Sanction of journalists for producing and distributing mass media products without appropriate accreditation

Facts

All four authors are journalists and nationals of Belarus. On various dates between 2015 to 2017, they carried out interviews on different topics in Belarus and posted audio or video recordings thereof on Poland-based media websites Belsat and Radio Racja. As a result, they were all charged with the offence of unlawful production and distribution of mass media products for recording the interviews without being accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as journalists working for foreign mass media. They were all found guilty and sentenced to heavy fines. All their appeals before the regional courts were also unsuccessful. Having exhausted all the effective domestic remedies, the authors have filed the present communications invoking violations of article 19 on the grounds that by requiring them to have accreditation for performing their professional duties, the State party has unnecessarily limited their right to freedom of expression and has violated their rights. Two of the authors, namely Ms. Shchiryakova and Ms. Shchepyotkina, also claim that the State party violated their rights under article 19, in conjunction with articles 2 (2) and 2 (3) (b), of the Covenant.

Admissibility

Contrary to the argument by the State party on the non-exhaustion of local remedies by the author, the Committee was of the view that there were no effective remedies left for the authors to avail and therefore they had exhausted their domestic remedies. However, the Committee found the authors’ claims incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant and thus inadmissible. The Committee on the other hand found the parts of the communication claiming violation under article 19 of the Covenant to be sufficiently substantiated for admissibility.

Merits

The Committee found that the authors’ rights were violated due to restrictions imposed by the requirement to obtain accreditation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and sanctions for professional activities without such accreditation. Although these restrictions were based on domestic law, the State party and domestic courts failed to justify them according to the conditions of necessity and proportionality outlined in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Additionally, the penalties imposed were not shown to be necessary, proportionate, or compliant with the legitimate purposes listed in the Covenant. Thus, the Committee concluded that the authors’ rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant were violated.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated to:

a) Take appropriate steps to reimburse the current value of the fine and any legal costs incurred by the authors in relation to the domestic proceedings;

b) Prevent similar violations in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 10 September 2023