Analytical review of the freedom of speech in Central Asian countries (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kirgyzstan, Kazakhstan) based on the monitoring of violations of the freedom of speech in Central Asian countries for the fourth quarter of 2003

1. General data on the countries

1. General data on the countries (up)

All four countries are located in the Central Asian region and occupy from 141,3 thousand square kilometers in Tajikistan to 27,171,3 thousand square kilometers in Kazakhstan. Considerable part of the territory of Kazakhstan is taken up by deserts and semi-deserts, whereas 90 percent of Tajikistan's territory is mountainous. The population of the countries is from 4,98 million people in Kirgyzstan to 25,4 million people in Uzbekistan. All four countries are poly-ethnic. Uzbekistan is the most mono-ethnic country where the Uzbeks account for 72 percent of the population.

Prior to declaring sovereignty, all four countries were part of the Soviet Union and were considered to be agricultural-industrial states. Food industry, light industry, mining, metallurgical, and machine-building industries were developed then. Modern devices, equipment, and even rockets were manufactured on the military plants. Today these countries are far behind the economic and social indicators they achieved in 1990.

All four countries are presidential republics. Three republics: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kirgyzstan are ruled by the same presidents who have not been reelected since the declaration of sovereignty.

2. International obligations on the human rights  (up)

International community widely acknowledges that human rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of information exchange, are not only natural and inalienable, but also predetermine the content and application of legislation. They are also essential prerequisites for economic, political, and social development of the society. Thus, where there is no freedom of speech, there cannot be any economic or political freedom.

All four Central Asian republics are the members of the United Nations Organization (UN) and Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Within the framework of these organizations they have signed a number of documents on human rights, including the Pact on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 of which states:

“Every person has a right to free expression of opinion; this right includes freedom to search, to obtain, and to distribute any kind of information and ideas, regardless of state borders, aurally, in writing, or in print… Use of (these) rights can entail some restrictions, which, however, shall be established by legislation and be necessary”.

Norms of international agreements, in their turn, have priority over the national legislation, so the governments have to take up obligations over their observance.

3. National Constitutions  (up)

Constitutions of all Central Asian republics adopted from 1992 to 1995 with a certain extent of clarity guarantee freedom of speech, opinions, and beliefs. At the same time, all of them, except the Constitution of Kirgyzstan, allow possibility of restricting this freedom by legislation. For instance, Article 39 of Kazakhstan Constitution presupposes such limitation only in four cases and only to the required extent. Constitution of Uzbekistan (Article 29) presupposes similar limitations in any case if it is regulated by legislation. Only the Constitution of Kirgyzstan (Article 65), similarly to the First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the Parliament to adopt laws that restrict freedom of speech and press.

According to their legal status, Constitutional norms have higher legal force and immediate application. However, despite this condition, adoption of the laws that restrict freedom of speech under various pretexts have become a common practice. Complexity, multi-layered structure, and sometimes complete absence of legal mechanisms to safeguard constitution facilitate this possibility. For instance, there is no Constitutional Court in Kazakhstan, where any citizen could refer. Only five legal subjects can refer to the Constitutional Council-the President, speakers of both Chambers of the Parliament, prime-minister, and no less than 1/5 of the total number of Parliament deputies. It is doubtful that any of the named subjects will address the Constitutional Council asking to acknowledge this or that legislative norm that restricts freedom of speech, independence of the mass media and journalists as unconstitutional.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that neither a society as a whole, nor legislative branch of power has formed understanding of inviolability and priority of human rights. Apparently, it is not accidental that either of the republics has acknowledged jurisdiction of the international court on human rights over the state.

4. National legislation  (up)

Criminal, administrative, and civil legislation of all four republics have been derived from the old Soviet legal system. Thus, in their essence, they have retained the approach of this system, when the freedom of speech was allowed only to achieve certain targets. At that time, one of these targets was to build a socialist society. Perhaps today no one, including pro-government ideologists, is able to answer the question what we are building now; however, the same old stringency towards the mass media has been preserved.

