BAJ Protest against the Practice of Fining Journalists for Work

In 2015, 22 fines have already been imposed on jour­nal­ists for this “vio­la­tion”, mean­while only in June there were 8 of them. In 2014 there were 10 such cas­es.

In the first week of July Ales Liauchuk was fined for 50 basic amounts, and he faces two more ana­log­i­cal admin­is­tra­tive cas­es on June 9 and 10.

The total sum of the fines imposed on jour­nal­ists in 2015 amount­ed to 117 mil­lion rubles.

In con­tra­dic­tion with the Law on Mass Media, the police and courts extend the oblig­a­tion to get accred­i­ta­tion from the Min­istry of For­eign Affairs on free­lance jour­nal­ists, who are not staff jour­nal­ists of for­eign mass media. Then, the author­i­ties unrea­son­ably qual­i­fy activ­i­ties with­out such accred­i­ta­tion as a vio­la­tion of the pro­ce­dures of pro­duc­tion and pub­li­ca­tion of mass media prod­ucts (accord­ing to part 2 of art. 22.9 of the Code on Admin­is­tra­tive Vio­la­tions). Mean­while, mass media prod­ucts are pro­duced by edi­to­r­i­al offices, and infor­ma­tion is dis­trib­uted by mass media, not by jour­nal­ists them­selves. Based on def­i­n­i­tions of the Law on Mas Media, jour­nal­ist is not a sub­ject pro­duc­ing or dis­trib­ut­ing mass media prod­ucts. Accord­ing­ly, he can­not be held liable for vio­lat­ing this arti­cle.

More­over, hold­ing free­lance jour­nal­ists liable for coop­er­a­tion with for­eign mass media with­out accred­i­ta­tion vio­lates the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Repub­lic of Belarus and inter­na­tion­al legal oblig­a­tions of the state. Arti­cle 34 of the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Repub­lic of Belarus ensures citien rights to get, store and dis­sem­i­nate full, true and time­ly infor­ma­tion about activ­i­ties of state bod­ies, pub­lic asso­ci­a­tions, and about polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al life, about the envi­ron­ment. The same is stat­ed by art. 19 of the ICCPR rat­i­fied by Belarus, accord­ing to which  every per­son has the right to search, obtain and dis­sem­i­nate infor­ma­tion of dif­fer­ent kinds and ideas regard­less of state bor­ders ver­bal­ly, in writ­ten form or by print and artis­tic means, or by any oth­er means of per­son­al choice.

Restric­tion of these rights, accord­ing to the Con­sti­tu­tion and the ICCPR, is pos­si­ble only for cer­tain rea­sons, i.e. for pro­tec­tion of hon­or, dig­ni­ty, per­son­al and fam­i­ly life of cit­i­zens and for full enjoy­ment of their rights. How­ev­er, in all cas­es against jour­nal­ists under art. 22.9 the rea­son­ing for lia­bil­i­ty was not unlaw­ful­ness of the con­tents of their matri­als, but the very fact that their mate­ri­als were pub­lished in for­eign out­lets.

We would like to draw atten­tion that in the glob­al world pros­e­cu­tion of jour­nal­ists for pub­li­ca­tion of their mate­ri­als in for­eign mass media vio­lates not only the jour­nal­ists’ con­sti­tu­tion­al and pro­fes­sion­al rights, but also the rights of all cit­i­zens to get and dis­sem­i­nate infor­ma­tion.

Before the pres­i­den­tial elec­tions in Belarus, increas­ing pres­sure on jour­nal­ists cre­ates a dis­cour­ag­ing envi­ron­ment for the elec­toral cam­paign and casts doubts on free­dom of expres­sion for it in the mass media.

The Belaru­sian Asso­ci­a­tion of Jour­nal­ists calls on the fol­low­ing actors:

-  Heads of the Min­istry of Home Affairs and the KGB – to con­sid­er law­ful­ness of actions of their employ­ees in the cas­es men­tioned above. Instead of fight­ing crimes and pro­tect­ing the con­sti­tu­tion­al order, dozens of employ­ees of the MHA and the KGB stage a real hunt for jour­nal­ists who do not encroach on anyone’s law­ful rights and inter­ests;

-  Courts of the Repub­lic of Belarus – while con­sid­er­ing cas­es to be guid­ed by the Con­sti­tu­tion of Belarus and inter­na­tion­al treaties rat­i­fied by Belarus; to dis­al­low broad inter­pre­ta­tion of legal acts of Belarus envis­ag­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty;

-  The Supreme Court of Belarus – to pay atten­tion to the uncon­di­tion­al obser­vance of hier­ar­chy of legal acts by courts of low­er instance, and on inde­pen­dence of courts while issu­ing deci­sions. In many admin­is­tra­tive cas­es, it was unclear how mate­ri­als of pre­vi­ous cas­es were attached. Appear­ances of such “sam­ples of deci­sions” in court hear­ings can be regard­ed as pres­sure on courts;

-  The prosecutor’s offices of Belarus – to protest against rul­ings con­tra­dict­ing to legal acts in the admin­is­tra­tive cas­es under art. 22.9, part 2;

-  The Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court of the Repub­lic of Belarus – to ini­ti­ate pro­ce­dures to elim­i­nate gaps, legal col­li­sions and uncer­tain­ty in the legal acts that reg­u­late obtain­ing and dis­sem­i­na­tion of infor­ma­tion by Belaru­sian cit­i­zens, also regard­less of state bor­ders.

Adopt­ed by the Board of BAJ

July 7, 2015

Fines to Jour­nal­ists for Vio­lat­ing Arti­cle 22.9 of the Admin­is­tra­tive Code (Chart) (Updat­ed)