Moldova Bulletin A Digest of Freedom of Expression-Related Developments in Moldova December 2004 – February 20051 *** In this Issue: • In the December 2004 case Busuioc v Moldova, the European Court of Human Rights holds that Moldova violated Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. • The public broadcaster TeleRadio Moldova remains largely dependent on the authorities. Elections • The strict regulations on media and elections appear to have undercut free debate. • The media fails to provide comprehensive information to the public on the election campaign. The ruling Communist Party is portrayed in an unduly positive context. • The OSCE states that the elections generally complied with OSCE standards, but “campaign conditions and media access were not satisfactorily equitable”. • The Central Elections Commission is accused of lack of transparency. • Opposition candidates and campaigners are harassed during the electoral campaign. Parliamentary Elections On 6 March 2005, Moldova held elections for a new, unicameral Parliament consisting of 2 101 Members of Parliament with a four-year mandate. According to official results, 45.98 1 This Bulletin covers events up to the parliamentary elections of 6 March 2005. 1 percent of Moldovans gave their vote to the ruling Communist Party, while the Democratic Moldova electoral bloc received 28.53 percent of votes and the Christian Popular Democratic Party 9.07 percent of votes.3 No other competitors passed the electoral threshold. Based on these results, the Communist Party received 56 seats in the Parliament, the Democratic Moldova bloc 34 and the Christian Popular Democratic Party 11. This means that the Communist Party acquired a sufficient number of seats to pass laws but not to elect the next President on its own.4 The Central Election Commission (CEC) stated that the 6 March elections were “democratic and transparent and the violations were not very serious and did not influence election results”.5 However, one of the concerns the CEC raised was candidates’ unequal access to the media.6 Concerns were also raised by international organisations and by the network of Moldovan NGOs ‘Coalition 2005’.7 Coalition 2005 highlighted incidents of harassment and intimidation of opposition leaders, campaign workers and observers; and unequal treatment of electoral candidates. Among their main concerns were candidates’ lack of access to the media and the lack of impartiality in the media. Furthermore, Coalition 2005 protested the use of State financial and material resources by the ruling party, failure to complete the voters’ lists, lack of provisions in the Electoral Code on voting abroad and inadequate access to voting for students and for people residing in Transdniestria.8 One of the issues raised during the campaign was the fact that most of the CEC’s decisions were not published in the official bulletin (Monitorul Oficial), which resulted in a lack of transparency of the CEC decision-making processes and in poor coordination between the CEC and local authorities.9 Recommendation:10 • The CEC should be required to operate in a fully transparent and open manner and there should be effective means for redressing any failure by it to do so. 2 A total of nine political parties, two electoral blocs and twelve independent candidates ran in the elections. Major contestants in the 6 March elections were the ruling Communist Party, the Christian Democratic Popular Party, the Electoral Bloc Democratic Moldova and Rodina. 3 According to official figures, 64.84 percent of eligible voters took part in the elections. There was no voting on the territory of the separatist region of Transdniestria, but Transdniestrians were able to travel to Moldova to vote. 4 The President is elected by the Parliament in Moldova, with elections being due shortly. In the previous Parliament, the Communist Party held an overwhelming majority with 71 seats. With their current 56 seats, they will need the support of additional members of Parliament to elect the President. 5 Moldova Azi, “The CEC Has Approved the Final Results of the Voting of the Parliamentary Elections of March 6, 2005”, 11 March 2005, at: http://www.azi.md/news?ID=33381. 6 Ibid. 7 For a briefing on the concerns of international organisations, see below, under Relations with International Organisations. The Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections Coalition 2005 consists of over 150 Moldovan non-governmental organisations. The project “Election Process Monitoring” was implemented by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, the League for the Defence of Human Rights in Moldova (LADOM) and the Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT) within the framework of Coalition 2005. 