Breaking the silence: A new report on the legal measures that will give journalists back their voices

15 Sep 20

[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” full_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1600177152938{padding-top: 55px !important;padding-bottom: 155px !important;background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/breaking-silence-head-scaled.jpg?id=114844) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}” el_class=”text_white” el_id=”Introduction”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Breaking the silence” font_container=”tag:h1|font_size:48|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1600177165944{background-color: #000000 !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_raw_html]JTNDZGl2JTIwc3R5bGUlM0QlMjJhbGlnbiUzQWNlbnRlciUzQm1hcmdpbiUzQWF1dG8lM0JiYWNrZ3JvdW5kLWNvbG9yJTNBcmdiYSUyODAlMkMwJTJDMCUyQzAuNSUyOSUzQiUyMiUzRSUzQ3AlMjBzdHlsZSUzRCUyMnRleHQtYWxpZ24lM0FjZW50ZXIlM0J3aWR0aCUzQTYwJTI1JTNCbWFyZ2luJTNBYXV0byUzQiUyMiUzRUElMjBuZXclMjByZXBvcnQlMjBvbiUyMHRoZSUyMGxlZ2FsJTIwbWVhc3VyZXMlMjB0aGF0JTIwd2lsbCUyMGdpdmUlMjBqb3VybmFsaXN0cyUyMGJhY2slMjB0aGVpciUyMHZvaWNlcyUzQyUyRnAlM0UlM0MlMkZkaXYlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

Introduction

On 8 July 2020, Index on Censorship brought together a group of distinguished legal experts and practitioners from across Europe for a virtual roundtable to discuss the vexatious use of the law and the threat it poses to media freedom in Europe. The discussion took place on the back of the publication of the report, “A gathering storm: the laws being used to silence the media”, which was published by Index on Censorship in June.

The purpose of the roundtable was to discuss the trends raised by the report with a view to identifying implementable measures that could prevent Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public participation). The group also heard from a United States-based lawyer, Thomas R. Burke, who outlined the anti-Slapp legislation that was enacted in California in 1992.

The roundtable took place under the Chatham House Rule, but the salient points from the discussion form the basis for this report. The report also includes separate inputs from three lawyers: Swedish lawyer Ulf Isaksson, Italian lawyer Andrea di Pietro, and Norwegian lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas.

Please note you can download this report as a PDF or view it as a flipbook.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”114841″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Executive_summary”][vc_column_text]

Executive summary

A Slapp is a type of legal action not taken to succeed but to induce fear, silence and inaction.

They tend to have minimal legal merit, being used in an effort to exhaust their victims of time, money, and energy, so as to discourage them from expressing critical opinions on matters of public interest. They endanger not only independent journalism but academia, activism, and other forms of civic engagement.

The roundtable participants discussed the main issues around vexatious legal threats and actions, including Slapps, around Europe. These included:

  • Excessive length of judicial procedures and statutes of limitation for defamation cases
  • Abuse of privacy and data protection laws to target the media
  • Tendency to file lawsuits in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions
  • Growing distrust and increased hostility toward the media

The roundtable’s participants also discussed a number of measures that could be introduced in order to provide  journalists with greater protections when faced with a Slapp, that could stop Slapps from being so time-consuming and expensive, and that could ultimately prevent Slapps from being filed altogether:

  • Better application of European Court of Human Rights case law
  • Training for judges and journalists
  • Introduction of anti-Slapp legislation
  • Rethinking the role of the jury
  • Increasing the use of press councils and ombudsmen
  • Building networks and encouraging solidarity

The participants discussed the main trends and issues with regard to vexatious lawsuits against journalists in Europe. They identified four key areas of concern:[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”114864″ img_size=”full” el_id=”The_problem_with_Slapps”][vc_column_text el_id=”Executive_summary”]

The problem with Slapps

The participants discussed the main trends and issues with regard to vexatious lawsuits against journalists in Europe. They identified four key areas of concern:[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Defamation_law”]

Defamation law

The excessive length of the judicial process in both civil and criminal defamation cases is having a chilling effect in several countries. “Even though we know that they [journalists] will win, it still takes several years,” said one participant with regard to criminal lawsuits in Hungary.

