Home Affairs Ministry Sees No Violations of Journalists Rights

The Min­istry of Home Affairs replied that it did not have any objec­tive infor­ma­tion on unlaw­ful activ­i­ties of its employ­ees.

Remark­able quotes:

“Cit­i­zens’ belong­ing to a mass medi­um does not exempt them from legal respon­si­bil­i­ty stem­ming from vio­la­tions of the pro­ce­dures of hold­ing mass events, this refers more­over to those per­sons who intro­duce them­selves as jour­nal­ists, but who real­ly aren’t /journalists/.”

“Shar­ing the con­cern for pub­lic safe­ty dur­ing mass events, the MHA calls on BAJ to orga­nize explana­to­ry work among jour­nal­ists and exclude “cov­er­ing up” and “jus­ti­fy­ing” actions of the per­sons who don’t have any rela­tion to mass media”.

The reply was signed by the inter­im head of the depart­ment on secur­ing pub­lic order A.M. Zhylinksi.

BAJ feels dis­ap­point­ed that the Min­istry of Home Affairs did not bring to lia­bil­i­ty those who unlaw­ful­ly detained jour­nal­ists per­form­ing pro­fes­sion­al duties.

BAJ list­ed over 100 cas­es of inter­fer­ence into jour­nal­is­tic activ­i­ties that, in BAJ view, were unground­ed.

“We sent our peti­tion after events on March 12 when among many oth­ers, Hali­na Abakunchyk, Radio Svabo­da cor­re­spon­dent, was detained. The same day Adar­ja Hushtyn, Bela­PAN cor­re­spon­dent, faced with obsta­cles. So, the infor­ma­tion of the MHA that no jour­nal­ist of an accred­it­ed mass medi­um had suf­fered is not true,” says Andrei Bas­tunets, chair and lawyer of BAJ. “I under­line that in Belarus web­sites are equaled with tra­di­tion­al mass media, so online jour­nal­ists enjoy the same rights as jour­nal­ists of tra­di­tion­al media. Our posi­tion is that jour­nal­ists’ rights should be pro­tect­ed regard­less of the fact whether they work for tra­di­tion­al mass media, a web­site, or a for­eign mass medi­um.”

In the state­ment, BAJ remind­ed of the lia­bil­i­ty for inter­fer­ence into jour­nal­is­tic activ­i­ties envis­aged by arti­cle 198 of the Crim­i­nal Code. The MHA replied that their employ­ees had been informed about jour­nal­ists’ rights and the lia­bil­i­ty. “The way how law enforce­ment agen­cies act­ed on March 25 rais­es doubts that the warn­ing about the lia­bil­i­ty for inter­fer­ence into jour­nal­is­tic activ­i­ties had been effec­tive,” added the chair of BAJ.