Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter

Issue 15     Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law     February 27, 1995

State Department Country Reports on Human Rights

    Each year, the State Department prepares Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. These reports cover a number of categories, including freedom of speech and of the press. We have taken, from the recently-issued 1994 reports concerning the republics of the former Soviet Union, the section which specifically deals with press and media rights. These are spotty, hardly comprehensive reports and vary in quality from country to country. We present them both because they contain valuable information and because they represent the State Department’s official assessment. In an appendix to the reports, the State Department includes the following disclaimer:

 Following the reports concerning the republics of the former Soviet Union, we have also reproduced a sample of the more interesting reports concerning countries in Central and Eastern Europe. 

ARMENIA

    The Law on Information provides for freedom of speech and the press, and the Government generally respects these rights.

    The press is generally free and contains a wide variety of political opinion and criticism of the Government. However, as a result of a December 28 presidential directive, the publication of Dashnak Party newspapers and journals has been halted. The Ministry of Justice registers all publications and broadcasting organizations, which must state their general subject matter. It is required to act on applications for registration within 1 month of receipt.

    There is no prepublication censorship. However, the Government reportedly supplies all mass media editors with a list of forbidden subjects, including sensitive military information in categories such as the draft and army recruitment, information on military structure, civil defense arrangements, finance, communications, transport, and science and technology. There were no known prosecutions in 1994 for violations of this injunction.

    Shortages of fuel, paper, electricity, and other supplies some times delayed or prevented the publication or distribution of the print media. There was no indication that the Government used such problems to control or influence the media. On October 21, the offices of the Ramkavar Party’s newspaper were firebombed. Investi gations by the Ministry of Internal Affairs into this and a series of other attacks on journalists and media offices in late 1994 turned up no suspects. Attacks targeted both government-sponsored and opposi tion media outlets.

    The Government controls broadcasting almost entirely. There is one functioning independent radio station, one independent television company, which rents air time from a state channel, and several small independent cable television companies which are only licensed to show films. In December the Government voided a contract with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to provide local rebroadcasts of Radio Liberty programming. It is widely assumed that the contract was canceled for political reasons.

    The Ramkavar Party newspaper AZ6 was able to register bylaws for a second independent radio station on November 16, but the station is not yet operating. State television provides a total of 15 minutes of broadcast time per week for all opposition political parties. However, the opposition NDU and Dashnak Parties reportedly were both recently denied their time slots. Representatives of other opposi tion parties appeared regularly on political discussion programs. A shortage of electricity limited television time to about 6 hours per day.

AZERBAIJAN

    The Government severely restricts freedom of speech and press. It officially censors the press and subjects newspaper premises to searches and raids. It may close newspapers for only 1 month if they violate military censorship by publishing information contrary to what it believes are the interests of the country. Despite warnings to several papers, the Government has not exercised this authority.

    Official censorship decreased after the state of emergency was lifted in September 1993, but its existence remained influential in con vincing editors to self-censor their copy. Police searches and raids were another way of interfering with the operations of the press, much of which is affiliated with political parties. For example, in February police temporarily seized part of the Azadliq newspaper’s premises after weeks of repeated unauthorized searches of Azadliq and other newspaper premises. Police conducted similar searches at Azadliq’s premises on at least one other occasion during 1994. Both incidents involved a search for arms and unspecified subversive lit erature. The searches were carried out on the authority of the district police commander, without judicial involvement. Both newspaper offices and their distributors remained subject to surprise raids. For example, authorities raided the distributor Gaya in March after a caricature of the Interior Minister was published.

    After imposing a new state of emergency in early October on Gance and Baku, following the political crisis, the Government added a third a third level of censorship to the existing military and political censors, with immediate and noticeable effect on newspaper editorial content.

    The number of newspapers available, both in Azerbaijani and Russian, remained large, although many suffered economic hardship, and some folded or reduced their frequency. However, new papers were also started. Many opposition newspapers continued to publish, including at least five major newspapers sympathetic to or officially published by the APF, the Musavat Party, and the Azerbaijan National Indepen dence Party, the main political opposition. Small sensationalist newspapers continued to publish investigative interviews and news items.

