Authoritarianism in Macedonia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vangelovski
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 8531

    Authoritarianism in Macedonia

    We normally focus on the bigger picture stuff so I just wanted to start a thread with the more "mundane" injustices in Macedonia.

    http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/arti...-sparks-outcry

    Macedonian Journalist's Harsh Sentence Prompts Outcry

    Media and human rights groups expressed shock over the length of the jail sentence handed down to journalist Tomislav Kezarovski, which has raised fresh fears about media freedom.


    The Journalists’ Association of Macedonia, ZNM, the Independent Journalists’ Trade Union, SSNM, and the Macedonian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights all expressed dismay over the four-and-a-half-year jail term, calling it a blow to press freedom.

    The verdict “goes against the freedom of media”, the ZNM said.

    The criminal court in Skopje found Kezarovski guilty on Monday of revealing the identity of the murder witness in an article he wrote in 2008.

    “Macedonia has become the only country in South Eastern Europe with a journalist jailed for a text he wrote… The message is very frightening – every reporter who reveals institutional abuse can end up in jail,” the ZNM said.

    The SSNM said it was “appalled” that a journalist was being jailed for acting in public interest to investigate police abuse in perverting the course of justice.

    “The SSNM strongly rejects the arguments that Kezarovski has been sentenced for a crime, and not for his journalistic commitment," it said.

    "The sentence against him send a message that Macedonian journalists are being deprived of the core element of their profession, to act in public interest,” it added.

    The Helsinki Committee said the sentence “sets a serious precedent… when the freedom of media and of speech in Macedonia are in serious jeopardy”.

    The organizations accuse the authorities of pursuing the journalist for revealing institutional misuse, instead of trying to discover who was involved in the wrongdoings.

    The European Federation of Journalists, EFJ, also condemned the court decision.

    "The decision and its brutal implementation are utterly unacceptable and appalling,'" the EFJ General Secretary, Ricardo Gutiérrez, said.
    ‘‘Kezarovski has done nothing wrong but has fulfilled his role as a journalist to report on matters in the public interest," he added.

    “The court passed an extremely harsh sentence,” Reporters Without Borders said. “By prosecuting Kezarovski five years after these articles were published, the judicial authorities act with a zeal that was both incomprehensible and disturbing."

    Macedonian NGO Civil - Center for Freedom requested "urgent release of Kezharovski and compensation for all the injustice that has been brought upon him, as well as for all the trauma that he and his family have gone through today and during the last five months."

    Civil, together with Reporters without borders- Germany, N-OST- Network for Reporting on Eastern Europe and Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, have assessed in a mutual reaction, two moths ago, that the arresting of Kezharovski has been devised with a goal to intimidate him, as well as other local journalists and media.

    In 2008, police said they had found the people behind the 2005 murder of 57-year-old Lazar Milosevski in the village of Orese near Veles.

    Two brothers, Ordan and Ljupco Gjorgievski, were charged with murder while Gjorge Petrovski, who was extradited from the US, was charged with ordering the murder.

    But in a sudden twist in February, a former protected witness, Zlatko Arsovski, admitted falsely testifying against the defendants, saying he did so under threats from the police.

    The admission resulted in the release of the defendants who had claimed all along that a police inspector had framed them.

    In Kezarovski’s trial the prosecution claimed that publication of Kezarovski’s article allowed the defendants to find out the identity of the protected witness and influence him to change his testimony.

    Kezarovski pleaded not guilty.

    “My texts revealed a public secret about the work of the courts and the breach of court rules. They are [also] a criticism of the work of the police ministry,” he told the court.

    The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic, also expressed deep concern.

    “Today’s verdict has serious consequences for free expression and media freedom," she said on Monday.
    "Criminal prosecution of reporters for their journalistic activities violates the fundamental human right to free expression and the country’s OSCE commitments to develop and protect free media,” Mijatovic added.

    In parliament, opposition legislators accused the ruling VMRO DPMNE party of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski of targeting independent journalists through the courts.

    But VMRO DPMNE deputy Silvana Boneva said the government played no role in the sentence, and lawmakers had no place in interfering with independent judicial authorities and their decisions.
    If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

    The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams
  • Gocka
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2012
    • 2306

    #2
    I haven't read into this story very much, can you bring me up to speed on the facts? Did he or did he not publicly give the identity of a prosecution witness? If he did, is it explicitly illegal to do so under Macedonian law, and what should the punishment be for such an offense?

