BELGRADE, 04.07.2018. – The Appellate Court has ruled to adopt an appeal filed by the prosecutor in the trial for the murder of journalist and publisher Slavko Curuvija.

The decision establishes that databases from the (telephone) base stations had been obtained in a lawful manner and can be used as evidence.

Mirjana Piljic, a spokeswoman of the Appellate Court, told this on Tuesday to Insajder.

This means that the first-instance court, which in April excluded this evidence at the request of the defense, will have to take them into account when establishing the facts and rendering the verdict.

The data is question was presented by the prosecution as evidence that the accused had been at the site of the murder of Curuvija, who was gunned down in Belgrade in 1999.

The president of the Commission for Investigations of the Murders of Journalists, Veran Matic, earlier told the weekly NIN in an interview that with their decisions, the Trial Chamber had effectively ruled to acquit the accused – former members of Serbia’s state security agency (RDB).

Despite all the unusual facts and events that accompany the trial, the Judges’ Association of Serbia and the Belgrade Bar Association have criticized Matic’s statements.

Reacting to this criticism on Tuesday, the Commission issued a statement, signed by Matic, to point out that this body – set up by the government – has always been supportive of the independence of the court, that it always respected the presumption of innocence and never violated the presumption of innocence of any of the defendants.

“Trials are public precisely in order to enable for the democratic control of the public. Judicial power is independent and there is no control over it other than the control of the public. This is the reason why the public, not only can, but also has the duty to monitor what the court is doing, to create an opinion on this and to publicly state this opinion,” the statement said, and added:

“Neither the Judges’ Association of Serbia nor the Belgrade Bar Association have any deed on having an opinion on the work of the judiciary. They are interested parties who do not have the right to silence the public or deny it the right to an opinion and its free expression.”

“We are fully committed to respecting the right to a fair trial, but the right to a fair trial can not coexist with impunity for the murders of journalists. They mutually exclude each other,” the statement said.

“The president of the Commission presented undisputed facts and a legitimate opinion about them. It’s no surprise that the Judges’ Association of Serbia and the Bar Association of Belgrade together expressed their protest, because without the public there is no control over their work, which has been rated very low by international institutions. Once again, we invite the public to pay full attention to the work of judges and lawyers, and make its own conclusions,” the Commission said, and concluded:

“We express our satisfaction with the decision of the Appellate Court, which for the second time ruled in favor of the prosecution’s appeal, which is confirmed that the Commission was right in commenting on the decisions of the Trial Chamber. Once again, it has been shown how important it is to hear well-supported, critical thinking publicly.”

SARAJEVO, 04.07.2018.-One of many conclusions on the seminar for judicial and media representatives was that both journalists and editors must be part of the continuing education process, as far as this, the rather sensitive issue is concerned (in terms of comprehensive understanding and acknowledgment of relevant and appropriate legal theme). The purpose of this article is exactly to confirm this, that is, to bring nearer the fundamental principles of the Law on Civil Procedures (“Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH”, No 53/03, 73/05, 19/06 and 98/15) and in order to make their presence and participating (during court proceedings) as part of the civil procedures or media coverage, including the following of media reports of this issue. At certain points, this Law refers to provisions of the Law on Protection against Defamation of the Federation of BiH (“Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH”, No 59/02).

Fundamental Principles of the Law on Civil Procedure (originally and hereinafter ZPP)

Even in its initial Article 1, the ZPP defines that the Law shall determine the procedure rules, upon which the courts shall launch their discussions and consequently make decisions regarding civil procedures and all disputes (pursuant to the Law on Protection against Defamation of the Federation of BiH) are undoubtedly they shall define part of these procedures as well. Understanding the fundamental principles and rules of the ZZP is crucial for all media representatives, because its absence, according to this article’s author, often results in mistranslation, misinterpretation and incorrect conclusions of all parties involved in certain procedures, their dissatisfaction, but it also creates the wrong picture send to the public whilst making reports about particular court proceedings. In this sense, critics directed against court’s decisions often emerge, including critics directed against particular judges being consequently described as biased towards certain parties involved in the process, or judges whose knowledge and expertise are described as noncompetent and/or insufficient or judges making slovenly based decisions or similar situations.

