Speech of the High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani at the conference: “Security and protection of journalists: sharing standards and addressing common challenges”
Hello everyone and thank you for the invitation!
It is both a pleasure and a privilege to take part in this roundtable on the safety and protection of journalists as well as addressing joint challenges for free, professional media, which is a fundamental topic for the moral, political and constitutional health of a society.
This is my first meeting with media representatives on this topic and I hope it will not be the last because discussing and exchanging views, even when they are different, is the right way to find common communication bridges which do nothing but help the work of each of us, ours as institutions of justice and the media itself.
It is already an axiom that media freedom is one of the crucial features of a democratic society. The freedom to speak up on government, public officials and social issues lay the foundation for the political and social development of a country. However, an independent judiciary and justice system is equally important for a democratic society. Both these values, these powers find protection and guarantees in the Constitution. But, neither is superior to the other – two powers with clear and separate profiles, but with essential similarities to each other. The power of both depends on the public and people trust.
Perhaps due to this predisposition of public trust, court decisions are often said not to be commented on but enforced. Ok, they must be enforced. However, they can be commented on as well. If the public is not happy with a court decision or decisions of the justice system, everyone should be free to say it publicly. Especially the media, a power conceived and designed to give voice to what the public thinks. And no matter how difficult this may seem or be when dealing with the work of justice institutions, these institutions are obliged to make decisions and be prepared to be criticized for them, through media reports or analyses. And this is a vital element of democracy; the justice system must be able to withstand any criticism if the public or the media has the perception that there are unfair procedures.
Of course, there are cases when criticism can be unfair or in certain cases, it has no bearing in the truth. There are also doubts that there is a lack of knowledge about the work of justice institutions or that it focuses more on sensationalism than the core of a problem. But, that’s not the point I think. Despite the normal problems of its development, the media remains the main source of information for the public; it is the main means of transmitting different perspectives and the main means to make justice institutions reflect.
Personally and institutionally, I stand by the opinion that freedom of the mass media is essential in a democratic society, an asset that must be guaranteed and protected even by the institutions.
Through the protection and guarantees we give to journalists, not only do we protect them, but we also protect their mission, we protect the society right to have the opportunity to judge governance in all its dimensions. It is the society that evaluates whether the governance or a certain media reporting is correct or not, and not the institutions that can limit the information. Within the constraints imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights, no one can evaluate the role of the media by limiting its information, by limiting its access to the information or even worse, intimidating and denigrating the media.
It is a fact that a society can develop healthily, only if its members, i.e. citizens, have reliable information and this depends on the work of the media, which conveys the information. This can be achieved only by knowledgeable journalists, well informed on the role and duties of the justice institutions and magistrates in a democracy, who report and criticize with the responsibility of being obliged to provide the public with accurate and impartial information. And we are lucky to have such journalists in Albania, even at this table.
Of course, there are cases when even the media reflects the defects that society itself has. This is typical of a developing society and it can’t happen the other way round. But we do not help the democratic development of society, the media and institutions by imposing restrictions and boundaries. Even when we are sensitive to the unfair criticism we receive, it does not matter. What matters is the transparency, the opportunity for debate on the truth and what is right. This is a process, it is a democratic development that requires patience and of course time, which is also a price that we must be ready and cooperative as much as possible to pay.
I often hear the expression, which I also see as a piece of advice, that “the battle with the press is always lost.” And I think it is. It is lost because lost is the battle with the freedom of the society to see and understand the administration of justice. And precisely in the name of public interest, the freedom of the media means the right to oppose and criticize, and this right must be protected and guaranteed. A strong and professional media will undoubtedly affect the accountability of our institutions, yet it is also clear that misinformation or false news erodes the public trust in the media and institutions leading to obstacles that hinder the whole society from moving forward.
In this context, there is a specificity which I want to emphasize. There is a significant difference between criticizing magistrates and criticizing other public officials. Magistrates can not respond to criticism, they can not comment on their cases, even refute media distortions of their decisions. Unlike political institutions, independent institutions and magistrates have this kind of constraint, which is part of their duty. However, in my opinion, judges, prosecutors and justice institutions officials do not have misunderstandings with the media. Their battle is with transparency. Indeed, magistrates can not express or comment on their decisions, but if their decisions express clearly and unequivocally simply and straightforwardly their legal opinion and their law-based discretion, then the public and the media will be clear about what they feel is a fair or unfair decision. The clearer the judges’ decisions are and the more aware they are about the role they play, the simpler it is for the media to convey to the public the importance of this decision-making.
Today we will talk about increasing the guarantees for the journalists to perform their duty and fortunately, in Albania, there are no cases of murder of journalists, such as the case of the late Maltese journalist Dafne Galicia, which was brought to attention at the beginning of this conference. A mafia-type murder of a journalist who was doing her job, and which should humiliate every country where it happens. And the institutions can do a lot to prevent such events from happening and to guarantee the journalists protection. For this conference, I consulted some figures published by the International Federation of Journalists, according to which 2658 journalists have been killed since 1990, 42 of whom in 2020 and 235 journalists are in prison.
Fortunately, we do not have such situations in our country and I wish we never have but without a doubt, cases of intimidation, violence, obstruction of duty have already been publicly denounced, such as the case of the Fax News journalist recently reported or even lawsuits in the courts. Some cases can be testified in this room as well. These are acts that remain disturbing, and that should make us all reflect and take action before we have to deal with the consequences.
The High Inspector of Justice is willing to do his part in protecting and guaranteeing the right of journalists to perform their duty because I repeat, I stand by the opinion that by protecting journalists, we guarantee the right of our society to have the freedom to judge every dimension of everybody’s work.
Thank you!