As the comparative analysis shows, legislation in Kazakhstan can be considered as the toughest towards the mass media and the most developed in this respect. Six articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan protect such common civil rights as honor and dignity. Four of them protect personal non-property rights of the state officials, starting from the President. Nine articles of the Code on Administrative Violations stipulate liability of the mass media and their administration. All in all, Code on Administrative Violations contains more than 40 clauses stipulating their liability. However, only one article stipulates liability for obstruction of the professional activities of a journalist, and another article presupposes liability for providing the mass media with advertently fallacious information. Sanctions for violation of the Administrative Code include suspension and termination of the mass media publication or broadcast, confiscation of copies, suspension and termination of the license validity. The law “On the Mass Media” of 1999 incorporated the basis of the law “On the Print Media” adopted during the times of the Soviet Union. While the law “On the Mass Media” was relatively democratic in its essence, it was barely applied in practice. The law is not popular among the mass media and journalists since it does not provide any norms or mechanisms to safeguard their rights. It is not popular among the authorities either because the mass media and journalists are persecuted according to the norms of the Criminal Code, Code on Administrative Violations, and Civil Code. Amendments to the law introduced in 2001 narrowed the list of clauses under which the journalists could be exempt from liability, expanded the rights of an authorized government body in the sphere of printing, and, in fact, transformed the procedure of the mass media registration into the procedure of granting permission to publish or broadcast. For instance, the law stipulates that the only legal basis for the mass media publication or broadcast is an appropriate certificate issued by an authorized government body.

The law also stipulates percentage break-up of re-broadcast of the foreign mass media, which must comprise 20% and broadcast in the Kazakh language should make up no less than 50% of the total broadcast amount. Activities of the electronic mass media are carried out on the basis of the license issued by the Committee on Communications.

For the sake of justice, it should be noted that according to Kazakhstan legislation, suspension and termination of the mass media publication or broadcast is allowed only upon the court decision, except the cases when similar decision is taken by an owner.

Legislation of Uzbekistan also stipulates criminal responsibility for encroaching honor and dignity of the President of the country. However, criminal responsibility for libel and offense of the ordinary citizens is stipulated only in case of the repeated violation, after the administrative penalty had been applied. The Code of Administrative Liability of the Republic of Uzbekistan stipulates liability for disclosure of information that can inflict moral or material damage to a citizen, for violation of the law on advertising, for distribution of the pornographic materials, illegal production and distribution of the mass media, and as it has been mentioned above, for libel and offense. It is obvious that the content of the above-mentioned offenses is ideal, i.e. there is no need to have harmful consequences to take punitive measures. Liability for the disclosure of information that can inflict damages looks like a preventive measure. However, this clause can be applied practically to any publication in the mass media.

Two special laws that protect professional rights of journalists have been adopted in Uzbekistan: the law “On Guarantees and Freedom of Access to Information” and “Law on the Protection of Professional Activities of a Journalist”. The former law stipulates the right of the mass media to obtain information on the activities from the government organizations, public unions, and state officials. However, the law does not stipulate any special timeframes for responses to the inquiry of the mass media, which makes the law practically non-applicable. Before the mass media obtain information, it is already outdated. The latter law guarantees personal immunity of a journalist upon carrying out professional activities, freedom to obtain and distribute information, protection of a journalist, his rights, honor, and dignity. The law also prohibits interference into the professional activities of a journalist, his/her prosecution for publication of critical materials, requiring a journalist to share information obtained as a result of professional activities.

Unfortunately, lack of legally established mechanisms that guarantee fulfillment of these conditions, as well as lack of sanctions for their violation, in fact, have made the above-mentioned laws practically non-applicable and merely declarative.

While declaring the constitutional norms on freedom of speech, banning censorship, and proclaiming the right of the mass media to search for, to obtain, and to distribute information, the law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On the Print Media” in contradiction to all these clauses stipulates state registration as the only basis for publication or broadcast. An application for registration of the mass media, along with the typically required data, should include sources for material and technical provision, as well sources of funding. A mass medium can be denied registration not only based on some formal and legal grounds, but also in case a registration body decides that aims and objectives of a potential mass medium contradict the Constitution and the law on the mass media, and also in case one of the founders or publishers is based outside the country. And, perhaps, the most interesting point is that the law stipulates that, along with a founder and a court, a mass medium can be suspended or its publication or broadcast terminated by an authorized body that issued a registration license. If we take into account that legislation does not have complete list of grounds for termination of publication or broadcast, then the picture with the freedom of speech is not very optimistic.