Therefore, Law on Civil Procedures displays a set of rules upon which the court, during the civil court proceedings, launches and implements required actions for procedure commencement, with the purpose of bringing the decisions (based on party’s enquiry which had previously launch and initiated the entire court process) closer to all parties involved. This means that procedures are usually launched by parties involved, that is, a competent suitor by pressing the charges against the accused party and it would be incorrect to say that it is the court that files claims against the accused party or that it is the court the leads procedures against the certain party.

Court is considered as an independent body of the third governing post (along with bodies of legislative and governing levels) and is entitled and responsible for law implementation, including civil procedures that either party claims in accordance with the law, not taking into serious consideration whether the filed/ submitted suit had legal foundations in the first place. Therefore, suitor in their files/claims, indicate that the accused party violates their subjective rights and consequently suitors requests appropriate and relevant protection from the court as a result of the violation of their rights. Plaintiff, during the protection from defamation proceedings and according to the above mentioned facts, claims that the accused incriminates his public reputation by releasing or transferring untrue and incorrect information and facts, by identifying and exposing the plaintiff to a third party and he/she consequently seeks protection from the court demanding the protection for his/her violated rights.

Plaintiff in his claim must indicate firm elements of accusations clearly defined by Article 53 of the ZPP (particular suitor’s claim, indication of dispute value and other relevant information with each of them being precisely registered as subject), and in order to have legal appeal considered as valid and appropriate for further proceeding, this appeal can be submitted and presented to the accused party for a reply in return. Accused party is thus obliged to respond to appeal received (in written) in 30 days from the date of the received lawsuit. In his/her response and reply to lawsuit he/she shall reply by indicating eventual process complaints, plead whether he/she admits or denies lawsuit he/she is presented with and consequently deny lawsuit presenting evidence for its denial, including the evidence, proofs and facts determining the denial (Article 71, ZPP).

If the accused party, within the period defined by the law, fails to submit the reply and does not respond to the received lawsuit, the verdict may be passed without his/her consent and presence. For the sake of correct understanding, the above mentioned shall not be considered as derived and imposed sanctions, as far as the accused party is concerned; instead this process would rather refer to a presumption, indicating that the accused party received a lawsuit, that he/she had read it and understood its content and that he/she would agree that the court shall make decision with meritorious discussion and without further costs and expenses of the proceeding. According to this, the accused party does not file in a complaint and is consent with the verdict and without their presence. Pursuant to the above mentioned, it is required that the lawsuit shall be submitted to the accused party, according to the law provisions, when the lawsuit procedure officially commences.

Further proceeding consists of preparation hearing, main hearing and consequently the verdict. Preparation hearing is aimed to clarify all process objections, to clarify the core of the dispute, to identify the key evidence required for decision making (and decision making) in particular cases, to clarify and differentiate clear from unclear arguments and finally to present evidence that would outline clear but disputable facts.

Material law defines key and determining facts and during the cases related to the protection against defamation, the Law on Protection against Defamation shall provide us with the fundamental principles, recognizing and defining the crucial facts required for proceedings and determining, in order to make and pass the decision (regardless of the nature; process or merits – based decision). Consequently, we must not forget that European Convention on Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms are directly implemented and applicable in our legal and judiciary system.

Material law, therefore, in cases related to the protection against defamation and to some extent, obtrudes the judges to take the following circumstances into serious consideration: – the following defamation elements shall be considered as crucial and these include: releasing/transferring certain and untrue/incorrect information;

Identifying the damaged party, damage existence, transferring to third parties, intention or unintentional actions taken in the above-mentioned proceedings

– the court, in terms of the above mentioned, clearly make the difference between clear evidence and arguments and valued courts

– the court shall pay attention to possible conflicts between two rights – the rights of privacy/reputation and right of freedom of expression

– the right of freedom of expression shall be limited in terms of law and its provisions, there must be a single or more legitimate goal and they must be present on democracy – biased society

– during the establishing and developing of balance between the right of the protection (reputation) and right to freedom of expression the following criteria shall be taken into consideration:

a) is expressing (derived from the contribution to the discussion from interest) disputable

b) how familiar is the public with the suitor (damaged person), is he/she public or private person and what was her/his behavior like prior to proceeding

c) nature of information collection and its accuracy (acting in good faith and based on true and correct arguments and facts)

d) context, form, and consequences of releasing

e) seriousness of eventual and possible sanctions.

