BEOGRAD, 7.12.2017. – Iako je ministar unutrašnjih poslova Nebojša Stefanović u septembru rekao da je policija saslušala više osoba u vezi sa obijanjem stana novinarke KRIK-a Dragane Pećo, policija do danas nije podnela krivičnu prijavu protiv počinilaca.

Iz Prvog osnovog tužilaštva rekli su za KRIK da su policiji naložili da preduzme sve što je u njenoj nadležnosti kako bi se utvrdio identitet osobe koja je obila stan novinarke, ali da do danas nije dostavljena krivična prijava povodom ovog slučaja.

Podsetimo, stan novinarke KRIK-a u julu ove godine je obijen i ispreturan, ali iz njega ništa nije ukradeno – čak ni laptop ni telefon koji su stajali na vidnom mestu.

Ministar policije Nebojša Stefanović rekao je nekoliko dana nakon događaja da „policija čini sve kako bi se potpuno razrešio slučaj“ i dodao da su policiji poznate dve grupe koje operišu u tom kraju.

„Ko god da je počinilac, moraće da odgovara“, rekao je ministar u septembru dodajući da je saslušano više osoba u vezi sa tim slučajem.

Od tada, međutim, iz policije do tužilaštva nisu stigle nikakve nove informacije.

Kolege novinari su više puta upozoravali da nisu zadovoljni načinom na koji se slučaj rešava i da je reč o zastrašivanju.

Slučaj novinarke KRIK-a, međutim, nije usamljen.

Prema evidenciji Nezavisnog udruženja novinara Srbije (NUNS) u prvih deset meseci ove godine evidentirano je čak 68 napada i pretnji novinarima. Između ostalog, urednik niških „Južnih vesti“ Predrag Blagojević primetio je da je praćen i sniman, novinarka Marija Vučić dobila je pretnju smrću, kao i novinari subotičkog „Magločistača“. Nedimu Sejdinoviću i Dinku Gruhonjiću iz Nezavisnog društva novinara Vojvodine tokom ove godine prećeno je pet puta.

Mali broj ovih slučajeva biva rešen, poput napada na novinarku televizije „Pink“ Gordanu Uzelac. Napadač je u ovom slučaju identifikovan nekoliko sati nakon incidenta i priveden isti dan.

Pojedini postupci, sa druge strane, završeni su odbacivanjem krivičnih prijava novinara. Tako je prošlog meseca Prvo osnovno tužilaštvo u Beogradu odbacilo krivične prijave protiv osoba koje su fizički maltretirale novinare i građane na dan polaganja zakletve predsednika Aleksandra Vučića.

EK: Mali broj slučajeva rešen

Evropska komisija (EK) je nekoliko puta u svojim izveštajima podsećala da je bezbednost novinara u Srbiji veliki problem.

„Izveštaji o napadima i zastrašivanju novinara i dalje izazivaju zabrinutost“, zaključak je polugodišnje analize EK objavljene pre nekoliko dana.

U izveštaju se konstatuje da policija i tužilaštva vode istrage o pretnjama novinarima na internetu, ali da je veoma mali broj tih slučajeva okončan.

Da je bezbednost novinara ključno pitanje za postojanje nezavisnih i profesionalnih medija, kao i za ostvarivanje prava na slobodu izražavanja, izjavila je danas i šefica medijskog odeljenja Misije OEBS u Srbiji Gordana Janković.

BELGRADE, 7.12.2017. – The Association of Journalists of Serbia (UNS) learned that out of 14 killed and kidnapped journalists and media workers, Kosovo Prosecution is investigating seven cases, three are “in the process of hand-over” from EULEX, one is closed, while there is no information about the three remaining.

These are considerably different data compared to those UNS received from EULEX a month ago when we were told that there were only two open investigations.
– No case is closed for us. We consider them open until we find new evidence about perpetrators, which would ultimately lead to the formation of indictments – explained to UNS Aleksandar Lumezi, Chief Kosovo Prosecutor.

The excuse for discrepancies in information is a complex procedure of duties’ hand-over from institutions responsible for the rule of law: the police, the prosecution, and the judiciary from UNMIK to EULEX, to the institutions of Pristina.

