AJM complained to the OSCE for the return of political propaganda in the media

10/08/2018

SKOPJE, 10.08.2018 – A delegation of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia met with representatives of the ODIHR Observation Mission, discussing the changes to the Electoral Code and the referendum, which have a direct impact on the work of the media.

The President of AJM, Naser Selmani, said that the government and the opposition abused the referendum to secure funding for their political propaganda for the election campaign with public money, causing huge damage to media freedom and professional journalism.

“These changes of the law will bring back the government’s campaigns from the time of Gruevski’s regime, when the government with public money conducted media campaigns for their alleged work success,” Selmani said.

According to him, the payment of political propaganda in the media with public money will strengthen the corrupt ties of the media with the political parties and will influence their reporting on political processes in the country. Selmani asked the international community to put pressure on the government after the referendum, in order to delete these changes from the Electoral Code.

For Selmani, it is absolutely unacceptable that government officials made political and financial pressure on Macedonian Radio Television at a time when they declaratively advocate the reform of the public service.

The Director of AJM, Dragan Sekulovski, criticized the behavior of the State Election Commission, which, contrary to good European practices, is trying to take over the responsibilities of the Media Agency by registering the online media. According to him, the SEC can not evaluate the reporting of online media for the referendum and punish them for allegedly unbalanced reporting.

Montenegrin police is waiting for instructions from the FBI in the Lakic case

TUMM

09/08/2018

PODGORICA 09.08.2018. – Montenegrin police is still working intensively to clarify the attempted murder of journalist Vijesti Olivera Lakic, although three months have elapsed since the attack.

Enes Bakovic, Assistant Director of the Montenegrin Police Directorate, announced yesterday that the police filed all the investigation files in the case of murder attempt of the journalist of “Vijesti” Olivera Lakic and submitted it to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He said that the Police have not yet received a response from FBI with instructions for further treatment.

Olivera Lakic was attacked on May 8 around 9 pm in Podgorica, when an unknown man shot her in front of the building in which she lives. Lakic was wounded in the leg and after two days of hospital stay she was released for home treatment. She was previously a target of attacks and threats because of her articles dealing with cigarette smuggling in Montenegro.
The attack on Lakic is already the fourth case of attacks and threats to journalists in Montenegro in 2018 and the eleventh from the beginning of 2017. The majority of the most serious cases of attacks on journalists still remain unsolved. No one at the Police or the Prosecution was ever held responsible for this.

OSCE to help open probe into journalists’ murders in Kosovo

IJAS

09/08/2018

BELGRADE, 09.08.2018. – The OSCE representative for media freedom notified the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) he started consultations in Belgrade on opening a probe into the killing and disappearance of 14 media people in Kosovo from 1998 to 2005, the Union of Journalists in Serbia (UNS) said.

Harlem Désir would work together with Serbia’s Commission for investigating the killings of journalists established in February 2013 and headed by Veran Matic.

The launch of the investigation was prompted by the EFJ Assembly’s Resolution from June.

Ricardo Gutiérrez, the EFJ General Secretary, said earlier that the Resolution was sent to all international officials in Kosovo, as well as to Serbia’s and Kosovo’s presidents Aleksandar Vucic and Hashim Thaci respectively and other local and foreign officials.

Gutiérrez added that the special prosecutor’s office in Kosovo said it “will inform the EFJ on any development regarding the resolution,” the UNS statement said.

OEBS počeo konsultacije sa Veranom Matićem

IJAS

09/08/2018

BEOGRAD, 09.08.2018. – Predstavnik OEBS za slobodu medija Arlem Dezir obavestio je Evropsku federaciju novinara (EFJ) da je počeo konsultacije sa predsednikom Komisije za istraživanje ubistava novinara Veranom Matićem o tome kako da se ponovo pokrenu istrage ubistava i nestanaka 14 novinara i medijskih radnika na Kosovu i Metohiji (KIM).

„Upravo sam obavešten od predstavnika OEBS za slobodu medija da oni razgovaraju sa Veranom Matićem o tome kako da podrže ponovno otvaranje istraga o ubistvima novinara na KiM“, rekao generalni sekretar EFJ Rikardo Gutjerez Gutjerez UNS.