    The Government controls most radio and television, and the opposition has little access to the official electronic media. In June the Government closed an independent television station, B-M-TI, allegedly for violating government regulations but apparently because its owners spoke out against the Government’s foreign policy. In an incident in November, the director of an independent television-radio company, ANS, was beaten at the direction of the head of the state radio-television entity, and the Baku commandant briefly closed ANS’ FM radio and television stations. President Aliyev ordered the resumption of ANS broadcasting.

BELARUS

    The Constitution provides for freedom of speech, but it is not observed in practice. The executive branch of government continued to use laws on slander to suppress freedom of speech, particularly criticism of its policies and of government officials. The defamation law makes no distinction between private and public persons for the purposes of lawsuits on defamation of character. A public figure who has been criticized for poor performance in office may ask a public prosecutor to sue the newspaper that printed the criticism. The newspaper Femida was sued for printing the text of deputy Evgeniy Novikov’s speech in Parliament. Although Novikov was a deputy speaking from the Parliament’s podium, the procurator said that Novikov was expressing a personal opinion at the time and that the newspaper was liable for printing slander.

    Galina Naumchik was sued for printing an interview with Novikov in the newspaper Dobryj Vecher. Novikov was also sued for his remarks. Prime Minister Kebich’s security advisor, Gennadiy Danilov, success fully sued publications that had printed accounts critical of his activities and was awarded about $500 (5 million rubles).

    Despite the passage of a press law in 1994 prohibiting the existence of a press monopoly, the Government maintained a virtual economic monopoly over the press since it owns nearly all printing and broadcasting facilities and manages the distribution of all print media through official outlets. There are, however, some private newspapers printed in Belarusian and Russian.

    The Government’s direction of the issuance of radio frequencies and cable television licenses and the registration of radio stations, as well as its ownership of the country’s only broadcast television station, amount essentially to complete control over the media. All mass media must register with the Government, which can use the registration requirements as an instrument of censorship since it can revoke registration at any time. This absence of independence encourages editors to practice self-censorship.

    In March the Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied accreditation for Aleksandr Starinkevich, Belarusian correspondent for the Russian newspaper Izvestia. Izvestia, widely read by elite Belarusians, was carrying critical reports concerning a proposed monetary union with Russia. In May, 17 journalists protesting the Ministry’s decision signed an appeal which was published in the parliamentary newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta. The incoming Lukashenko Government later approved Starinkevich’s accreditation.

    President Lukashenko said he supports a free press as long as it is responsible and helps his presidency. During the first round of presidential elections, the government of Prime Minister Kebich tried to stop the printing and distribution of the opposition newspaper Svabada, which printed articles critical of the incumbent Prime Minister, and closed two radio stations which criticized him. The free trade union newspaper Svobodnyj Profsoyuz also had difficulty in getting its editions printed on a regular basis.

    On November 25, Belarus declared two Turkish diplomats persona non grata, accusing them of activities not in accordance with their diplomatic duties. In connection with this activity, two Belarusian journalists were detained at KDB headquarters and questioned, one for 4 hours, and the other for 5 hours. Although they were released without being charged, they were warned that providing “sensitive” information to foreign diplomats for a fee could carry criminal penalities.

    Belarusian newspapers were prevented from publishing the text of a sensationalist report delivered on December 20 in open session of Parliament by deputy Sergei Antonchik, who accused members of the Lukashenko Government of corruption. The text of the report was excised from the newpapers during typesetting, and the papers were published with blank columns where the Antonchik report was to have been printed. Subsequently, the Government canceled the printing contracts of eight major independent newspapers, causing them to cease publication for the remainder of the year. The Lukashenko Government asserted that since these newspapers received state subsidies, they were not part of the free press and were subject to state control. Igor Ossinsky, the editor of Sovietskaya Belorussia, which first attempted to print the report, was removed from his position by Presidential decree on December 23.

