Doc. 8946

23 January 2001

Freedom of expression in Ukraine

Opinion 1

Committee on Culture and Education

Rapporteur: Mr Andrzej Urbanczyk, Poland, Socialist Group

The Committee on Culture and Education concluded at its hearing in December 2000 in Paris that Mr Gongadze’s case should be seen as a test of media freedom in Ukraine. The recent events concerning Mr Gongadze’s disappearance, tragic and shocking as they are, are however only the climax in a much wider set of problems of freedom of the media, problems that go far beyond one individual case.

Therefore, while calling for a speedier and much more transparent inquiry into the death of Mr Gongadze, the Committee also recommends a number of specific requirements. They aim at achieving a noticeable improvement of the general framework in which media operate and, in the longer term, setting the grounds for a stable and irreversible democratisation of the media field in this country:

      

      In its forthcoming report on freedom of expression in the media (Rapporteur Mr Hegyi, Hungary), the Committee will be formulating a series of recommendations. On the one hand, the Committee considers that even greater assistance should be provided to Ukraine in order to promote substantial changes in the media culture of its officials and journalists. On the other hand, it will suggest that a series of joint meetings between Ukrainian and Council of Europe experts and parliamentarians be organised so as to help bring the media legislation faster into line with European standards.

Ukrainian officials tend to explain problems of freedom of the press mainly by referring to the very difficult economic context in which the media have to operate. Advertising revenues are scant (they hardly cover one third of the average expenses) and most people can no longer afford to subscribe to publications (in 2000 there were 0.79 newspapers per family, down from 7-8 in 1990). In this situation, officials claim, the media have to find sponsors, whether political or economic, and journalists are often transformed into mercenaries.

There is no doubt (as the Committee has already pointed out in its report on media and democratic culture, Rapporteur Mr Jarab, Czech Republic) that the critical state of the economy puts obstacles on the development of strong independent press. But it would be unfair to attribute everything to economic hardship while the State, which bears the main responsibility for ensuring an environment in which media might operate freely, still owns many of the main outlets, clearly influences their editorial policy and allows repressive and intimidating acts of its central and regional and local representatives towards dissenting voices. What example of free information environment can the highest Sate authorities set if the State still retains the monopoly on paper, printing and distribution and puts state-owned media in a privileged position?

Another routine explanation relates to the difficulties that the young independent State is facing in creating its own media market. In this context, your Rapporteur was truck by the terminology of “information security” applied to the State, which seems to be the main current preoccupation in the media field of the authorities and of Parliament. Ensuring “information security” in principle refers to the need for development and expansion of the Ukrainian language in the media, now heavily dominated by Russian. But the term also confuses declarations about free and independent press with objectives such as not allowing damages caused by insufficient, undue and doubtful information to the individuals, the society and the State or ensuring “objective” (?) information about Ukraine abroad.

Although we were assured that this preoccupation for “information security” was in no way linked to any desire to impose censorship, this is the first thing that springs to mind, especially because thinking in these terms illustrates the current mentality of the state structures in relation to the press. There is a strong tendency to control and regulate everything and the attention of regulators is turned more towards journalistic activities rather than to the relations between the media and other parts of society.

Although it is difficult to give a precise number of journalists who have been victims of physical aggression (including murder) over the last years, it is obvious that Ukraine is one of the countries in Europe where the profession of journalist is the most dangerous.

The reasons for most of the deaths have not been elucidated. Nevertheless officials either insist that many of them are not related to the exercise of professional duties, or explain that deaths and violence towards journalists are inevitable in a period of political and economic transition, when property is changing hands and a lot of money, not necessarily clean, is at stake.

We consider this as a regrettably complacent stance. It is a primary task of a democratic State to show, through efficient and speedy justice, that it does not tolerate any of these appalling attempts to silence the media. How can we talk about freedom of speech if the sanction for a critical voice is violence and death?

The investigation into Mr Gongadze’s disappearance has been a flagrant example of lack of transparency. The denial of access to information to journalists and even to relatives (as Mr Gongadze’s mother has recently testified in her presentation before the Verkhovna Rada) has led to political speculation and the settling of accounts.