In Sweden, rather than length judicial process itself, it is the statute of limitations for libel offences – which enables legal action to be brought up to a year after publication – that is a threat to the media. “It is not, in my personal view, in conformity with European standards,” said lawyer Ulf Isaksson. “

Because the threshold of harm is so low for civil cases and much higher for criminal cases (enabling most journalists to be acquitted), one lawyer said that from a practical point of view, he thought his clients were sometimes better off facing a criminal rather than a civil lawsuit. The higher level of protection provided for public figures and public authority representatives in countries like Hungary is also having a chilling effect, some participants said.

Although Malta, Ireland, Romania, and the United Kingdom have abolished criminal defamation from their statutes, they are also among the countries where the media is facing the most serious threat from civil defamation. Should the abolition of criminal defamation continue to be a goal? Everyone agreed it should, but amendments should be made to better protect the media from vexatious actions.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Privacy_and_GDPR”]

Privacy and GDPR

Several participants noted that privacy and data protection actions were increasingly being used to target the media. “In terms of substantive legal proceedings they are always an add-on,” described one participant with regard to Northern Ireland.

Despite the journalistic exemption, take-down requests under article 17 of GDPR (“the right to be forgotten”) are being used by some individuals in an effort to have their history erased from archive material. One participant said that due to the fact that media organisations do not want to spend time and money on assessing the merits of a request, they sometimes comply automatically. The case of Hells Energy against Forbes Hungary earlier this year was cited as an example of the abuse of GDPR.

Although GDPR states that the concept of journalism should be broadly interpreted (recital 153) and despite the CJEU’s preliminary ruling in February 2019 stating that citizen journalists were not excluded from the journalistic exemption (article 85.2), the issue of whether the GDPR exemption applies to citizen journalists has been an issue in several countries.

For example, a statement published by police in the Polish city of Olsztyn earlier this year referred to GDPR stating that “publishing videos from police interventions may give rise to liability for violation of the provisions on the protection of personal data”. The statement was made after an arrest by Olsztyn police was recorded and shared on social media. The Commissioner for Human Rights subsequently released a statement, confirming that they had contacted Olsztyn police requesting that the their statement be amended given that, according to the commissioner, “it may mislead citizens as to their rights and limit the actual exercise of them as part of exercising social control of the activities of public authority functionaries through public opinion”. The commissioner’s statement also referred to GDPR’s journalistic exemption.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Libel_tourism”]

Libel tourism

The roundtable raised the issue of libel tourism, both in terms of journalists being victims of libel tourism and of countries being (and becoming) libel tourism hotspots. One participant noted that threats of legal actions from other jurisdictions are especially effective because of journalists’ and lawyers’ lack of familiarity with foreign legal systems.

Malta was cited as an example of a country whose journalists have become targets of libel tourism. According to one expert, on the day that Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed in October 2017, Maltese news organisations were subject to legal threats from law firms in the UK and USA. “The economic analysis of those outlets led them to believe that they were better to remove the materials than defending them. They stood by the veracity of what they had published, but removed them anyway.”

This trend continues. Between 1 May and 26 June 2020, two law firms – the US-based Lambert Worldwide and the UK-based Atkins Thomson – sent legal letters to Times of Malta, Malta Today, Malta Independent, Lovin Malta and The Shift News in relation to their reporting.

Some countries, such as the UK, are well-known libel hotspots. Some expressed concern that other countries, particularly Ireland, may become hubs for libel tourism in the future. This was a possibility, particularly given that the damages awarded by Irish courts tend to be the highest in Europe (see our earlier report). The number of tech companies that are based in Dublin was also seen as a potential incentive for taking legal action in Ireland. “And if an award for damages is granted in one EU country, it is automatically enforceable elsewhere in the EU,” warned the lawyer.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Hostile_media_environment”]

Hostile media environment

Some participants perceived the current environment facing the media across Europe as an aggravating factor, both in terms of the amount of Slapp cases that are being brought against the media, and in terms of the prospect of action being taken to counter them. According to Italian lawyer Andrea di Pietro, “journalists in Italy are seen as a nuisance – as people who poke their noses into events. They are not seen as a resource for democracy”.