GEORGIA

    In practice, freedom of the press in 1994 was almost universal. The authorities did not attempt to reimpose censorship of the antigovernment press. Virtually all newspapers that had been closed in the past reopened, some under new names.

    Opposition leaders also obtained uncensored access to television and radio broadcast time, although they frequently complained that they did not receive enough air time. Adjarian parliament chairman Aslan Abashidze accused the Georgian Government of denying Adjar television 10 minutes a day to broadcast on Georgian television. However, the energy crisis, damage from a fire in October at the Tbilisi radio and television tower, and paper shortages limited all media.

    Journalists covering demonstrations were subject to police beatings through most of the year, as well as to harassment by political forces opposing their views. On average, police beat one or two journalists per month, including a local Reuters reporter on June 14 and another journalist during the October visit of the U.N. Secretary General.

KAZAKHSTAN

    The Constitution and the 1991 press law provide for freedom of the press. The Government continued to own and control printing and distribution facilities and to subsidize periodicals, including many supposedly “independent” ones. However, the opposition press, while dependent on government control of printing supplies, was not subject to intimidation or harassment. Although self-censorship continued, some print media increasingly criticized Supreme Soviet and presi dential decisions, the Government’s performance, and official corruption. The independent newspaper, Karavan, was particularly successful in expanding its circulation (to about 300,000) and sharply criticized many government policies and actions. Most political opposition groups issue their own publications.

    There are many radio and television companies, both governmental and private, but the Government controls broadcasting facilities. In April President Nazarbayev restructured state television and radio into a corporation, which encouraged independent stations to join it in exchange for national broadcast time. Fearing government control, leaders of independent television and radio immediately objected to joining the corporation. Their opposition, in which some members of Parliament and even the Ministry of Press and Mass Media joined, was strong enough to prevent the corporation from gaining control over the independents.

    During the parliamentary election campaign in the winter and early spring of 1994, the television station Telemax went off the air for several days when local authorities, upset by broadcasts critical of Almaty’s mayor and other city officials, shut off electricity to the station. The station owners moved to an undisclosed location and continued to broadcast criticism of the local authorities. Later in the spring, when the independent television station from which Telemax had purchased broadcast time expanded its programming and took back the broadcast time, Telemax went off the air, but its affiliate radio stations continue to broadcast news critical of local and national government.

    Laws insulting the President and Supreme Soviet deputies remain on the books, but according to government officials the provisions for punishment for “insulting” have been dropped. No one was prosecuted for “insulting” in 1994.

KYRGYZSTAN

    In 1994 the Government restricted press rights. In 1992 the Supreme Soviet passed a law which calls for freedom of the press and mass media but also provides guidelines proscribing publication of certain information. The law supports the right of journalists to obtain information, to publish without prior restraint, and to protect sources. However, it also contains provisions that the Government used to restrict press freedom. For example, the law prohibits publication of material that advocates war, violence, or intolerance toward ethnic or religious groups; desecration of national norms, ethics, and symbols like the national seal, anthem, or flag; publication of pornography; and propagation of “false information.” The law also states that the press should not violate the privacy or dignity of individuals. It requires all media to register with the Ministry of Justice and to await the Ministry’s approval before beginning to operate.

    While a few fully independent newspapers and magazines exist in the capital, the Government continues to control the press in various ways. For example, President Akayev in July sharply criticized the press for alleged irresponsibility and proposed legal action to shut down the parliamentary newspaper Svobodniye Gory. A Bishkek court in August ordered the closing of Svobodniye Gory, which had been outspokenly critical of the President. The newspaper’s August 19 edition was impounded at the government printing house. The procurator brought a suit against Svobodniye Gory for allegedly publishing “deliberately distorted information aimed at discrediting the President, circulating material which violates ethical norms, and deliberately insulting the leaders of foreign states and their symbols, thus significantly damaging the interests and integrity of the State and threatening its stability.”

