The Authority with a "Steel Mandate" Has Begun Imposing "Steel" Restrictions on Freedom of Speech - Satik Seyranian

The President of the Journalists' Union of Armenia, Satik Seyranian, has issued a statement saying: "The Journalists' Union of Armenia calls on all to refrain from allowing projects that contradict the principles of democracy and freedom of speech to become law. This is a direct path to dictatorship. The authority that received the 'steel mandate' in the 2021 parliamentary elections has undertaken the unacceptable and intolerable practice of imposing, in the truest sense of the word, 'steel' barriers to fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as to freedom of speech.

On the last working day of the outgoing Parliament, hurried changes were made to several laws, aimed at criminalizing insults directed at officials and establishing unnatural fines for that purpose:

"The Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, dated April 18, 2003 (HO-528-N) shall be amended with the following content: New Article 137.1.

"Article 137.1. Heavy Insult

1. Insulting a person or causing severe offense to their dignity in an extremely indecent manner shall be punishable by a fine of a hundred to five hundred times the minimum wage.
2. The act specified in the first part of this article or distribution of materials containing heavy insult about a person, which:
1. Has been committed using information or communication technologies or publicly in other ways,
2. Has been committed due to the person’s public activity shall be punishable by a fine of five hundred to a thousand times the minimum wage.
3. The act specified in the first or second part of this article, which has been committed against the same person repeatedly, shall be punishable by a fine of a thousand to three thousand times the minimum wage or imprisonment for a period of one to three months.

In this article, public activity is considered the conduct of a person related to journalistic, journalistic, performance of official duties, public service or holding a public office, social or political activity.

At the same time, the newly formed leadership of the National Assembly is taking active steps to significantly limit the work of journalists in the Parliament. These separate initiatives fit into the logic of the authorities’ adopted style, which is democratic in form but anti-democratic in content, which, by the way, has been implemented under the silent sponsorship of countries and organizations advocating for human rights for years in Armenia.

This political stance adopted by the authorities contradicts both the Constitution of Armenia and the universally accepted norms of fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as many conventions aimed at their protection.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted resolution No. 1577 (2007) on the decriminalization of defamation on October 4, 2007. Emphasizing that laws related to defamation pursue the legitimate purpose of protecting the rights and reputation of others, the Assembly nevertheless recommended to states to apply these laws with utmost restraint, as they can seriously endanger freedom of expression.

The Assembly also adopted a clear approach, stating that imprisonment for defamation should be abolished immediately. Member states were called upon to immediately remove imprisonment as a punishment for defamation, to set a reasonable maximum limit for compensation for damages in defamation cases so as not to endanger the viability of responsible media, and to ensure appropriate legal guarantees against disproportionate compensation for actual damages.

The mentioned resolution also emphasized that statements made in public interest, even if proven to be untrue, should not be punishable if they have been made without knowledge of their untruth and without intent to cause harm, and relevant efforts have been made to verify their truthfulness.

Following the adoption of this resolution, around a dozen member countries of the Council of Europe, including Armenia, initiated corresponding legislative changes aimed at the decriminalization of insult and defamation (Articles 135 and 136 of the Armenian Criminal Code were repealed by Law HO-98-N on May 18, 2010, and the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia was also amended on the same day with Article 1087.1 regarding the subject of dispute).

In turn, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has adopted several recommendations regarding the legal regulation of the subject matter and the reasonable balancing of interests and rights. In particular, in the recommendation Rec(2003)13, the Committee of Ministers recognizes the right to respond or to correct, noting that disseminating incorrect information can, for instance, harm the presumption of innocence.

On the one hand, the Committee of Ministers has recognized that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to receive and disseminate information and ideas without interference from public authorities and beyond borders, as defined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; on the other hand, it has recognized that the exercise of this freedom entails duties and responsibilities, particularly concerning the rights or the good reputation of others.

Thus, the Committee of Ministers finds it desirable to ensure appropriate protections for individuals - against publications containing inaccurate information about them, - against information that interferes with their private life or contains defamatory information about their dignity or reputation, regardless of whether such information has been published in print media, radio, television, or other periodic forms of mass media.

In addition, in the resolution No. (74) 26 of July 2, 1974, concerning the right of an individual to respond to the media, member states were recommended that the status of an individual regarding the press should at least meet the following principles:

• The individual should have an effective opportunity to address any inaccuracies regarding information published about him/her in any mass media without undue delay, where he/she has a legitimate interest in the correction, and such corrections should, where possible, be made through the same medium,
• The individual should have the right to effective protection against facts and opinions that interfere with his/her private life, except when justified by a prevailing public interest, when the individual has explicitly or implicitly consented to publication, or when the publication has taken place under generally accepted practices and does not violate the law,
• If information has been published without the explicit or implicit consent of the individual or is not justified by a prevailing public interest, and if it represents fair criticism based on true facts, it will damage his/her honor, dignity, or good reputation.

In turn, various structures of the Council of Europe have repeatedly stressed the need to follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the issue at hand. This court has expressed specific legal positions on cases related to “insult” and “defamation,” particularly regarding the clarity of defamation laws, the proportionality of responsibility for defamation, grounds for exemption from the obligation to prove the veracity of facts, or a conceptual approach to the protection of “reasonable publication,” ensuring compliance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention.

An analysis of the aforementioned and several other international legal documents (including the General Comment No. 34 adopted in Geneva from July 11-29, 2011, by the UN Human Rights Committee, the approaches developed by the organization “ARTICLE 19,” etc.) indicates that, particularly according to current European legal developments:

• In cases concerning claims aimed at protecting the honor and dignity of an individual against the press, there exists a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the dignity of the individual, and solutions should be found within the scope of balancing these rights,
• The defamation of a person's honor, dignity, or professional reputation through media is considered an infringement, but not a criminally punishable act,
• This infringement implies equivalent compensation, which is necessary to restore a person's honor, dignity, or professional reputation,
• This compensation should not be confused with the damage caused to property,
• This compensation should not be regarded as a penalty or fine imposed on the media outlet; otherwise, the decriminalization of defamation would be rendered meaningless,
• The defendant in defamation cases should bear only the burden of proving the veracity of the facts he/she has published,
• The protection of “reasonable publication” should be ensured and guaranteed,
• Given the media's key role in disseminating information on issues of public concern in a democratic society, greater protection should be afforded to publications that are part of ongoing debates on matters of public interest.

Especially the authorities' haste and zeal against freedom of speech and expression raise reasonable doubts that these steps have preventive significance, aimed at addressing issues of public resonance for which the authorities need to limit citizens' access to information and avoid possible public unrest.

The Journalists' Union of Armenia firmly condemns all anti-democratic actions of the authorities against human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression, calling on international organizations committed to the protection of these values to respond appropriately to the anti-democratic processes occurring in Armenia, taking effective measures to prevent them.

Allowing such activities by the authorities, we could soon witness a reality where dictatorship is established in Armenia. The Journalists' Union of Armenia also calls on the Parliament to refrain from turning such a project that contradicts the principles of democracy into law. The adoption of such a law in the 21st century raises numerous questions and renders such processes ridiculous in our day.

No advanced country in the world has succeeded in combating pernicious phenomena through such laws.