Project Exile: Reporter escaped Russia after beating, burns

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”107775″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Fatima Tlisova didn’t make it easy for the Russian government to get rid of her. 

As a reporter covering Russia’s fight against Chechen separatists in what was known as the Second Chechen war in the early 2000s, she was kidnapped, beaten and had her fingertips burned with cigarettes by Russian security forces. A colleague at the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta who also wrote critically of the Chechen war, Anna Politkovskaya, was murdered in 2006. When she later worked as a correspondent for the Associated Press, pro-government media labeled her a traitor and a CIA agent.

Tlisova was threatened again and again, and still she stayed, reporting from both Chechnya as well as the other small Caucasus republics where separatists fought against Russian rule. Finally in 2007, just months after Politkovskaya’s murder and with threats mounting against not just her but also her family, she decided to flee.

Tlisova went first to Turkey. Then, after being granted political asylum in the U.S., was resettled in Erie, Penn. and worked at a plastics factory for $6.25 per hour. With the help of the Committee to Protect Journalists, she won a Nieman Foundation fellowship to study at Harvard University and was able to relaunch her career in journalism. In 2015, she was invited to the White House to meet then-president Barack Obama in honor of World Press Freedom Day. 

Born and raised in a small town in the republic of Karachay-Cherkessia, east of the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Tlisova now lives in Washington, D.C. and works for the Russian-language service of the Voice of America. Her two children, now in their mid-twenties, live in the U.S. as well. Tlisova, 52, who also uses the last name Tlis, spoke with Global Journalist’s Connor O’Halloran about the extensive efforts by President Vladimir Putin’s government to silence her, and her rocky transition to life in the U.S. Below, an edited version of their interview: 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”107773″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]

Global Journalist: Tell us about the first time you got into trouble with Russian authorities.

Fatima Tlisova: The first issue happened in 2001 when I started reporting on the war in Chechnya and the so-called ‘special operation’ the Russian military was conducting all around the Caucasus. Some of my reports, most of them actually, did not please the authorities.

I reported about the behavior of the Russian commanders…and I witnessed their behavior towards Chechen girls and the local people. And I wrote an article about that. So I was punished, and by punishment, I mean that it was physical. Two large men, unknown to me, ambushed me next to my house and they physically attacked me…I suffered more than one broken rib… 

At the end, they said, “Nothing personal. You know what you are punished for.”

After that there were many different situations when I was arrested, kidnapped. This escalated [when I went to work for] AP because at the time, foreign reporters had to obtain multiple licenses and permissions to get to the Caucasus – and I was reporting directly from the Caucasus. Most of the time, the reports I provided were absolutely exclusive because no other factual, reliable, eyewitness journalism was coming from the Caucasus – especially to the Western audience in English. 

So suddenly the government media started publishing and broadcasting reports calling me a CIA agent, calling me a traitor to Russia because I was working for the AP…what they saw as American media.

GJ: How many times were you detained?

Tlisova: Almost weekly. Anytime I was assigned to go some place and to send reports. In Russia, especially in the Caucuses at the time, there were military installations called ‘block posts’: military or police or combined, at every entrance road to every single city or town. Imagine you have to drive to several villages or even cross borders between republics.

That means that at every single block post, you are going to be stopped, you’re going to be pulled in. Your body’s going to be searched, your possessions searched. Every single time they were waiting for some command from above before they would release me. Sometimes it lasted for an hour, sometimes for a day. 

GJ: Tell us about your kidnapping in 2005.

Tlisova: The kidnapping happened when I was trying to help two German colleagues from Moscow to write about a local insurgency in Nalchik, Kabardindino-Balkariya [200 km west of Grozny, Chechnya].

I had a meeting with them scheduled that day and I decided to stop by my bank to withdraw some cash. At the exit of the bank, there was a car. At that time, I’d been under 24/7 surveillance for months – and I could even identify cars that belong to different [security] departments. All of them were following me in different vehicles. 

This time, it was an FSB [Russian internal security service] vehicle. They usually have tinted windows, absolutely dark. They cut me off and the door opened. A voice said, “If you want to see your children again, get in.” 