Legislation on the mass media in Tajikistan can hardly be assessed as any friendlier to the mass media and journalists regarding their constitutional right to freedom of speech. For instance, the law “On the Print and Other Mass Media” adopted in 1990 stipulates a state registration of the mass media. And although the registration is carried out by the notary services, it requires, along with other documents, positive references from the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Culture. Foreigners and individuals without citizenship cannot act as founders of a mass medium. The mass media publication or broadcast can be terminated not only in case of abuse of the freedom of speech, but also in case of distribution of data that tarnish honor and dignity of the state and the President. If desired, the latter clause can be applied practically to any publication or broadcast.

The law “On Television and Radio Broadcast” in Tajikistan adopted in 1996 is even more blatant in establishing certain tendencies. To illustrate, the law directly stipulates that the government predetermines policy in the sphere of television and radio broadcast, and Committee on Television and Radio Broadcast is responsible for the realization of this policy. The Committee also monitors observance of legal requirements by the mass media and monitors broadcast of the TV- and radio –programs. To start operating electronic mass media need licenses from two institutions: one from the Committee on Television and Radio Broadcast to operate and distribute TV-and radio programs, and another license is a technical permission from the Ministry of Communications. Besides, the order of the broadcast channel use is determined by the Ministry of Culture and Information jointly with the Ministry of Communications. The Committee on Television and Radio Broadcast jointly with the Ministry of Communications establishes the order of the satellite television broadcast.

Hukumats (city or village administrations) issue permission to establish satellite television network, and the order of this network use is predetermined by the Committee on Television. Most importantly, the license validity can be suspended for up to 6 months. It can also be withdrawn not only by the court decision, but also by an organization that issued a license. Moreover, these sanctions are applied not according to the grounds stipulated in the legislation, but in case there are sufficient causes to suspect that a founder abuses his/her rights and violates conditions of the law. Upon the license withdrawal or termination the activities of the TV-and radio-companies cease completely.

It is quite apparent that multi-layered structure and complexity of the permissive system, as well as ambiguity and evasiveness of definitions for the grounds that allow to apply these sanctions leave a lot of space for subjugation on the part of state officials.

For the sake of justice, it should be noted that the law “On Television and Radio Broadcast” stipulates compensations for the death or corporal injuries of TV- and radio-companies’ employees incurred while carrying out professional activities. However, it is not clear why the compensations are to be provided by the government only. The law also exempts electronic mass media and their employees from liability for the publication of fallacious information in case they had been taken from another mass medium with the reference to a information source.

Civil legislation on the liability of the mass media and journalists for publication of fallacious information is practically similar in all four countries. The mass media and journalists have to prove accuracy of published information everywhere and in all cases. IN case they fail to prove accuracy of information, they will have to bear responsibility for that.

Summing up information given above, we can conclude that:

Unfortunately, the real situation with freedom of speech and rights of the mass media and journalists does not always follow the legal regulations, even those which are excessively and unnecessarily tough.

5. Other factors that determine independence of the mass media and journalists  (up)

Legislation does not provide the complete picture of the real situation with the freedom of speech, if we fail to consider organizational, financial, inter-editorial, and even social dependence of the mass media and journalists.

It goes without saying that since the republics obtained sovereignty the number of the mass media in these countries has substantially increased. According to “Adil Soz” Foundation data, there were 1,482 mass media in Kazakhstan in 2001-2002, including 1,357 print and 125 electronic media. There were 259 print and 17 electronic media during the same period in Tajikistan. In Uzbekistan, there were 796 mass media, including 726 print and 70 electronic media. The number of the mass media has increased on average by 50-60% since these countries became independent.

At the same time 408 (or 73%) out of 557 registered newspapers in Uzbekistan belong to the government. Kazakhstan Ministry of Information refers 20% of the mass media to the purely government media. However, it is doubtful, that this figure reflects the reality. Any mass media with any form of the government participation in the charter capital of the mass media owners or founders and, consequently, subsidized by the government to a certain extent, the media that belong to the pro-government political or commercial organizations, as well as the media that work on the government orders and are connected with its policy could also be referred to as the government media. Eventually, confines of the freedom of speech are predetermined by those who own it and, thus, influence it activities.

