How legitimate is the warning of the prosecutor’s office?

The legitimacy of  warnings  by the  Attorney General against the Internet sites covering the recent protests in the regions in doubtful, said a famous media expert Alaskar Mammadov commenting on the decision of the  Prosecutor General's Office in his  blog post   http://alasgarmaammadli.blogspot.com

The expert believes  that the law on the prosecutor office does not stipulate  the right of this body to pass  official warnings to the media or the media editor. Besides, Mammadov continued,  the presidential decree on the application of the law "On mass media", does not include the prosecutor office  among the government agencies with authority to oversee the media in order to prevent abuse of freedom in  mass media. Therefore, according to Mammadli, the  fact that the prosecutor’s office refers in its  press release to the  Articles 10 and 11 of the media law  for making  warning  is unfounded.

It should be noted that under the  Article 10 of the Law "On Mass Media":  it is not allowed to  use the media to disseminate the secrets protected by the legislation of the Azerbaijan Republic, the violent overthrow of the constitutional order, attacks on the integrity of the state, propagation of war, violence and cruelty, national, racial, social hatred or intolerance, publication called reliable source materials, discrediting the honor and dignity of citizens, rumors, false and deliberate material, pornographic material, or other actions contrary to the law.

In accordance with Article 11 editorial media or journalist should avoid:

1) disclosure of the identity in distributed news or information if it was given on the condition not to be disclosed;

2) indication of the identity of the person providing the information, if it was given with the condition not point this out;

3) disclosure of the facts relating to the secrecy of the investigation without the permission of a prosecutor or investigator;

4) distribute any information about the identity of a juvenile accused of a crime without his consent or that of his legal representative.

The expert believes that lighting protest actions is not included the list of above  limitations  specified by law.

On the other hand, in cases relating to defamation and insult the interested parties should themselves  initiate lawsuits to a private criminal prosecution, and the prosecutor's office does not have any relation to it.

 "Approval of the prosecutor's office that the media published protests in the region as" the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in the country and the discontent of the population with  the current situation" is very subjective, and devoid of legal basis. It turns out that the protest were held as a sign of joy for the devaluation, but the media presented them as a protest.  Such a conclusion  suggests, at least, the message from the prosecutor’s office," said Mammadli.

On the other hand, paragraph 3 of the Aarticle 62 of the law on the media releases the media agency  from liability if the information was taken from other media, and was not  refuted. If the warned media were not the original sources of information, they do not bear any responsibility, stressed  Mammadli.

"The Press Council  has begun to cause serious damage to the freedom of media and media development.  The Press Council, as a non-governmental organization, shall perform the function of regulating the relationship between society and the media, and, where necessary, act as an arbiter between them. But the Press Council  should not create opportunities for intervention in the creative activity of journalists and editors. The functions of the Press Council does not include carrying out of any monitoring and reporting for the direction to the prosecutor's office," writes Mammadli.

The Prosecutor General's Office  has warned  the sites Mia.az, Jam.az, ans  qaynar.info.—06В--