The fact that the daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza has faced more than 55 legal threats since 2015 was mentioned as an example of this trend. “The media is seen as an enemy of the people,” one participant said.

With regard to the prospect of introducing legislation aimed at protecting the media, another participant said, “Politicians are very reluctant at the moment to give additional protections to online media and social media. There’s rather a tendency to restrict and repress”.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”114832″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Measures_that_could_prevent_Slapps”][vc_column_text]

Measures that could prevent Slapps

The participants discussed a number of measures that could be introduced in order to protect journalists and prevent Slapps from being brought. They identified six key areas:[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Full_application_of_ECtHR_law”]

Full application of ECtHR law

There was agreement that the criteria, standards and principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the basis of article 10 of the European Convention should be better integrated at national level. “If the case law of the ECtHR was better applied in the member states, we would have less problems with Slapp and vexatious litigation against journalists,” one participant said.

Norway’s experience was given by way of example. “In the 1980s and 1990s, defamation cases were a problem – a big problem for the Norwegian press because we had not incorporated properly the jurisprudence of the European Court,” one lawyer explained. The Human Rights Act came into force in 1999 and it empowered the courts to enforce the European Convention directly as Norwegian law. This enables all the same defences provided for by ECtHR jurisprudence to be used in Norwegian courts. “It doesn’t mean the media don’t lose cases,” the lawyer said, “but it’s a much more realistic attitude toward press freedom”.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Training_for_judges_and_journalists”]

Training for judges and journalists

Several participants emphasised the need for training to be made available for judges, given that (in most cases) judges are not specialised. This, according to participants, results in judges being educated about the nuances of media and freedom of expression while in the courtroom. “That’s a difficult thing to do,” explained one participant, “you’re starting on the back foot”. Another participant agreed, saying that although most media cases in Poland refer to the ECtHR’s jurisprudence, “they are often quite superficial”.

One lawyer explained that a training course that had been organised for judges in Hungary enabled editors-in-chief and judges to informally discuss Article 10 cases. “That helped a lot,” the participant said. “This is not the solution, but education is important.”

Journalists should be better educated, believed the participants, particularly with regard to two areas of the law. Firstly, regarding what journalists need to do pre-publication in order to protect themselves from potential legal threats or actions. “A big issue is the education of the journalists because they don’t necessarily understand the importance of conveying to the court that they actually undertook that decision-making prior to processing the data,” explained one participant.

Secondly, journalists need to be educated as to their rights and obligations under GDPR, so as to avoid automatic take-downs purely out of caution. “It’s crucial that they understand their defences and their obligations,” said one participant. “It has become more complex.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Introduction_of_anti-Slapp_legislation”]

Introduction of anti-Slapp legislation

The group heard from Thomas R. Burke, a United States media lawyer and author of Anti-SLAPP Litigation. He outlined the main features of the California anti-Slapp statute, which was enacted in 1992. Under the statute, defendants may file a special motion to dismiss complaints through a very early and fast summary judgement-like procedure. Once the motion is filed there is an automatic freeze on discovery (the most expensive stage of litigation in the US), amendments to the complaint are not permitted, and the plaintiff cannot dismiss the complaint without facing mandatory lawyer fees. The court should hear the motion within 30 days. If the motion is granted, the action is dismissed and the defendant recovers their fees and costs. If the motion is denied, the defendant may appeal.

Burke described the anti-Slapp statute as a “a remarkable development”. However the California anti-Slapp statute includes exemptions, which he warned against including in future such measures in Europe. “They are nightmarish in their application,” he said. “If it’s a worthwhile case, they will survive the anti-Slapp.”

Unlike in the US, where anti-Slapp laws have been introduced in thirty states, there is no clear hierarchy between privacy and freedom of expression in Europe. The question was raised as to whether any jurisdictions have deployed their margin of appreciation in constitutional terms in favour of privacy. Would that constitute an impediment to having an EU-wide preference for freedom of expression, which would be within the margin of appreciation, should there not be national constitutional impediments? The margin of appreciation potentially causes a problem for having a European standard.

