Our media: day after day

The media state may be on the agenda of public debates in the momentous day of 22 July. The trend lasts for years on. Those under long-term governmental control are eager to consolidate their stand while journalists - bearers of alternative views having no independent media express their own views on the matter. The present work is based on the analysis of the debates above to embrace topics from the same plane.

As for developments covering a period from July 22 and present, we, regretfully, see no gleams of positive changes in the legal sphere. True, media and Internet are subject to certain equalization; however, the equalization should be based on basic principles of the freedom of expression. Note that the said equalization meets no necessary requirements, for it proceeds from "close", "cancel", "penalize" and other interdicts.

Equalization or restraint of net-media?

The beginning of the year marked the formation and triggering of legal mechanism to regulate the Internet-media activity. Further complicating the case proved to be another ominous factor - "If I write something wrong it will be closed".

Everything started in spring last year. A chapter was supplemented to the Law of the Azerbaijani Republic "On Information, Informing and Protection of Information" following which measures have immediately been applied to media organs that spread alternative points of view. Sites of "Azadlyg Radio", "Azadlyg" newspaper, Meydan TV, Turan TV and "Azerbaijan saati" TV programs have been blocked under far-fetched pretexts. From here on, no entry to these resources has been possible unless special technical means are used. As a consequence, these media have lost thousands of readers and users.

It shoud be noted that amendments to the mentioned Law are abortive from European Court experience standpoint to authorize official bodies to block an undesirable site. True, the freedom of expression is not mandatory enforcement and is subject to restraint. Still, the amendment makes it possible to arbitrarily provide access to Internet. It is inconceivable to block a site wholly for its specific content, article or publication, so the question is about refusal from the freedom of expression. Beyond any doubt, the European Court is sure to pass a decision unveiling a reactionary essence of the amendment...

Names of the media blocked are not restricted by the list mentioned above. They numbered more than 30 from mid-last year and present. Even worse, the said resources have been blocked without an appropriate court decision. When enquiring a request, the Ministry of Communication replies: "we don"t know, we"ve not blocked anything." Other related bodies say the same - "we don"t know". When recoursing to the law, they reject any appeals without explanations.

For instance, blocked in November, www.realliq.info site was owned by journalist Ikram Rafiqogly currently jailed on framed-up charges. He appealed to one structure, then another but failed to find a source of site blocking. Note that the journalist founded one more site realliq.az and again, it was blocked in December. In January this year a new site - realliqinfo.com was created but in 4 days it was blocked. Note that the content of the previous sites was moved to realliqinfo.az site. In a day the site was blocked. On January 30 of the past year realliqinfo.org site was created but the same fate overtook it...

Restriction-oriented changes...

The last year was notable for the expansion of provisions to punish journalists as set forth in the law. This time the question is about the Code of Administrative Offence. Law-makers supplemented the Code with a provision envisaging responsibility for placing "prohibited "information," not obstructing the placement of this information. For failure to comply with this provision, public individuals are fined at the rate of 1500-2000 manats; legal persons - 2000-2500 manats. It is also specified to add a clause on imposing an administrative fine on provider and operators for non-observance of the provision.

Note that the said amendments touched upon media laws as well. As a matter of fact, they marked deviation from progressive amendments made by Azerbaijan when the country was adopted in the EC.

One of the amendments has been made in a censorship-related Article of the Law "On Mass Media." The amended Article is titled "Inadmissibility of Censorship." The Article provides principles regulating the use of censorship to media and journalists.

It"d be appropriate to note that amendments expand the scope of censorship principles conformably to mass media. Censorship over mass media has been ptrohibited until recently, except for vtwo cases. Restrictions on information spreading have been regarded as lawful in emergency cases, operations against religious extremism. The latest amendments contributed to further expansion of the framework. Thereafter, in terms of the martial law the mass media information and materials may be subject to war censorship. Moreover, on areas where the martial law is in effect, a special regime will be applied to mass media. Amendments of the same sort have been made in the Laws "On TY and Radio spreading" and "On Telecommunication."

Relying on the said amenments, our law-makers added changes to the Code of Administrative Offensive. This attempt is related to punisdhment of journalists who violate war-time laws. Journalists who violate war-time regime are fined at the rate of 100 to 150 manats; legal persons - from 1000 to 1500 manats.