In accordance with the established tendencies, and if the government law “On the Mass Media” is adopted in Kazakhstan, then in accordance with the legislation, editorial offices will be transformed to the structural divisions of the mass media owners, and therefore, will give away their independence and autonomy.

Lack of any guarantees that a material will be published, in its turn, leads to the dictatorship on the part of an owner and an editor. Moreover, it results in limitation of creativity for a journalist.

Undeveloped civil society institutions, inapprehension of the role and significance of the mass media in building a democratic state, active resistance of the authorities to dissent and critique result in the censorship occurrences and in adopting self-censorship as a common practice.

Set of certain views that is perceived by the authorities as society mentality, everyday social dependence of the mass media and journalists on official institutions (offices, land spots, accommodation, positions, etc.), stringent division of the civil society, for instance in Uzbekistan, and covert unemployment among journalists in all four countries substantially decrease freedom of speech.

6. Monitoring of violations  (up)

In fall 2003, an international journalist public organization “Reporters Without Borders” determined index of freedom of speech based on surveys of journalists, lawyers, and experts in 166 countries in the world. Kirgyzstan occupied 104th place, Tajikistan-113th, Kazakhstan -138th, and Uzbekistan –154th (to compare, Turkmenistan was given 158th position). As we can see from these data, the international community does not consider situation with the freedom of speech, rights of journalists and the mass media buoyant in all four countries.

Kirgyzstan  (up)

Kirgyz establishment and the President Akayev personally like to describe their country as an island of democracy in Central Asia. Indeed, legislation of Kirgyzstan does not have any clauses in its Criminal Code that stipulate punishment for offence of honor and dignity of the President. In December 2003, the President introduced to the Parliament for the second time a draft law on decriminalization of the liability for libel and offence, as well as increase of the state duty to 5% of the declared claims on protection of honor and dignity.

At the same time, all the above-mentioned drawbacks of the legislative basis and legal practice have occurred in Kirgyzstan as well. There are also conditions that are conducive to increasing dependence of the mass media and journalists from the government, from authorities of all levels, from owners, and employers. “Target” and quite contradictory activities of the authorities are unlikely to improve the state of affairs with freedom of speech in the country. Monitoring of the Public Organization “Journalists” also supports this view.

To illustrate, on the Second World Kurultay (Convention) of Kirgyz People, which was held in Bishkek in the end of August, the President Akayev stated: “We declared and have a real freedom of speech. We are working hard to make the power in the country completely transparent, and to make it work under the public oversight, and upon public engagement. There are certain difficulties; however, we are moving forward to create the institute of free expression, opinions, as well as objective and socially responsible mass media.”

However, in the beginning of September, Bishkek city court left unchanged the decision of Lenin district court on the action to protect honor and dignity, which was brought by N. Tanayev, the prime-minister of the country. The court decision was to charge compensation for moral damage from the “My Capital. News” newspaper in the amount of 500,000 soms (or $12,000) and 5,000 soms (or $120) from the author of the article. (To provide better comparability, further in the report monetary value will be given in US dollars.) The same month of September brought several other actions on protection of honor and dignity and subsequent compensation claims for moral damage. T. Bakir, the President's representative on human rights brought an action against the newspaper “Evening Bishkek” for the amount of $232,500, and M. Aibalayev, a governor of Batkent region brought an action against the “Aalam” newspaper claiming the same amount of money, $232,500. A political party “Ar-Namys” brought an action against the “AiF-Kirgyzstan” newspaper in the amount of $110,000. It is paradoxical for Kirgyzstan, but such unsubstantiated amounts of claims are very often sustained. To illustrate, Sverdlovsk district court of Bishkek sustained an action brought by M. Eshimkanov, the People’s Party leader against the “Aalam” newspaper in the amount of $70,000 and against the author of the article “Human and political face of Eshimkanov” in the amount of $46,000.

Needless to say that such court decisions can hardly be called legal. Moreover, there should not be any practices like those in a democratic society because the claimants are state officials and, therefore, they initially have acknowledged public scrutiny and critique. In the whole, in four months monitoring registered 22 claims on protection of honor and dignity.