My kids, I knew they were at school. I had no ability to check on them so I just went into the car. They took me outside the city. There was this forest that was not very populated…not many people walking around. 

They kept me there for the entire day. They were very angry. One of them said: “You don’t know, but two very good guys were fired today from the FSB. Do you know how much they had to pay in bribes to get those positions? Now they lost everything. Who’s going to feed their families?”

And that continued with insults, with beatings, with [them] burning cigarettes on my skin for an entire day. 

Apparently, they’d been waiting for some kind of command about what to do with me next. Later on, I learned that somebody inside the FSB alerted a friend who was a very influential businessman. His name was Stanislav…he interfered and a source [later] told me that he had to pay the FSB for my release. 

The next morning I was all covered in bruises and burns.

GJ: So it was after that you finally took the decision to leave?

Tlisova: It wasn’t exactly that moment. But almost a year later. These arrests continued. 

When your friends read some nasty stuff about you in the local newspapers or government newspapers, the first time they call you, they laugh. But when they read it three or four times, you notice that when you see a longtime friend on the street, they just can’t look you in the eye. He or she just crosses the street and pretends they can’t see  you. 

And then sometime later they’ll call you from a public phone and tell you: “Please don’t think bad about me. If I just exchange two words with you, I’m going to be called in by the FSB and questioned.”

That explanation was actually good enough for me to stop contacting even close friends. 

I understood that the entire [government media] campaign was not only to punish me and not only to scare me from doing my duties as a journalist, but also to discredit and isolate me. It was a combination of different methods to silence a journalist. 

GJ: So when did you finally decide to leave?

Tlisova: I never wanted to leave. I love my work, I was very successful as a journalist. I felt that journalism was my calling and my mission. But at a certain point, I realized that this wasn’t about me anymore. It was about my family. 

In 2006, a group of 15 masked men raided my parents’ house who lived 200 miles away from me [in Karachay-Cherkessia]. They searched the house, turned it upside down. My father kept asking: “What’s going on? What are you looking for?”

When they finished, they told him, “Thank your daughter.”

I was prohibited from ever entering government buildings, but suddenly in 2006 I received this phone call inviting me to meet with the head of the presidential administration of Kabardino-Balkraira [a small Russian republic in the North Caucasus]. I knew the man before he joined the government and I knew he was a good man, so I decided I should go. 

That man actually started shouting at me as soon as I opened the door. He said: “What do you think of yourself? Disgracing our republic before the entire world? What kind of articles are you writing? What kind of reports?”

At the same time, he was frantically writing something on a piece of paper. And then he showed it to me. 

It said: “Please leave. They’re going to kill you.” 

He saw that I read the comment and he kept shouting. And then he started tearing that piece of paper apart into very microscopic pieces. He didn’t even dare to trash it. He very carefully collected the pieces from his table and put them in his pocket. 

This wasn’t the only warning. There were a lot of warnings, but some of them I totally dismissed.

There were two instances that I thought were genuine, sincere and clear. One of them was the minister.

The other guy was my former classmate, who became head of one of the FSB departments. Once, like they always do, a car cut me off on the sidewalk. It stopped and he jumped out and said, “Don’t worry, it’s me.” 

We greeted each other, and then he said, “I know you’re going to think they sent me to scare you, to frighten you. Trust me, I’m coming at my own risk. I know if this gets out I can lose my job.”

He said, “But just so you know, we have lists. You are on those lists. Those lists never expire.” 

I didn’t ask any questions, and then he looked at me and he added, “Your friend Anna Politkovskaya, she was on the list. So we are clear what kind of list I’m talking about.”

The thought came to my mind, I mean, it’s horrible if they kill me when I’m alone. But what if they do something when I’m with my kids? That is something I cannot allow or forgive myself for. That’s when I decided to leave. 

GJ: How did you finally get out?

Tlisova: I had to first go to Turkey. All I could bring with me was 25 kilograms of personal possessions. My entire life, everything had to be left behind. Of course, they took my computer. I lost my entire archive. 

GJ: What happened when you got to the U.S.?