Given that plaintiffs who are natural persons have a right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention, it would be more difficult for the courts to throw out alleging that their rights have been violated. Courts would be concerned that could be found to have violated Article 8. It is still open as to whether corporations or state authorities are protected under Article 8.

Council of Europe was mentioned as a potential avenue for developing an aspirational model anti-Slapp law, which could provide for more robust measures to be put in place.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Rethinking_the_role_of_the_jury”]

Rethinking the role of the jury

The issue of jury trials was raised as a significant obstacle to quickly “weeding out” Slapp cases. “If you bring an application to strike out a case for being vexatious, the judge hearing the application will invariably say ‘well I think I’ll let the jury make that decision’ so everything goes around in a circle,” explained one participant regarding the situation in Ireland. The necessity to have a jury adjudicate on every media case not only increases the time and cost, but makes outcomes more difficult to predict. Participants agreed that putting a defence – such as responsible journalism or public interest – before a jury was very difficult. In England and Wales, the abolition of jury trials for cases of civil defamation has led to a quicker, less complicated process.

Although press offences that are punishable under criminal law are the exclusive competence of a jury court (the Assises Court) in Belgium (except for incitement to racism and xenophobia), the fact that journalists and editors enjoy de facto criminal impunity for press offences means that media law cases are never subject to a jury.

But according to lawyer Ulf Isaksson, juries are “extremely important for the freedom of press situation in Sweden.” “The Swedish jury is entrusted with only one task,” he explained, “and that is to decide whether this specific dissemination was legal or not legal.” However, judges are not bound by the juries’ decision. “So they can still acquit the defendant.” Juries are part of judicial proceedings in mass media cases only. They jury may deliberate outside the presence of the judges, but may consult the presiding judge with specific questions on the law.

Norway has done away with juries altogether in favour of lay judges, which are used in criminal cases. Lay judges, which are common in civil law jurisdictions, are distinct from juries in that they have equal status to the presiding judge, and as such, have an inquisitorial role. They have been credited with being an efficient and less expensive way of expanding public participation. Norway has decriminalised defamation, but violation of privacy is still formally criminalised, although the authorities rarely investigate or prosecute alleged violations when the media is involved.

The roundtable raised the question of whether there are constitutional protections on a right to jury trial in civil defamation cases.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Press_councils_and_ombudsmen”]

Press councils and ombudsmen

“We do think that a press council is a good idea,” said one participant, referring to its usefulness in identifying and weeding out meritless complaints. However, its positive impact is reduced when filing a complaint with the press council doesn’t prevent legal action. “We’ve had cases, where the claimant has brought something to the press ombudsman, has received a favourable decision, and has subsequently sued,” said one participant with regard to Ireland.

In a case involving the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, Norway’s Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that a condemnation from the press council does not automatically presume a violation of the law, as the journalistic ethics upheld by the council are intended as an ideal. Asked about the case, lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas (who represented Aftenposten in the case) said that when considering whether to impose legal sanctions, the courts have to take a much broader approach than press councils. “Deviations from the ‘ideal’ cannot automatically lead to legal liability,” he said. “Such deviations have to be weighed against all the other factors which, according to the ECtHR’s jurisprudence, are part of the balancing test between ECHR article 10 and article 8, including the degree of public interest involved.”

While most participants agreed that the press councils were a force for good with regard to preventing Slapp actions, some warned that there was a need to ensure they were completely independent. “There is a danger in some jurisdictions that press councils could be captured by political actors,” one expert said. For example, in its 2019 election manifesto Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) proposed to introduce a “self-government” watchdog body aimed at “regulating the journalistic profession”. They have not (yet) taken action on this.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text el_id=”Building_networks_and_encouraging_solidarity”]

Building networks and encouraging solidarity

One of the reasons why Norway was said to have been quite successful in protecting its journalists from undue legal threats was due to the well-organised nature of their editors’ and press associations. In contrast, journalists in Italy – who are frequently threatened with legal actions – were said to be isolated and disconnected from their colleagues. According to Andrea di Pietro, “journalists are really economically isolated, also from a trade union perspective, therefore weakening a journalists with a lawsuit is very possible thanks to a legal system that doesn’t punish [the vexatious litigators]”. Freelance journalists are particularly vulnerable to vexatious legal threats and actions: they are more risk-averse given their limited time, resources, and support.