2. Harassment and out-of-court closure of media outlets

Under the current Ukrainian legislation, whether or not a media outlet operates often depends simply on action by the Fire Safety Department, the Health and Anti-Epidemic Service or any other governmental structure with nothing to do with the media. Absurd as they seem, these provisions are very often used (or rather abused) by the authorities. Also, although nobody is too willing to pay taxes when the living is hard, the tax authorities often show a strong “preference” for the accounts of dissenting media. The Committee has documented long lists of such cases, but amongst the most blatant examples cited recently by the President of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, Mr Lubchenko, are TV company Gravis, newspapers Pravda Ukrainy and Sil’s’ki Visti, all of which were closed down for a time “in defiance of legal norms, by decisions of state officials”.

These acts can only be considered as censorship.

In December 2000 the Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Education received a letter signed by ten editors-in-chief of local newspapers who had been prevented to report on various allegations of the possible involvement of the Ukrainian President in the disappearance of Mr Gongadze – from open intervention of security officers to more “subtle” forms such as electric power failures, bombs alerts and pressure on advertisers (see Appendix 1).

      3. Legal pressures

In 1999 Ukrainian media were sued over 2000 times for the total of almost three times as much as the country’s whole budget! At the same time, officials who were often at the origin of leaking false information to the media for their own interests were unpunished.

The reason for this aberration is that the Ukrainian legislation does not specify an upper limit for libel claims. In April 2000, a “Wave of freedom” action started in Lviv after the local newspaper Express was sentenced to pay several thousands of dollars compensation for moral damages for a 12-line note. In May the protest moved to Kyiv. 198 newspapers, 19 TV stations, 36 radio channels and the chairmen of the Union of Journalists, Mr Lubchenko, and of the Parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Expression and Information, Mr Zinchenko, supported the demands for amendments to the legislation so as to specify an upper limit of compensation for moral damages and to introduce criminal liability of civil servants for deliberately preventing journalists from performing their duties. So far, the Parliament has failed on three occasions to pass the amendments, although there is hope that the required majority in favour of such changes will be reached next time.

The legislators should also take into account the Council of Europe recommendations on protection of journalists’ sources of information and on public access to information, and adopt the relevant legislation. It is also generally accepted that foreign legal entities and individuals should be allowed to set up TV and broadcasting organisations. Experience in other countries in transition has shown that this helps inject capital in the media enterprises and, more importantly, allows these media outlets to be independent from the executive authorities. Although we understand the desire of the Ukrainian authorities to promote the Ukrainian language, restricting access of foreign media to the country in today’s information society is a thing of the past.

4. Broadcasting

We hope that the Ukrainian parliament will take full advantage of the expertise that has just been provided by the Council of Europe on the law on the National Television and Broadcasting Council of Ukraine. According to the experts, this institution in its present state can hardly be considered as independent, since it is an authority accountable to parliament and the President, who also have powers concerning the termination of the terms of office of the Council.

It is to be welcomed that the newly elected Broadcasting Council will grant licences on the basis of a tender, rather than on administrative decisions as had been done before. But experience in other new democracies has shown that this system can also be used to get rid of undesired critics. The procedure of granting licences should therefore be made as objective and transparent as possible.

Ukraine has still a long way to go in setting up genuine public service broadcasting. This is a very serious problem bearing in mind that television is by far the main information provider of the population. Efforts in this direction are urgently needed.

The Committee on Culture and Education, through its Sub-Committee on the Media, has been following the media situation throughout Europe and in particular in countries where severe violations of freedom of expression are committed.

In the case of Ukraine, alarming signals have been reaching the Committee for a long time. After the disappearance of Mr Gongadze, it decided to take more specific action. Firstly, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Pedro Roseta and the Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the Media, Mrs Tytti Isohookana-Asunmaa wrote to the Head of the Ukrainian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Borys Oliynyk, to express their deep concern and ask for information.

During the September 2000 Assembly part-session a teleconference between Committee members and Ukrainian journalists was prevented from taking place by an alleged bomb threat in the building in Kyiv where it should have been held. Nevertheless, telephone contact with journalists on the spot was established. They stated their concern about repeated threats to freedom of expression in Ukraine, referring to violence against journalists, illegal registration of telephone conversations, the shadowing of journalists. Ukrainian parliamentarians headed by Mr Oliynyk also participated and considered the situation of mass media in Ukraine as a threat to democracy (see Appendix 2).