As the above mentioned implies the court is presented with rather complex, complicated and serious task and its assignment is thus followed by the questions how shall the court manage to determine and define all of the above mentioned and flatly arguments and facts.

Facts relevant to decision making shall be determined through the proving system (should they be considered as disputable), but special notice shall remain and its direction could only help the appointed court to make decision within the scope of limits of demands and requests previously set up in the proceeding process; therefore, it would only refer to what parties would require and only within the limits of facts and arguments that the court had been presented with during the process itself. This means that courts shall not, pursuant to their ex officio, lead the proceeding, but also, they shall not examine and analyze the facts, nor they would attempt to reach the full truth either in a concrete dispute. The court shall make decisions only based on what parties present in front of them; based on the results of proving process and the way the process truth shall be reached, does not necessarily mean that it has to be in parallel and match up with the real and actual truth of certain, real and existing event.

Due to the above-mentioned facts, we should seriously take the obligation of parties involved, to present all facts upon which they base their requirements and demands, including arguments and evidence necessary to confirm and support their claims. The court’s task would additionally be to, after being presented with arguments and evidence, determine whether these arguments and evidence indeed served to prove and confirm the claims or another way around. According to prior, parties therefore recommend, suggest and present their evidence, and if the court, pursuant to results deriving from the evidence, cannot be certain whether particular firm evidence does indeed exist or not, the rule on a burden of proof shall be implemented and applied. Therefore, the court cannot reject to pass the decision according to certain suitor’s request, because it considers that insufficient evidence is presented; instead, it must proceed with the burden of proof rule.

This consequently implies that the party which was obliged to present certain evidence and failed with presenting it shall take the burden of unsubstantiated evidence and the facts and arguments that this party presents, shall additionally be considered as nonexisting fact or evidence.

The process of affirming relevant, but disputable facts shall be processed on main hearing, because it is during this particular proceeding stage when the parties present proofs by reading them out, interrogating suitor and defendant parties involved, question witnesses, listen to expertise (expert’s opinion and analysis) and finally listen to inspection presented.

If the parties present proofs in order to determine the facts that are not considered as important for decision making or if these facts are acknowledged, that is, undisputable or commonly known, the court shall reject the presentation of such proofs, and in this sense, we shall pay particular attention to reasons upon which the court would reject applying of certain proofs. The prior should particularly be highlighted because the court would then be obliged to implement the process in most economic and efficient way, therefore, to conduct and conclude the entire process in shortest possible time and with minimum costs and expenses required, and such justified rejection of the presentation of certain proofs does not mean the judge has been acting illegally and that judge acted against the law or that he/she disallows the party to discuss, or that judge is biased towards certain party or similar situation.

Finally, the court (based on the results of implemented process) passes the decision in terms that determined facts, evidence and arguments and treats the case as part of appropriate provisions of material law (court syllogism), which is, as we could see from the above-presented facts, complex and demanding process, particularly if we take into consideration that the judge shall write certain exposition of court decisions with multiple meaning. Namely, from the verdict exposition, both suitor and accused are presented with the reasons of appeals rejection or approval being thus provided with the possibility to challenge such decision by applying remedies (appeal). By submitting expositions in written, the exceeded arbitral court proceeding is reduced, although we must not neglect the impact that decision expositions may have on education, including the prevention of inappropriate behavior in similar situations. Judge’s skills, experience and involvement influences on the degree of success and how the prior task would be accomplished, but we must not neglect the circumstances and the environment in which this judge performs his professional task.

After the verdict, parties have the right (pursuant to law provisions) to appeal (legal remedy which is under the jurisdiction of the second – instance courts – Cantonal courts in FBiH), including the revision (special remedy which is under the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federation of BiH), with a notice that, if the second – instance court confirms the first – instance decision or reverse the decision; the process shall be validly terminated.