Ovo je posledica Rezolucije o istragama ubistava novinara na Kosovu koju je u junu, na inicijativu Udruženja novinara Srbije, jednoglasno usvojila Skupština Evropske federacije novinara.

Gutjerez je potvrdio da je ova federacija tekst Rezolucije poslala šefici Euleksa Aleksandri Papadopulu, šefu UNMIK Zahiru Taninu, predsednici Specijalnog suda na Kosovu Ekaterini Trandafilovoj, specijalnom tužiocu Kosova Džeku Smitu, ombudsmanu Specijalizovanih veća Kosova Pietru Speri.

Tekst Rezolucije je poslat predsedniku Srbije Aleksandru Vučiću, predsedniku Kosova Hašimu Tačiju, šefici stalne delegacije Skupštine Srbije u Parlamentarnoj skupštini Saveta Evrope Aleksandri Đurović, ambasadoru Kosova u Francuskoj Mihamedinu Kulašiju i predstavniku OEBS za slobodu medija Harlemu Desiru.

Gutjerez je dodao i da je specijalni tužilac Džek Smit obećao da će „zvanično odgovoriti na poslatu informaciju“, a Kris Benet iz kancelarije specijalnog tužioca naveo „da će obaveštavati EFJ o razvoju događaja u vezi sa ovom Rezolucijom“.

Rezolucijom, koju su Skupštini EFJ podneli UNS, Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije (NUNS), Sindikat novinara Srbije (SINOS) i Asocijacija novinara Kosova (AGK) traži se efikasna istraga ubistava i kidnapovanja 14 srpskih i albanskih novinara i medijskih radnika na Kosovu u periodu od 1998. do 2005. godine, a od EULEKS i Ujedinjenih nacija da sprovedu odluke Savetodavne komisije UN za ljudska prava kojima se traži rešavanje ovih slučajeva i obeštećenje porodica ubijenih i nestalih.

Rezolucijom se, takođe, zahteva saradnja tužilaca iz Beograda i Prištine kod rešavanja navedenih slučajeva, da mandat Specijalnog suda za ratne zločine počinjene na Kosovu obuhvati i slučajeve ubijenih i kidnapovanih novinara i medijskih radnika, kao i da se u Prištini formira Komisija za istraživanje ubistava i kidnapovanja novinara i medijskih radnika na Kosovu od 1998. do 2005. godine koja će u svom sastavu imati novinare.

U usvojenoj Rezoluciji „Skupština poziva Upravni odbor EFJ da u saradnji sa drugim organizacijama, udruženjima, Savetom Evrope, Ujedinjenim nacijama i drugim nezavisnim međunarodnim telima redovno prati istrage ovih ubistava i kidnapovanja i objavljuje rezultate“.

Takođe, u Rezoluciji Skupština traži od Upravnog odbora EFJ-a „da svim sredstvima podrži projekat ‘Konvencija o zaštiti novinara’ koji će Međunarodna federacija novinara (IFJ) podneti Genaralnoj skupštini Ujedinjenih nacija, a u kom se predlaže formiranje grupe međunarodnih i nezavisnih eksperata koji će istraživati nerešena ubistva novinara“, podseća UNS u saopštenju.

AJK condemns President Thaci’s language against journalist

AJK

08/08/2018

PRISTINA 08.08.2018 – The Association of Journalists of Kosovo condemns the used language by Kosovo’s President, Hashim Thaci against journalist Fitim Gashi by saying “I can’t talk on behalf of Vucic, as you are talking sometimes”.

Fitim Gashi was accused after he asked questions related to the recent initiative of President Thaci for correction of the border with Serbia, claiming that Presevo Valley should be returned to Kosovo.

The labelling used by the president against journalist Gashi is unacceptable for the Association of Journalists of Kosovo and constitutes a violation of the professional integrity of the work of journalists and media.

AJK asks President Thaci not to use unfounded charges and labels against journalists and the media they represent. AJK calls on President Thaci to distance himself from such lynching language and to show more restraint in respect of the work of journalists.