    Comment

    • EgejskaMakedonia
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2010
      • 1665

      #3
      As Gocka said, unless I'm missing something here the journalist committed a fairly serious offence. Not only can publishing the name of a witness pervert the course of justice, but it's also a critical breach of the witnesses' safety. It puts not only the witness at threat, but potentially even their family. I don't see how this has 'serious consequences for free expression and media freedom' at all. We have similar laws in Australia that prevent some sensitive information from being published when a case is before the court. Journalists have a responsibility to follow the correct procedures in their field of work, just like employees in any other industry do.

      The sentence is somewhat excessive, but we're still talking about putting the safety of another individual under threat. If the witness happened to be killed as a result of the name being published, I doubt people would be complaining. Where was the 'outcry' when other injustices occurred involving Albanian terrorists from 2001, such as granting them amnesty. Macedonians in the Republic seem rather selective in what they deem an 'injustice.'

      Comment

      • Gocka
        Senior Member
        • Dec 2012
        • 2306

        #4
        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        As Gocka said, unless I'm missing something here the journalist committed a fairly serious offence. Not only can publishing the name of a witness pervert the course of justice, but it's also a critical breach of the witnesses' safety. It puts not only the witness at threat, but potentially even their family. I don't see how this has 'serious consequences for free expression and media freedom' at all. We have similar laws in Australia that prevent some sensitive information from being published when a case is before the court. Journalists have a responsibility to follow the correct procedures in their field of work, just like employees in any other industry do.

        The sentence is somewhat excessive, but we're still talking about putting the safety of another individual under threat. If the witness happened to be killed as a result of the name being published, I doubt people would be complaining. Where was the 'outcry' when other injustices occurred involving Albanian terrorists from 2001, such as granting them amnesty. Macedonians in the Republic seem rather selective in what they deem an 'injustice.'

        Actually reading it more closely I now understand the problem, turns out it was not such a simple case. What happened was:

        A man was murdered (Lazar)

        Then the police identified and arrested 2 men that committed the murder and 1 who ordered it.

        The prosecution had a key witness who I'm guessing could identify the perpetrators (Zatko)

        Then the journalist (Tomislav) did an investigation and I guess found the key witness.

        Then the key witness admitted to Tomislav that the police threatened him to falsely accuse the men who were on trial for the murder.

        Tomislav then published his findings while naming the key witness.

        Then the state brought charges against Tomislav saying that because he revealed the key witness, the alleged perpetrators must have intimidated him into changing his testimony (saying that the police threatened him to make false statements) that the accused were not guilty of the murder.

        Then the state with egg on their face, and also not wanting to investigate the alleged abuse by the police decided to put Tomislav behind bars so as to insinuate that he was the reason that the murder case fell through, and not because the police tried to intimidate the key witness to make false accusations.

        He may have broken the law in revealing the key witness's name, but he also revealed potential fraud and abuse on behalf of the police (which nothing was done about). What really should have happened is that the police should have been investigated and if found guilty then no charges should have been brought against the journalist. Instead the brought the hammer down on the journalist without ever investigating the police.

        This is pretty bad, now I understand the outrage.
        Last edited by Gocka; 10-24-2013, 08:44 PM.

        Comment

        • EgejskaMakedonia
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2010
          • 1665

          #5
          Originally posted by Gocka View Post
          Actually reading it more closely I now understand the problem, turns out it was not such a simple case. What happened was:

          A man was murdered (Lazar)

          Then the police identified and arrested 2 men that committed the murder and 1 who ordered it.

          The prosecution had a key witness who I'm guessing could identify the perpetrators (Zatko)

          Then the journalist (Tomislav) did an investigation and I guess found the key witness.

          Then the key witness admitted to Tomislav that the police threatened him to falsely accuse the men who were on trial for the murder.

          Tomislav then published his findings while naming the key witness.

          Then the state brought charges against Tomislav saying that because he revealed the key witness, the alleged perpetrators must have intimidated him into changing his testimony (saying that the police threatened him to make false statements) that the accused were not guilty of the murder.

          Then the state with egg on their face, and also not wanting to investigate the alleged abuse by the police decided to put Tomislav behind bars so as to insinuate that he was the reason that the murder case fell through, and not because the police tried to intimidate the key witness to make false accusations.