In November, the governor of Bishkek obliged employees of the state organizations to subscribe to the government print media to the amount of $205,000. The mass media reported on similar orders of the governors of seven regions and forty governors that are accountable to them. This is done despite the Constitutional guarantees of the freedom to obtain and distribute information.

It is clear that such activities not only reflect the mind-set of the political elite, but also predetermine certain facets in the attitude towards the mass media, journalists, and freedom of speech in general.

However, it is remarkable, that during these four months there were not any cases of administrative lawsuits brought against the media and journalists. Nevertheless, all other types of violations took place. For instance, monitoring registered five cases of physical obstruction in carrying out professional journalist activities, and three offenses against journalists and mass media objects. Investigation carried out upon the death of E. Nazanov, a well-know reporter who, according to his colleagues, was preparing a series of revelatory articles, did not convince his parents that their son’s death was accidental.

Numerous instances of groundless denials to provide information or to limit obtaining of information that presents social significance (14 cases). There were also five cases when the proprietary rights of the mass media, especially on the part of printing houses, were violated.

Difficult conditions for the mass media in the country, controversial processes in the spheres of activities, as well as views of the state officials on their place and role, were reflected in the President Akayev’s speech in October 2003 on the 32nd UNESCO General Conference:

“Although the process of democratization has received sustainable development, it has encountered inertia. Precedents of the past that are still persevered in the minds of the general public. Realizing that, as the President of the country, I have to put every effort to overcome authoritarian heritage of the Soviet times, as well as occurring tendencies to entangle a democratic process”.

Tajikistan  (up)

According to monitoring carried out by the National Association of Independent Mass Media in Tajikistan (NANSMIT), a set of unlawful mechanisms to influence the mass media and journalists is a bit different, and in our opinion, is distinguished by more brutality.

Compared to Kirgyzstan, there have been fewer actions on protection of honor and dignity (only 5). Four of them have been brought by the state officials of different ranks. All five of the claims have been considered or are being considered in the court.

No assaults on journalists were registered; however, there were nine threats on physical retribution. The topics of publications that drew threats on physical retribution are corruption and competition among the religious elite. In this respect, threats against the reporters of “Nerui Sukhan” are the most remarkable. In the letter delivered to the editorial office of the newspaper, unidentified people threatened a journalist who dared to write critical articles about the activities of one of the firms: “You, truth-seekers from “Nerui Sukhan”, keep in mind that economic leverages and criminal structures of the whole district are in our hands. Take into account in the future that your every ill-considered action or word will lead to your death”. Among those who threatened were the state officials. For instance, S. Sabzov, the head of the Department of Internal Affairs, told M. Kurbonzoda, a freelance journalist: “You are just a woman and you are playing with fire. Take care or I will destroy you in an instant. Keep in mind that you have children and relatives…”. Or another case, when two unidentified people bought 54 copies of the “Nerui Sukhan” newspaper, which had earlier published a critical article on Gulov, head of the Vakhdat district, from a distributor and publicly burnt them. The distributor was warned that if he continued to distribute the newspaper, the same thing would happen to his house. Needless to say that all the threats were left without punishment.

Monitoring also registered 12 cases of obstruction of legal profession activities of journalists, which is also considered a crime according to the legislation. In the majority of the case, the obstructions were caused by the state officials. For instance, M. Kurbanov, the director of hukumat administration in Pedjikent forced a journalist S. Oblokulzode out of the seminar “Removal of mines and state of affairs at the borders”. “You have no right to be present in any of the hukumat conventions because you criticized the activities of hukumat in the annual meeting without our permission to do so,” said M. Kurbanov.

K. Fakirov, head of the Vessey district forced journalists H. Nazriyev and B.Shamsov out of the extended convention accusing them in the biased coverage of the regional events by their TV channel. Employers of the law enforcement bodies in Korgan-Tyube forced a journalist D. Shottiborov from the radio “Hurosson” away from the unsanctioned meeting of the city residents concerning gas and electricity supply problems and demanded that he leave. In all the cases none of the of the perpetrators was made accountable.