SEC has no right to impose media presentation for the referendum

AJM

08/08/2018

SKOPJE, 08.08.2018 – The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM), the Independent Union of Journalists and Media Workers (SSNM), the Council on Media Ethics in Macedonia (CMEM), Macedonian Institute for Media (MIM) and the Institute of Communication Studies (IKS) condemn the way how the State Election Commission interprets the latest amendments and supplements to the Electoral Code regarding the media presentation for the referendum on the name issue.

We remind that the recent amendments to the Electoral Code, which legitimize political propaganda in the media paid by taxpayers’ money, are related only to election campaigns, and not for organizing referendums.

The SEC has no legal authority to interpret laws, while the clarification of the Commission for media presentation of the referendum is legally unbased and discriminates the participants in the referendum.

It is unclear where the SEC derives its right to the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, as the organizer of the referendum, to give priority in the media presentation, compared to the other participants in the referendum. The Assembly not only receives privileged access to the media for political propaganda for the referendum, but also the costs of propaganda will be paid with public money.

Other participants in the referendum campaign will not only have limited access to the media for propaganda, but they will have to bear the advertising costs themselves. Such lump-sum clarification can seriously jeopardize the legitimacy and legality of the referendum, and therefore the SEC should immediately withdraw it.

We urge the media not to allow themselves to be drawn into this political manipulation. If today they allow someone to impose rules on how to advertise in their media, tomorrow they will tell them how to report.

Pravnička pamet

IJAS

07/08/2018

BEOGRAD, 07.08.2018. – Dana 3. avgusta sudija Radmila Radić napravila je presedan i otvorila put za nove tužbe. Na udaru tih tužbi neminovno će se naći i Vučić lično.

Evo šta se dogodilo. Sudija Radić odlučila je (nepravnosnažno) da usvoji tužbeni zahtev Nebojše Stefanovića (kao privatnog lica) utvrdivši da Vesna Pešić i Peščanik jesu povredili njegovu čast i ugled pošto je Pešić napisala a Peščanik objavio da je Stefanović i „glup“ i „najgluplji“ te stoga moraju da mu nadoknade nematerijalnu štetu u iznosu od 200.000 dinara. Nije ovde stvar samo u tome što se Radić usudila da vrednuje Stefanovićevu čast i njegov ugled i proceni ih skupa na 200.000, što je manje od onoga na koliko je Stefanović sam sebe procenio – on je na ime nadoknade štete tražio čitavih 300.000. Problem je mnogo veći: jednom kada Stefanović utvrdi ko je rušio kuće u Savamali, svaka od tih osoba, a sumnja se opet na visoke funkcionere države, moći će da tuži Vučića po istom osnovu. Jer on ih je sve zajedno proglasio „kompletnim idiotima“.

U poređenju sa grubom Vučićevom kvalifikacijom, utisak je da je Vesna Pešić gotovo pa tepala kada je napisala: „Jedino je glupost ministra policije Nebojše Stefanovića nenadmašna i nepredvidiva. Do sada nismo otkrili zašto je baš njemu dodeljena uloga da ispadne najgluplji. Možda zato što se on uvek pojavljuje posle Vučića da ’zapuši’ preostale rupe. I kakve bisere je prosuo ovoga puta? Izjavio je da je ’spin’ to što je glavna vest u Srbiji rušenje tri nelegalna objekta u Savamali… Ministar je mudro dodao da rušenje na takav način ne sme da se dešava, ali i kad se desi, nikako ne treba da bude glavna vest u Srbiji… Jeste mu to mnogo glupo, ali ovo što sledi je najgluplje. Na pitanje novinarke zašto policija nije reagovala kada su je unesrećeni čuvari i vlasnici objekata u Savamali obavestili šta se dešava, on je rekao da policija nije smela da reaguje jer nije dozvoljeno ugrožavati živote policajaca! Mogla je, kaže ministar, da ih ubije električna struja iz porušenih objekata. I eto šta je ispalo – policija služi tome da čuva policiju… Ministar je lepo objasnio da se radi o građanima čiji su objekti služili ’za sticanje bogatstva’, da su to ’građevine dobijene spregom politike i tajkuna’.“