Conclusion

As we can see in the above mentioned, in order to make the decision about the suitor’s appeal, it is required to launch a proceeding which, in case of the lack of understanding of its norms, may lead to conclusions that again may lead the court to proceed and be biased towards the involved parties in the proceeding, that is, to “serve” one party in particular. According to this, any citizen should become familiar with the fundamental principles of civil procedure and become familiar which obligation becomes important if the case includes the party on the civil procedure or in case of professional reporting about the particular civil procedure. The propose of this article was exactly to support this with the clear indication that civil procedure is indeed complex and according to its nature it is a constant subject to further examination.

In conclusion, we outline and highlight that everyone must be clear with the fact that this is civil procedure, disputes of civil and legal nature, including the protection of defamation cases and these have nothing in common (in terms of process and material sense) with criminal felonies, criminal procedures, accusations, indictments, suspects, accused and convicted, that is criminal sanctions imposed, that is, have nothing in common with court proceedings related to criminal and legal issues and that we should always make a distinction between these two legal areas and cases that are subject of proceedings. Also, it is necessary to outline that court’s decisions, as the third and independent party, to make the decision regarding the adequacy or not – adequacy of the appealing request, without the possibility to provide help to either party or the “serve”’ either of them.

This text is a part of E-Bulletin–the first 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). 

BIJAČA, 03.07.2018. – The Steering Committee  of BHJA and Free Media Help Line report a public protest to the Police Administration Ljubuški and its commander Tomo Šarić for threats to journalists, their harassment and the disincentives to report professionally and safely on the protest of demobilized fighters held on Monday at the cross border Bijača.

Commander Tomo Sarić has tried to forbid journalists to record and take statements from protesters and threatened journalists to mark them as organizers of that gathering and be name them as responsible for blocking traffic near the cross border. Commander Šarić was especially brutal to the jorunalist from the news portal Bljesak.info, threatening them he will subdact all journalistic material, and file misdemeanor reports against journalist.

The Steering Committee  of BHJA  considers the behavior of the commander Tomo Šarić unacceptable, illegal and unprofessional dealing of police offices towards journalists and media, who have the right to record and report from events of public interest, including the protest of demobilized fighters. At the same time, this act is a major attack on freedom of expression, as well as the right on safe and dignified journalist’s work– protected through national laws and international documents. In this regard, The Steering Committee  of BHJA  reminds commander Šarić  that in the OSCE Police Guidelines in Dealing with the Media it has been strictly stated that “police cannot be involved or cannot punish journalists during their performing of tasks“, as well as that „journalists have right to take photos, to record, make notes, observe, make interviews and/or make reports without asking for promotion of government or police….”

The Steering Committee  of BHJA  request urgent and official apologize of the Police Administration Ljubuški to all journalists and media who were yesterday inappropriately attacked by Tomo Šarić, and from the Ministry of Interior Affairs of this Canton to efficiently investigate this cases and undertakes legally prescribed measures towards the arrogant police commander.

BANJA LUKA, 29.06.2018. – BHJA Journalists Club strongly condemns and considers the statement given by the president of RS Milorad Dodika inadmissible and inappropriate, in which he targeted Suzana Rađen Todorić and Željko Raljić as“two important journalists of BN TV who spent a few days training at some of London’s facilities”. The Club also condemns Dodik’s statement in which he claims “BN works against the interest of RS”.

With such statements, the President of Republic Srpska again endangers the journalist’s right to work and the safety of journalists themselves. We recall the President to resolve all disputes with journalists or media houses legally, if he considers that members of the Seventh Force do not perform their work professionally and ethically. If the President of RS is endangered by journalistic reporting, he should leave it to the competent institutions.

BEOGRAD, 03.07.2018. – Društvo sudija Srbije saopštilo je da Veran Matić izjavom za Cenzolovku krši pretpostavku nevinosti i utiče na sudsko veće u procesu za ubistvo novinara Slavka Ćuruvije. Matić: Poštujemo nezavisnost suda, ali nećemo da zabijamo glavu u pesak kad je svima jasno šta se događa.

Društvo sudija Srbije saopštilo je danas, kako piše Beta, da izjava predsednika Komisije za istraživanje ubistva novinara Verana Matića o tome kako Sudsko veće vodi slučaj ubistva novinara Slavka Ćuruvije, povređuje pretpostavku nevinosti i protivpravno utiče na sud.

