Prosecutor General`s Office in the role of a censor?

In recent days, the Prosecutor General's Office  several times issued a warning to representatives of media entities and users of social networks. The latest report of the press service of the General Prosecutor's Office on this matter states that “monitoring revealed that  in the publication of information in the media, in a number of cases, the requirements of Article 14.1.11 of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Media”, that is, on an impartial and objective presentation of facts and events, and the prevention of unilateralism, were not observed.”

The report states that Sahavat Mammadov, Rovshan Mammadov, Zulfugar Aleskerov, Elgun Rahimov, Fuzuli Gahramany, Zeynal Bakhshiev and Ruslan Izzetli were warned in accordance with the Article 22 of the Law "On the Prosecutor's Office" about the inadmissibility of such negative phenomena in the future.

Earlier, namely on July 27, the General Prosecutor's Office stated that users of social networks, the head of the site “jamaz.info” Ibishbeyli Fikret Faramaz oglu, the head of the site “miq.az” Alyshov Agil Balabek oglu, a resident of the city of Shirvan Ismail Elchin Khankaram oglu, a resident of Lankaran region, Jabbarly Ali Allahverdi oglu and a resident of Khachmaz region, Fataliyeva Nurana Etibar gizi in accordance with Article 22 of the Law "On the Prosecutor's Office" were warned about the inadmissibility of such negative phenomena in the future.

In relation to Tofik Tahmuraz oglu Shahmuradov, proceedings were initiated on an administrative offense under the Article 388-1.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, by the decision of the Nizami District Court, a sentence of administrative arrest for a period of 1 month was chosen.

Does the Prosecutor General's Office have such powers? Do the laws allow it?

The head of the Legal Media Group Khalid Agaliyev answered  these and other questions of ASTNA.

* * *

Question: Does the Prosecutor General's Office have the right to warn journalists, media and social media users?

Answer: The Prosecutor's Office is a structure with broad powers; in cases and in the manner prescribed by law,  it exercises control over the execution and application of laws. As for the media, the Prosecutor General's Office is obliged to investigate the accuracy of the information contained in specific publications, and in such cases, of course, has the right to question the authors of these materials.

But the media, the press is a specific area. The prosecutor's office in its activities protects public interests, acts from these interests. The function of the media, in essence, is not much different, the task of journalists, including the benefits that journalistic activity brings to society, should not be considered less important than that performed by individual state bodies, including the prosecutor's office. From this point of view, dealing with the media, with journalists requires a sensitive approach. Yes, according to the law, the prosecutor's office can issue an official warning to a citizen or official in order to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this provision should be approached in the narrowest possible sense. The content of the professional activity of a journalist is such that the admission of any violations by him should be clarified in court. Can the prosecutor's office or any other structure, or a person, know if a journalist is spreading slander or insult? What if content that is supposedly considered offensive will be perceived with satisfaction by the addressee? Or let's say some secret. If the content is secret, then the responsible entity should be held responsible. To sum up, warning journalists about what they write or what they will write is unacceptable from the point of view of the right to freedom of expression. Our Constitution prohibits censorship. Such warnings categorically do not comply with this provision of the Constitution. Summoning journalists to state structures for their articles, subjecting them to closed interrogations is the intimidation of these, as well as other journalists, forcing them to censorship.

Question: What do the laws say? The Prosecutor General's Office refers to the Law "On Media", the Law "On Information, Information Protection and Informatization", the Law "On the Prosecutor's Office", the Code of Administrative Offenses. It turns out that in all these laws there are provisions regulating the media?

Answer: Over the past 5 years, significant changes have been made to the legislation affecting the media. The first step was to amend the Law on Information, Information Protection and Informatization. This change regulated what information can be distributed and what is not. In parallel, provisions were added to the Code of Administrative Offenses providing for liability for violation of the changes made to this law. Both of these amendments create opportunities for widespread, arbitrary, disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression. These provisions do not comply with either the Constitution of the country or the provisions of the Article 10 of the European Convention. As for the provision of the Law “On the Prosecutor's Office” applied to the media and journalists, it gives the prosecutor's office such powers as an official warning of a citizen or official in order to prevent violations of the law. As applied to journalists, this is a rather vague, erroneous position. It uses an expression that can be understood in different ways, applied in different ways, for example, "to prevent from breaking the law." If the talk is about an offense, then there is liability for this, it can be administrative, civil or criminal liability, and the courts must apply it. In the light of this provision, the establishment of an institute for warning journalists is incompatible with the Constitution, the treaties to which our country is a party, and freedom of the media in general. As for the new Media Law, there is no need to talk at length about its content, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe recently stated that “such a law cannot be applied in a European country”. In general, unfortunately, over the past 5-6 years a rather reactionary media legislation has been formed, and our country, society will still have time to suffer from this.

Question: The warning from the Prosecutor General's Office does not say which of these persons is a media representative and which is a social network user. Does this allow us to assert that the fears that “this law applies to all social networks and their users” were not in vain?

Answer: The application of sanctions on the basis of the new Law “On Media” is at most a delay. Because this law does not comply with either the provisions of our Constitution or international agreements regarding freedom of expression to which our country has joined. It's no secret that the government's policy is to keep all media under control. This is also indicated by all the provisions of the new law. I hope that our courts will give a fair assessment to these disputes and make decisions that eradicate vicious practices. If this does not happen, then such disputes will receive due consideration in the European Court.

Question: What could be the reason for the fact that the Prosecutor General's Office issues one warning after another in this form? What does it  mean?

Answer:  Emphasizing also the importance of preventing the dissemination of content protected by law, it should be noted that severe interference with the right of people to speak freely, to share their thoughts, does not bode well. Any evil is generated, among other things, by depriving people of the opportunity to speak and discuss. It is in vain to expect a positive result from putting pressure on people, creating difficulties, forcing them to think within certain limits. In recent years, the next trend is visible - the government is trying to establish control over more or less independent Internet media, just like other media. Perhaps a series of warnings is a manifestation of such intent.

Question: What should be done to prevent such cases?

Answer: Freedom of expression, the press is considered the cornerstone of building democracy, without this freedom, sooner or later, all the walls we build will reveal their flaws and curvature. The cases you mentioned directly harm the freedom of expression, the media. The freedom of journalistic activity, collection, transmission of information cannot be limited only to the dissemination of information voluntarily provided by state bodies, officials and individuals. State bodies should stop such treatment of journalists, users of social networks, and change vicious practices.