Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ruled Constitutional: Supreme Court Says Disputed Libel Law Provisio

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ruled Constitutional: Supreme Court Says Disputed Libel Law Provisio

    RULED CONSTITUTIONAL: SUPREME COURT SAYS DISPUTED LIBEL LAW PROVISIONS NO BREACH OF BASIC LAW
    By Gayane Abrahamyan

    ArmeniaNow
    16.11.11 | 12:06

    The Constitutional Court of Armenia on Tuesday ruled that a Civil
    Code article that Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan believes poses threat
    to freedom of speech does not breach the main laws of the country.

    Still, the Court made a few clarifications regarding the ombudsman's
    case which gave Andreasyan some grounds to call the ultimate verdict
    "encouraging enough."

    On November 15, the state-paid human rights defender asked the
    Constitutional Court to consider whether Civil Code Article 1087.1
    (that concerns media liability in paying compensations and damages
    in libel cases) does not correspond to a number of requirements of
    the Constitution - a set of constant laws that take precedent in
    legal disputes.

    Andreasyan was one of those who in 2010 worked out amendments to
    decriminalize libel and make defamation of character punishable in the
    form of monetary fines only. There is a predominant body of opinion
    that decriminalization of libel is a positive development. Even so,
    the change brought about quite a flurry of lawsuits from former and
    current officials who had been reluctant to sue media before as they
    were wary of possible strong reactions such cases would elicit among
    the local and international civil-right communities. The financial
    pressure that Armenia media losing in such proceedings appear to be
    reeling under at the moment has elicited an equally strong reaction as
    civil rights activists here and abroad have regarded damages awarded
    to plaintiffs in a number of litigations to be a sort of instrument
    to make media go out of business and thus stifle free speech.

    Within a year after the application of the law decriminalizing libel
    some three dozen cases have been brought against media on related
    claims. The plaintiffs -- among them Armenia's second president
    Robert Kocharyan and his family, influential members of parliament,
    prominent businessmen -- would demand the maximum monetary compensation
    stipulated by the law - 3 million (about $8,000).

    "The vagueness of corresponding provisions and the absence of clear
    parameters for setting the size of awarded compensation in practice
    have led to a disproportionate restriction of the right to the freedom
    of expression, thus endangering the further activities of some mass
    media," Ombudsman Andreasyan said at the Constitutional Court hearing
    in stating his case.

    The Court held that the law conforms to the Constitution, but it
    also stressed in the ruling that those applying this law shall, as
    a priority, consider non-material forms of punishment (refutation,
    apology), then the material status and level of income the defendant
    has, shall abstain from awarding damages to the plaintiff in cases
    when that would constitute a disproportionate financial burden for
    the defendant and thus would be critical in the matter of the media
    outlet's continued operations.

    According to the ombudsman, such a ruling, which, as a matter of
    fact, has the force of a law, "will make it possible to avoid abuse
    by unscrupulous judges."

    The latest libel lawsuit in Armenia was presented against the
    "Hraparak" newspaper (that has a daily circulation of 3,200 hard
    copies and also operates a popular online resource) as recently as last
    week. The plaintiff is lawyer Artur Grigoryan, who accuses the paper
    of publishing six comments by readers on its website that he claims
    were damaging to his reputation. The lawyer seeks a compensation of
    a total of 18 million drams (about $47,000) - quite a large sum of
    money for newspapers according to local standards.

    Hraparak editor Armine Ohanyan insisted that the newspaper was not
    responsible for readers' comments and the goal of the suit was to
    "ruin the newspaper financially and make it close down."

    In the past several months the issue of libel suits in Armenia has
    evoked a broad response not only from local human rights activists
    and media organizations, but also from some international structures.

    In a November 10 letter to Armenia's Foreign Minister Edward
    Nalbandyan, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
    Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic, expressed
    concern over the growing number of libel suits filed against Armenia's
    news outlets. She called upon the authorities to further reform the
    legislation to adequately protect the media in civil defamation cases.

    "I welcomed decriminalization of defamation in Armenia in May 2010
    as a significant step toward ensuring a media-friendly environment.

    Regretfully since then, almost 30 civil defamation lawsuits have
    been brought against newspapers, including 11 this year," Mijatovic
    said in her letter. "In most cases, the compensation sought is out
    of proportion to the damage allegedly inflicted."

    The latest Constitutional Court ruling is likely to be incorporated
    into legal practice very soon as several libel lawsuits are pending
    in courts.

    According to legal specialist at the Committee for the Protection of
    Freedom of Speech, lawyer Olga Safaryan, "soon it will become clear
    how far the Constitutional Court's ruling is effective in practice."

    But media chiefs still remain pessimistic about the prospect of any
    changes taking place in litigations that they think will continue to
    threaten their solvency.

    "Of course, the ruling is quite vague, there is still no clarity, which
    gives little cause for optimism," commented Hraparak editor Ohanyan.

    Meanwhile, John Hughes, an American journalist and founding editor
    of ArmeniaNow and New Times Journalism Training Center NGO, says:

    "While the law surely needs some work, the troubling pattern that has
    emerged of so many slander suits is indicative of a greater problem
    in Armenia. That is: Oligarchs or other persons of authority have -
    because of who they are, and not what the law says - the upper hand
    in the justice system. Like plenty of other laws on the books, this
    may not be so much about a vague writing of the law, but is more
    about whether any law in Armenia is enforced with equal justice for
    both parties."

Working...
X