   
|
|
UKRAINE
The Constitution and a 1991 law provide for freedom of
speech and of the press; however, in practice the
Government partially limits freedom of the press through
tax inspections, libel cases, subsidization, and
intimidation of journalists that leads many to practice
self-censorship. The Government has a virtual
monopoly on broadcast media; however, there is a wide
variety of newspapers and periodicals available,
espousing different political points of view, and
individuals can and frequently do criticize the
Government without reprisal.
The print
media, both independent and government-owned, demonstrate
a tendency toward self-censorship on matters sensitive to
the Government. Private newspapers have been
established and are free to function on a purely
commercial basis. However, they are subject to
various pressures such as control of access to affordable
state-subsidized newsprint; dependence on political
patrons who may facilitate financial support from the
State Press Support Fund; close scrutiny from government
officials, especially at the local level; and politically
motivated visits by tax inspectors. In 1997 the
President issued a decree on support of the press that
requires the Cabinet to draw up a list of publications
needing government support, including those whose
founders include central and local governments, public
organizations, associations, unions, educational
institutions, and newspaper employees. The
journalistic community believed that this decree was
intended to control the press by supporting loyal
members. The dependence of the subsidized press and
much of the private press on government patronage has
particularly inhibited criticism at the local
level. The Ministry has warned some periodicals
against fomenting ethnic tensions and conducting
antistate propaganda and has applied to the
Prosecutor’s Office to open investigations into
those newspapers. However, no newspapers are known
to have been prosecuted as a result.
The Committee
on Protection of State Secrets enjoys broadly defined
powers over all media. According to current law,
information on executions, prison and pretrial detention
conditions, and centers for the forcible treatment of
alcoholics, are considered state secrets.
Journalists report that, in general, the Committee has
not interfered with their activities. One
journalist, Oleg Lyashko, editor of the opposition
newspaper Polityka, was charged in June with violating
secrecy statutes for a series of articles describing
covert SBU activities against the West. His case
was dropped shortly afterwards; however, in December
Polityka was forced to cease publication following an
October 6 district court ruling that banned the newspaper
for having published these articles that allegedly
contained state secrets—-the same state secrets from
the previously dismissed charge. The newspaper had
never been informed that a court case was pending against
it and was not given an opportunity to present a defense.
An arrest
warrant for Lyashko also was issued by the Kiev Pechersk
District Court for allegedly not appearing in court in
connection with a summons for a separate libel case,
although Lyashko claimed that he never received a court
summons. Also in December, the local state printing
company in Dnipropetrovsk refused to print the local
opposition newspaper Dnepropetrovskaya Pravda, citing
technical upgrades. Several observers argued that
this action was a political decision, because these
technical upgrades did not affect printing of the other
newspapers that the company prints, and because
Dnepropetrovskaya Pravda is currently the subject of a
criminal libel suit.
The
Government, both central and local, regularly targeted
opposition newspapers with unannounced tax inspections or
fire and building code inspections. Three
opposition newspapers were forced to cease operations
because their accounts were frozen at various points
during the year by the Tax Inspectorate: Pravda
Ukrayiny; Polityka; and Vseukrayinskiye Viedomosti.
These newspapers appealed the decisions of the Tax
Inspectorate. Pravda Ukrayiny won its appeal in
June, but at year’s end the decision was in abeyance
pending a decision on the Tax Inspectorate’s
counterappeal. Although its accounts were frozen in
June, Polityka still is being published, having reopened
following a court appeal. Vseukrayinskiye
Viedomosti went out of business in March due to a court
decision that continued the freeze on its accounts and
allowed confiscation of income, even while its appeal of
the libel suit that had prompted the Tax
Inspectorate’s actions still was pending. A
fourth opposition paper, Kievskie Viedomosti, had its
accounts frozen in October but continued operation
through the support of financial backers. In April
the radio news station Kievskiye Viedomosti (the carrier
of Voice of America and British Broadcasting Corporation
programming) was closed temporarily for alleged fire code
restrictions but resumed operations shortly
thereafter. In March Mykhaylo Brodsky, part owner
of the popular opposition newspaper Kievskiye Viedomosti,
was arrested on tax evasion charges. He was
released in April following his election to
Parliament. In October an arbitration court evicted
the editorial staff of Kievskiye Viedomosti from its
offices due to alleged lease contract violations, and its
accounts were frozen. The paper appealed the
decision to a higher court, but was forced to reduce
publication as a result of the eviction. At
year’s end, Kievskiye Viedomosti still had no
permanent offices, its accounts remained frozen, and it
was unable to pay its staff or distributors.
