Violation of freedom of expression of a journalist that criticized the president

Facts

The author, Dina Maslova, was a Kyrgyzstan national, who faced a civil suit initiated by the General Prosecutor, aimed at safeguarding the honor and dignity of the President due to a publication on the Zanoza internet news portal, where she serves as the editor-in-chief. The prosecution contends that the statements in the publication were offensive, portrayed the President negatively and contained defamatory content, allegedly violating his honor and dignity. This assessment was made by the Prosecutor Office without examining the article, solely relied on a transcript of the President’s speech and video recording.

Following a court decision demanding the removal of the article from the Zanoza website and restricting the author’s travel, the court emphasized the obligation of journalists, as per media legislation, to ensure the accuracy of disseminated information. In case of violations, responsibility extends to the media outlet’s founder, editor, and information sharer, with additional defendants liable for non-pecuniary damages totaling 3 million soms each (approximately 38,000 euros on the judgment day). As the author of the article was unknown, the founders were held accountable for its publication on the Zanoza website.

Admissibility

The Committee acknowledges that the author has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available and deems it appropriate to proceed on the merits.

Merits

The Committee notes that domestic court decisions, including article removal, nonpecuniary damages, and a travel ban, constitute a restriction on the author’s freedom of expression under article 19 (2). It emphasizes the legitimacy of criticizing public figures, including highranking officials. The author argues that the court’s decision heavily relied on a linguistics expert’s assessment of Ms. D.’s speech rather than evaluating the article’s content.

Moreover, the judgments reveal that the courts assumed the article merely disseminated statements by Ms. D. deemed untrue and offensive, without assessing the context, nature, wording, and its contribution to the public debate. The Committee emphasizes that a head of State should tolerate higher levels of criticism than a private individual, and highlights that the substantial amount of non-pecuniary damages indicates the punitive nature of the measure. Consequently, the author faced legal actions for both defaming the then head of State and for engaging in professional journalistic activities while reporting on issues undoubtedly of public interest. In conclusion, the Committee finds that the restriction imposed on the author’s freedom of expression was neither necessary nor proportionate in violation of article 19.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to:

a) Refund the court expenses paid by the author and provide her with adequate compensation;

b) Take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 13 April 2024

More information on the case:

— OMCT - Judicial harassment of Ms. Cholpon Djakupova, Ms. Dina Maslova and Mr. Narynbek — Idinov aka Naryn Aiyp