From here on, access to financial information will be possible under special access regime

The Law "On Information Acquisition" is a document that underwent the latest changes. Suffice it to say that 32 amendments were made into the document in 2010-2017, and now a supplement has been made into Article 30 of the Law.

Article 29 of the Law provides an order of information to be disclosed on Internet-site by information holders. In turn, methods of information disclosure are provided in Article 30. Under this Article, information mentioned in Article 29 should be disclosed in Internet-resources. At the same time it says that the information may be obtained from mass media organs, official editions, libraries, centers of social information, etc..

The second sentence has been added to this provision: "An appropriate body of executive shall approve information about annual financial activity of budgetary organizations, legal entities, off-budget state funds, state-owned societies with 30% of shareholders, including information about the use of budgetary funds and related property".

By the terms of alterations, information about annual financial activity of information holders; about funds allocated from budget, as well as disclosure in Interner-resource of information about the use of property are regulated in a special order. The regulations should be approved by a specific body of an appropriate executive power (NK). The said disclosure is meant to complicate access to finance-related information.

Triggering of legal mechanism to protect interests of journalists

It should be stressed that trends on triggering provisions of the national legislation to protect intertests of journalists; to ensure inviolability of their professional activity and help them acquiring information remain invariable as compared to previous years. These provisions remain ineffective.

The criminal legislation stipulates responsibility for raising difficulties to professional activity of journalists. No information about the application of this provision is available in official statistic sources. Sufface it to say that this provision has been ineffective over the past year even despite the fact that journalists faced violences when fulfilling their professional duties. For example, when shooting a photo of the Health Minister, a contributor to unikal.org news site faced violence. Despite obvious signs of obstructing journalist"s professional activity, no information about statutory actions of respective structures is available.

In spite of the fact that serious amendments have been made in the Law "On Data Accessing", journalists have the opportunity to get information. However, it is problematic to make these favorable provisions to work properly. For instance, the last year "Turan" agency made information inquiry to a number of governmental structures concerning an owner of information site. However, no information came, the agency appealed to the court and the litigation has been underway for a year...

Sociallly motivated information cannot be concealed from the public, otherwise it runs contrary to the law, so information owners in charge are subject to punishment. Under the Code of Administrative Offence, those infringing the acquisition of information are fined as follows: physical persons - 100-150 manats; public individuals - 500-700 manats; legal persons - - 1500-2500 manats. As before, these provisions proved to be abortive for journalists. For example, failing to acquire information Turaт agency demanded to punish those concealing information but to no purpose...

Slander and insult...

A question of responsibility for slander and insult remains to be topical in the criminal legislation of Azerbaijan. The government"s stand on the issue is that "society is still unprepared to remove slander and insult nor liquidate the criminal responsibility". It"d be wrong to expect that the government will, in the nearest future, put on the agenda a question of decriminalization of actions of this sort. Journalists are likely to face issues arising from the freedom of expression. Further aggravating the case is that over the past year and half sharply rose the number of complaints due to slander and insult against journalists and media.

Thus, in December 2017 and January 2018 the courts considered, at least, 50 suits against sites for slander. Suffica it to remind that the "AAAF İnşaat" company sued 21 news sites for one and the same article. Account has to be tasken of the fact that above 50% of these civil proceedings were turned down.

There were people jailed on slander and contempt charges. A correspondent of "Gündəm-xəbər" newspaper, Mahbub Zulfigarov was sentenced to 5 months of imprisonment in 2017 at the suit of "Azerbaijani Standartization Institute". The journalist served his sentence and released in December that year.

In the meanwhile, a well-known blogger, Mehman Huseynov has been jailed on slander charges to serve his sentence today. At the suit of a senior police office in Baku the journalist was sentenced to 2 years to be released in January next year.

A suit against 6 sites...

The latest tendencies in media are also deplorable.

According to reports on Gyandja events, a suit was filed against 6 Internet resources. Official sources say that on July 3-6 criminalaz.com, bastainfo.com, topxeber.az, fia.az, gununsesi.info and teref.info sites disseminated false information about the Gyandja developments in an effort to sow discord in society, stir up unrest, disturb the public order and social and political stability in the country. That"s why a suit has been filed to comply with Article 313 of the Criminal Code (misuse of authority, i.e. allocation of false information about a public individual). At present, an investigation is currently held. We shall touch upon false accusations against the journalist in a separate material.