ARTICLE-19 Upholds `Mestnoye Vremya` :: Charter'97 :: News

ARTICLE 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, appealed to Alexander Lukashenko raising concerns at the news that the Minsk-based independent newspaper Mestnoye Vremya has been unable to resume activities since its licence was revoked last year.

“According to our information, on 26 November 2002 the Belarus Information Ministry invalidated the newspaper’s licence following the decision of the Minsk regional authorities to revoke the registration of its publisher, Mestnoye Vremya-Press Ltd.

The licence was revoked simply because the newspaper changed its location. Mestnoye Vremya was forced to change its address following a ruling of the Minsk District Executive Committee of 6 November, which annulled a previous decision to approve the newspaper premises` rental. This occurred after the publication of the first two issues of the newspaper. Mestnoye Vremya promptly found another location in Minsk and notified the Minsk Regional Executive Committee of their intention to amend their statute to reflect the change of address. While in the process of preparing the relevant documentation, the Minsk Regional Executive Committee invalidated its licence on 21 November, on the grounds that Mestnoye Vremya Ltd had failed to submit such documentation within the stipulated timeframe, despite the fact that the deadline was 6 December. This was communicated to Mestnoye Vremya in a formal letter by the Information Ministry. The newspaper has sued the Minsk Regional Executive Committee and the case is going to be examined by the Minsk City Commercial Court on 24 January 2003.

ARTICLE 19 is primarily concerned with the severity of the punishment. According to Belarusian law, an administrative fine is the heaviest punishment that may be imposed on a print media outlet which fails to complete the proceedings that accompany a change of location. The revocation of a licence is completely unjustified under the circumstances, and suggests a selective implementation of the law by the Belarusian authorities.

Furthermore, in ARTICLE 19`s view, no abuse, no matter how egregious, justifies the closure of an operating print media outlet. The severity of this punishment contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation vis-à-vis the media.

According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Belarus is signatory, restrictions to the right to free expression are permissible only in limited and narrowly-defined circumstances. In this case, the most severe form of sanction has been imposed with no justification.

Even more concerning, the Information Ministry merely sent a letter to the newspaper communicating its decision to revoke the licence without there being a proper assessment of the circumstances or the possibility of recourse for the newspaper. Instead, pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of the Press Law, the activities of a media outlet can be terminated by a court order and in the case of multiple violations of the law, within one year; the media outlet will then be in a position to appeal the decision.

Moreover, the Information Ministry ignored the fact that the newspaper staff had acted in good faith, in an attempt to comply with Belarusian legislation. The procedures for a change of location had been initiated, and the government did not give the newspaper staff the opportunity to complete them, undercutting the process and intervening prematurely in order to invalidate their licence. Hence, Belarus has not only acted in a manner that is inconsistent with international standards of freedom of expression, but that, it seems, is also contrary to its own legislation.

The bureaucratic system that Belarus has created for the regulation of the print media is excessively burdensome. Regulations relating to the location of media outlets not only require newspapers to inform the authorities of any changes of address, but also stipulate that, for example, newspapers’ statutes should be amended in these cases, and that detailed documentation must be produced within a limited period of time. The law also states, inter alia, that the local authorities should approve a media outlet’s rental space. In addition to the ‘chilling effect’ on the work of the media caused by the threat of severe punishments for violating such provisions, the plethora of complex regulations detract from the ability of media professionals to focus on their role within a democratic society, which is to disseminate information in the public interest. It also creates a system that leaves open possibilities of abuse and displays a tendency by the authorities to micro-manage media outlets, which instead should be able to operate in a manner that is free from governmental interference.

Further, as ARTICLE 19 has already stated in previous communications with the Belarusian government, licensing should not be a requirement for the print media. Under international law, licensing requirements for the print media cannot be justified as a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression since they significantly hamper the free flow of information. They do not pursue any legitimate aim recognised under international law and there is no practical rationale for them: unlike for broadcasting where the limited availability of frequencies justify licensing, registration of the print media is unnecessary and may be abused, and, as a result, is not required in many countries. ARTICLE 19 therefore recommends that the print media not be required to register. As the UN Human Rights Committee has noted: “Effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of everyone to freedom of expression.”

We also note that this case does exist in isolation: the newspapers Pagonya and Rabochy were also shut down in a similar manner, whilst criminal proceedings were instigated again the editors of these outlets.

Mestnoye Vremya has already incurred some financial losses since it was forced to discontinue its activities. The newspaper should be allowed to resume operations immediately and be compensated by the Belarusian government for the financial losses incurred.

We therefore call upon your government and the Belarusian justice system to rectify the situation by providing a fair verdict on Friday 24 January, in line with Belarus’ responsibilities under international law.”