    On August 19, the President issued a decree establishing a council on the activities of the mass media. According to the government newspaper Slovo Kyrgyzstan, “the council will help journalists in their work and prevent the use of the media from causing political instability and upsetting interethnic accord and civic peace.” On August 23, the Ministry of Justice ordered the state-owned printing house to stop printing the weekly newspaper Politika, which had been a frequent critic of the President and the Government. The Ministry of Justice claimed that Politika was not registered as a newspaper, although it was a supplement to the legally registered newspaper Delo, whose name appeared above Politika’s masthead. Other newspapers, including government ones, print weekly supplements without having them registered separately.

    The Government owns all radio and television facilities, with the exception of a television station in the capital, which runs mostly videos copied in violation of international copyright laws, and two radio stations that play music and report news. No prior restriction or censorship existed for the electronic media during the first half of 1994, but Kyrgyz television remained government controlled.

MOLDOVA

    Freedom of speech is not abridged, and the print media express a wide variety of political views and commentary. National and city governments own most newspapers, but political parties and professional organizations, including trade unions, also publish newspapers.

    Several independent radio stations began operation in 1994, including at least one religiously oriented station. The Government continues to control television (except for the increasingly popular cable television stations) as well as the major radio stations.

    While the Government does not engage in censorship, journalists complain that editors encourage them to soften criticisms of government officials in order to avoid confrontation and possible retribution. In 1994 the state-run Television and Radio Company dismissed a number of employees, citing the need to reduce staff in view of budget restrictions. Many employees, alleging that they were dismissed for their political beliefs, appealed to the courts and were reinstated. Some press organs are making use of the new possibilities for free expression. The city paper of Chisinau, for example, published several articles critical of police activities; while the Ministry of Internal Affairs responded with an angry and critical rebuttal, there have been no reprisals by year’s end against the newspaper.

    Parliament considered a new law on the press which journalists strongly criticized because it would have limited their right to criticize government policies. Although Parliament approved the draft on the first reading, it later adopted a redrafted version of the law taking into account recommendations from the Council of Europe and the CSCE, although the draft retains language forbidding “contesting or defaming the State or the people” (restrictions also contained in the new Constitution). This restriction appears to be aimed at journalists publishing material in favor of reunification with Romania and questioning the legal right of the Republic of Moldova to exist.

    The Government does not restrict foreign publications. Western publications do not circulate widely since they are very expensive by local standards. Romanian and Russian publications have also become rather more difficult to obtain due to expense. Moldova receives television and radio broadcasts from Romania and Russia.

    In the separatist Transdniester region, the authorities cut off financial support for two newspapers which had occasionally been critical of some policies and formed a new “official” newspaper. In the separatist “capital” Tiraspol, the independent cable television station Asket came under pressure from authorities, taking the form of attacks on the premises and cut cables, because it broadcast reports critical of the separatist authorities.

MONGOLIA

    The Constitution provides for the rights of freedom of speech and expression, and the Government generally respects them.

    A growing range of newspapers and other publications represent major political party viewpoints as well as independent views. Although in the past the Government controlled access to newsprint, all newspapers now buy newsprint directly from private suppliers, and neither party-affiliated nor independent media report difficulty securing an adequate supply. The Government now plays no role in the allocation of newsprint. Due to transportation difficulties, uneven postal service, and the fluctuations in the amount of newsprint available, however, in outlying regions access to publications is somewhat restricted.

    In April, after several months of charges and countercharges of corruption by both opposition and progovernment forces, the Mongolian Democratic Union (MDU) called for a hunger strike in Ulaanbaatar’s central square. Reminiscent of a similar MDU action that had helped spark the prodemocracy movement in 1990, the 2-week action drew the support of several opposition political parties and others concerned about basic social and economic issues. President Ochirbat helped mediate an end to the strike with a promise to introduce new legislation codifying the constitutional right of free expression. The strike and a counterstrike by government supporters, ended when the three parties represented in Parliament agreed to discuss new legislation dealing with press freedom and the rights of assembly. As the year ended, such legislation was still in the drafting stage.

    There is a single, government-financed television station with countrywide reception, as well as several radio stations. The latter are particularly important as the major sources of current news in the countryside. Government-financed television and radio stations report both opposition and government views. In response to a 1993 threat by opposition political forces to leave the Hural (Parliament), the Government briefly granted opposition parties limited access to both broadcast and print media. Revocation of this access was one of the factors leading to the 2-week-long hunger strike discussed above.