Odluka sudije Radić nije samo potencijalna pretnja Vučiću lično. Ona se svojom presudom oglušila i o zahtev samog tužioca. Naime, ona je zaključila da je Vesna Pešić „prekoračila slobodu javnog informisanja i slobodu izražavanja“, jer navedeni njeni stavovi „nemaju karakter ozbiljne kritike na pojave koje su od interesa za javnost, već imaju tendenciju vređanja i omalovažavanja tužioca“. Podsetimo se, Stefanović je u tužbi eksplicitno napisao da njega ne pogađa to što ga Pešić vidi kao „glupog“ i „najglupljeg“; njega je povredilo to što ona pritom laže i tvrdnju o njegovoj gluposti izvodi iz onoga što on nije rekao. Da bi to pokazao, Stefanović u tužbi navodi transkript svoje izjave, gde zaista, u tom konkretnom transkriptu, nema ni pomena o struji i golim kablovima koji štrče iz porušenih kuća. Drugim rečima, Stefanović je nadoknadu tražio za bol koji je pretrpeo našavši se u središtu tobožnjih izmišljotina Vesne Pešić.

Pored toga što je zanemarila osnovni tužiočev zahtev, sudija ga je u objašnjenju i uvredila. Naime, ako se još jednom pažljivo (dakle, svakako pažljivije nego što su to uradili i Stefanović i sudija) pročita navod iz teksta sa Peščanika, lepo se vidi da Pešić glupost pripisuje ministru policije (koji je sticajem okolnosti trenutno Stefanović), dok najglupljom kvalifikuje ulogu koja mu je dodeljena, a dalje u tekstu će, dosledno referirajući na ministra a ne na Stefanovića, prideve glupo i najgluplje vezati isključivo za njegove izjave a ne za njegovu (privatnu) ličnost. U logici je ova razlika izuzetno važna, pa se treba nadati da je tako i u primeni prava: dakle, da su sudije u stanju da razlikuju iskaz da je glupo ono što je izgovoreno od iskaza da je glup govornik; jedno ne povlači drugo i stoga se mora sačuvati razlika. Pripisati glupost ministru policije ravno je konstataciji da on ne radi dobro svoj posao. Reći da su ministrove/Stefanovićeve izjave glupe, a jesu, naprotiv, ne povlači sa sobom tvrdnju da je sam ministar/Stefanović glup. Sudija je i jedno i drugo naprosto previdela (bilo bi zanimljivo pitati se zašto) i onda čitav navod razumela kao da se kaže da je Stefanović (a ne više ministar) „glup“ i „najgluplji“.

Treba razumeti sudiju. Šta joj je drugo i preostalo, ako je već htela da prihvati Stefanovićev tužbeni zahtev. Pokazalo se naime, i sama sudija je to primetila, da nije tačno da Vesna Pešić izmišlja: Stefanović jeste rekao ono što tvrdi da nije i čega nema u transkriptu koji je dostavio sudu. Stoga njegova bol ne može biti posledica laži, kako je on želeo da je predstavi. Sudija onda nije imala kud, pa se vratila korak nazad i zaključila, suprotno onome što se tvrdi u tužbi, da Stefanovića ne vređa laž nego to što ga je neko tobože nazvao „glupim“ i „najglupljim“, iako, kako smo videli, ni to nije tačno. Dobro, sve ovo su uvidi iz takozvane zdrave pameti. Moguće je da je pravnička pamet, kojom se rukovodila sudija, drugačija. Ali, zar ne bismo otišli predaleko ako bismo tvrdili da je pravnička pamet uvek u raskoraku sa zdravom pameću? Ako je tako, onda bismo na užas zdrave pameti, mogli da zaključimo da se pravnička pamet u Srbiji danas zalaže upravo za ograničavanje slobode informisanja i slobode izražavanja kada proizvoljno ili naprosto pogrešno utvrdi da su one prekoračene. Tako slobodan da informiše i da se izražava ostaje samo Vučić – svi ostali su, ispada, „kompletni idioti“.

