IHF Report 2001

CROATIA1 97 In an ultra-nationalist act, Biserka Legradic´, a Croat, urinated on the Serb anti-Fascist monument at Veljun in May. © Globus IHF FOCUS: Elections; freedom of expression and the media; freedom of association and public assembly; judicial system; misconduct by law enforcement officials; conditions in prisons; secret services; religious intolerance; return of refugees and displaced persons; international humanitarian law; protection of minorities; social rights; women’s rights. According to the Croatian Helsinki fair. Fearing that the 3 January 2000 parlia- Committee, the overall human rights situa- mentary elections would be organised in a tion following the early 2000 elections similar atmosphere, 140 NGOs initiated a could be defined as “less bad” than it was major campaign under the name “Glas 99,” before the elections. Still Croatia’s record with the Croatian Helsinki Committee as was not good: it did not comply with its in- one of the founders. The motto of “Glas 99” ternational commitments and the stan- was to “Get out and vote!” dards of democratic countries. However, The turnout rate of the elections was some of the most severe human rights vi- more than 78 percent. Some sociologists olations ceased with the end of the previ- estimated that the “Glas 99” campaign in- ous Croatian Democratic Community duced up to 4 percent of the total voting (HDZ) Government. Reforms started to population and 15-20 percent of the youth take place and Croatia took important steps to exercise their right to vote. A coalition of towards becoming a European democracy. six democratic parties won the elections. Their margin of victory came close to two- Elections thirds of the parliamentary seats, thus al- Due to the bias of numerous influential lowing the new Government to pass con- media that were controlled by the former stitutional changes, which moved Croatia ruling party, HDZ, as well as due to irregu- from a semi-presidential system into a par- larities in the electoral process itself, the liamentary system. previous Croatian elections held in 1995 Following the parliamentary elections, and 1997 could not be considered free and a similar NGO coalition “Glas 2000” with 98 CROATIA the same aim was formed for the presi- between Croats and Serbs at the local lev- dential elections. It urged the candidates to el started appearing. define more clearly their positions on what Yet state television continued to send powers and authorities they would use if numerous programmes on the activities of they were elected President. By forcing the state authorities and the ruling party politi- candidates to take clear positions on this is- cians. The transformation of the Croatian sue, “Glas 2000” contributed to the estab- television from a one-party institution to a lishment of a more parliament-oriented po- public institution has taken much too long. litical system in Croatia. This change en- It took the new authorities six months to tered into force with the constitutional initiate public discussion and to draft a new changes, which were passed by the proposal for the new law on Croatian tele- Parliament on 10 November. vision. The Croatian Helsinki Committee ex- pressed several basic complaints regarding Freedom of Expression and Media the draft proposal of the law. Among other Independent observers agreed that things, it demanded a more precise defini- one of the most important plus points of tion of the role and influence of civil socie- the January elections was the new demo- ty on the editorial policy of the most influ- 2 cratic atmosphere and its impact on the ential media in Croatia. media. They marked the end of a 10-year In April the Croatian Helsinki Commi- autocratic government by the HDZ and its ttee urged that new authorities urgently re- President Franjo Tudjman. During that peri- vise and change all laws used by the for- od, freedom of expression was systemati- mer regime to restrict freedom of expres- cally restricted, and critical journalists were sion and the media, especially provisions of subject to various forms of pressure. The the Penal Code stipulating “verbal offence.” new daily Republika revealed that the close However, the Government failed to abolish circle of President Tudjman held a monop- many such provisions, including those en- oly on almost 80 percent of the media abling hate speech. In addition, the law on market in Croatia, causing a media war be- telecommunications, which had served as tween the two most influential media out- an efficient instrument to give media con- lets. Although the police investigation was cessions to the followers of the HDZ au- still underway as this is being written, this thority was not even discussed. scandal showed clearly three main prob- The Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected lems existing in the Croatian media: secret the requests by Feral Tribune and Nacional and non-transparent media ownership, journalists to open the files compiled by the connections between media, politicians Service for the Protection of the Constitutional and