Fulltrúar Feneyjanefndar áttu fundi með stjórnvöldum í Bishkek, höfuðborg Kyrgyzstan dagana 11. til 12. september vegna álits sem um fyrirhugup fjölmiðlalög í landinu. Álitið verður kynnt á aðalfundi nefndarinnar í byrjun október. Myndin er tekin í dómsmálaráðuneytinu í Bishek en það var dómsmálaráðherra Kyrgyzstan sem fór þess á leit við Feneyjanefnd að hún tæki frumvarpið til skoðunar.
Svíar sem hafa verið í forsæti fyrir Ráði Evrópuráðsins – the Council of the European Union – sl. hálft ár luku því hlutverki með stóru málþingi í Stokkhólmi hinn 21. og 22. júní. Herdís Þorgeirsdóttir var með framsögu af hálfu Feneyjanefndar Evrópuráðsins en þemað var lýðræðisleg gildi og réttarríkið. Aðrir sem töluðu voru m.a.forseti Evrópudómsstólsins og varaforseti framkvæmdastjórnar Evrópusambandsins; auk talsmann evrópskra stofnana, atvinnulífs og akademíu. Herdís fjallaði sérstaklega um álit Feneyjanefndar vegna breytinga á stjórnarskrá Möltu sem samþykkt var 2018. Álitið er mikilvægt að því leyti að tengir saman svo margt sem fer aflaga í stjórnskipun ríkja og verður spillingu og ofbeldi að bráð – en álit þetta er m.a. tilkomið vegna þeirrar alþjóðlegu athygli sem morðið á blaðakonunni Daphne Caruana Galizia í október 2017. Hún hafði sem blaðamaður og bloggari fjallað mikið og oft háðuglega um spillingu í forystu ríkisins, tengsl ráðamanna við spillt fjármálaöfl og því þótti einhverjum tími til kominn að útiloka frekari gagnrýni frá henni. Sprengju var komið fyrir í bíl hennar og hún lét lífið þegar bíllinn sprakk í loft upp eftir að hún ræsti hann. Rannsókn á morðinu gekk treglega fyrir sig. Stjórnvöld á Möltu sættu gagnrýni fyrir klíkuskap, spillt dómskerfi, lögregla og saksóknara, samkrull allra greina ríkisvaldsins, veikburða löggjafasamkundu, samþjöppun á valdi, frændhygli og tengsl ráðherra við peningaþvætti og önnur spillingarmál.
Í framhaldi af þessu má geta þess að frá 2014 hafa 28 blaðamenn verið myrtir á evrópskri grundu. Flestir vegna skrifa sinna um spillingu. Í frægu dómsmáli fyrir Mannréttindadómstól Evrópu í kjölfar morðs á blaðakonunni Anna Politskoya í Moskvu kvað dómstóllinn upp úr skyldu stjórnvalda aðildarríkja Evrópuráðsins (sem Rússland var þá) að rannsaka morð á blaðamönnum í tenglsum við skrif þeirra sbr. 1., 2., og 10. grein Mannréttindasáttmála Evrópu.
The Rule of Law is mentioned in the Preamble to the Statute of the Council of Europe as one of the three “principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy”, together with individual freedom and political liberty.
The Rule of Law means that everyone has the right to be treated by all decision-makers with dignity, equality and rationality and in accordance with the laws, and to have the opportunity to challenge decisions before independent and impartial courts through fair procedures.
Impartiality of the judiciary must be ensured in practice as well as in the law. The classical formula, as expressed for example by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, is that “justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done”
One of the benchmarks that the VC uses to assess the impartiality is asking:
Are there specific constitutional and legal rules providing for the impartiality of the judiciary?
As we are discussing a reality check on the rule of law and democratic values – I would like to mention an interesting opinion of the VC which was requested in 2018 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – in the wake of a report on the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017 and the rule of law in Malta – ensuring that the whole truth emerges – a case which attracted attention all over Europe.
This opinion elucidates the interrelationship between the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers, right to life, journalistic freedoms, corruption and abuse of powers.
Investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated on 16 October 2017. As a journalist and blogger active for over 30 years, she had reported on politics in Malta, focusing on government corruption, nepotism, and allegations of money laundering – probably knowing that she was putting herself in danger in such an environment – although not foreseeing that someone would place a bomb in her car which exploded, killing her instantly in October 2017.
The alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation to find any persons who ordered this assassination and the alleged culture of impunity had been highly criticised.
The economy in Malta was thriving but also at the time perceived as fostering widespread corruption – the Panama Papers scandal had exposed more than 214,000 tax havens involving high-profile people, government officials, and entities from 200 different nations -revealing corruption affecting all Member States of the Council of Europe. Corruption according to reports at the time was costing the economy of EU countries more than 120 billion Euros per year, with some estimates going up to 990 billion Euros.
The even higher cost is the one of ruined lives, the erosion of the rule of law and decay of democracy. We know now that in the last ten years 28 journalists who had been investigating corruption have been brutally killed on European soil. Journalists have special duties; more duties than ordinary citizens and they need special protection
The scope of the VC examination was confined to the constitutional arrangements in Malta as the Commission neither had the mandate nor the required competences to examine the effectiveness of a particular criminal investigation or the veracity of the allegations by the murdered journalist of individual cases of corruption and money-laundering. The Venice Commission insisted in this case on the positive obligations stemming from Article 1 of the European Convention, combined with Articles 2 (right to life) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR — was of utmost importance to examine a possible connection of the assassination of a journalist to the investigative of her work – and that perpetrators of such offences do not enjoy impunity
Preventive and repressive measures are required to fight corruption – the Minister of Justice in Malta had pointed to various law reforms as a whistleblower act; laws on political party financing and various other laws tackling defamation, corruption, nepotism etc.
The VC emphasized that as with any reform, it is obvious that not only the texts matter, but also their implementation in good faith.
The Opinion criticised the double role of the Attorney General as advisor of the Government and as prosecutor. The part-time Parliament was found to be too weak to exercise sufficient control over the executive branch. The Prime Minister’s wide powers of appointment make this institution too powerful, creating a serious risk for the rule of law. The Prime Minister’s influence on judicial appointments resulted in the absence of crucial checks and balances. This problem was reinforced by the weakness of civil society and independent media.
The VC emphasized that even when it is stressful for authorities endure criticism they have the duty to ensure that the media can adhere to its public watchdog role – and that robust political debate can thrive in civil society.
The list of recommendations in this opinion concerning the judiciary, the public prosecutions, the parliament, president and citizen involvement in making constitutional amendments – and the international obligation of the government to ensure the media and journalists could do their duty as the public watchdog to hold authorities accountable – elucidate how complex the fabric underlying the effective rule of law, democracy and human rights is.
Herdís Kjerulf Þorgeirsdóttir var með framsögu af hálfu Feneyjanefndar á fundi í Riksdagen, sænska þinginu, sem stjórnskipunarnefnd þingisns stóð fyrir. Þema fundarins var lýðræði í Evrópu og réttarríkið. Aðrir framsögumenn voru m.a. Didier Reynsders dómsmálaráðherra Evrópusambandsins, Jessika Roswall ráðherra í sænsku ríkisstjórninni, Björn von Sydow fyrrum forseti þingsins, Thomas Bull dómari við hæstarétt Svíþjóðar. Herdís talaði um bakslag í lýðræðislegum stjórnarháttum og tengsl við öfluga, pólitíska umræðu.
Á aðalfundi Feneyjanefndar, dagana 9. og 10. desember talaði Herdís Kjerulf Þorgeirsóttir fyrir áliti varðandi frumvarp til laga í serbneska lýðveldi Bosníu Hersegóvínu varðandi sérstaka skráningu félagasamtaka og fjölmiðla á netinu sem þiggja utanaðkomandi fjárframlög. Álitið var unnið af sérfræðingum frá Feneyjanefnd og ODIH (Mannréttindaskrifstofu OSCE). Álitið var samþykkt á fundinum.
The Venice Commission issued this urgent opinion on the draft amendments to the Turkish Penal Code regarding the provision on “false or misleading information” on October 7th -following a request of the Monitoring Committee of the PACE.
At its session last week the PACE adopted resolution 2459 (2022) on the honoring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye containing reference to this urgent opinion and concerns regarding criminalizing the dissemination of false information” in the context of the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in 2023.