PDF Presude

REM: MORE AUTHORITY, BUT ALSO MORE ACCOUNTABILITY

IJAS

06/08/2018

BELGRADE, 06.08.2018. – The study straightforwardly recommends “to equip REM with the power to issue financial sanctions” as well as to adopt a by-law how it uses its sanctioning powers that would gradually escalate sanctions in order to step up deterrence.

By international comparison Serbia has a very modern media law; however, our study highlights certain risks to influence the Regulatory Authority on Electronic Media (REM). We note that lacking the optimal support of the parliament (its statute, financial plan and appointments) and being side-lined by the Ministry on Culture and Information (media development strategy) can damage the functioning of the regulator. In this situation, REM appears to retreat to overly formalistic (law-abiding) activities without necessarily being effective in regulating the Serbian electronic and audio-visual media, said dr. Kristina Irion, an international expert from the Institute for Information Law in Amsterdam and head of a research study The Independence and Functioning of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media in Serbia. The study was commissioned by the Council of Europe, upon Regulatory Authority on Electronic Media request and finalised in October 2017.

ABOUT THE STUDY

The study, finalised in October 2017, deals with an assessment of the independence of the Serbian Regulatory Authority on Electronic Media – REM. The study includes implementation of INDIREG methodology on REM, contextual interpretation of results and relevant recommendations. INDIREG methodology is scientifically based and used to assess formal and de facto independence of the monitoring bodies in the field of audio-visual media. It covers five different dimensions: -status and powers, financial autonomy, autonomy of decision makers, knowledge and transparency and accountability mechanisms.

The work consisted of three phases: data collection regarding formal and de facto independence of REM, implementation of INDIER tools and providing potential attention points and contextual interpretation of the results.

The study was commissioned by the Council of Europe, upon REM request, as a part of the project Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX).

In addition to dr. Kristin Irion, the authors of the study are Michele Ledger Cullen International, Brussels, and University of Namur (BE), Dr Sara Svensson Center for Policy Studies at Central European University, Budapest (HU) and Nevena Rsumovic Media developer and independent researcher, Belgrade (RS).

IJAS: The study states that “On the one hand, the regulator cannot impose financial sanctions which are certainly more effective than reprimands and warnings. On the other hand, REM underuses the most deterrent sanction it has, i.e. the temporary ban on programmes“. How is this situation to be solved?

The study straightforwardly recommends “equipping REM with the power to issue financial sanctions, also in relation to violations of programme content requirements, following a warning and subject to judicial review.” To REM we address the recommendation to adopt a by-law how it uses its sanctioning powers that would gradually escalate sanctions in order to step up deterrence.

SEPERATION OF NOMINATION TO REM COUNCIL

To what extent is it true that REM has limited autonomy in decision-making regarding the ways it spends its own budget and what are the consequences?

REM is currently operating according to the Financial Plan of 2015 since the financial plan submitted to the parliament has not been approved since then. The fact that REM operates on the basis of an out-dated budget plan curtails its autonomy to decide how its budget is spent. This means that a number of investments and budget reallocations between categories has not been possible, and activities therefore not been carried out. Such prevents the use of savings in for instance the category of ‘vehicles’ to spend on ‘education of staff’. Another example, we were provided with is the purchase of software licenses or updates, which can for example be used in monitoring media content. This was apparently not possible because the out-dated financial plan did not budget for this.

The study also states that the “dimension of decision-making autonomy is limited by formal organisation of the procedure of nomination and appointing Council members“. In which direction should the procedure of nomination and appointing REM Council members be changed?

While the legal set-up of nomination and appointment procedure is best practice, the nomination stage has been prone to failure in practice. Some of the difficulties we observed could have to do with the complexity of the nomination stage. The first round of nominations following the 2014 Law on Electronic Media took place in 2015. Some of the organisations who together form a single nominator were not fully informed and not yet experienced in the new nominations process. Overall, the nomination procedure could be better communicated helping organisations concerned to understand what is expected from them at which stage.

