Safeguarding Journalists: Challenges and Responsibilities
Protecting the safety of
journalists
Training workshop on media and
freedom of expression law
Are journalists safe?
What is the situation in your country?
Are journalists free to work without danger,
threat or physical interference?
If no, where does this danger come from – the
state or other actors?
Sometimes the threat to journalists is not posed by the law,
but by the lack of it.
Physical attacks on journalists are an enormous hazard. But
governments still have legal obligations:
•
The state has a responsibility to provide protection to
media professionals;
•
The state has a responsibility to initiate an independent
investigation into any attack on media professionals and to
prosecute those responsible, as appropriate (this is, of
course, part of a broader obligation to protect
everyone
and to investigate any serious violation).
1.
Attacks such as the murder, kidnapping, intimidation
of and threats to media practitioners and others
exercising their right to freedom of expression, as
well as the material destruction of communications
facilities, undermines independent journalism,
freedom of expression and the free flow of
information to the public.
2.
States are under an obligation to take effective
measures to prevent such attacks
(Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in
Africa)
The special
rapporteurs
on freedom of expression (from the
UN, OSCE,
the African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights and the Organization of American States
) stated that
governments must:
•
Put in place special measures of protection for individuals
who are likely to be targeted for what they say where this is
a recurring problem;
•
Ensure that crimes against freedom of expression are
subject to independent, speedy and effective investigations
and prosecutions; and
•
Ensure that victims of crimes against freedom of expression
have access to appropriate remedies.
There is a
general
obligation on states to investigate
allegations of killing, disappearance or torture.
The ECtHR reasoned that there is no substance to a
prohibition of arbitrary killing, if there is no obligation to
investigate (
McCann v. United Kingdom
).
This applies whether or not the alleged perpetrator is a
state agent.
The obligation to investigate applies in all cases –
but there is also case law on “crimes against
freedom of expression” such as attacks on
journalists.
“The Court recalls the key importance of freedom of
expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning
democracy. Genuine, effective exercise of this freedom
does not depend merely on the State's duty not to
interfere, but may require positive measures of
protection…” (ECtHR,
Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey
)
“A State’s refusal to conduct a full investigation of
the murder of a journalist is particularly serious
because of its impact on society… the murder of a
journalist has a ‘chilling effect’ most notably on
other journalists, but also on ordinary citizens as it
instils the fear of denouncing any and all kinds of
offences, abuses or illegal acts.”
(IACtHR,
Miranda v. Mexico
)
Hypothetical case for
discussion
A journalist who has reported on links between the police
and organized crime is abducted. Later his body is found
with all the hallmarks of a gangland killing.
The police say that they are investigating the murder as
they do all crimes. There is no particular human rights
obligation on them in this case, they argue.
Is this an adequate response? If not, how would you
respond to the police position?
The safety of journalists is crucial for preserving freedom of expression and independent journalism. Governments have a legal obligation to protect media professionals from threats, intimidation, and physical harm. Attacks on journalists undermine the flow of information to the public and must be prevented through effective measures and independent investigations. Special rapporteurs emphasize the need for protective measures, swift investigations of freedom of expression crimes, and access to remedies for victims. States must uphold their duty to investigate allegations of violence against journalists.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Protecting the safety of journalists Training workshop on media and freedom of expression law
Are journalists safe? What is the situation in your country? Are journalists free to work without danger, threat or physical interference? If no, where does this danger come from the state or other actors?
Sometimes the threat to journalists is not posed by the law, but by the lack of it. Physical attacks on journalists are an enormous hazard. But governments still have legal obligations: The state has a responsibility to provide protection to media professionals; The state has a responsibility to initiate an independent investigation into any attack on media professionals and to prosecute those responsible, as appropriate (this is, of course, part of a broader obligation to protect everyone and to investigate any serious violation).
1. Attacks such as the murder, kidnapping, intimidation of and threats to media practitioners and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, as well as the material destruction of communications facilities, undermines independent journalism, freedom of expression and the free flow of information to the public. 2. States are under an obligation to take effective measures to prevent such attacks (Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa)
The special rapporteurs on freedom of expression (from the UN, OSCE, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights and the Organization of American States) stated that governments must: Put in place special measures of protection for individuals who are likely to be targeted for what they say where this is a recurring problem; Ensure that crimes against freedom of expression are subject to independent, speedy and effective investigations and prosecutions; and Ensure that victims of crimes against freedom of expression have access to appropriate remedies.
There is a general obligation on states to investigate allegations of killing, disappearance or torture. The ECtHR reasoned that there is no substance to a prohibition of arbitrary killing, if there is no obligation to investigate (McCann v. United Kingdom). This applies whether or not the alleged perpetrator is a state agent.
The obligation to investigate applies in all cases but there is also case law on crimes against freedom of expression such as attacks on journalists. The Court recalls the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy. Genuine, effective exercise of this freedom does not depend merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection (ECtHR, Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey)
A States refusal to conduct a full investigation of the murder of a journalist is particularly serious because of its impact on society the murder of a journalist has a chilling effect most notably on other journalists, but also on ordinary citizens as it instils the fear of denouncing any and all kinds of offences, abuses or illegal acts. (IACtHR, Miranda v. Mexico)
Hypothetical case for discussion A journalist who has reported on links between the police and organized crime is abducted. Later his body is found with all the hallmarks of a gangland killing. The police say that they are investigating the murder as they do all crimes. There is no particular human rights obligation on them in this case, they argue. Is this an adequate response? If not, how would you respond to the police position?