Ono je reagovalo na intervju koji je Matić dao za Cenzolovku i u kome navodi da „ima utisak da Sudsko veće koje vodi slučaj ubistva novinara Slavka Ćuruvije pojedinim odlukama pokazuje jasnu nameru da oslobodi optužene za ubistvo Ćuruvije“.

Tim povodom, Veran Matić, predsednik Komisije za istraživanje ubistava novinara, u izjavi za javnost ukazuje da „sudije nisu izuzete od prava javnosti da bude informisana“.

„Nisu oni posebna kasta kojoj niko ništa ne sme da zameri. Naprotiv, trebalo bi da im budu javno objavljene fotografije i imovina koju poseduju, a na njima je da sude po zakonu. Komisija za istraživanje ubistava novinara nijednim svojim aktom nije se mešala u samostalnost tužilaštava i nezavisnost suda, ali sigurno neće da zabija glavu u pesak u situacijama kada je svima jasno sta se događa“, kaže Matić i izražava nadu da će Društvo sudija „smoći snage da u svojim redovima izdvoji žito od kukolja i ukaže na one koji nečasno vrše poverenu sudijsku dužnost“.

„Slučaj Ćuruvija može da bude test za sve: izvršni organi i tužilastvo su pokazali svoju profesionalnost, a da li je Društvo sudija to videlo i kod veća koje vodi postupak?“

Društvo sudija Srbije, međutim, kako prenosi Beta, ističe da Matić protivpravno utiče na sud i svojim izjavom da „Sudsko veće donosi nezаmislivu odluku dа nа kućni pritvor pusti optužene…“ Oni dodaju da je dužnost suda da postupаk sprovede sа što mаnje odugovlаčenjа, „što ne znаči i dužnost određivаnjа pritvorа“.

„Jer pritvor nije kаznа i, budući dа zаdire u slobodu gаrаntovаnu svаkome, izriče se sаmo izuzetno, rаdi obezbedjenjа prisustvа okrivljenog u postupku“, navodi se u izjavi Društva sudija, koje traži da Visoki sаvet sudstvа reаguje.

Matić, sa druge strane, kaže da nije pravnik, ali da je „naučio da se pritvor ne određuje samo radi sprečavanja bekstva, već i zbog sprečavanja uticaja na svedoke, pa se pitam što to nije pomenulo Društvo sudija ili taj pojedinac – jer uvek je reč o pojedincu iz Društva sudija?“

On poziva Društvo sudija da objasni kako i zbog čega se tokom suđenja za ubistvo Ćuruvije zakazuju jedno ili dva ročišta mesečno „za predmet za koji je izuzetno zainteresovana javnost i sama država koja je i formirala Komisiju (za istraživanje ubistava novinara)“.

„U jednom se slažemo“, kaže Matić, „pritiska na sud ne sme biti, a gde je Društvo sudija da se oglasi kad je taj pritisak prikriven i interesno zasnovan? Komisija je samo obavestila javnost koja treba da bude vrhovni sudija“.

СКОПЈЕ, 03.07.2018 – Според Извештајот на Канцеларијата за јавна служба на косовската влада од 2016 година,позитивно е одговорено на 90 насто од барањата за пристап до информации од јавен карактер, односно од 2.169 барања, одговор добиле 2.050 новинари и медиуми. Но, врз основа на анкетата во која учествуваа само 50 новинари, Асоцијацијата на новинари на Косово заклучи дека нивните барања за пристап до јавни информации се одбиени во 78% од случаите.

Вeхби Кaјтази, главен уредник на истражувачкиот он лајн портал Инсајдер, вели дека неговиот медиум дури во 80% од случаите не ги добил бараните информации.

„Постојат десетици барања во кои баравме јавни документи кои не ги добивме. Институциите знаат дека новинарите немаат ниту време, ниту енергија да покренуваат судски постапки бидејќи тие може да траат и пет-шест години. Затоа ги одбиваат таквите барања. Овде ситуацијата не е како во другите земји, на пример во Америка, каде во случај на тужба од новинар, случајот се разгледува во рок од 24 часа или 48 часа“, вели Кајтази.

Јета Џара, директорка на Балканската мрежа за истражувачко новинарство на Косово (БИРН) вели дека Агенцијата за заштита на податоците би требало да се вика Агенција за заштита на премиерот и на политичарите од јавноста, а официјалното лице за издавање јавни документи – официјално лице против пристап до јавни документи.