But if we compare the dates of closures and “disappearance” of investigations about our colleagues, it is obvious that most of them have been ignored or stopped by international prosecutors.
Obstruction of justice – the police does not respond to the prosecution’s request

The information the UNS obtained its investigation also points to the criminal offense of interfering with justice, as it happened that the police, while under the supervision of UNMIK, did not act on the prosecution’s request. Namely in cases of the murder of well-known Albanian journalists, close to Ibrahim Rugova who advocated a peaceful solution for the conflict in Kosovo, a political opponent to Hashim Taçi and Azem Sula.
Shefki Popova, a journalist of “Rilindja,” was killed on September 10, 2000. The data collected by the UNS Dossier shows the investigation existed. The case, PPN 306/2000, until June 12 of this year was in the Prosecutor’s Office of the Basic Court in Mitrovica. Prosecutor Nijazi Rexha twice requested emergency assistance from the police; first time on October 5, 2000, and second time on March 23, 2004. The police, at that time in UNMIK hands, ignored this request. Just as the police under UN supervision without any responsibility did not move a finger, the case also, without consequences – “disappeared” under the supervision of the EU. Hence, since 2008, the EU mission in Kosovo rehashed to the UNS the same answer about the murder of Shefki Popova: “We have no information.”

In the same way, at the time of UNMIK’s jurisdiction, Kosovo police proceeded to investigate the murder of Barduhl Ajeti (June 3, 2005), a journalists and columnists of “Bota sot” who supported the campaign of international forces to arrest former KLA members involved in the crime. The UNS investigation data unequivocally shows that the competent prosecutor Afrim Shefiku filed a request for additional information, sending urgent request twice to the police. There were no replies. The investigation about the murder of Ajeti is conducted in three cases (PPNI 84/2005, 87/2005, 93/2005), until finally, on December 11, 2006, UNMIK put an end to the investigation

An investigation after nine years

Open EULEX investigations about kidnappings of journalists are actually a “discovery” of the past month, found by the EU mission after many years, and after the UNS faced them with the fact that documentation was with them. Investigations concern kidnappings of Pristina’s “Jedinstvo” journalist and “Politika” correspondent Ljubomir Knežević and RTV Pristina Mila Buljević employee. In Knezevic’s case, there is a suspicion, but in Buljević’s case it is known he was kidnapped by the KLA members in front of the witnesses in the center of Pristina.

UNMIK acknowledged it did not conduct an appropriate investigation, it apologized to their families, and the commission which evaluated the UN mission’s investigated stated this institution did not “make a substantial effort to systematically and in an coordinated manner investigate disappearances and killings of a large number of Kosovo Serbs in cases where apparently the investigation led to perpetrators suspected of being members of the KLA.”

Both of these investigations were lost in the rule of law transfer process from UNMIK to EULEX. Now, after lost nine years, the investigation is again at the beginning with the Special Prosecution Office of Kosovo, now under the jurisdiction of Pristina. Prosecutor Drita Hajdari is in charge of the investigation of Knezevic’s kidnapping (PPP 33/17), and prosecutor Elex Blakaj is in charge of Milo Buljević’s kidnapping (PPP39/17).

UNMIK did nothing to carry out an effective investigation about kidnapping of Radio and Television of Kosovo journalists – Marjan Melonasi, in September 2000, and their police needed five years to report the abduction. For already two year the case is with the Basic Prosecution Office in Pristina, since March 12, 2015, and the answer we received about it was “the investigation is ongoing.”

The cases were closed by international prosecutors

The murder of journalist and translator Aleksandar Simović Sime in 2000, the only murder case the EULEX was investigating as a war crime is “in the process of hand-over” to Kosovo institutions.

On 23 October 2013, the international prosecutors of the Special Prosecutor’s Office of Kosovo (then headed by EULEX) suspended the investigation of kidnapping of journalists of Radio Pristina Ranko Perenić and Đura Slavuj (case PPP 147/2009), kidnapped on August 21, 1998 in Velika Hoča – Zočište. One month before, and after the UNS insisted, on November 3, 2017, EULEX handed over the same case to the Kosovo Special Prosecutor’s Office, from 2016 under the jurisdiction of Pristina.

All documents from the investigation were not automatically taken from UNMIK through EULEX, to Kosovo authorities, including those from the Kosovo Special Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the most sensitive investigations of terrorism and war crimes. Is it a coincidence that so many well-known journalists got “lost” in this process, and that the killers and kidnappers are still at large?

