23 August 2004 President Vladimir Voronin Stefan cel Mare 154 Chisinau Moldova 2073 Fax. +3732 2 23 77 42

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT VORONIN ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ON TELERADIO

MOLDOVA Dear President Vladimir Voronin, ARTICLE 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, is concerned that inadequate, questionable and non-transparent measures seem to have been taken to transform TeleRadio Moldova (TRM) into a public service broadcaster (PSB). We first wrote to you on 19 December 2003, bringing a number of such issues to your attention, and it is with concern that we observe that some the problems not only remain, but have also escalated. In particular, journalists of TRM have complained about the lack of clear, transparent and fair criteria in the re-staffing procedures following the adoption, on 13 November 2003, of the Law on Amending and Supplementing Law No.1320-XV of 26 July 2002 (the Amending Law), resulting in the liquidation of TRM for its successive transformation into public service broadcasting.1 THE FACTS The Re-employment Process According to our information, on 26 July 2004 Mircea Surdu, the only staff representative in the committee set up for the re-staffing of the institution (the Selection Committee)2, resigned in protest against unfair methods for hiring employees. The work of the Selection Committee continued without Surdu being replaced. In addition, reportedly the

1 Article 2 of the Amending Law provides for the liquidation of TRM and the replacement of its entire staff. This was declared by the authorities to be a necessary step towards the creation of genuine public service broadcasting. 2 Appointed by TRM’s Board of Observers.

Selection Committee primarily replaced journalists who had participated in protests.3 The OSCE also noted that the Selection Commission had “not been able to justify the results and to explain its decision to those not chosen”, which gave them the “impression that the selection process [was] non-transparent.”4 The Protests On 27 July, after the results on the recruitment process were announced, public protests were launched by the TRM journalists. On the same day, approximately 100 journalists5 broke into the room in the National Radio building where the Selection Committee was meeting. The journalists demanded the resignation of the management of TRM and the Selection Committee.6 The protests continued both inside and outside the meeting room, with approximately 30 journalists remaining inside. Nineteen journalists participating in the protests were dismissed from their posts in TRM and stripped of their journalists’ IDs. In addition, a ban was imposed on the entrance of the building, whilst the 7pm and 11pm newscasts were suspended. Actions by Law-Enforcement Officials On the night of 31 July, the 13 journalists remaining inside the National Radio building and two MPs who were with them were forced to leave the premises following an anonymous call, claiming that a bomb had been planted in the building. These journalists and other demonstrators, however, later noted that this might have been a pretext to force them out, given the virtual absence of the expected searching operations. The police became increasingly involved in reducing the effects of the demonstration, including through the use of force. This was despite an authorisation by the Chisinau Mayor’s Office to carry out round-the-clock protests in front of the National Radio building and to put up tents to be used overnight by the demonstrators. After one tent was put up, police officers (whose number very speedily doubled to approximately 3007) reportedly hit protesters with rubber sticks as the officers proceeded towards the tent. The tent was then dismantled and confiscated by the police. The clashes then escalated and a number of protesters were beaten as the police attempted to disperse the crowd. Reportedly four persons were hospitalised as a result of the attack, one of whom with a cerebral trauma. Three persons were detained. No investigation has been initiated so far to identify those responsible for the ill-treatment of the protesters or for confiscating the tents. The Prosecutor’s Office did not react at the complaints submitted by the injured persons. At the same time, the police initiated a number of court

3 As well as journalists from the news and cultural departments. 4 Statement of 30 July 2004. See http://www.interlic.md/page2.php?rubr=1015232823&id=1091195802&lang=eng. 5 Including both those re-appointed and those rejected. 6 To be replaced with one counting civil society representatives among its members. 7 According to the Committee for the Protection of Human and Professional Dignity (CADUP). CADUP was created simultaneously with the start of the protests.

cases against the demonstrators, calling for the imposition of administrative sanctions.8 Reactions by CADUP and TRM Management The Committee for the Protection of Human and Professional Dignity (CADUP), in its 15 August Declaration, noted that TRM had committed “numerous unlawful actions” in the process towards the transformation of the institution. Among other things, the organisation denounced the fact that since the beginning of the conflict between management and staff, the views of the protesting journalists were not heard on the public broadcaster, which left the protesters without a voice – while Ilie Telescu, President of TRM, was-ever present in newscasts. The use of what was defined as the ‘phenomenon of political police’ was also denounced, as well as the lack of initiative by the authorities in starting a dialogue with the protesting journalists. TRM reportedly stated that the protests were orchestrated by the opposition, given that some opposition figures did join - and showed support for - the journalists. Ilie Telescu declared that the selection of new employees was carried out “respecting all the necessary legal provisions”9 and that all competitors were treated equally.10 ARTICLE 19’S COMMENTS Although ARTICLE 19 very much welcomes Moldova’s declared commitment to transform TRM into a genuine public service broadcaster, including through the adoption of relevant legislation, there are serious issues of concern. Violence against Journalists First, ARTICLE 19 is disturbed at the news of violence used against journalists involved in peaceful demonstrations and allegedly perpetrated by law-enforcement officials. Physical attacks against journalists are extremely serious in nature and warrant thorough and impartial investigations. They are not only violations of the right to freedom of expression, but also of the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment, protected by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)11; and the right of security of person, protected by Article 5 of the ECHR and Article

8 For violation of Article 147(1)(4) of the Code on Administrative Contraventions on the “Organisation and Performing on Meetings”. The charges refer to the demonstrations that occurred before 1 August, when the authorisation to carry out demonstrations was issued by the Chisinau Mayor’s Office. 9 Info-Prim, 23 June 2004. 10 Moldpres, 30 July 2004. 11 All three conventions were ratified by Moldova.