Central and
local governments also frequently use criminal libel
cases or civil suits based on alleged damage to a
“person’s honor and integrity” to punish
critics. Article 7 of the Civil Code allows anyone,
including public officials, to sue for damages if
circulated information, including a publication, is
untrue or if it insults a person’s honor or
dignity. Article 125 of the Criminal Code
prescribes imprisonment of up to 5 years for libel.
There is no distinction between private individuals and
public officials (except for the President) nor is there
a limit to the amount of damages that can be awarded to
the plaintiff. Consequently, any journalist who
publishes an article critical of a public official risks
being sued for damages. Additionally, the
Prosecutor General can file criminal libel charges.
At least 11 newspapers, 2 regional television stations,
and numerous individual journalists were fined heavily
during the year for libel or injury to personal honor and
dignity. Journalists complain that because the law
does not limit damages, it is biased against them and can
be used to drive opposition newspapers out of business.
On occasion
fines were so large that accounts were frozen and
equipment confiscated by the Tax Inspectorate to enforce
payment. In July the director of a Donetsk
television company was barred from any journalistic
activity for 5 years for alleged libel; however, in
August the regional court overturned the local
court’s decision and ordered a new judicial review,
but by year’s end the results of the review were not
available. In April the Kherson regional prosecutor
specifically warned editors of all local newspapers
against libeling the President. In May the
Prosecutor General ordered Kiev district prosecutors to
investigate the operations of several opposition
newspapers. Journalistic professionalism often is
lacking; nevertheless, it is clear that the majority of
libel and personal dignity suits are motivated
politically.
Journalists
sometimes were subjected to physical attack related to
their professional activities, and the journalistic
community contended that reporters received threats of
arrest and sometimes were assaulted physically for
investigation of crime and official corruption. The
intermeshing of organized crime and many public officials
makes it difficult to assess to what extent these attacks
and threats were motivated politically. In August a
Kievskiye Viedomosti reporter was arrested on charges of
evasion of conscription, which carries a 3-year prison
term, following a series of articles mildly critical of
the Government.
Despite
government pressure and media self-censorship, the
variety of newspapers and periodicals on the market, each
espousing the view of its respective sponsor, provides a
variety of opinion. Government attempts to control
the press are reported by the media. Foreign
newspapers and periodicals are circulated freely.
The broadcast
media, the primary source of news and information for
most Ukrainians, are primarily state-owned, and the
Government took steps to strengthen its control over this
sector. In June the Government transferred control
of state-owned broadcasting and transmission facilities
from the State Committee on Television and Radio (the
state body responsible for managing the broadcast media)
to the Ministry of Information. A September
presidential edict subordinated the State Committee
directly to the Cabinet of Ministers, thus eliminating
the partial parliamentary control over the institution
that previously existed. One private television
station complained that it was required to submit its
news broadcasts to the State Committee for approval, but
following public outcry, the requirement ended. The
President and the Parliament each appoint half of the
members of the National Council for Television and Radio
Broadcasting, which issues licenses and allocates
broadcasting time. The law entitles private and
foreign companies to establish and operate their own
transmission facilities, provided that they obtain a
license from the National Council.
There is no
known government censorship of books, film, or theater.
While major
universities are state owned, they operate for the most
part under full autonomy. However, academic freedom
is an underdeveloped and poorly understood concept.
Nepotism and bribery are reportedly common during
entrance exams and also influence the granting of
degrees. Administrators of universities and
academic and research institute directors possess the
power to silence colleagues by denying them the ability
to publish, withholding pay and housing benefits, or
directly terminating them. This atmosphere tends to
limit the spirit of free inquiry. Restrictions by
the Communications Ministry on the mailing of scientific
documents also have caused concern.
The State
Secrets Committee maintains censorship offices in state
scientific and research institutes, including those not
conducting any classified research. An April
presidential edict allows only government-designated
contractors to provide Internet access at state
institutions that have such censorship offices.
All private
and religiously affiliated universities operate without
any reported state interference or harassment.
|