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

    During 1994 freedom of speech and press was generally respected. The print media, most of which are independent of the Russian Federation Government and many of which are privately owned, functioned largely unhindered and represented a wide range of opinions.

    The Russian Government has placed intermittent restrictions on Russian and foreign press covering the war in Chechnya, claiming the need to protect military secrets and to ensure journalists’ safety. Duma deputy and Human Rights Ombudsman Kovalev, who was in Grozny for most of the war, reported that the Russian Government has “continually hindered the activity of correspondents in the war zone... and force has been used to interfere with reporters (including) instances of mistreatment, death threats, and confiscation of material.” He also alluded to government pressure on the Moscow press, including threats to dismiss state television chief Oleg Poptsov for airing news broadcasts critical of the Chechnya operation.

    The press law requires that mass media publications be licensed by the State Committee for the Press. Its former chairman, Boris Mironov, who favored tight regulation of the media, was dismissed by the President in September for allegedly asserting he was a Fascist. His successor, Sergey Gryzunov, announced in December the closure of the newspaper Al-Kods (an anti-Zionist Palestinian publication generally critical of Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat) because of noncompliance with a provision of the press law barring non-Russian citizens from founding newspapers. Gryzunov also stated he would issue official warnings and begin legal proceedings against about 100 newspapers he considered to be Fascist or inciteful of ethnic and racial enmity.

    Regional political authorities resorted to various devices to close down critical newspapers. The Glasnost Defense Fund, which monitors press freedom throughout the former Soviet Union, recorded dozens of such incidents. Perhaps the best known case occurred in early 1994 when Governor Nazdratenko of Primorskiy Kray (Vladivostok) fired the mayor of Vladivostok and closed down two newspapers which had criticized the governor’s actions. A radio reporter was also fired and then beaten by unknown attackers in September after criticizing the administration.

    Regional political authorities also cited unpaid printing bills or other debts as a pretext for closing newspapers that were too critical. Many media organizations are liable to pressure by such authorities because they occupy city-owned premises or receive subsidies. In towns dominated by a single industrial enterprise, the leaders of that enterprise have sufficient power to suppress investigative reporting and discussion of embarrassing topics, such as environmental pollution or privatization schemes benefiting management.

    Organized crime is increasingly able to exert pressure on the media either because of the dire financial straits in which most newspapers find themselves or because of the corruptibilityof underpaid journalists willing to write articles favorable to particular companies, products, or individuals. In addition, opponents of the Government and journalists have alleged involvement by military officials in the murder of an investigative reporter. On October 13, one of Moskovskiy Komsomolets’ journalists, Dmitriy Kholodov, was notified by telephone by one of his contacts that a package of very important documents on illegal arms sales by the Russian army was waiting to be picked up at the Kazanskiy train station. He retrieved the package and, when he opened it in the newspaper building, it exploded, killing him. Known for investigative pieces on corruption in the military and intelligence agencies, he was scheduled to testify in the State Duma on alleged corruption in the Western Group of Forces, formerly stationed in East Germany. Since Kholodov’s death, some journalists covering corruption in the military claim to have received anonymous threatening telephone calls.

    In September a well-known television journalist and two executives of St. Petersburg’s Channel 5 television network were beaten and robbed in a 1-week period. The attacks are widely considered to have had political motives, although the attackers remain unknown.

    Broadcasters have a weaker legal basis for freedom in broadcast programming and are potentially subject to much greater government control due to the Government’s monopoly of transmission facilities and the expense involved in establishing and maintaining independent stations. However, stations such as NTV, a privately financed Moscow television station, TV6, and other smaller private stations are beginning to provide competition to state broadcasting in Moscow and other large urban centers.

    Television studios at the regional level, formerly part of the central broadcasting system during the Soviet era, now operate more or less independently. They function as affiliates, opting to use programs from state-owned sources and producing local news programming independently. Local authorities sometimes subject these affiliates to pressure. All broadcasters and cable networks, both public and private, use foreign broadcast material.