          He may have broken the law in revealing the key witness's name, but he also revealed potential fraud and abuse on behalf of the police (which nothing was done about). What really should have happened is that the police should have been investigated and if found guilty then no charges should have been brought against the journalist. Instead the brought the hammer down on the journalist without ever investigating the police.

          This is pretty bad, now I understand the outrage.
          That makes more sense, but it still doesn't deter from the fact that he shouldn't have published the name. Regardless of the situation, it is still potentially putting the witness at risk of harm. As for the police corruption, I agree. If the accusations made by the journalist are well-founded, then there should be an internal investigation and those guilty should be brought before the courts.

          Comment

          • Vangelovski
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 8531

            #6
            Its good when you read the whole thing isn't it

            The real question is this - did the witness agree to the publication of his name? Secondly, the matter of the sentence - does it really fit the crime?
            If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

            The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

            Comment

            • Gocka
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2012
              • 2306

              #7
              Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
              Its good when you read the whole thing isn't it

              The real question is this - did the witness agree to the publication of his name? Secondly, the matter of the sentence - does it really fit the crime?
              Yes it certainly helps. I had already read an article on this case but it was very vague and only spoke about how the journalist revealed the name, but didn't say anything about the allegations against the police.

              The question for me is, whether the police were in fact guilty of forcing a false testimony. If the police is guilty then the whole trial was a mistrial and thus the journalist didn't even commit a crime, in fact he should be commended for exposing the police, and possibly saving 3 men from being falsely imprisoned.

              If the police were not guilty, but the witness agreed to have his name disclosed publicly then I would say it is debatable if a crime occurred on behalf of the journalist.

              If the police were not guilty, and the witness did not want his name disclosed, then I would have to say a crime was committed and there should be a punishment for it, four years may be harsh, but also understandable under those circumstances.

              What troubles me is that the police were never investigated, nor was a proper inquiry made into to original murder case, so in the end only the journalist is in jail, and you have possibly corrupt cops, and murderers on the streets. This at a minimum has authoritarian undertones, if not being outright authoritarian.

              Comment

              • EgejskaMakedonia
                Senior Member
                • Jan 2010
                • 1665

                #8
                Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                Its good when you read the whole thing isn't it

                The real question is this - did the witness agree to the publication of his name? Secondly, the matter of the sentence - does it really fit the crime?
                I did read the whole thing. It doesn't help that the article is plagued with quotes and no real background to the relevant law is given.

                I'm surprised there's been no mention of anything regarding your first question. Surely this would be a key factor in the case, unless the law in Macedonia does not discriminate between consent given/not given in such circumstances.

                As for the sentence, it's difficult to say. Given that he jeopardised the safety of the witness and their family, it is a very serious offence. If it also tampered with the criminal proceedings against the accused murderer, then I think it does warrant a harsh penalty. This, tied in with the accusations of police corruption make it difficult to say what is an appropriate punishment.

                I've had a look around at some of the legislation and this seems like the relevant provision he was charged with, provided it is up to date.

                IX. SENTENCE PROVISION – CRIMINAL ACT

                Unauthorized release of information and data about the witnesses, collaborators of
                justice, victims that appear in a role of witnesses and their close persons

                Article 42
                The person who contrary to this law will reveal the real identity, the home, the
                residence of the persons from article 2 paragraph 1 lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this law, as well
                as other information that can lead to their identification that could jeopardize the life,
                health, freedom, physical integrity or the property of bigger amount to the persons from
                article 2 paragraph 1 lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this law shall be punished with imprisonment sentence of minimum four years.


                If the act from paragraph 1 leads to causing serious body injuries to the persons
                from article 2 paragraph 1 lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this law
                the perpetrator shall be punished with
                imprisonment sentence of minimum eight years.

                If the act from paragraph 1 leads to death or suicide of the persons from article 2
                paragraph 1 lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this law
                the perpetrator shall be punished with
                imprisonment sentence of minimum 15 years
                or with life imprisonment.
                The text in bold seems the likely charge. Minimum of 4 years is pretty consistent with what he was sentenced to. Considering the implications involved in the scenario that the witness is seriously injured or died, it highlights the seriousness of the crime. I couldn't find any article specific to consent from the witness and whether that mitigates the charge in any sense, but it does seem like emphasis is placed on 'with consent from the department' when talking about what the witness can and can't do while under protection.
                Last edited by EgejskaMakedonia; 10-24-2013, 10:38 PM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X