Tlisova: I see there’s a lot of talk about refugees…about how much money they take from U.S. taxpayers. Trust me, when you have to abandon everything and come here and start from zero, you cannot rent a house or a car. You can’t apply for a credit card. You have nothing! 

So you just start from zero. I worked at a factory for $6.25 an hour. The plastic factory was producing plastic bottles for water and drinks. All of the refugees who came to that institution [in Erie, Penn.] worked at that factory. 

GJ: How did you get back to journalism? 

Tlisova: I wrote a proposal for a Harvard fellowship. It was in Russian because my knowledge of English was zero at the time. It was 2007. So I wrote the proposal in Russian. The Committee to Protect Journalists, they found somebody in New York who translated that proposal overnight…15 pages into English. Then someone in Boston took that proposal physically, in person, to Harvard. 

I started screaming when I opened the letter from Harvard University. It said: “It is my pleasure to inform you that you have been accepted for a fellowship at Harvard University.”

My kids got scared, they ran to me. I said, “Harvard! We’re going to Boston!” 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Russia: Ivan Golunov’s case shows the power of publicly and resolutely denouncing despotism

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]This article is part of an ongoing series exploring the issues raised by Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]

On 6 June 2019 investigative journalist Ivan Golunov was arrested for drug possession and trafficking. His colleagues at Meduza — a news source which reports on corruption within Russia but is based in Latvia to maintain independence–had never so much as seen him consume alcohol. Golunov is an accomplished journalist: he has covered topics ranging from the loan shark business, the earnings of the family of Moscow’s deputy mayor, and the unusually high cost of public works in the Russian capital. At the time of his arrest, Golunov had been working on a new story. He had received several threats in conjunction with the article and was finally arrested by Russian police at Tsvetnoy Bulvar metro station in Moscow on his way to meet a source. Police searched his backpack, claiming to find a small bag of mephedrone, a synthetic stimulant, which Golunov vehemently denied carrying.

Over the next few hours, Golunov was taken back to the police station and interrogated. Though he requested forensic examinations of his hands and backpack to prove his innocence, police refused to conduct them. Eventual reports said that police had discovered more drugs and scales in subsequent investigations of Golunov’s apartment, meaning a maximum sentence for Golunov of twenty years in prison. Golunov was denied his right to contact legal council, and was physically assaulted during his interrogation. The day after his arrest, journalists began protesting Golunov’s arrest in Moscow, and on 8 June, the Nikulino district court in Moscow ordered Golunov under house arrest until his trial in August.

“Using trumped-up drug charges to silence critics is nothing new for Russian authorities, but Golunov’s case is an encouraging example of what can happen when civic-minded individuals and organisations come together to publicly and resolutely denounce despotism,” Jessica Ní Mhainín, policy research and advocacy officer at Index on Censorship, said.

“The easiest way to put anyone in prison in Russia is to plant drugs in his bag,” said Ivan Kolpakov, editor in chief of Meduza. “It means that he immediately goes to prison. It means that his reputation is immediately destroyed. It means it’s going to be a dirty case.” This is hardly the first time such tactics have been used to silence investigative journalism. In the summer of 2014, a Chechnyan activist and journalist, Ruslan Kutaev, was sentenced to four years in prison on drug charges. Throughout his trial and incarceration, he maintained that he had been framed by Chechnyan authorities. In 2016, journalist Zhalaudi Guriev was arrested and sentenced to three years for drug possession after criticizing the Chechnyan government. He, too, maintained his innocence. Both Kutaev and Guriev served their full time and have since been released from prison.

Oyub Titiev, a prominent Russian human rights activist, was tried and convicted of drug charges in 2018. In a surprising turn of events, his sentence was lightened at trial, though Chechnyan authorities declined to drop the charges against him. Titiev had served in a penal colony for nearly a year and a half when he received parole on 10 June — just three days after the first protests for Golunov’s release.

Golunov was released on 12 July. The three largest Russian newspapers–Kommersant, Vedomosti and RBK–which are often in lockstep with Russian authorities, published headlines in support of Golunov, and there had been international media attention and protests for Golunov’s release both within Russia and internationally. Finally, a spokesperson for the Kremlin admitted that Golunov’s arrest was a mistake, and all charges against him were dropped.