    In connection with the Russian military action in Chechnya in December, both Russian and foreign journalists reported efforts, including harassment and threats of force, by Russian officials and military personnel to prevent journalists from entering certain areas or to influence their reporting. Although formal censorship procedures were not established, nor was access to areas of conflict categorically forbidden, the Russian Government did not repudiate such efforts by individual elements within the military and the Interior Ministry to control or suppress media coverage of events in Chechnya.

TAJIKISTAN

    Despite Article 30 of the new Constitution and the 1991 law protecting freedom of speech and press, the Government severely restricts freedom of expression in practice. Journalists, broadcasters, and individual citizens who disagree with government policies cannot speak freely or critically. The Government exercises complete control over the media both overtly through legislation and less obviously through the dismissal of journalists and broadcasters for their political or ethical convictions and the closing of independent journals. The Government also controls the printing presses and the supply of newsprint and broadcasting facilities, and subsidizes virtually all publications and productions. Editors fearful of reprisals by armed elements loyal to the Government exercise careful self-censorship.

    Journalists remained prime targets for violence by both the Government and opposition. Progovernment forces are believed to be responsible for the death of Haydarsho Khushvakt, the strongly progovernment editor at the newspaper Jumhuriyat. Although strongly progovernment himself, Khushvakt had written, but not yet published, a series of articles on the political-criminal mafia in Dushanbe which upset other progovernment elements. Opposition forces were probably responsible for the murder in August of Davlatali Rakhmonov, director of programming at the State Television and Radio Committee and a strongly partisan Kulyabi. In November the editor in chief of the Uzbek-language weekly Haq Suz was murdered at the entrance to his apartment building, probably in connection with an internal Uzbek community dispute. In yet another instance, a grenade was thrown into the home of the editor in chief of the Uzbek-language Communist Party paper, wounding several members of his family. The Government informed the Committee for the Protection of Journalists in September that investigations had been opened into all of the deaths of journalists during 1992-94.

    The Ministry of Security detained two journalists, Makhsoud Huseinov of Sadoi Mardum and Muhammad Rahim Saidar, accusing them of distributing the pro-opposition newspaper Charoghi Ruz in August. It also questioned several other alleged distributors in connection with their activities relating to Charoghi Ruz, which the Government has never officially banned. Huseinov and Saidar, against whom formal charges were never brought, claimed that they were beaten while in custody in an effort to extract information from them.

    In September the regional executive committee in the northern city of Leninabad closed the independent newspaper Ittihod for allegedly printing several articles critical of the Government. The Government did not issue a formal ban but simply cut off all supplies of newsprint. Many journalists who displeased the Government were fired. Lack of pay forced those who could to find work elsewhere. The economic situation allowed the Government to hold the newspapers hostage. The Government used the press freely as a vehicle to propagandize on its own behalf and discredit its opponents. For example, a two-page article lambasting former Prime Minister Abdulmalik Abdullajanov for alleged corruption was printed at the behest of anti-Leninabad elements within the Government.

    In direct contradiction to the 1991 law, the Supreme Soviet passed a decree in February suspending the activity of all independent electronic media until it adopted a new law on the media. The ban was ostensibly due to the unregulated amounts of violence and pornography being shown on independent television, but the effect was to muzzle the independent media during a time of political change in the country. All but 2 of the 10 to 15 independent television stations, most of which are sponsored either by large enterprises or local executive committees, adhered to the ban and remained off the air for most of 1994. This precluded virtually any independent television coverage of the inter-Tajik negotiations, the military situation, or the election campaign.

TURKMENISTAN

    The Constitution provides for the right to hold personal convictions and to express them freely. In practice, however, freedom of speech is severely restricted, and there is no freedom of the press. The Government completely controls radio and television. Its budget funds all print media. The Government censors all newspapers; the Committee for the Protection of State Secrets must approve all prepublication galleys. In September the President publicly called for the punishment of those who spread “rumors.”