The participants discussed the need to build solidarity within the media community, as well as with legal practitioners, experts, and civil society. The roundtable suggested two ways that this could be done:

  • Building a catalogue of Slapp cases

One participant said how useful it would be to have a list of all the Slapp cases in Europe. “There is a strategy happening all over Europe, if we had the cases that could help us to push for the anti-Slapp law.” Attention was drawn to the Council of Europe Platform, which is one of the ways currently being used to help catalogue Slapp cases. Would a database exclusively for Slapp cases be useful and feasible?

  • Amicus curiae

The need to grant access to civil society organisations to amici curiae (an independent advisor who is not party to a case) was one means by which the media could be supported when faced with these legal actions. “Collective intervention makes people feel less vulnerable,” said one participant. Associations in Norway were said to have been successful in intervening in strategic cases. “That has done a lot of good,” the participant said.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Acknowledgments

Photo credits: Darrin Zammit Lupi/Reuters (main image), Tumisu (sshh!), Shaun_F (highlighted text), Mahesh Patel (newspapers)[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”113711″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://postkodstiftelsen.se/en/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]This report has been supported by the Swedish Postcode Foundation. The foundation is a beneficiary to the Swedish Postcode Lottery and provides support to projects that foster positive social impact or search for long-term solutions to global challenges. Since 2007, the foundation has distributed over 1.5 billion SEK in support of more than 600 projects in Sweden and internationally.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Surveillance a growing problem for journalists worldwide say panellists

04 Aug 20 | News and features

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”114463″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]“Journalists are very, very afraid. They are being seen as enemies of the state because of this surveillance, because of their political activism, opposition politicians are afraid, everybody is afraid of the government,” said Issa Sikiti da Silva, a journalist from the Democratic Republic of Congo who has travelled to and reported from many countries across Africa. Sikiti da Silva was speaking at the digital launch party of the Index on Censorship summer magazine, held on Friday 31st July. 

The summer issue looks at the ways in which our privacy is being increasingly infringed upon in the coronavirus era. From health code apps in China dictating when people can leave their homes to poor digital literacy levels in Italy (and beyond) leaving people vulnerable to exploitation, the magazine takes a broad view. 

Sikiti da Silva was joined by Turkish writer and journalist Kaya Genç and Spanish journalist Silvia Nortes. The panel was chaired by Rachael Jolley, editor-in-chief of Index on Censorship magazine. 

“The state is tapping our phones, the state is following us into Starbucks branches…they’re all around you. But with online surveillance it’s impossible for me to know whether someone from the Turkish embassy in Britain is watching this event or someone from the intelligence agency in Turkey is watching this event. So it puts us on the spot, this new age of digital surveillance, and that’s what my piece was about for the new issue of Index,” said Genç as part of the discussion.

When asked if recent increased surveillance, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, was a cause for concern in terms of media freedom all panellists said it was. 

Genç explained how digital surveillance is a more insidious form of government espionage, which is causing a fresh set of worries: “In a country like Turkey the state is a very palpable thing, you see it on the street…and its presence makes it a bit vulnerable because we are the one that is scrutinising that visible entity. But now it seems with apps like Life Fits Home [a Covid-19 tracing app], the state became invisible and its surveillance powers have increased.”

Nortes discussed how, in Spain, reactions to Covid-19 tracing apps and state surveillance have fallen along generational lines: “Younger people are more open to using this kind of app because, of course, they are aware that we live in a hyper connected society.”

She suggested that historical precedents may have imbued older generations with a different perspective on security around their personal information: “They feel more reluctant to give in their data and I believe this is connected somehow with [General] Franco’s dictatorship.”

She continued: “The surveillance of these years really has something to do with the concept of private life that older generations have in Spain.”

Sikiti da Silva painted a picture of Africa as a continent in which dictators continue to rule. 

“Journalists are being watched over [by the state] and by the time they have enough evidence then they will move on you or arrest you or kill you whatever they want to do with you.”

