Chapter Ii Evaluation of the Status of Freedom Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER II EVALUATION OF THE STATUS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE HEMISPHERE A. Introduction and Methodology 1. This Chapter describes some aspects related to the situation of freedom of expression in the countries of the hemisphere. Following the tradition of previous reports, it also contains a table that reflects the number of assassinations of journalists in 2003, the circumstances and presumed motives for these assassinations, and where the investigations stand. 2. For the purpose of describing the specific situation of each country, the Rapporteurship established a classification of the different methods used to limit the right to freedom of expression and information. It should be noted that all of these acts are incompatible with the Principles on Freedom of Expression adopted by the IACHR. The classification includes assassinations as well as other types of attacks such as threats, detentions, judicial actions, acts of intimidation, censorship, and legislation contrary to freedom of expression. In addition, in some cases positive actions that have taken place are included, among them the adoption of laws to ensure access to information, the repeal of desacato laws in one country of the hemisphere, and the existence of legislative proposals or judicial decisions favorable to the full exercise of freedom of expression. 3. This Chapter covers information corresponding to 2003. The Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression receives information from different sources1 describing the situations related to freedom of expression in the States of the Hemisphere. Once the information is received, and bearing in mind the importance of the matter, it is analyzed and verified. Afterwards, it is grouped based on the categories indicated above, and the Rapporteurship, for the purposes of this Report, reduces the information to a series of paradigmatic examples that seek to reflect the situation of each country as regards respect for and the exercise of freedom of expression, also indicating the positive actions taken and any regression. In most cases cited, the sources of the information are cited. It should be noted that some States are not included because the Rapporteurship received no information about them; their omission should be strictly interpreted in this sense. 4. Finally, the Rapporteurship would like to express gratitude for the collaboration of each of the States and of civil society in the Americas, as a whole, for sending information on freedom of expression. In addition, the Rapporteurship urges these groups to continue and expand such practices in the future, to enrich the future reports. 1 The Rapporteurship receives information sent by independent human rights organizations and organizations dedicated to upholding and protecting the freedom of expression, independent journalists who are directly affected, and information requested by the Rapporteurship of the representatives of the OAS member States, among others. 14 B. Evaluation 5. In 2003, the exercise of freedom of thought and expression in the hemisphere continued to experience the same kind of problems that have been mentioned by the Rapporteurship in recent years. 6. Based on the information presented in this report, once again there have been assassinations of journalists because of their work. In this regard, the Rapporteurship recalls that the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, prepared by the Special Rapporteurship on Freedom of Expression and adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,2 is very clear in this regard in Principle 9: assassinations of journalists violate the rights of persons and severely restrict freedom of expression. On three occasions the Rapporteurship noted its concern over this situation through press releases, particularly concerning cases in Colombia and Brazil. A total of seven assassinations are recounted here, though it should be noted that there were other cases of deaths of journalists in which the relationship to their activity was not sufficiently clarified so as to be able to consider them attacks on freedom of expression, without prejudice to the fact that any assassination is worthy of condemnation. 7. Physical attacks and threats also continue to limit the full exercise of freedom of expression. The above-mentioned Principle 9 also decries such situations as restrictive of this fundamental right. While in many countries one can find wide-ranging debate and criticism of government policies in the media, such legitimate activity results in attacks and threats that are unacceptable in a democratic society. Vigorous debate and criticism of government action through the press is found in several countries of the hemisphere, but in Venezuela, Haiti, and Guatemala one finds attacks on critical journalists and media that appear to be motivated by such positions. 8. This year there were social demonstrations, in public places, in several countries of the Hemisphere. Many of them ended in acts of violence, in which the victims included journalists, cameramen, and employees of media who were covering these events. Such situations were found in Venezuela, Guatemala, Peru, Argentina, and Bolivia. 9. Although such attacks may not directly involve state agents, the Rapporteurship notes that it is an obligation under the American Convention not only to respect human rights, but also to ensure their exercise. Accordingly, as the Declaration of Principles states at Principle 9, “It is the duty of the state to prevent and investigate such occurrences, to punish their perpetrators and to ensure that victims receive due compensation.” The Rapporteurship once again calls on the States to prevent and investigate such acts, and to marshal all appropriate resources needed to carry out this duty, so as to unquestionably assert their will to 2 The idea of preparing a Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression stemmed from recognition of the need to provide a legal framework to regulate the effective protection of freedom of expression in the hemisphere, incorporating the main doctrines recognized in various international instruments. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights approved the Declaration prepared by the Rapporteurship during its 108th regular session in October 2000. That declaration is fundamental for interpreting Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its approval is not only a recognition of the importance of protecting freedom of expression in the Americas, but also incorporates international standards for the more effective defense of the exercise of this right into the inter-American system. (See <http://www.cidh.org/relatoria/Spanish/Declaracion.htm>. 15 ensure the free exercise of the freedom of expression. Impunity for such acts should be eradicated from the Hemisphere. 10. In addition, judicial actions continued to be brought in the Hemisphere that may have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression. Criminal proceedings against those who criticize matters of public interest, whether based on desacato statutes or other offenses, such as slander, libel, or criminal defamation, persist in the Hemisphere, as reflected in the cases mentioned in Panama, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Jamaica, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. 11. These criminal proceedings are possible because many member States continue to have desacato statutes on the books. In 2003, only Peru adapted its legislation to Principle 11 of the Declaration of Principles. In the case of Chile, even though the Rapporteurship had found in December 2002 that legislation had been introduced to repeal the desacato provisions in its Criminal Code and Code of Military Justice, the debate in Congress was postponed repeatedly. It should be noted that in Honduras, the Attorney General brought a constitutional motion challenging the desacato statute. In contrast, in Venezuela, the Supreme Court upheld the desacato statute, thus contradicting the recommendations of the IACHR, which was a matter of concern to the Rapporteurship, as was noted in a press release. Those member States that have yet to do so need to amend their criminal laws to bring them into line with the recommendations emanating from the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression. 12. Principle 8 of the Declaration clearly establishes: “Every social communicator has the right to keep his/her sources of information, notes, personal and professional archives confidential.” As appears from the information collected by the Rapporteurship, in the United States, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and Peru, actions by the authorities were found that were at odds with this principle. Even though one cannot speak of a widespread practice, the Rapporteurship calls for the fullest respect for this principle. 13. Access to public information, which in 2003 was described by the General Assembly in resolution AG/RES. 1932 (XXXIII-O/03) as an important element for strengthening democracy, continued to be on the agenda of many member States. Nonetheless, there have been few legislative reforms on this matter. Mexico saw auspicious progress on this front, with the entry into force of a federal law, and with at least the introduction of bills in every state of Mexico. Peru also made progress in the process of implementing laws to provide for access to public information, as did Jamaica and Nicaragua. 14. Nonetheless, 2003 was marked by a stagnation of the legislative processes in Guatemala