Monitoring also registered 19 cases of groundless denial or limitation to obtain socially significant information. There were also cases of immediate interference of the state officials into the creative activities of journalists, when they had been told in a certain form, what to cover and what tone to choose. Monitoring registered cases when certain mass media were banned from distribution. At the same time subscription to other mass media was declared as mandatory. There were also instances when circulation of some mass media was arrested. In all cases the state officials were the main characters of these activities.

Probably that is why I.Usmanov, the state advisor to the President of the country, tried to distance himself from these kind of officials. “Decision not to communicate with the mass media is a personal position of individual officials who have something to hide from the general public. It is not the position of the government,” he declared at the seminar in Dushanbe. The President of Tajikistan E. Rakhmonov did not express his point of view on the mass media and freedom of speech in the country during the reported period.

Some of the wishes of the authorities could be traced in the speeches of M. Ubaidullayev, the Chairman of the upper chamber of the Parliament and also a mayor of Dushanbe. Accusing journalists in incompetence, dishonesty, ineptitude, ambitiousness, and greed, he said: “In our attitude to the mass media we assume that those who criticize wish us good unlike those who keep silence. Especially, when the criticism is based on the real facts and is expressed in a polite and friendly language”. Like the saying goes, “nothing to add or take away” since typical view on freedom of speech is expressed in the statement.

Kazakhstan  (up)

Despite the above-mentioned rating of the International Organization “Reporters Without Borders” and considerably larger number of registered violations of the rights of the mass media and journalists, we cannot say that state of affairs with freedom of speech in Kazakhstan in general is worse than that in Tajikistan. It just has its own specific features in Kazakhstan.

Extensive legislative regulation of the mass media also creates more opportunities to influence them. However, it also reveals abuse of discretion to a large extent, and, therefore, shows the real identity of enemies of freedom of speech and personifies them. To illustrate, monitoring registered 10 cases of obstruction of the legal professional activities of journalists among the direct violations during the four months. None of the cases led to the lawsuits in protection of the journalists’ rights. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan is responsible for investigating such cases.

Monitoring registered 116 cases when journalists were rejected or limited in obtaining socially significant information. Again, none of the cases resulted in bringing administrative actions against perpetrators. Registration of this type of violations rests on the Ministry of Information, which has to file administrative violations. The same Ministry has thrice violated timeframes for registration of the mass media. Monitoring also registered eight cases of groundless confiscation of circulation, prohibitions, and limitations for distribution of the mass media on the part of the law enforcement bodies. Ten criminal and seven administrative actions were brought against journalists. Court decisions on the number of the cases cause serious doubts in their lawfulness. Officials, business people, and citizens brought 41 actions on protection of honor and dignity. Owing to the bias of the legislation to provide larger protection of these personal non-property rights, the majority of the court decisions were not in favor of the mass media. There were three cases of physical assault on journalists. In the first case a journalist did not connect the assault with his professional activities. In two other cases assaults are viewed as retribution for publications. For instance, A. Doronin, a journalist of the “ExpressK” newspaper, was told after the beating: “If you write again about vodka, we will mutilate you”.

At the same time, willingness of the authorities to regulate the mass media more extensively also caused reverse processes. To illustrate, disputes around the new law on the mass media, which was negatively accepted by the general public, not only split lawmakers according to their attitude to the freedom of speech. The disputes also showed that approach in the attitude of the power to the mass media is not acknowledged as irrefutable. Besides, this fervor, which was sparked by rejection of the new law, consolidated national, including pro-government, and international journalist community. Moreover, for the first time in the history of independent Kazakhstan, it promoted creation of the alternative draft laws.

Uzbekistan  (up)

According to the monitoring that registered violations towards the mass media and journalists, Uzbekistan occupies the first position among the four republics in the amount of violations in relation to the total number of registered mass media. It is apparently, not accidental. Government status of the majority of the mass media in Uzbekistan ultimately leads both to their state management, and immediate abuse of discretion on the part of the ruling elite and officialdom. It results not only in appointing the new editors or terminating the media publication or broadcast, but also in interfering into the creative activities of journalists. To illustrate, despite the fact that the Constitution declared freedom of speech, until May 2002 there was an inspection on the protection of state secrets at the Ministry of Print Media. In fact, it was the same censorship as in the times of the Soviet Union.