New evidence is hard to get

Asked whether now, after so many years, the truth could be expected about the killing and kidnapping of 14 journalists and media workers in Kosovo, Aleksander Lumezi says “it will not be easy.”

“It is about cases occurred 18 or more years ago, it is very difficult to find evidence now. If this happens, rest assure we will raise indictments – concludes Lumezi.
The UNS’s research showed that in almost every investigation of kidnapping and kidnapping of journalists there were major omissions. About that in the next few days.

Two cases were suspended

EULEX and Kosovo prosecution offices also have dissimilarities in information about the murder of “Bota sot” journalist Xhemail Mustafa. Their data, however, coincides in two cases. An investigation about the murder of journalist Enver Maloku was closed on May 6 this year, and an investigation about the murder of Bekim Kastrati last March.

The Kosovo Prosecution Office does not have information on the murder of “Bujku” journalist Afrim Maliqi, about the editor of the program in Albanian language of RTV Pristina Krist Gegaj, and about photojournalist of “Politika” Momira Stokuća.

UNMIK does not know where the documents are

Contacts with UNMIK showed that their staff reduction means that those who work there today do not know what was happening few years ago, and they do not even know where to find documents. Even after several months, we did not receive information on murders and kidnapping investigations, and as explained to us that “for some reason, those who were responsible at the time did not do a good job.”

Why is it so, those who do work now do not know.UNMIK documents were officially handed over to EULEX nine years ago.

War Crimes Prosecution: Preventive Phases

To additional request of our colleagues for an interview with the chief prosecutor and for the information about investigations of murders and kidnappings of our colleagues, Serbian War Crimes Prosecution replied that they could not provide any information.

– In relation to your request dated November 8, 2017 and our reply of August 30, 2017, we are informing you that there the cases concerning the murder of journalists are in the pre-trial phase hence we cannot provide you with any information.

BANJA LUKA. 06.12.2017. – As we are used to economic/financial problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina as first among many reasons for failure in personal progress, professional dedication and any other sphere of life, we shall release the readers of this text of any expectations that this will not be one of the dominant topics of this article, as well.

Modern time brought to world journalism innovation in creation and placement of media contents, reconstruction in media and their organization, as well in audience availability. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, these changes opened new questions, but they have also found their place shoulder to shoulder with old problems. This article will deal questions of censorship and self-censorship, i.e. limitations and self-limitations of free media expression. Censorship and self-censorship are consequence of several media problems, such as: journalist’s work conditions, commercial and political interests, ideological profiling, lack of education and inefficient legislation.

The existential fear of journalists

A positive aspect that enables a more detailed analysis of these phenomena in the media space of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the increase in media research, both in our country and in the region. These researches are conducted with great passion representatives of academia and media experts, with an inevitable link with the non-governmental sector aimed at constantly improving media opportunities.

In a recently published study based on empirical research of media actors in B&H – Media and Shrinking Space in Bosnia and Herzegovina, some of the basic problems among journalists are listed, of which for our main topic we highlight the following: journalists work a large number of stories every day; they are underpaid and have no time to make the story quality; media owners have commercial interests; a considerable part of the journalists are divided along the ideological line; due to political and economic impact, a large number of journalists agrees to censorship and self-censorship for fear of losing their jobs or suffering financial sanctions[1]. For example, if the owner or editor needs a story created in a certain way, and the journalist refuses to work in a manner that is in confrontation with professional standards, guided by business logic, the owners will find someone who will. In such a plot in which the owner possesses a monopoly threat that can be activated again and again, the journalist lends himself to the demands of the more powerful and often becomes the target of what Umberto Eco called the semiological guerrilla today positioned on the wings of social networks. In addition, what also contributes to the censorship is continuous degradation of journalistic work through the refusal of publishing hardly made stories.

Self-censorship is particularly manifested in the media through journalism devoted to a particular political option or party. Media researches found examples of political bias during election campaigns in B&H. Through the monitoring of the Local elections in B&H in 2016, there were examples where certain political parties and candidates are given greater media space than to all other parties and candidates, or where are already elected officials were privileged by greater use of the media space[2]. Such concessions are reflected in the creation of program schemes, as well in the content of the program itself, which is a significant violation of impartiality and objectivity in reporting. It leads to the fact that journalists “must choose between ethics and professionalism, on the one hand, and existence, on the other“[3].

