With regard to the publication of an incident happened in Gyumri, the Court of First Instance of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts has requested “Hraparak” newspapers and iLur.am website to identify the source of information. What purpose does this claim pursue, and is it legal? The topic of “Aravot” online on the air is discussed between the expert for the European Convention on Human Rights, Ara Ghazaryan, and the Media expert, Mesrop Harutyunyan.
Aram Abrahamyan – I am an editor for 20 years, and I know one simple truth that there has been no case in Armenia that the court compels the media to identify the source of its publication.
Ara Ghazaryan – I remember one incident with Poghos Poghosyan’s case, about 10 years ago, I think it was Lilit Seyranyan, but in the end, the source was not disclosed, and since then, it has never been applied.
Mesrop Harutyunyan – But, as I recall, there was no court coercion.
Read also
A. Gh. – No, there was no procedure to apply to the court by an interim judicial act. It was, apparently, during the trial, and the journalist did not identify. This last case is unique and different alarms are received that this is an attempt to make practice. The representatives of “Hraparak” and “Hetq” say that the journalist is called as a witness and said, tell everything that you know about the news material, and the journalist says, I have published everything, and they say, tell more, in other words, it is going to the source. This seems to be a new criminal procedure policy.
A. A. – I must say that over the past 20 years, there have been many cases when the journalist of “Aravot” was called and said, what else do you know, or have applied to the police with the same written request. We have said, what we know, we have published. Anyway, the court’s decision is a little different.
M. H. – The Law on the Dissemination of Mass Information, Article 5, says, a journalist can be obliged to disclose the source of information by the court decision, but the Article also reads, in the course of a criminal proceeding with the aim of revealing heavy crime. However, this is not enough, there are 2 conditions there, if societal interest in law enforcement overweighs the societal interest in protecting the sources of information, and secondly, if all other means to protect public interest are exhausted. In this case, I do not think that all these 3 conditions are met. Let’s recall the incident. “Hraparak” and iLur.a, had published that an incident occurred in Gyumri between Shirak police chief Vardan Nadaryan and wrestler Aleksanyan and his brother. It seems to be just an innocent information, however, it presents a societal interest, later it is denied, the aggrieved party cannot be found, and so on. The police chief denies, the SIS does not file a case due to the absence of corpus delicti, or dismisses the case. Later, it turns the case was filed in secret. This is followed by the press conference by the chief prosecutor that the court will anyway require disclosure of the source of information. This rises suspicion of why Vardan Nadaryan, when the SIS had dismissed the case, in other words, there was no corpus delicti, why he did not require, for example, to publish a denial in the same media. At least, if he did not want to request denial, he wanted to punish, then why he did not submit a civil suit on the grounds of defamation. All of this make you say that with prosecutor’s office – court -Nadaryan mutual consent, they just want to do something to reopen the case, and only for the reason to see who has dared to disseminate that information.
A. A. – What phase is this case in?
A. Gh. – In the phase of the investigation. I think that as a result of prosecutorial overseeing, the investigator applied to the court as he would apply, for instances, to conduct a wiretapping, or as, for example, a searches, because a reference was made to the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 279. Similarly, they have applied to identify the source, but if you read Article 279, it says about apartment search, as well as investigatory actions concerning the restriction of privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, telegram and other communications. The International law does not like this kind of vague sentences. What is meant by “privacy of other communications”? Does it refer to disclosure of confidentiality of the very sources? Recall that it is the first case in Armenia, when an Article is applied that has never been applied. We are talking here about the quality of the law.
Prepared by ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
“Face to Face” talk show series are released by the Open Society Foundations- Armenia. The views and analyzes found in this broadcast express the opinions of the participants, and are not approved by the Open Society Foundations-Armenia, or its Board. This broadcast is made available thanks to comprehensive financial support by the Open Society Foundations-Armenia, under the mass media support program, grant No 18624.