„Се што работат официјалните претставници е фискултура како да избегнат да ни ги дадат тие документи. Интересно е како ја сфаќаат својата работа. Задачите им ги сервирале нивните шефови, ги тероризираат, вршат притисок и под тој притисок,  за нас, за јавноста, за новинарите и граѓаните се претвараат во официјални претставници против пристап до јавни документи“, смета Џара.

Медиумите и новинарите, главно, бараат пристап до документите кои се однесуваат на начинот на трошење на буџетските пари или одлуки, договори, тендери, капитални инвестиции, како и субвенции.

Џара вели дека најголем проблем е добивањето информации за содржината на договорите и дека наидуваат на неверојатен отпор кога бараат увид во фактурите за потрошените пари на официјалните претставници преку државни банкарски картички.

„Баравме фактури за трошоците на премиерот и шест негови заменици во текот на 2013 година, како и на сите наредни премиери. Агенцијата за заштита на податоци одговори негативно, со образложение дека така ќе се открие личната диета на премиерот, односно што јадел. Значи, ние преку фактурите можеме да откриеме дали јадел зеленчук, месо или нешто диетално“, вели Џара.

Најеклатантен случај е одбивањето да се обелодени Договорот за продажбата на Електроенергетската мрежа на Косово, во чии рамки се подарени и хидроцентрали, како и Договорот за изградбата на автопатот Бехтел-Енка, во кој јавноста се уште немала увид. Некои новинари тврдат дека постои член кој забранува објавување на тој документ, што не е во согласност со Уставот и законите на Косово.

„Од февруари годинава ги бараме фактурите за трошоците за одбележувањето на Денот на независноста на Косово. Денеска е 10 мај, а ние се уште не сме добиле одговор, ниту документ за трошоците за прославата односно за потрошените пари на даночните обврзници. Тие одбиваат да го направат тоа. Мислам дека многу од тие документи имаат елементи на кривично дело и дека официјалните претставници би требало кривично да се гонат за донесените одлуки“, тврди Кајтази.

Косовските институции и агенции, според косовските закони, се обврзани на своите веб страници да ги објават договорите за тендери, одлуките, уредбите и другите документи од значење за косовската јавност. Но, во зависност од содржината на некоја спогодба или договор, оваа обврска не се почитува секогаш. Не се почитува ни законскиот рок од седум до 15 дена, во кој Агенцијата за пристап до јавни документи е должна на новинарите да им ги даде бараните информации. Во таква атмосфера, вистински подгвиг беше неодамнешниот успех на медиумите и граѓанското општество да го спречат обидот за измени на Законот за пристап до јавни документи.

„Последната иницијатива која, со бројни активности на граѓанското општество, успеавме да ја спречиме е обидот на Агенцијата за антикорупција да го промени Законот и така да ги отстрани податоците за парите во готовина кои политичарите ги пријавуваат како имот. Агенцијата рече „нека пријават куќа, земјиште, но не и готовина.“ Се обиде да ја сокрие од јавноста готовината. Ние дознавме за оваа иницијатива, веднаш реагиравме, баравме објаснување и се мобилизиравме како граѓанско општество. Во рок од 24 часа добивме изјава од шефот за антикорупција кој рече дека погрешно сме го разбрале“, вели Џара.

БИРН по тужбата поднесена пред пет години, конечно го доби судскиот спор со Агенцијата за пристап до јавни документи, но дури после една година доби и увид во документите. Движењето „Зборува“  Институтот ГАП, исто така, добија правосилни судски одлуки во нивна корист, но судската одлука се уште не е спроведена.

Петрит Чолаку, истражувач во Асоцијацијата на новинари на Косово вели дека единствено решение е Законот за пристап до јавни документи да се спроведува со следење на процедурите. Тоа значи дека, ако во одреден рок, новинарите не добијат одговор, треба да се обратат кај Народниот правобранител, а потоа и во Обвинителството.

