{"id":10726,"date":"2017-06-27T11:13:25","date_gmt":"2017-06-27T09:13:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/en\/freedom-of-expressionpublic-report-2016-armenia\/"},"modified":"2021-11-26T10:49:12","modified_gmt":"2021-11-26T09:49:12","slug":"freedom-of-expressionpublic-report-2016-armenia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/freedom-of-expressionpublic-report-2016-armenia\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of Expression,public report 2016, Armenia"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Freedom of Expression,public report 2016, Armenia<\/em><\/strong><\/h1><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Obstructing journalistic activity:<\/p>\n

From 17 to 31 July 2016, the staff of the Human Rights Defender received<\/p>\n

numerous reports of cases of obstructing the lawful activities of journalists. All the<\/p>\n

reports were documented and reviewed under the respective procedures. Members<\/p>\n

of the staff of the Human Rights Defender met with and interviewed the victims, and<\/p>\n

in some cases also checked and corroborated the data through oral and written<\/p>\n

queries. A number of sites were inspected, such as the part of the Sari Tagh district,<\/p>\n

where the clashes had occurred between the demonstrators and police officers,<\/p>\n

during which journalists had suffered. Eyewitness statements, mass media reports,<\/p>\n

social media publications, and numerous statements and studies of local and<\/p>\n

international human rights organizations, public figures, diplomatic missions, and<\/p>\n

state bodies about the cases were collected and studied.<\/p>\n

According to the collected facts, during the days in question, there had been<\/p>\n

grave violations of the rights of journalists and operators of Azatutyun.am,<\/p>\n

A1plus.am, Panorama.am, Lragir.am, Armlur.am, Panarmenian.net, PAN-Photo,<\/p>\n

1in.am, NewsPress.am, and Haikakan Jamanak news units, as well as the Armenia<\/p>\n

TV Jameh news program, and the Russian LifeNews news medium. The violations<\/p>\n

were accompanied with violence, threats, persecution, damaging and destruction of<\/p>\n

property and news material, including the apprehension of journalists and operators,<\/p>\n

which was done by groups of police officers and plainclothes persons. There was one<\/p>\n

documented case of firearms injury: while video recording the events around the<\/p>\n

Police Patrol-Guard Service Regiment, a round shot from inside the Regiment injured<\/p>\n

an operator of the 02 news agency.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/span><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

The first cases of police violence against journalists were reported during the<\/p>\n

period from 17 to 21 July. On 17 July, in Freedom Square, when a group of civil<\/p>\n

activists were getting ready to hold an assembly, a police officer exerted violence<\/p>\n

against a journalist after the latter had asked the police officer why they were<\/p>\n

forcibly moving a citizen to the nearby police vehicle. The police officer saw that the<\/p>\n

journalist was recording a video of the sight of apprehending the citizen, approached<\/p>\n

the journalists, and started kicking him, after which a group of police officers forcibly<\/p>\n

took him to the police station, from which he was soon released, having first deleted<\/p>\n

the news video from his phone. A similar incident occurred on 18 July in Khorenatsi<\/p>\n

Street, where one of the police officers hit the journalist after the latter asked why<\/p>\n

they were apprehending citizens from the nearby park. In two of the above<\/p>\n

described cases, the journalists have intervened into the police operations by asking<\/p>\n

a question about the reasons of apprehending citizens, while in the third case the<\/p>\n

journalist has not abided by the police officers\u2019 instructions, which has resulted in a<\/p>\n

conflict between the journalist and the police officers.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div>

54 In this sense, it is necessary<\/p>\n

to underline that the journalist must abide by a police officer\u2019s instructions and<\/p>\n

refrain from interfering with the actions of police officers. As noted by the European<\/p>\n