    The Government prohibits the media from reporting the views of opposition political leaders and critics, and it rarely allows the mildest form of criticism in print. The Government press has condemned the foreign media, including Radio Liberty, for broadcasting or publishing opposing views, and the Government has subjected those involved in critical foreign press items to threats and harassment.

    The Government restricts academic freedom. It does not tolerate criticism of government policy or the President in academic circles, and it discourages research into areas it considers politically sensitive. In the past the government-controlled Union of Writers has expelled members who criticized government policy; libraries have removed their works. Critics of the Government in all fields were frequently reminded that continued criticism could have many repercussions, including the loss of employment and opportunities for advancement for themselves and their families. In at least one case, the authorities dismissed a child from school because of public statements made by the father. In another case, a woman was removed from her job because of her exiled father’s political activities.

    On rare occasions the authorities resorted to stronger methods to silence their critics. During the January 15 national referendum on extending the presidential term of office, they arrested Valentin Nikolaevich Kopusov immediately after he tore up his ballot in the presence of election officials. Kopusov, who has a history of erratic behavior, was placed in a psychiatric hospital pending determination of his mental health. After several months Kopusov was declared mentally ill and transferred to another hospital.

    On the night of June 26, six assailants, believed to be connected to the security apparatus, broke into the home of political activist and underground journalist Durdymurad Khojamukhamed. They abducted him, severely beat him, and left him in a ditch at the side of a road see Section 1.b.).

    On November 24, Russian authorities in Moscow, reportedly at the request of the Government of Turkmenistan, took into custody Murad Essenov and Khalmurad Suyunov, two journalists associated with the Moscow-based Turkmen opposition. Although no charges were known to have been filed against the two, the Government reportedly sought their extradition in connection with the same alleged assassination plot for which two others were arrested in Ashgabat. Russian authorities released Essenov and Suyunov on December 21. In October six or seven men had accosted Essenov on a Moscow street and beaten him. Opposition leaders claimed the assailants were linked to Turkmen security organs.

UKRAINE

    A 1991 law protects freedom of speech and the print media. Criticism of the Government is tolerated. Because most of the media are state owned and supported, there is a general tendency to self-censorship. Former President Kravchuk declared that newsprint was a strategic commodity and that there would be no privatization of the sources of paper. Government control of subsidies, most printing presses, newsprint, and a galaxy of “official” media continued to inhibit the growth of a fully free, competitive, and open press. More recently, President Kuchma signed a law exempting government-owned media from paying high value-added taxes, thereby making the private press comparatively more expensive.

    A 1994 law (predating President Kuchma’s election) regulates the electronic media. Holos Ukrainy, the official newspaper of the Ukrainian Parliament, accused the state television of promoting the reelection of President Kravchuk (see Section 3) and of restricting discussion of controversial domestic topics, such as disputes among the rival Orthodox churches claiming jurisdiction over the country. Several private television channels rebroadcast uncensored foreign news programs and create their own programming. Foreign broadcasts (mostly Russian) are received without interference.

    After his election, President Kuchma disbanded the Council on Broadcast Media, a regulatory agency, on the grounds that his predecessor had improperly appointed the Council [see related article in this issue of Newsletter]. In addition, after a private television station, Hravis, broadcast campaign information about Kuchma and the other candidates in the presidential race, the Council had shut it down for being improperly licensed. Upon his election, Kuchma reinstated Hravis’ license and appointed its executive director to the post of deputy director of the State Broadcasting Company. The President’s adviser on press freedoms stated that Kuchma will reestablish the Council as a nonpartisan body solely involved in the technical aspects of broadcast regulation.

    During former President Kravchuk’s tenure, the Government created a committee with broadly defined powers over all media (i.e., print, broadcasting, and publishing) to protect “state secrets.” These were broadly defined to include economic and numerous other categories of information with the apparent purpose of suppressing embarrassing information about the Government’s performance. The law establishing the committee provided not only for censorship of the media but also penalties for anyone who published such information. President Kuchma dissolved the committee before it was able to exercise its powers.