Но, Вехби Кајтази напоменува дека новинарите немаат секогаш време, енергија, ниту финансиски средства да се впуштат во законски процедури кои по правило траат долго и имаат неизвесен исход. Затоа објави текстови без бараните информации. Затоа  порталот Инсајдери, за да ја задржи актуелноста на своите истражувања, често е приморан да објави текстови без бараните информации. Последица на тоа се чести вербални напади од политичарите, а во дел од јавноста која подлежи на таква пропаганда, се креира мислење дека новинарите всушност се агресивни.

Културата на транспарентност и комуникација со медиумите и со јавноста се уште не постои. Недостасува полагање сметки и недостасува одговорност поради неполагање сметки. Второ, мислам дека тие секогаш има што да прикријат“, смета Кајтази.

Тој гледа излез од оваа ситуација во доброто функционирање на судовите на кои приоритет би им било разгледување на тужбите на новинарите заради неможноста да пристапат до јавните документи. Би било идеално, тие предмети да се процесуираат во рок од еден месец, најмногу два, со што институциите би се обврзале да овозможат пристап до документите.

„Во моментот кога не спроведуваат судски одлуки, тие прават кривично дело. А кога еден официјален претставник би се гонел кривично, некој би се казнил со затвор, некој парично, тие би се дисциплинирале и не би криеле документи, туку би излегле во пресрет на секое барање на информации“, вели Кајтази.

Иако косовскиот Закон за пристап до јавни документи е добар, Агенцијата за пристап до такви документи не е независна институција. Граѓанското општество и медиумите сметаат дека затоа, косовското правосудство, како независна институција, би требало со ефикасно спроведување на процесите да ги санкционира инситуциите поради нетранспарентност и кршењето на правото на јавноста на информации.

The Association announced on Monday that Matic in this way influenced the Trial Chamber in the process for murder of journalist Slavko Curuvija.

Matic: We respect the independence of the court, but we will not bury our head in the sand when it’s clear to everyone what’s going on.

The Association said, according to Beta, that the statement of the president of the Commission for Investigating Murders of Journalists Veran Matic about the manner in which the Trial Chamber is conducting the case of the murder of journalist Slavko Curuvija, violates the presumption of innocence and unlawfully influences the court.

It responded to an interview given by Matic to Cenzolovka, when he said that he “had the impression that the Trial Chamber with some of its decisions shows a clear intention to release those accused of murdering Curuvija.”

The Judges’ Association of Serbia assessed that this statement violates the presumption of innocence as it has been made during the court proceedings.

On this occasion, Matic said in a statement to the public that “judges are not exempt from the public’s right to be informed.”

“They are not a special caste that nobody can object to for any reason. On the contrary, their photographs and property which they own should be made public, and it’s up to them to work according to the law. The Commission for Investigating Murders of Journalists has not interfered in the independence of the prosecution and of the court, but it will surely not bury its head in the sand in situations where it is clear to everyone what is happening,” said Matic, and expressed his hope that the Judges Association will “find the strength to, in its ranks, separate the wheat from the chaff and point out to those who perform the duty of a judge dishonorably.”

“The Curuvija case can be a test for everyone: executive authorities and prosecutors have shown their professionalism, but did the Judges’ Association also see that in the Trial Chamber?”

The Judges’ Association of Serbia, however, according to a Beta report, pointed out that Matic was unlawfully influencing the court also with his statement that “the Trial Chamber made an unthinkable decision to let the accused go under house arrest…” They add that it is the duty of the court to conduct the proceedings with as little delay as possible “which does not mean the duty to order detention.”

“Because detention is not a punishment – and since it impinges on the freedom guaranteed to everyone, it is pronounced only exceptionally, in order to ensure the presence of the defendant in the proceedings,” the Judges’ Association said in a statement, asking the High Judicial Council to react.

Matic, on the other hand, said he was not a lawyer, but that he “learned that detention is not ordered solely for the purpose of preventing escape, but also for preventing influencing of witnesses – so I wonder why the Judges’ Association or that individual -because it is always about about an individual from the Judges’s Association – did not mention that?”

He called on the Judges’ Association to explain how and why during the Curuvija murder trial one or two court dates are scheduled per month “in a case that the public is extremely interested in as well as the state itself that formed the Commission (to investigate the murders of journalists).”

“We agree on one thing,” said Matic, “there must be no pressure on the court, and where was the Judges’ Association reaction when this pressure is hidden and interest-based? The Commission only informed the public, which should be the supreme judge.”