different fractions of the secret servic- Order (SZUP) in recent years for inspection. es, and the manipulation of information. These files were used for political manipula- After some initial hesitation, the first tions by HDZ officials. Sˇime Lucˇin, the new move of the new Government was to dis- Minister of Internal Affairs, rejected the re- miss the rigid HDZ leadership of Croatian quest despite the fact that he had promised state TV (HRT) and to select new execu- to open the SZUP files to all citizens. tives according to their professional merit, Toward the end of 2000, the leaders of not party membership. Following the ap- the six-party ruling coalition became in- pointment of the new leadership, hate creasingly dissatisfied with the media’s in- speech and usual attacks on critics of the tervention in the political scene. Zlatko party in power, the Serb minority and Tomcˇicˇ, President of the Parliament of the NGOs ceased on television. Moreover, tele- Republic of Croatia, said that some media vision programmes with positive messages “want to be beyond the Government and on reconciliation and mutual co-operation to rule the entire political scene” and criti- CROATIA 99 cised them for not being a “very good com- initiated investigation into the sale of news- panion to the new authorities,” for offering papers during the previous Government. irrelevant information and for carrying out N The first case was the purchase of 3 investigative journalism. Vecernji list, one of the most influential dai- In late 2000, the Croatian Helsinki ly newspapers in Croatia, by an unknown Committee reported other negative phe- holding company from the Virgin Islands in nomena regarding the media. Although the 1998. However, all the witnesses sum- illegal phone-tapping of journalists was fi- moned to a hearing denied any responsibil- nally stopped, the relationship between ity and connection with the obviously illegal journalists and Secret Services continued. It purchase. According to some newspaper ar- appeared that the Secret Services leaked ticles, leaked tape recordings between for- not necessarily truthful material to certain mer President Tudjman and his closest ad- media outlets in order to defame some visor, Ivic Pasalic, revealed that Pasalic had politicians - which were then spread as facts organised the Vecernji list take-over. - and brought financial profit to the outlets. In order to protect the citizens’ right to N The six-year-old case regarding the pri- receive accurate, truthful, objective and vatisation of the most successful daily complete information, the Croatian Helsinki Slobodna Dalmacija also came into focus. Committee initiated a project whose goal is The company was given to HDZ tycoon establishing the office of a Media Ombuds- Miroslav Kutle through illegal activities of man. His /her responsibility would be to the former Government. The Agency for protect citizens from media manipulation Reconstruction and Development, headed as well as journalists against the media by former Prime Minister, Zlatko Matesa owners’ arbitrary decisions. then diverted Slobodna Dalmacija funds for his own use and ultimately brought the Annulment of Restrictive Legal Provisions journal to bankruptcy. Kutle was eventually In April, the Government annulled no- arrested for carrying out illegal business torious Article 18 of the Law on Internal transactions and other criminal activities. Affairs under which the Ministry of the Besides being charged with destroying Interior had the power to decide which in- Slobodna Dalmacija, Kutle will have to an- dividuals would be phone-tapped by the swer charges pressed against him regard- SZUP. Under this provision numerous op- ing illicit business activities pertaining to the position politicians, journalists and other distribution and publishing house Tisak, public figures and private persons had which he also destroyed. Tisak served as a been monitored because they allegedly powerful instrument in the hands of the posed a “danger to the national security.” HDZ. The Government manipulated Tisak On 10 May the Constitutional Court to destroy independent and critically orient- annulled the legal provision that protected ed media trough not giving the profits from the honour and reputation of five highest sales to them. In March 2000 the new state officials: the Presidents of the Government initiated the so-called bank- Republic, Parliament, the Government and ruptcy procedure in Tisak in order to reha- the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. bilitate it financially. Under that provision many independent journalists and publishers had been charged for critical reporting. Dropping Charges against Journalists Charges against journalists were dropped Revision of the Privatisation of Media and their complaints declared admissible. A parliamentary investigative commis- N Charges against Davor Butkovic, editor- sion, established by the new Government, in-chief of the independent weekly Globus, 100 CROATIA for allegedly slandering the HDZ were Journalists continued to fall victim to dropped.

Load more