We do not side whether the frequent delays and occasional interruptions of the nomination on procedural grounds are in the interest of the rule of law or constructed. What is obvious is that frequently the nomination procedure commences too late, which is why we call on the Parliamentary Committee in charge to support the independence and functioning of REM in line with the law on electronic media, namely organizing timely nominations and appointing new members to the Council. In order to avoid that one procedural mistake creates stalemate for parallel nomination and appointment procedure, every nomination and appointment should be treated as a self-standing procedure.

What is the actual meaning of the recommendation that it is necessary to “clarify the role of REM in relation to the monitoring of election campaigns“? In which way can this be done?

REM’s competence in relation to the monitoring of election campaigns needs to be clarified at the very least. In our view judicial clarification of the competences to monitor media during election campaigns would be most desirable. The legal action of NUNS – even if on the outset conflictual – could be seen as an important service to clarify REM’s competence in the field of election monitoring.

It seems that one of the least transparent articles of the Law on electronic media is an obligatory constitutionality and legality review of by-laws and rulebooks?

What is problematic in our view is that the law does not specify who is in charge of this review and what the legal effect of such a review is. In practice, we understand that REM obtains that opinion from the Ministry of Culture and Information.

To our knowledge, the review of one by-law, the rulebook on the obligations of media service providers during election campaign, decided against REM’s interpretation of media monitoring of election campaigns. Other stakeholders in turn are highly critical of REM’s inactivity in relation to political advertisement during election campaigns, which damages REM’s reputation as an impartial media regulator.

We strongly recommend clarifying in the Law on Electronic Media that the constitutionality and legality review should be exclusively for the judiciary in line with article 13 at the end. In principle REM has in-house legal advisory capacity and any opinion by the responsible ministry on the constitutionality and legality could take the form of a legal advice to REM and should be published.

INTERACTION WITH INDEPENDENT BODIES

What did the study find regarding interaction between this independent regulatory body and other horizontal legislation governing the public sector in Serbia?

It has been stressed earlier that independent regulators have been fitted fairly recently in the public sector organization whereby Serbian administrative tradition and legal framework do not fully recognize their status and role. This is therefore not just an issue for REM but also for all other independent regulatory bodies in Serbia, such as data protection, telecommunication and competition just to name a few.

In connection with this, it would be also important to clarify whether there are strings attached to independent bodies being ‘entrusted’ with competences. The legal set-up between original holders of state authority and public bodies being entrusted with competences is not unambiguously clear. A note of caution is necessary because the intricacies of the public administrative law in Serbia go beyond this study’s remit, however, we want to be comprehensive in flagging possible avenues of influence on the independent media regulator that were detected during the data collection stage.

Instructive insofar are the events surrounding RATEL in 2008 where the ministry threatened to revoke all competencies from RATEL in a controversy over its allocation of a dialling code to a private operator without issuing a tender. Although such a thread was subsequently overruled, the government’s reasoning apparently did not refute the principle possibility that ‘entrusted’ powers can be revoked based on the Law on Public Administration under certain circumstances. This, however, would amount to some sort of a ‘Kill-switch’ in the hands of the genuine holders of state administrative powers that would not be compatible with the theory and practice of delegation of powers and competences to independent regulatory authorities.

What are your recommendations about these situations?

We recommend to commission a study that explores the possible tensions between the public administrative framework and independent regulatory bodies in Serbia and make recommendations on how to reconcile the legitimate objectives of the public administrative reform with the establishment and functioning of independent regulatory bodies in Serbia, including REM. REM should try to liaise with the other sector-specific independent regulators which are established in order to align Serbian legal frameworks with EU law and compile information how regulator’s constituting legislation may be impacted from horizontal administrative rules.

Has REM, after the study, undertook some activities regarding suggested recommendations?

We received indirect information that the REM Council discussed our study in their last meeting. We did not receive any feedback but we hope that REM can make good use of the findings and recommendation to improve its overall situation and defend itself against external influence.

REM: NO COMMENT

Although the questions regarding the study have been sent to REM, we received no answer. We were told, in person, that it had been decided that for now, there will be no comment on the findings and recommendations of this study. We note that the study was ordered by REM itself.

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.