While a few high-profile anecdotes may induce optimism, the state of journalistic freedom in Russia is still less than ideal. From February through April of this year, there were eighteen instances of arrests, interrogation, or detention of journalists; eighteen instances of criminal charges, fines or sentences; and twelve subpoenas, court orders or lawsuits. Twenty-three acts of harassment against journalists were committed by a government official, state agency, or political party; nineteen by courts or other judicial bodies; and twenty-eight by police or state security. Even at a protest staged shortly after Golunov’s release, police claimed that only 200 arrests had taken place, while an independent reporter put the number at over 400. Among those arrested were several journalists, including a key organizer of the protest, and opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

Gennady Rudkevich, a professor of international relations at Georgia College, cautioned against reading Golunov’s exoneration as a de facto victory for freedom of the press. “Russia is less centralized than many realize,” he wrote. “Most decisions aren’t ex ante approved by Putin, though he usually accepts them ex post facto to maintain illusion of full control… the original arrest wasn’t ordered by Putin, but Putin was willing to accept it. The public and international outrage at the arrest meant that Putin was going to take the ‘side of the people’ against ‘corrupt officials.’” While Ivan Golunov is now free to continue his journalistic career, many Russian journalists will remain incarcerated. At present, more journalists are imprisoned in Russia than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1561033844330-0caf4696-b1c4-2″ taxonomies=”35195″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Turkey, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Russia among Europe’s most flagrant offenders of media freedom in 2018

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]This article is part of an ongoing series exploring the issues raised by Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]In 2018, 17 alerts were submitted to the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists relating to impunity for murders of journalists. Of these, 15 occurred in the countries covered by Index on Censorship’s ongoing Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project: Turkey (2), Azerbaijan (2), Ukraine (5), and Russia (6).

The Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project documents, analyses, and publicises threats, limitations and violations related to media freedom and safety of journalists in Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine, (as well as Belarus, which is not in the Council of Europe), in order to identify possible opportunities for advancing media freedom in these countries.

As part of the project, Index on Censorship submits and co-sponsors alerts on violations, including physical attacks on journalists and threats to media freedom, to the Council of Europe’s platform. When a member state is mentioned in an alert, the state is asked to log any remedial action they have taken in the platform. The platform’s objective is to put pressure on Council of Europe states to act in accordance with international human rights law and media standards.  

Turkey, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Russia look likely to be among Europe’s most flagrant offenders of media freedom again in 2019: despite accounting for just 8.5% of the Council of Europe member states, they account for 36% of the alerts filed on the platform so far this year.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”98654″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Turkey remains the world’s largest imprisoner of journalists. Arrested journalists continue to be detained on charges of membership of or creating propaganda for a terrorist organisation. Three of the fourteen staff of the newspaper Özgürlükçü Demokrasi who were arrested in 2018 and charged with “membership in a terrorist organisation and terrorist propaganda” remain in detention in Istanbul. The next hearing in their trial is scheduled for 28 June 2019.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”107324″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Despite President Aliyev’s pardoning of more than 400 people earlier this year, journalists among them, severe obstacles remain to press freedom in Azerbaijan. Travel bans remain one of the most common instruments with which to silence critical voices in the country, despite being in violation of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own”), which Azerbaijan ratified in 1992.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”98655″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Last month investigative reporter Vadym Komarov was beaten into a coma in the Ukrainian city of Cherkasy. He was found with severe head injuries and was taken to hospital where he underwent brain surgery. He frequently wrote about corruption, administrative incompetence, prison conditions, and illegal construction. According to the most recent reports, police have not yet identified the attacker, but are treating the incident as premeditated attempted murder.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”98652″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Along with Ukraine, Russia is among the Council of Europe states where journalists endure the highest rate of physical violence. Earlier this month, unknown assailants attacked the well-known blogger Vadim Kharchenko after he went to meet a potential source. Kharchenko is known for reporting on and investigating alleged police abuse of power. As noted in its recently published report, Index on Censorship recorded 116 violations of press freedom in Russia between 1 February 2019 and 30 April 2019.  [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom methodology

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project tracks press freedom violations in five countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Learn more.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]How does Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom work?