The issue of freedom of expression in Ukraine has been on the agenda of all subsequent Committee meetings. In October 2000 it was decided that a strong signal should be sent to the Ukrainian authorities. In December 2000 the Committee held an exchange of views in Paris with Mr Zinchenko and Mr Ablitsov, Deputy Head of the State Council on Information Policy (see Appendix 3). A few days later Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa met the Ukrainian press and NGO representatives in Kiev in order to hear their concerns and proposals.

Your Rapporteur, as a Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Media, represented the Assembly at a hearing on the problems of information activities, freedom of expression and information security in Ukraine, organised by the Verkhovna Rada on 16 January 2000. Although the hearing was not broadcast live on television (with live transmissions only on the radio and the Internet), it gave every impression of being free, open and constructive. This initiative has to be welcomed also because it is part of a new trend which is gradually taking shape after Mr Gongadze’s disappearance: a greater and stronger involvement of public opinion. And, no matter what solemn statements about freedom of press are made by the authorities, a stronger and better organised civil society is the best guarantee for change.

Appendix 1: Appeal to the Chairman of the PACE Committee on culture and education Mr. Pedro Roseto

Freedom of Expression in Ukraine Under Patronage

The ferocious pressure was survived for the last 10 years by the independent press of Ukraine. All forces of the state apparatus were activated not to allow issue of newspapers, who had courage to publicize the information about possible involvement of the highest state authority to disappearing of the independent journalist Georgy Gongadze.

The Vyrinitsya newspaper "Strila" refused by all the printing houses of the region under pressure of special forces.

Dnepropetrivsk independent newspaper "Litsa" was reduced to printing beyond the borders of the region, the SBU officer demanded the editor to remove from print the materials with the shorthand transcript of the audio tape, presented by A. Moroz.

Pavlograd newspaper “Slovo Veterana" was printed with white spots in the places, where the materials of scandalous audio tape. The printing house director explained this by the direct order of local SBU.

Zhitomir newspaper "Zirka Nadiyi” was not able to appear in print because of occasional damage on printing house electric network. The printing house was idle for five days, though in all the neighboring there was electricity.

Zaporizzliya "Zerkalo Zaporozzya” had to be printed at the copying machine because ot refusal 61 all city printing houses to do printing work.

Poltava newspaper "Trudova Poltavschina" could not come out of print for three days due to the pressure of special forces for the director of the printing house. After the newspaper was finally printed, the MHA division searched the building of the editorial, motivating their actions by the search of the bomb. Having assured, that they will not be able to appropriate the issue of the newspaper, they left the building. The external following was attached to the chief editor by unknown autovehicles.

In Rivne the newspaper "Dialogue" was refused by the printing house, the unknown subjects have established the external following at the employees of the editorial. SBU and MVI) conducted persecution actions in regard to firms, placing their advertisements in the newspaper.

Kharkiv newspaper "Prospekt pravdy" mini-printing house was closed by firemen.

Kherson newspaper "Spravedlyvist". received a refusal from the printing house, the director explained, that he is afraid to loose his job. The editor was followed externally.

Chernihiv regional printing house under authoritative pressure refused to print the newspaper "Rubizh". The MHA employees on no explanation appropriated a part of this newspaper's issue from the auto of the deputy for regional council. The pressconference of the chief editor for the newspaper was attempted to obstruct by MHA workers, having announced, that the building is mined.

THE GENERAL ISSUE OF THE REPRESSED NEWSPAPERS IS ABOUT ONE MILLION OF COPIES

These facts allow to make a conclusion of President Kuchma's sincerity, who has announced in his address to people on 6.12.2000: "I stood and I do stand for the freedom of expression. Against any kind of pressure on the media For opportunity to publicly express one's opinion. In the long run, judge for yoursey - the publications, naming themselves an obvious opposition, come out as they used to”.

In this situation, we, heads of Ukrainian mass media, have no other way, but to appeal to international organizations for help.

SALVATION OF INDEPENDENT PRESS IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR SALVATION OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES IN UKRAINE.

On behalf of chief editors

of the listed papers

(signed) Y. Lutsenko.