9 of the ICCPR. The States that are parties to these international treaties are under a positive obligation to ensure the enjoyment of the rights enshrined therein, including through protection, investigations and prosecution of those responsible for violations. In particular, when State actors are involved in the violations, States are directly responsible for them. It is, therefore, regretful that the Moldovan Prosecutor’s Office has not initiated investigations into the said cases of ill-treatment. Lack of Transparency Second, ARTICLE 19 is very concerned at the failure to establish fair and transparent guidelines for the re-recruitment process and overall for the transformation of TRM. The unfolding of the processes towards the establishment of PSB also does not seem to have been made public in a comprehensive manner. From the very initial stages journalists and human rights organisations were not provided with essential information as to the mechanisms that would be employed to implement the relevant changes. Even the initial debates which led to the adoption of the Amending Law in its first reading were held in an atmosphere of virtual secrecy. The public broadcaster is clearly an issue of great public interest in all cases, but even more so in a country like Moldova, where for some parts of the population it represents the only source of information. Not only clear and transparent guidelines for the transformation of TMS should be developed and provided to whoever requests them, but the authorities should also, of their own initiative, make public comprehensive information on this subject. The actions of the authorities are contrary to the provisions contained in Moldova’s Law on Access to Information,12 whose Article 11 places obligations on government bodies to “actively provide accurate and timely information to citizens on issues of public and personal interest.” In addition, the fact that journalists from various media were not allowed into the premises of TRM - with the police invoking the need for special permission to do so – created a situation by which TRM enjoyed a monopoly of information over what was happening in the building. This is clearly not conducive to an atmosphere in which these difficult issues can be discussed openly, and subjected to public scrutiny. Lack of Public Debate The above raises another of ARTICLE 19’s concerns, that of the lack of public debate surrounding the transformation of TRM. It is regretful that the conflict between management and staff at TRM has escalated to an extent which now virtually excludes any possibility to engage in

12 No. 982-XIV, adopted on 11 May 2000.

constructive dialogue. ARTICLE 19 also notes that, in a similar fashion, the adoption of the Amending Law occurred extremely swiftly, which made a fully consultative process impossible. The ban on the entrance of the National Radio building also meant that the protesting journalists were unable to enter the premises so as to register their complaints, which as a result remained unanswered. Political Control of TRM Finally, we note with concern that, despite the adoption of legislation for the creation of an independent public broadcaster, there still appears to be political control over TRM. A number of incidents seem to bring to light cases of interference in the editorial freedom of the institution – such as the above-mentioned suspension of newscasts on 27 July. According to a recent study, the opposition is under-represented in the public broadcaster, while the initiatives of the ruling Communist Party receive full coverage. The study also describes biases in the presentation of news, and the frequent criticism of the opposition.13 Conclusions We would like to remind you of your responsibilities under international law, including those arising from Article 10 of the ECHR, Article 19 of the ICCPR and Recommendation No. R (96) 10 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Guarantee of the Independence of Public Service Broadcasting.14 We also refer you to the “Benchmarks for the Operation of Public Broadcasters in the Republic of Moldova” of March 2004, specifically tailored to your case by the OSCE and the Council of Europe.15 We also urge you to implement the following recommendations, some of which reiterate those already submitted to you at the end of 2003. Recommendations • Immediately initiate thorough and impartial investigations into the

cases of ill-treatment of demonstrators on 1 August. • Adequate measures should be taken to prevent any attacks on

journalists and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, and to thoroughly and impartially investigate such attacks when they do occur, bring those responsible to justice and compensate victims.

• Particular efforts should be made to ensure that law-enforcement officials do not engage in this form of harassment (for example through targeted training in human rights principles).

• Any process of transformation of TRM into a public service broadcaster should be carried out in a transparent and fair manner.

13 The study was conducted by the Independent Journalism Center and is available at http://ijc.iatp.md/en/about/Raport%201-30%20iunie%20eng.doc 14 http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/5_Documentary_Resources/1_Basic_Texts/2_Committee_of_Ministers'_texts/Rec(1996)010%20E%20&_Exp_Mem.asp#TopOfPage 15 Document available at http://www.osce.org/documents/mm/2004/03/2490_en.pdf.

• The authorities should make a commitment to a fully participatory, open process, with adequate opportunity for public input, when introducing any legislative or other developments which affect the status of TRM or freedom of expression generally.

• In the transformation of TRM, guarantees against political or other interference should be put in place.

• The transformation of TRM should be carried out in full compliance with Moldova’s responsibilities under international law, with particular attention for the Council of Europe’s Recommendation R (96) 10, and the OSCE and Council of Europe’s specific guidelines for Moldova.

Yours sincerely, Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director