The opinion as per the request by PACE focuses on – at the time – draft Art. 29 amending the penal code by adding a new provision 217A on publicly disseminating false or misleading information. There was much confusion regarding the vague provisions during our online meetings with Turkish authorities and in the texts we received regarding the use of terms – so we use both misleading information and false information.
Turkish authorities have justified criminalizing the dissemination of information considered false or misleading with up to 3 years imprisonment and 4,5 years in case if offenders hide their identity – with reference to various European countries – Germany, France, the UK and the EU Digital services act. This opinion compares these laws cited as inspiration and they do not criminalize the dissemination of false information – so this justification has no relevance.
Our legal assessment on the compatibility of this provision with European standards– the VC notes that the draft amendment may pursue a legitimate aim – acknowledging that there is globally a need to tacklethe serious problem of disinformation campaigns. The Venice Commission concludes however that there is no pressing social need to adopt such a provision in light of the existence in the Turkish legal system targeting the most dangerous aspects of false information.
Our main concerns regarding the criminalization of the dissemination of false information are the political consequences – the authorities have great flexibility in applying this provision to every citizen in the country, journalists, activists, members of the opposition and the heavy sanctions will increase the widespread self-censorship which is already rampant in the country struggling in an environment hostile to an open, robust public debate.
There is increased maximum sentence of 4,5 years imprisonment for disseminating false or misleading information – not revealing ones identity is an important aspect of the free flow of information – in an environment where there is rampant self-censorship it is important to be able to post anonymously – f.ex on the abuse of power or corruption.
The Venice Commission finding that the adoption of this amendment is neither necessary nor proportionate – and hence recommended to the Turkish authorities not to enact it – which the parliament however did on October 13th triggering renewed protests by journalists, political opposition, rights activists and the media – which widely mentioned the VC opinion – f ex the NYT drawing attention to the grave impact of deterring an open, robust debate for democracy in Turkey – targeting critics in the run- up to crucial elections in June.
Stórblaðið New York Times segir frá því að tyrknesk stjórnvöld hafi samþykkti umdeilt ný hegningarlagaákvæði þar sem dreifing ,,falsfrétta” geti varðað allt að þriggja ára fangelsi og helmingi lengri tíma sé miðlunin nafnlaus. Blaðið vísar í álit Feneyjanefndar sem Herdís Kjerulf Þorgeirsdóttir er einn þriggja höfunda að. Nefndin varaði við setningu þessa lagaákvæðis sem stenst ekki tjáningarfrelsisákvæði Mannréttindasáttmála Evrópu. Skilgreining á hugtökum er bæði ruglingsleg og óljós. Stjórnvöld gætu metið greinar og pósta um spillingu eða fátækt falsfréttir. Það ber enga brýna nauðsyn til í lýðræðislegu samfélagi að gera dreifingu upplýsinga sem gætu verið dregnar í efa – refsiverðar. Feneyjanefnd bendir á að vægari úrræði eru til staðar til að stemma við miðlun efnis sem getur varðað þjóðaröryggi, almenna velferð o.s.frv. Álitið vísar á bug réttlætingu tyrkneskra stjórnvalda fyrir þessum lögum en þau vísa í lög í Þýskalandi varðandi framkvæmd laga á samfélagsmiðlum, frönsk lög um hagræðingu staðreynda í meðferð upplýsinga á netinu, bresk lög um öryggi á netinu og lög um stafræna þjónustu á vettvangi Evrópusambandsins. Engin þessara laga gera dreifingu falsfrétta refsiverða. Að auki bendir nefndin á að hugtakið “falsfréttir” fellur ekki undir ólöglegt efni í lögum Evrópusambandsins. Samanburður tyrkneskra stjórnvalda á sér ekki stoð í þessum lögum. Þá er það áhyggjuefni að lögin eru sett í aðdraganda þing- og forsetakosninga í Tyrklandi sumarið 2023 en Feneyjanefnd bendir á fælingarmátt laganna og að sjálfs-ritskoðun muni aukast að mun en hert hefur verið stöðugt að tjáningarfrelsi í landinu undanfarin ár. Opin, kröftug, pólitísk umræða gegnir lykilhlutverki í lýðræðisríkjum og nýtur sérstakrar verndar undir 10. grein Mannréttindasáttmála Evrópu.