The results of a survey conducted within the regional project Regional Platform for Advocacy on Freedom of the Media and Security of Journalists in the Western Balkans showed how free journalists feel in doing their job. “The survey has shown that the highest influence on the work of journalists have their superiors and higher editors, for 76% of respondents. The smallest influences on journalists have their colleagues from their or other media, less than 1%. 48% of respondents answered that government officials partially affected their work, while 44% of respondents answered that politicians partially affected their work. A small number, less than 1% of respondents, argues that politicians do not influence the work of journalists“[4].

Self-censorship produces censorship

The solution to the problem of censorship and self-censorship is in the observation of the type of media ownership, nor in the different types of media. Namely, the source of self-censorship is in the fear of the journalist: fear of pressure, fear of the editor, existential fear. They all have a foothold in the political and economic elites that in one way or the other have an impact on the workplace – through media funding, the influence on the choice of management structures in the media etc. Self-censorship produces a censorship that most often manifests in: editors who are subject to political pressure or placed in positions due to political suitability, ignore high-quality stories on certain topics, as direct censorship make no sense – even media owners know they can bear consequences. By ignoring important topics of public interest, journalists create cognitive schemes that reject such topics as irrelevant.

Legislative shortcomings open up the potential for impact that is difficult to prove or – worse – their eventuality is not liable. When it comes to legislation, the disadvantages we are talking about are not related to the content of the law – moreover, media legislation in BiH is considered one of the best in the world. However, the shortcomings regarding the transparency of media ownership and the transparency of media financing are some of the reasons why Bosnia and Herzegovina took the 65th place[5] in the World Press Freedom Index among the 180 countries in the Reports without Borders report for 2017.

Public condemnations of verbal attacks on journalists, as well as their interference in doing their job are not in themselves sufficient to deny the journalist self-censorship as a mechanism for securing survival and work in the profession. Public protests are organized on several occasions, but as with other civil protests, there is an absence of citizens’ solidarity with journalists. Online platforms to help reporters in the region are a good example of an institutionalized approach to registering and reporting attacks on journalists. Apart from achieving visibility and better echoes in the public what journalists are going through, an additional message has been sent to the competent authorities that they have no excuse not to act proactively in protecting media workers. This may be the culmination of the scope of these organizations in dealing with specific applications, as they do not have any jurisdiction to act upon the application or the pronouncement of a sanction.

Digitization searches for cheap, not competent and brave journalists

New forms of reporting available to traditional media, as well as to new media, completely change the image of journalism from the last several decades. These innovations are challenging for long-time journalists and editors and to the audience – addition to the content and possibilities for informing. Certainly, digitalization implies the need for adequate skills of those who want to use all of its possibilities in the media: podcasts as news media, social networks, interactive platforms, data journalism, etc. According to the latest report by the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), only a third of the world’s editorial offices use digital tools. In our environment, new media have just caught up and their development, in all likelihood, will depend on parallel informational and media education of the audience. Given that media literacy is low in B&H, the disorder of the online sphere combined with false news and the flood of clickbait titles more often produces misconception and misinformation. Taking into account the previous context in which media owners are more focused on profit than on the production of objective, accurate and verified information, “a significant part of the media does not require professionals, but a cheap workforce that will not work on quality research stories, but gives primacy to quantity of published content in the media“[6].

On the other hand, new media have brought the largest amount of space for local media, making it easier to place local topics to targeted audiences. Editor of BLMojGrad.com, Igor Požgaj, before founding of this local media, has experienced work in the public service (Radio-televizija Republike Srpske – RTRS) and private media house (Alternativna televizija – ATV). Asked about the differences in editorial and journalistic work in traditional and new media, he says: “I have been working as a journalist for almost twenty years and I know that there is one basic rule – you are a journalist or you are not. Wright there ends the story about the pressure ends for a journalist, because a journalist cannot and does not work in editorial offices where someone unprofessionally interfere his work. On the other hand, we have most of the media workers who are forced to call themselves journalists. This is the essence of journalism and pressures. I started to work or, to put it more correctly, to learn my work at ATV 20 years ago. I was fortunate enough that the editor-in-chief was the greatest journalist I had ever met, and that ATV was then a financially independent house, and that nobody could impede into the work of the Desk. For marketing workers at the time, there was an unwritten rule that they should not enter the Desk. On this basis, I began to learn and build a journalistic “career”, and so it remains to this day. I never “suffered” pressures because I did let them in. Of course, there are certain types of pressures to – I repeat – “media workers” and they depend on how intelligent, educated or educated a person is doing them. So, these pressures can manifest as the full writing of the text, instructing the media worker to take a statement, or threat of dismissal“.