When Jolley asked if anyone was fighting back against this kind of oppression, Sikiti da Silva was blunt in his reply. He said that without money or power, there is no fighting back. “What people do mostly is to run away. In Africa we only have one solution. You run away…that’s all you can do. You just leave the country before it is too late.”

This has informed Sikiti da Silva’s travels around Africa: “Where there is media freedom I stay. Where there is no media freedom I do two or three stories, then I run away.”

Nortes said that the national security force in Spain is working on detecting ‘fake news’ which could “generate hostility toward the government’s decisions”.

“This is targeted surveillance, they’re just looking for news that could affect in a bad way the government’s management of the pandemic.” This is a trend that Index has been reporting on as part of a global project to map media freedom during the coronavirus crisis. 

“We need to be sure that once the pandemic is over we will have the same rights that we had before,” added Nortes. 

Click here to read more about the current magazine [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Malta: Renewed call for justice 1,000 days after the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia

09 Jul 20 | News and features, Statements

12 July marks 1,000 days since the assassination of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. On this anniversary, we, the undersigned organisations, once again demand that all those involved in her murder and the corruption she exposed are brought to justice.  

In recent weeks, yet more disturbing revelations of state corruption and impunity related to the case continue to emerge, underscoring the weaknesses in Malta’s rule of law, and entrenched impunity for both the murder of Caruana Galizia and the high-level abuses of power she investigated.

During a June 2020 hearing to compile evidence against murder suspect, Yorgen Fenech, the Magistrate ordered the police to investigate former Police Commissioner, Lawrence Cutajar for tipping off middleman, Melvin Theuma. Providing evidence in court, Theuma said Cutajar had informed him that he was under investigation both for the murder of Caruana Galizia and money laundering.

Former Deputy Commissioner and lead investigator, Silvio Valletta is also under investigation for his dealings with Yorgen Fenech, after he fell under suspicion.

At the public inquiry on 1 July, it emerged that the police had failed to take any action against Keith Schembri, in his previous capacity as Chief of Staff for former Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, and former Energy Minister, Konrad Mizzi after Carauna Galizia revealed they owned offshore Panama companies in 2016. Responding to the testimony of Assistant Commissioner, Ian Abdilla, who has recently been replaced as head of the Economic Crimes Unit, the board of inquiry expressed disbelief that the police had done “absolutely nothing” with regards to the Panama Papers. 

On 7 July, sources confirmed that Attorney General, Peter Grech, as the chief prosecutor, sent a note to police in 2016 advising them against investigating the Panama Papers, stressing that such an investigation would be “highly intrusive.” Such direct and unambiguous instructions from the Attorney General to restrict the police investigation into the content of Caruana Galizia’s work violated the responsibility of his post and was a clear obstruction to the course of justice rendering his position as Attorney General untenable. 

Investigations in Italy, France, Latvia and Montenegro have also revealed links to corruption related to Caruana Galizia’s investigations in Malta. 

Had the corruption which Caruana Galizia exposed – including the Panama Papers – been fully investigated and prosecuted at the time, it could have reduced the risk and isolation that she faced as a journalist, including an orchestrated campaign of harassment and vilification by high-level political and business figures in Malta.

The appointment of a new head of Economic Crimes Unit, Alexandra Mamo, and the nomination of a new Police Commissioner, Angelo Gafà, present an opportunity for the Maltese authorities to commit to tackling long-standing failures to investigate and prosecute allegations of high-level corruption and to reform institutions. In addition, the 18 June Venice Commission opinion on the Maltese government’s rule of law reform proposals is a welcome sign that the Maltese Government recognises the need for fundamental reform. 

Prime Minister, Robert Abela has stated that he expects police to investigate “all corners” of the assassination. Today, we reiterate our call that the Maltese authorities honour the legacy of Daphne Caruana Galizia and ensure that all of those implicated in her murder – from the hitmen to the masterminds – are brought to justice and the corruption she revealed is finally  prosecuted. The authorities should now establish Joint Investigation Teams with foreign police forces  tackling related issues, so that there can finally be an end to impunity in Malta, and full justice for Daphne.