Court of Human Rights, journalists cannot, in principle, be released from their duty to<\/p>\n

obey the ordinary criminal law merely on the basis that, as journalists, Article 10 of<\/p>\n

the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) affords them defense. It is<\/p>\n

acceptable that journalists may sometimes become involved in situations when, on<\/p>\n

the one hand, they must abide by the requirement of the law, and on the other, shall<\/p>\n

perform their professional duty of acquiring and disseminating information, thus<\/p>\n

enabling the mass media to perform their watchdog function. Nevertheless, in the<\/p>\n

light of the described conflict of interest it is necessary to note that the concept of<\/p>\n

responsible journalism requires the following: when a journalist has to choose<\/p>\n

between the above mentioned two duties, and his\/her choice is to the detriment of<\/p>\n

the duty of obeying the criminal law, he\/she should be aware that thereby he\/she<\/p>\n

assumes the risk of being brought to legal, including criminal responsibility for not<\/p>\n

abiding by the police officer\u2019s lawful instructions.55<\/p>\n

On 19 and 21 July, there were documented cases of interfering with the<\/p>\n

professional activities of journalists in Sari Tagh and in Khorenatsi Street: in one<\/p>\n

case, the police officers destroyed the videos recorded by a journalist, and in<\/p>\n

another, plainclothes persons exerted violence, seized the camera, and destroyed the<\/p>\n

video of a clash between a group of activists and other persons in Khorenatsi Street.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div>

The Human Rights Defender condemned the violence and called it an extremely<\/p>\n

negative practice of obstructing the professional activity of a representative of the<\/p>\n

mass media. The Defender announced that obstructing the performance of<\/p>\n

professional duties of a journalist is a crime, and that all of the related materials<\/p>\n

would be sent to the respective authorities for criminal prosecution. The Defender<\/p>\n

invited all persons that had unpublished videos or information about violence against<\/p>\n

journalists to transfer them to the staff of the Human Rights Defender.56<\/p>\n

The United States Embassy welcomed the statement of the Human Rights<\/p>\n

Defender.<\/p>\n

The Delegation of the European Union in Armenia also joined this statement of<\/p>\n

the Human Rights Defender. In a statement published with the consent of the heads<\/p>\n

of diplomatic missions of EU Member States accredited in Armenia, the Delegation of<\/p>\n

the European Union in Armenia acknowledged the aforementioned statement of the<\/p>\n

Defender and underlined that the use of force for political change is unacceptable<\/p>\n

and urged the Armenian authorities to conduct a full investigation into all reports of<\/p>\n

police misconduct.57<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the violence against journalists and operators did not subside in<\/p>\n

the days that followed. Moreover, the violence was marred by cases of apprehending<\/p>\n

and arresting journalists, which did not trigger criminal prosecution or appropriate<\/p>\n

administrative proceedings. For example, on 24 July, a journalist was apprehended<\/p>\n

on suspicion of participating in the mass disorders of 22 July, which was followed by<\/p>\n

the preparation of an apprehension protocol, his engagement as a witness, and his<\/p>\n

subsequent release, while the journalist had been carrying out journalistic activities<\/p>\n

in Khorenatsi Street on that day.<\/p>\n

On 26 July, in his nine-paragraph statement, the Defender again expressed<\/p>\n

concerns, among other things, over the allegations of bodily injuries inflicted upon<\/p>\n

journalists and of the obstruction of their lawful professional work, calling those<\/p>\n

cases \u201cparticularly condemnable.\u201d58 The Delegation of the European Union in<\/p>\n

Armenia reposted this statement in its social media, referring to it as a call for<\/p>\n

inquiry, accountability, and transparency.59<\/p>\n

All of the aforementioned acts constituted unlawful interference with journalistic<\/p>\n

freedom. No law prohibits journalists from video-recording police conduct<\/p>\n

in the public environment, because by doing so, a journalist is fulfilling a<\/p>\n

mission of public importance \u2014 that of disseminating information on cases<\/p>\n

of concern to the public, in view also of the public’s right to receive such<\/p>\n

information. Hence, the police conduct interfered with not only the journalists’<\/p>\n

freedom to impart information, but also the public’s right to receive information.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"slim_seo":{"title":"Freedom of Expression,public report 2016, Armenia - Menschenrechte Osteuropa - News & Konflikte","description":"\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Freedom of Expression,public report 2016, Armenia Obstructing journalistic activity: From 17 to 31 July 2016, the staff of the Human Rights Defender"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[220,218,216],"tags":[263,422,423,380,258],"class_list":["post-10726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-armenia","category-bl-en","category-standard","tag-armenia-en","tag-freedom-of-expression-en","tag-human-rights-defender-in-armenia-en","tag-human-rights-in-armenia-en","tag-ishr-armenia-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10726"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10726\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30278,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10726\/revisions\/30278"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}