IKD: KPM decisions are seriously undermining media freedom in Kosovo

Under its decision-making, the KPM is gaining competencies that do not belong to regulators, but to judges. Through these decisions, the KPM is imposing sanctions on media for third-person statements, recorded in television debates, citing automatic responsibilities to the media for every word of guests. Such an approach is illegal and unacceptable in a democratic society”, the IKD response said.

The organisation stresses that the KPM is media regulator, not a court that considers responsibility for slander or insult to third parties.

The KPM's “task is to assess whether the medium has respected professional standards: whether the moderator has intervened when necessary, has been given the opportunity to answer, has it become the difference between fact and opinion, has balance been maintained, and has acted carefully editorially. But, the KPM has no authority to prove for itself that a declaration is slander, untruthful or damaging to someone's reputation. These are issues that can be initiated by civil lawsuits by parties that could potentially consider being violated by any right and that through the” judicial ways, the response follows.

According to the IKD, that's the problem. They say that instead of analyzing the media's editorial behavior, the KPM is looking into the content of guest statements and condemning the media as if they were authors of statements.

This turns editorial responsibility into objective, standard responsibility against media freedom and the fundamental principles of Article 10 of the European Convention for Human Rights. The European Court for Human Rights (GJEDNJ) has clearly ruled that punishing the journalist for spreading statements made by another person in the interview seriously hinders the role of the media in public debate and can only be reasoned when there is exceptionally strong reason (Jersild against Denmark, APU35). Similarly, the ECHR has stressed that it cannot be asked by journalists to systematically and formally distance themselves from any quote that might provoke, offend or damage someone's reputation (Thoma vs. Luxembourg, 64). In the same spirit, the GEDJ has found that the objective responsibility for the third parties' content, without balance between freedom of expression and reputation, violates Article 10 of the Convention (Magyar Jet vs. Hungary, 83)”.

Moreover, The IKD says that in such cases a clear distinction should be made between facts and evaluations.

“The GEDNJ has stressed that the facts can be proved, while the truth of the assessment judgments is not sustainable in the same way (Lingens vs Austria, 46). The KPM cannot avoid this test and behave as if any serious political statement is automatically a media violation. In this direction The IKD invites the chairman and members of the KPM to return to their legitimacy and mission to exercise their competencies and responsibilities solely on the basis of the law and within the authorisations and competencies the Constitution provides and the law applicable to Kosovo”, the response says.

The IKD resounds that insulting language, personal attacks and serious claims in public space should not be normalised. The media, says the IKD, have professional responsibility for the way they handle these statements.

“But this responsibility cannot be returned to automatic punishment. If anyone claims to be disgusting, the legal way is the court. If the KKP estimates that the medium has not respected editorial standards, then it must concretely prove editorial failure and mass proportion and not automatically sanction media”, it is said in response.

The IKD has called on the KPM to play its constitutional and legal role as regulator, not the court.

“The KKPM must turn legitimacy into its decision-making, including illegal decisions due to exceeded deadlines and procedures related to the recommendations of the Executive Office led by the task officer outside legal standards. The KKP should give up hostile access to the media and act solely on the basis of law, facts, regular procedure and European standards for media freedom”.

The IKD has said KPM must urgently complete the procedure for selecting the chief executive chief, in accordance with the law and through a merit process. Continued exercise of this position through taskeers violates the legitimacy, functionality and credibility of KPM decision making, according to them.

The IKD has also called for responsibility and accountability from the Kosovo Assembly, which has not yet functional the Anques Board over KPM decisions.

“The malfunction of this mechanism undermines media's right to effective legal means and leaves KPM decision-making without necessary institutional control within the administrative procedure. The IKD calls on the future legislature for the appointment of persons to independent institutions to be guided only by the criteria of personal integrity, professionalism and independence. Independent institutions dare not be filled with people who make illegal decisions, violate media freedom, and turn the regulator into an instrument of pressure on public debate”, the response ends. / Periscope/