ARTICLE 19

Association of European Journalists (AEJ)

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Free Press Unlimited

Index on Censorship

International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)

International Press Institute (IPI)

Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

PEN International

Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Scottish PEN

Transparency International

 

Does using Covid-19 apps have free speech implications?

25 Jun 20 | Magazine, Volume 49.02 Summer 2020

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”What do citizens in South Korea, Italy and Spain think about the long-term consequences of signing up to Covid-19 apps? Our reporters Silvia Nortes, Steven Borowiec and Laura Silvia Battaglia report for Index on Censorship magazine.” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_single_image image=”114058″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]

We feature here extracts from the full magazine article.

SOUTH KOREA

Kim Ki-kyung, a 28-year-old who lives in Seoul, is used to the idea of his mobile phone tracking his movements, so he wasn’t bothered when he learned that his government would have access to his location data as part of efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak.

He is far from the only one being tracked in this way. Several times a day, the millions of smartphones in South Korea bleat in unison with alerts from governments that users cannot opt out of receiving. When COVID-19 cases are diagnosed, the age and gender of the patients is disclosed to the public, along with the routes the patients took in the days before their diagnosis, so that others can avoid those places.

While the system raises issues of privacy, Kim thinks the potential benefits outweigh the concerns. “Everyone is at least somewhat reluctant to share personal data with the government, but the tracking app allows the authorities to monitor people who are in self-quarantine, and will allow epidemiological surveys to be done faster,”Kim said.

“The government system sounds terrible at first but it really isn’t all that different from regular smart services, like Google Maps or Nike Run Club,”Kim said.

Kim says he follows, through the news, how the government plans to handle the data gleaned from the program, but isn’t much worried about the data being used for some nefarious purpose somewhere down the road. He feels the more urgent task is containing the public health crisis. 

SPAIN

In Spain, our interviews found respondents were more concerned about the use of personal information collected by monitoring apps, than in the other countries. The main conclusion drawn from the interviews is that people do not trust this system completely and fear data might be misused by the government and private companies, perhaps because some people have memories of what it was like living under the General Franco dictatorship.

Juan Giménez, 28, agreed with using these apps “only for controlling the spread of the virus”. Cristina Morales, 26, considers it “a violation of privacy, but, at the same time, it is appropriate to guarantee the citizens’safety and prevent confinement violations”.

Ana Corral, 22,said it is “OK as long as we know which information is used exactly, how it will be used and where the data is saved. If the goal is to know if you might have infected or been infected, that is fine”.

Some also mention social good as a priority. “There are always individual sacrifices for the common good”, said Manuel Noguera, 40. For Eduardo Manjavacas, 40, “the end justifies the means.” “Everything made for a global good and with a clear privacy policy is welcome. We live in a digital age, our data is studied daily for commercial purposes”, said Amelia Rustina, 30, while Sabina Urraca, 36, added she is “ready for that sacrifice. I would like to trust individual responsibility, but I don’t.”

On the other hand, older people are more reluctant, and many claim they would not register in these apps at all.

ITALY

They trust the government but with some doubts; they believe that giving up part of their privacy is a negotiable asset to protect public health; they want more reassurances on the functioning of the tracking app, wishing to know who will keep the sensitive data after the end of the pandemic.

These are the attitudes of Italian citizens of all ages relating to the use of a Covid-19 tracking app.

Index spoke to 50 Italian citizens – aged between 20 and 60, of different parts of the country, different professions and different backgrounds – about their thoughts on the Immuni tracking app announced by the Italian government as part of its approach to Covid-19.The Immuni app was preceded by a similar experiment in the Italian region most affected by the pandemic: Lombardy, where some of them live.

Federica Magistro, 22, university student, and Anna Pesco, 60, a teacher, living in Milan have downloaded the app in Lombardy, and are currently using it. They also plan to use the national app. Both hope that the remaining 60% of Italians also think the same way, so it maximises its use to of the entire population. Federica said: “I think I should trust those who are developing it and the government that offers it”, while Tesco said: “I would like maximum transparency and I would like to have absolute guarantee on the cancellation of my data at the end of the pandemic.”

You can read the whole of this article in our Summer 2020 issue, available by print subscription here and by digital subscription here.  

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]