Journalists’ associations and media researchers’ analysis confirmed the saying: “In fear the eyes are big”[7]. Non-familiarity with regulations and laws often reflects on defects in media reporting, but in the case of regulations and laws concerning media rights and freedoms, there is a problem of self-censorship.

Difficulties in determining censorship

Difficulties in determining censorship is also contributed by the way and the openness of pressures – the experience and skills of the owners and editors will influence what a mental scheme and working pattern will be created by a media worker. “Intelligent, educated people who make pressure, do that much more subtle and painless. Simply directing the text or story in the direction in which it wants to go, with the worker in the media believing and thinking that this should be done so. This is not a comparison between ATV and RTRS editorials. These are just some of the models that exist as such in all media houses that put money in front of the profession, “said Požgaj.

Undoubtedly, without adequate material support, there is no quality journalistic work (big research stories often require certain resources). However, local media indicate that responsible journalism can also be achieved through local issues, through changes and answering questions at the local level. With such goals set, online local media has a much greater chance of survival. Our interlocutor answers the question of the sustainability of his web page: “BLMojGrad page won the trust of the citizens of Banja Luka in record time, which reflected excellent reading. The rules on the Internet are simple and cruel. How much they read you, that is how much you worth, or so much worth the ads. BLMojGrad’s editorial office is the largest in the Republic of Srpska and has the lowest costs. Journalists of the portal are citizens of Banja Luka, who make photos, ask, fight for their neighborhood, for a better life in their city. In journalism there is no money, only the name and surname of journalists”.

Although the judgment of censorship and self-censorship must not be hasty, and the guilt reduced to the journalist, which would release the public (in the sense of Eko’s semiological guerrilla) of any responsibility, for the benefit of the journalistic profession, however, we conclude that any censorship is ultimately detrimental to the media. Its consequences are undermining the functions and purpose of the journalistic vocation, and in the long run they overturn the successes of those individuals who have struggled hard for freedom of words and thoughts. In conclusion, in order not to deprive this text of understanding the struggle of those who lead it, we quote the words of Danilo Kiš: “The struggle with the censorship is public and dangerous, therefore heroic, while the struggle with self-censorship is anonymous, lonely and without a witness, therefore in the subject provokes a feeling humiliation and shame for collaborationism“[8].

[1] Turčilo, Lejla i Buljubašić, Belma. (2017). Mediji i shrinking space u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Heinrich Böll Stiftung. p. 44.

[2] Finalni izvještaj o monitoringu izvještavanja medija u predizbornoj kampanji – Lokalni izbori 2016, Udruženje/Udruga BH novinari. Downloaded from: http://bhnovinari.ba/bs/2016/12/20/finalni-izvjetaj-o-monitoringu-izvjetavanja-medija-u-predizbornoj-kampanji-lokalni-izbori-2016/, 20.11.2017.

[3] Turčilo, Lejla i Buljubašić, Belma. (2017). Mediji i shrinking space u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Heinrich Böll Stiftung. str. 46.

[4] Adilagić, Rea. (2016). Indikatori nivoa medijskih sloboda i bezbjednosti novinara [BOSNA I HERCEGOVINA]. Sarajevo: Udruženje/Udruga BH Novinari. p.7.

[5] https://rsf.org/en/bosnia-herzegovina

[6] Turčilo, Lejla i Buljubašić, Belma. (2017). Mediji i shrinking space u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Heinrich Böll Stiftung p. 45.

[7] http://analiziraj.ba/2017/05/19/zasto-se-novinari-plase-da-pisu-o-politici-i-politicarima/

[8] Danilo Kiš. 1995. Cenzura/autocenzura. U: Život, literatura. Sabrana dela Danila Kiša. Beograd: Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod. p. 97-102

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 BH Journalists Association and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.