry cannot be blamed because there was no evidence against them, while, at the same time, they provide no arguments and evidence either for attacks on RS. Still, on the other hand, I do not support bloggers releasing and posting unchecked and untrue information, because this may revitalize the truth as well – claimed Vukojevic.

Sinisa Vukelic claims that everyone is entitled to personal opinion and attitude, but certain media are silent and remain passive as far as this big social tragedy and public interest are concerned, including the case of David Dragicevic death, actually displays the clients that news and TV shows are broadcasted for.

– Ignoring is even more effective than biased reporting that many are tempt- ing to lately, in order to justify their previous actions. This is how they openly support certain political party despite the fact that the minority of their subscribers actually supports this party. The fact that particular journalists of the above-mentioned media houses express their opinion openly and when they are in contrast in conflict with editing policy, is definitely something that should encourage us all – says Vukelic.

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).