Appendix 2: Press Release

Alleged bomb threat prevents teleconference between European parliamentarians and Ukrainian journalists

Strasbourg 28.9.2000 - Following the cancellation of a teleconference on freedom of expression in Ukraine between members of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg and Ukrainian journalists in Kyiv, the following statement was issued by Tytti Isohookana-Asunmaa (LDR, Finland), President of the Assembly's Sub-Committee on the Media:

"The Sub-Committee on the Media of the Committee on Culture and Education today tried to organise a teleconference with Ukrainian journalists. When it became clear the room where the journalists were to meet was empty, telephone contact was made with them. They explained that 30 minutes beforehand the building had been evacuated by the police on the pretext that a bomb had been placed there. Later, once the threat had passed, the police prevented journalists from re-entering the building.

The journalists and the wife of the missing journalist Georgij Gongadze confirmed that they were working in difficult conditions and gave examples of violations of the liberty of the press. They asked the Council of Europe to increase pressure on Ukraine. The parliamentarians present expressed their surprise that there were still people in Kyiv who were powerful, unscrupulous and crude enough to use an alleged bomb threat to prevent journalists from making their voices heard.

The Committee on Culture and Education may convene in the near future to discuss this matter.

The Ukrainian parliamentarians present reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the principles of the Council of Europe. Borys Oliynyk, head of the Ukrainian delegation, regretted the situation and the poor image which it gave of Ukraine to Council of Europe parliamentarians."

Appendix 3: Information note

Parliamentarians see Gongadze case as test of media freedom in Ukraine

 PARIS, 13.12.2000 – Council of Europe parliamentarians today called for a speedy and fair investigation into the case of missing Ukrainian journalist Heorhiy Gongadze and said the way it was handled would be a test of media freedom in Ukraine.

Parliamentarians from across Europe, gathered in Paris for a meeting of the Assembly's Culture and Education Committee, held an exchange of views with Mr Vitaly Ablitsov, Deputy Chairman of the State Committee for Information Policy, TV and Radio of Ukraine, and Mr Oleksandr Zinchenko, Chair of the Ukrainian Parliament's Committee for Freedom of Speech and Information. "We asked hard questions about the disappearance of journalists, the closing of offices, and the huge fines levied on independent newspapers," said Mr Gyula Hegyi (Hungary, SOC), the Culture Committee's rapporteur on freedom of the press in Europe. "We had very few positive, confident answers."

At a press conference following the meeting, Mrs Tytti Isohookana-Asunmaa (Finland, LDR), Chair of the Assembly's Sub-Committee on the Media, said: "We are deeply concerned by the repeated aggression, intimidation and murders of journalists in Ukraine. The perpetrators of such crimes must be found and brought to justice immediately. There can be no freedom of the press in an atmosphere of terror and fear."

"Many of the existing problems are illustrated most clearly by the present crisis over the disappearance of the internet journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. We hope that the inquiry into his disappearance will produce results as soon as possible and that it will be carried out in accordance with the rule of law and democratic principles."

"We do not wish to intervene in the present row over the possible involvement of the highest state authorities in Mr Gongadze's disappearance, but we do deplore the fact that several local and regional newspapers in Ukraine appear to have been prevented from publishing information on the case." A statement from ten local and regional Ukrainian editors-in-chief, claiming that they had been prevented from reporting the Gongadze case, was read out to parliamentarians.

Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa announced that she is to visit Kyiv this week and will make that an occasion to meet journalists to discuss press freedom (see below).

Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa said the Council stood ready to provide any assistance that was needed in order to bring Ukrainian legislation into line with European standards in terms of freedom of expression.

Speaking at the press conference, former journalist Mr Zinchenko said there were no longer "secret subjects" on TV or radio in Ukraine. "You can hear the Moroz tapes on the internet in Ukraine. Even two years ago, such widespread discussion was not possible. Our democracy is only nine years old, but we have come a long way. Ukraine will not follow the path of Belarus. That would be disastrous."

He agreed with parliamentarians that the Gongadze case was a test of Ukraine's press freedom. "The honour of Ukraine rests on us resolving this affair," he said.

Mrs Tytti Isohookana-Asunmaa, Chair of the Assembly's Sub-Committee on the Media, will hold a meeting with journalists in Kyiv on 18 December at the offices of the Ukrainian

Committee in charge with the report: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe

Committee for opinion: Committee on Culture and Education

Reference to the Committee: Assembly decision of 22 January 2001 on the holding of an urgent procedure debate

Secretaries of the Committee: Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Ms Kostenko

1 See Doc. 8945