Commission probing murders of journalist has broader tasks

IJAS

03/08/2018

BELGRADE, 03.08.2018. – The Serbian government has broadened the tasks of a commission set up to evaluate facts discovered during investigations into murders of journalists.

This decision has been made in order to secure, through coordination of services of the Republic of Serbia and cooperation with journalists and similar institutions from the region, that the fight against the impunity for murders of journalists is continued, the government announced on Thursday.

In addition, this document has been adopted in order to contribute to the clearing up of murders of journalists in the conflicts in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the period from 1991 to 1995 and in the kidnappings and murders of journalists in Kosovo and Metohija in the period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000.

New members of the Commission who represent the Prosecutor’s Office for War Crimes and the Service for War Crimes of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior have been appointed.

The president of the commission, Veran Matic, reacted to this by issuing a statement, saying the decision was very important in the fight against impunity for murders of journalists. The results of the work of the commission have been confirmed both domestically and internationally, he writes – by organizations such as the OSCE, UNESCO, the UN, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders.

“This decision is the answer to the data of the Association of Journalists of Serbia about over 40 killed and missing journalists from the territory of Serbia in the past period. Despite the fact that there are international agreements on investigations related to those killed and missing, there has been no progress in the detection of facts related to the killed and disappeared journalists and media workers in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija,” Matic said, and added:

“There has been no serious progress either in cooperation between the prosecutor’s offices, the police, etc. In particular, there has been no focus on the cases of murdered and kidnapped journalists. Therefore, the decision to include representatives of the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office and the War Crimes Service of the Ministry of the Interior is a move towards a constructive engagement in shedding light on the murders and kidnappings of journalists. Discovering the fate of journalists from Serbia’s territory is with this given new opportunities.”

At the same time, a systemic legal space for the participation of the institutions of Serbia in the efforts to shed light both on the murders and disappearances of journalists from the region was created, he said,

“I hope that the International Committee to Protect Journalists from New York will accept that there were other victims in Serbia, in addition to the murder of Slavko Curuvija, i.e., that they will finally include the 16 media workers of Radio Television of Serbia killed (in NATO airstrikes) on their list of killed journalists and media workers will, and in this way,give an important contribution to the fight against impunity, because such a recognition would make it possible to make more efficient actions in collecting data on who issued the order to bomb a media house for the first time in history,” Matic said.

In Serbia, the Commission has created a model that is already being used to campaign against violence against journalists, along with the OSCE Media Freedom Commission, it is the winner of the Bronze Lion at the Cannes Festival. Leading international organizations, from the UN, to journalist associations, have recognized the engagement of the Commission as one of a few successful responses to impunity for the murder of journalists, he noted.

“I expect first progress in discussions on the ways in which investigations can be conducted in cases of five missing Serbian journalists in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as the killing of nine journalists. Also, we will talk with colleagues and representatives of competent institutions in Croatia about the investigations that were done or did not exist in cases of the killings of our colleagues during the war operations,” Matic continued.

Impunity is also a regional and global problem, because it is very often an attack on investigative journalism, the response of organized criminal groups to the discovery of national and international attempts to impose criminality’s power. Organized crime, by definition, has become regional and global, he said.

“It is therefore important to build mechanisms that will enable us to oppose attacks on journalists, also beyond the borders of our states… Perhaps the best example for the necessary cooperation is the case of the murder of Ivo Pukanic. This case speaks plastically about the need to cooperate because it happened in Croatia, while Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian citizens who have been convicted took part in the murder and its planning, while the person who ordered the murder has not yet been discovered and who could be from a fifth country,” Matic said, and concluded:

“It is impossible to expect that all cases can be solved through the engagement of a commission, but it is very important to establish mechanisms that have shown their effectiveness on a wider scale, within legal standards and with a strong political will to clarify the fate of the killed and missing journalists. This activity is very important at a time when there are growing threats and attacks on journalists, and when we have a growing rate of impunity. Every unresolved attack on journalists represents new enticement, while every effort to solve these cases is the basis for preventing such attacks in the future.”

1...308309310...469 Page 309 of 469

Safejournalists.net