8 For a complete list of concerns, see “Election Process Monitoring” reports No. 1 - 5, available at: http://www.elections2005.md/monitoring/. 9 Coalition 2005, “Election Process Monitoring”, Report No. 2, 4 December 2004 – 15 January 2005, at: http://www.e-democracy.md/files/2005monitoringreport02en.pdf. 10 See below for recommendations on media coverage of the elections, under Media Biases and Legislative Provisions Relating to Elections Coverage. 2 • Media Biases Media monitoring, carried out by three Moldovan NGOs,11 showed that most of the 34 monitored media outlets were biased in their coverage of the election campaign.12 The issue of media biases, resulting in unequal access of candidates to the media and failure to comprehensively inform the public prior to elections, was also raised as a major concern by other national and international bodies.13 On most of the monitored television stations, the governing Communist Party was the party that was covered most widely and in an unduly positive context in the news. The opposition was, instead, mostly featured in a negative way. The lack of fairness and balance was also apparent from the selection of sources for news and current affairs programmes. Public radio and television stations with national coverage, such as television station Moldova 1 and Radio Moldova, as well as some private stations, such as NIT, showed clear bias in favour of the Communist Party, which was presented in a predominantly positive way. The same stations discredited the opposition in their coverage. Radio Moldova appeared to have a more balanced coverage than Moldova 1, while the regional Teleradio Gguzia ignored the opposition altogether. Public municipal stations such as Antena C and Euro TV,14 and the private radio station Vocea Basarabiei, criticised the governing party and promoted the opposition. Both the State (Moldova Suveran, Nezavisimaia Moldova, Vesti Gagauzii, Farul Nistrean) and the non-State print media (Timpul de Deminea, Sptmîna, Moldavskie Vedomosti) were biased in their coverage of the campaign. While State media outlets promoted the governing party by ignoring the opposition parties and blocs or by presenting them in a highly negative way, the private media favoured the Democratic Moldova electoral bloc or other parties. A small number of non-State newspapers (such as Bli-based SP and Ungheni- based Unghiul) remained neutral. Closer to the elections, the use of more aggressive and violent language intensified. For example, on 20 February, a nine-minute film entitled “Stop Extremism!” was broadcast on Moldova 1, comparing the Christian Popular Democratic Party leader, Iurie Roca, to Osama Bin Laden. Some programmes were suspended by media outlets themselves. For example, Euro TV and Antena C suspended programmes such as “Hour of the Local Counsellor”, “Social Boomerang”, “Press Review” and “Vox Populi”, presumably in an effort to avoid confrontation with the Coordinating Council for Audiovisual (CCA),15 which is responsible 11 The Independent Journalism Center, the Center for Analysis and Sociological, Political and Psychological Investigations CIVIS and the Association of Independent Press. They received logistical support from ARTICLE 19. The monitoring started on 6 January and will end on 6 May 2005. 12 See Coalition 2005, “Monitoring of Mass Media in the Electoral Campaign”, 16 January – 24 February 2005, http://ijc.iatp.md/en/activities/electoral2005/report3_eng.pdf. 13 See below, under Relations with International Organisations. 14 Media outlets for the Chiinu municipality. Their coverage is much smaller than that of stations with national coverage. 15 Coalition 2005, “Election Process Monitoring”, Report No. 2, 4 December 2004 – 15 January 2005, at: http://www.e-democracy.md/files/2005monitoringreport02en.pdf. 3 for monitoring media content. In another case during the election campaign, the Board of Observers of TeleRadio Moldova (TRM) suspended the contract on the broadcasting of the programme “Rezonans” with the interstate television company Mir. Mir’s Director, Constantin Saris, said the suspension of the programme did not come as a surprise, as the same programme had been suspended several times before.16 Subsequently, “Rezonans” was transferred to NIT station. It was to be replaced by another analytical programme on TRM, but this did not happen. Reportedly some interactive programmes were taken off the air because contributors were judged to be providing positive information for one candidate or another, through voicing their opinions. Recommendations: • In future elections, the authorities and the public media should ensure that the party in power does not unduly exploit its advantaged position vis-à-vis other candidates to get extra exposure. • The regulatory bodies should encourage the proliferation