    The most serious threat to a free and open discussion of issues came from criminal elements and organized crime. Some journalists and editors reported they feared reprisals from criminal elements if they exposed how organized crime came to control much of the economy, both private and state owned. However, as the year passed, the print media became more daring and courageous in discussing this subject.

UZBEKISTAN

    Freedom of speech remained severely limited. The fear of expressing views critical of the President and the Government persisted as the Government continued its general crackdown on all forms of opposition. A February 15, 1991, law (before independence) against “offending the honor and dignity of the President” limits the ability to criticize the President.

    Although the Constitution prohibits censorship, it is widely practiced, and the Government tolerates little, if any, criticism of its actions. Newspapers may not be printed without the censor’s approval. Journalists and writers who want to ensure that their work is published report that they practice self-censorship.

    The Uzbekistan Information Agency cooperates closely with the presidential staff to prepare and distribute all officially sanctioned news and information. Press reports from Moscow and Uzbekistan media sources allege that the presidential staff has advised newspaper editors in chief to limit strictly their contact with American and some European diplomats. Nearly all of Uzbekistan’s newspapers are government owned and controlled; the key papers are organs of government ministries. State enterprises control the printing presses.

    The last opposition newspaper to be published was the paper of the Erk Party. In January 1993, the newspaper was banned and has not been published in Uzbekistan since then. Attempts to smuggle in copies of the newspaper from outside the country resulted in several arrests and confiscation of the newspapers. On March 3, following a nationwide search of the homes of Erk activists, eight members of the Erk presidium were arrested on charges of distributing antigovernment literature when copies of banned Erk newspapers were found in their homes. Ismail Adylov and a companion were arrested for possession of Erk newspapers on August 4 in Tashkent. Birlik leader Vasilya Inoyatova was charged in the same incident for accepting the newspapers.

    The Government forbade the distribution of foreign newspapers critical of Uzbekistan. The publication of the local editions of Izvestia and Pravda and the sale of the Moscow editions remained suspended throughout 1994. All newspapers, magazines, and weeklies have to be registered, a procedure which includes providing information about the sources of funding, means of distribution, founders, and sponsors. A resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers banned private persons and journalists’ collectives were banned from founding newspapers or magazines. Foreign correspondents based in Tashkent reported that the security services harassed and threatened their translators and other employees after the correspondents posed questions at government press conferences and published articles abroad which displeased the Government. In October the Government refused to renew the accreditation of Steven Le Vine, a free-lance journalist for several U.S. publications and one of the few foreign journalists in Uzbekistan, reportedly because of articles he wrote critical of the President and of the Government’s human rights record.

    Television broadcasting is state controlled. Although there are local stations in various regions, nationwide programming is carried on two state-run channels that fully support the Government and its policies. Through an agreement with Russia, two Moscow channels were broadcast as well. The Russian channels were Ostankino and Russian Television (Rossiskaya Televideniya). In 1994 the Government canceled the latter channel, and shortened the broadcast hours of the Ostankino channel full-time to only evening broadcasts. Its news broadcasts are blacked out when they are critical of the Uzbek Government. Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, and the British Broadcasting Corporation are among the few sources of uncontrolled news, although there have been unconfirmed reports that the Government occasionally interferes with Radio Liberty broadcasts.

    There are no private publishing houses, and government approval is required for all publications. In an attempt to circumvent the requirements of state-controlled publishing, Erk party supporters attempted to smuggle in a pamphlet of its leader’s speeches as well as its newspaper.

    Political repression enveloped academia as well. In March Tashkent State University expelled three students from the journalism department after they questioned the Government’s press treatment of Erk leader Mohammed Solikh. In addition, it closed the department of journalism and folded a few of its functions into the Uzbek philology department. However, in November the journalism department was reinstituted. Also, the three students expelled in the spring reentered the University in the fall semester without incident. In Samarkand the Government unsuccessfully attempted to have local Erk leader Suleiman Muratov fired from his teaching job after a police search discovered copies of the banned Erk newspaper at his house. The Government has not allowed independent academic institutions to register.