There are frequent cases when creative activity of journalists or editorial offices is the subject of consideration in the various meetings and conventions, just like in the “old Soviet Union times”. For instance, in October 2003, U. Khashimov, Chairman of the Parliament Committee on Print Media and Information, stated that some newspapers “publish only official chronicle and do not pay much attention to preparing serious analytical and critical materials, which in turn, affects the circulation of the newspapers”. Similar Committee of Karakalpakstan Parliament considered work of two newspapers: “Erkin Karakalpakstan” and “Vesti Karakalpakstana”, reprimanded, and baffled journalists stating that “the newspapers have not had enough materials on economic reforms, on the development of small and medium enterprises, and there are too few analytical materials. The majority of journalists lack creativity, practice. Very frequently they write articles having no knowledge of this or that sphere of activities”. Subscription to newspapers and magazines is also organized on the level of Parliament and Council of Ministries of the Republic. In September, the government of Uzbekistan took a decision to re-register all the mass media, and in November allocated 500 million in Uzbek currency upon the investment program for 2004 to monitor the mass media.

Dictatorship in such a subtle sphere as freedom of speech, in its turn, ultimately leads to the violation of constitutional guarantees and rights of the mass media and journalists, which are established in the acting legislation.

For instance, non-government organization “Internews-Uzbekistan” registered 208 reports on direct and indirect violations of these rights during the four months of 2003. The violations include three reports on the assaults on journalists, five reports on offenses and threats addressed to journalists, 15 cases of obstruction of the legal professional activities of journalists. All these actions are subject to legal prosecution and form a basis of appropriate crimes.

As an illustration, while dispersing an unsanctioned meeting in Namangan, police officers broke the camera of the reporters T. Tashpulatov and A. Abdullayev, and severely beat H. Shambulov, an officer of the Human Rights Bureau. B.Norbayev, a BBC reporter, was beaten by the customs officers at the “Uchkuprik” customs post while carrying out professional activities. They also took away and broke the reporter’s tape recorder. O.Toshev, a reporter of the “Nassaf” newspaper was deceived by the police officers and delivered to the psycho-neurological clinic, where he was coerced into medical examined and treatment. The state officials of various ranks initiate the majority of the cases of obstruction to the legal professional activities of journalists. In none of the cases, the perpetrators were punished.

During the same period of time, 8 criminal, 7 administrative actions, and 10 actions on protection of honor and dignity were brought against the journalists. Journalists were indicted in obtaining and storing of drug substances, in bribery, in libel, in printing out the mass media without registration, etc. Naturally, the journalists did not pledge guilty in any of the cases. Monitoring also registered 7 cases of the censorship of publications, 6 cases on direct interference into creative activities, 7 cases of restricting access to web sites and radio broadcast of certain radio stations. However, the most frequent violation (48 cases) was groundless denial or restriction on providing socially significant information. Again, the majority of these violations is initiated by the officials of various ranks. In considering the results of the monitoring, we should also take into account that the real conditions of the mass media and journalists have always been considerable worse that the observable one, because there are aspects of their activities, which are solved in the so-called working order and are not visible for the general public.

Unfortunately, the authorities in Uzbekistan fail to recognize that not everything is fine with freedom of speech in the country. While speaking at the “round table” with the participation of the mass media and law enforcement bodies, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which is symbolic in itself, summarized the situation in the country saying that “… the country has completely achieved freedom of speech and expression… Everyone is using the right to freely express their opinion in the mass media”. The President of the country, I. Karimov, did not speak in public on the mass media during the reported period.

However, we do not agree with the opinion of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Analysis of the acting legislation and legal practice, as well as analysis of different figures and events registered by the monitoring, indicate that state of affairs with freedom of speech in all four republics is far from not only widely acknowledged international standards in this sphere, but also from the guarantees of this freedom stipulated by the constitutions of these countries.

Moreover, the situation with the freedom of speech tends to deteriorate. Isolated attempts undertaken by the certain leaders, for instance by the President of Kirgyzstan A. Akayev, to liberalize something in this sphere not only reverse the trend, but on the contrary, confirm its existence. It is probably high time for the journalist community, it its turn, to acknowledge that freedom of speech is not the gift bestowed by the authorities, but the result of its unity and ability to protect its rights.

contents