The project relies on a network of independent journalists who monitor local news sources, speak to individuals involved in the situations and interface with journalist unions to understand the facts of the situation and help put the press freedom violation in a larger context.

Correspondents, who are each responsible for a particular country, submit narrative summaries of the facts of the situation to a research editor, who works with the correspondent to verify the information. The narrative reports are then published in summary form in periodic roundups of developments. Once monthly, a themed article is published highlighting a particular aspect of press freedom drawing on the submitted narratives. Periodically reports summarising the issues for a particular country are published to highlight the situation for journalists on the ground.

Who is a journalist?

Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom defines a journalist a person who gathers, assesses, verifies, organises, and presents news and information, via print, digital or broadcast media; who holds government, business, and other institutions and authorities accountable; who provides citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments; and who puts the public good above all else, without regard for the political viewpoint of the outlet.

What is a press freedom violation?

Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom defines a “press freedom violation” against a set of categories to help understand the incident and place it in a larger analytical framework.

For example, a journalist barred from reporting in a country’s parliament; a reporter injured by police or demonstrators at the site of a protest, despite presenting press credentials and identifying safety gear. An independent journalist refused entry to a press conference because of material they had previously published. Press freedom violations can take many different forms and the above examples are just a small sampling.

How does Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom evaluate press freedom violations?

Each narrative report that is sent to Monitoring Media Freedom is run against a set of categories to place it in a larger context and allow for analysis.

  • Limitation to Media Freedom
    1. Death/Killing – Media worker killed as a result of their work
    2. Physical Assault/Injury – Media worker subjected to violence as a result of their work  
    3. Arrest/Detention/Interrogation – Media worker arrested, detained or called in for questioning as a result of their work
    4. Criminal Charges/Fines/Sentences – Media worker charged in connection with their work
    5. Intimidation – Media worker (and/or their family/friends) menaced as a result of their work
    6. Blocked Access – Media worker prevented from covering a story or speaking to a source; media worker prevented from entering a place/institution/country
    7. Attack to Property – Media worker’s computers, cameras or other tools damaged while on assignment; media worker’s home or vehicle sabotaged as result of their work; media office sabotaged
    8. Subpoena / Court Order/ Lawsuits – Media worker sued as a result of their work; Media worker ordered to court; This would also include SLAPP suits where a journalist is targeted with legal action. Libel, defamation suits:
    9. Legal Measures – Legislation or court rulings that directly curtail media freedom
    10. Online Defamation/Discredit/Harassment/Verbal Abuse – Media worker harassed, bullied, threatened, ridiculed online (via email/social media/website comments/on forums)
    11. Offline Defamation/Discredit/Harassment/Verbal Abuse  – Media worker harassed, bullied, threatened, ridiculed verbally, in a public or private setting
    12. DDoS/Hacking/Doxing – News site or journalist targeted with or without violation of privacy
    13. Censorship — Journalist’s material altered, removed or spiked
      1. Previously published work substantially edited or removed from public access
      2. Journalist’s work altered beyond normal editing or withheld from publishing
      3. Commercial interference: Threats by companies to pull adverts over coverage; Pressure from media owners; Bribing journalists, editors or media outlets to publish fake news or favorable coverage about a company
      4. Soft censorship: indirect government pressure on media groups through advertising decisions and restrictive legislation;
      5. Self-censorship: Journalist says they have not reported on a subject because of pressure or fear
      6. Loss of Employment: Journalist fired, suspended, or forced to quit their job because of their reporting
    14. Other Serious Issues — other cases that don’t fit into existing categories
  • Source of Violation
    1. Employer/Publisher/Colleague(s)
    2. Police/State security
    3. Private security
    4. Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
    5. Court/Judicial
    6. Corporation/Company
    7. Known private individual(s)
    8. Criminal organisation
    9. Another media
    10. Unknown — any other type. If the abusing party is known but there’s also an unknown mastermind, we use two categories – the one that applies to the known party, and Unknown.

[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1562066317956-93988c67-cdc0-4″ taxonomies=”35195″][/vc_column][/vc_row]