10. 05. 2011

Attacks on journalist are threat to society

Belgrade, May 10, 2011 (B92) - Our society, the political elite and official institutions still carry a heavy historical burden in the form of unsolved murders of journalists Dada Vujasinović, Slavko Ćuruvija and Milan Pantić, as well as the unsolved attempted assassination of Dejan Anastasijević and his family.

This legacy of threats to safety of journalists continues to this day and no less than three Serbian journalists still live under 24-hour police protection. Aside from these cases, there are many other instances of threats to safety of journalists, especially with regard to the freedom of expression which is the most fundamental requirement for every journalist to be able to perform their job.

Three years ago, while recording an event, a B92 cameramen, Boško Branković, was attacked and seriously injured in front of hundreds of witnesses. Despite the attack, he managed to capture the whole incident and the attackers on tape, almost to the moment of receiving a direct hit. Immediately before the attack on Branković, a FoNet news agency photographer had been assaulted and his camera smashed. The perpetrators were protesting against the arrest of Radovan Karadžić and his transfer to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.

Boško Branković, who was assigned to inform the public on this important event, is well-known among his colleagues for his professionalism, sense of responsibility and courage and has certainly lived up to his reputation after his cool-headed response to the direct attack, which he managed to record on tape. The recording showed young people, supporters of a war crimes indictee, attacking a person who was performing a task of public importance and who had posed no threat to them nor provoked them in any way. They broke his leg, injured his shoulder and broke his camera. The incident constituted a direct violation of each citizen's right to receive information about current events and was an assault on a person performing a job of special significance, as well as on the property of a company whose main business activity is to report on events.

The court needed three years to pass a verdict on an incident that was recorded on tape. I attended the court session when the verdict was announced and I felt ashamed both as a citizen and as the injured cameraman' colleague who has been at the helm of B92 for 22 years.

I believe that we are witnessing several issues here, and I will point out only two of them: the conduct of the judges and the conduct of legislators.

My first impression is that our judges are completely incapable of recognizing the wider threat to the society arising from attacks on journalists. I am under the impression that they cannot see that the attack on Teofil Pančić is something more than a couple of bruises on his head, and that the attack on Boško Branković does not involve only a broken leg. They fail to see that these incidents are attacks not only on Teofil and Boško and their physical integrity, but on a fundamental human right of all of us to receive relevant information about societal events as a necessary precondition for independent decisions based on true and accurate information.

There is a serious problem related to the penal policy which cannot be analyzed only from the viewpoint of judges' tendency to pass inadequate verdicts, usually near the legal minimum within the prescribed range, or even to pass verdicts below this minimum if there are mitigating circumstances (which is also allowed by law). This problem relates to the fact that in our penal legislation there is no balance whatsoever between the threat to society caused by a criminal act and the legally prescribed penalty. Judges are not to blame for this state of affairs, but the legislators.

For example, the amended Criminal Code of 2009 stipulates that unrealized threats to journalists carry a sentence of 1-8 years.

On the other hand, if someone makes their threat a reality in a violent manner, they can be punished by up to three years in prison. If the threat is realized in a group or results in a slight injury, the prison sentence ranges from six months to five years.

This kind of legal reasoning leads to a conclusion that it is a better choice to beat journalists than only to threaten them. The legislators are directly responsible for this situation, not the judges.

Additionally, if we take into consideration the possibility of reducing the sentence below the legally prescribed minimum in the case of "special mitigating circumstances", and the tendency of our courts to widely extend the definition of such circumstances, it is no wonder that the results are disappointing.

The court has managed to find mitigating circumstances in the Branković case although one of the defendants, Savatović, was on the run (at first he was not a part of the investigation) and later arrested and charged with the crime. His behavior after the committed crime could only be treated as an aggravating circumstance.

A completely different issue is the introduction of new legal tools that are not familiar to our prosecutors and courts. For example, the agreements on admission of guilt or house arrest.

The house arrest deals are especially difficult to understand. The law says that persons sentenced to up to one year in prison can be ordered by court to serve it under house arrest. From my point of view, it is completely illogical that imprisonment in a real prison can be swapped for something that could be perceived as nothing more than sitting in one's home (and may even involve going to lectures, a workplace etc.).

We have had cases of threats to journalists via Facebook resulting in three months of imprisonment - exactly the same as in the case when a journalist was followed by a pair of perpetrators and beaten in the head by a metal bar. Our cameraman was hit so hard that his leg was broken only because he had recorded on tape an attack on another journalist. His attackers are sentenced to 10-month house arrest or a suspended sentence - and not a single day in prison!

I am under impression, and my belief is supported by facts, that there exists a strong front that opposes the creation of an independent media scene - a scene that would make all social affairs and relationships public and expose them in the interest of citizens and society's development. The message sent by the previously mentioned unsolved cases and verdicts such as this one serve more to encourage and incite this kind of criminal behavior instead of suppressing it. Journalists and the media should stand together and demonstrate a much higher level of solidarity and unity in protection of their fundamental existential and professional rights.

Not so long ago, the media and in the political discourse used to describe hardened criminals, including war criminals, as having been "mischievous" in the past (or, in other words, they had robbed banks, beaten or killed people etc.). Verdicts like this one can almost confirm that this kind of a system and a cultural model still exists. I am concerned that these circumstances may invite a socially dominant attitude that is evident even now in cases of beaten journalists - i.e. "well, they challenged those in power and got what they asked for".

There is a lot of work that remains to be done: a reform of the media scene; new and modern laws that would protect journalism and advance it to a higher level as a fourth estate and pillar of power in the society; as well as a wide-ranging reform and education of judiciary aimed at achieving a consistent and strict protection of the public interest and all activities related to the public interest.

Veran Matić is Editor-in-Chief and President of the Board of Directors of B92