www.foi.am

J u n e 2 0 1 2Published since 2001

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER OF ARMENIA

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOWb u l l e t i n N 3 7

This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through theUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this publi-cation are the sole responsibility of the “Freedom of Information Center of Armenia” NGOand do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

www.foi.am

C O N T E N T

A Photo Exhibition on Free Speech and Information

Marks Press Freedom Day in Armenia..........................................................................29

Armenia presented the country’s action plan in Brazil under

Open Government Partnership ......................................................................................31

316 Community Servants Received State Certificates ..................................................33

Advocacy for Access to Information - Achievements and Challenges ...........................34

FOICA vs. Ministry of Emergency Situation ..................................................................35

Freedom of Information in Municipalities - 2012.. ..........................................................36

First IDC Workshop with Journalists and Lawyers ........................................................38

The Expert Conclusion of the Information Disputes Council N 7...................................39

The Expert Conclusion of the Information Disputes Council N 8...................................41

Black List: 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2012.......................................................................43

3

The Freedom of Information Center NGOorganized a photo exhibition entitled"Freedom of press: the right to know" at the

Armenian Artists' Union on May 3, 2012 to mark theWorld Press Freedom Day. The event was a uniqueaction to draw the public attention once again tofreedom of press and information problems.

The opening ceremony was attended by officials,public figures, journalists, diplomats and others. EUDelegation to Armenia, Ambassador H.E. Mr. TraianHristea welcomed those present and valued the exhi-bition as a unique way to present public perceptionson freedom information and press. "Today. We arecelebrating the Freedom of Press Day," Mr. Hristeasaid, "The European Union has always supportedfreedom of expression and opinion since this is partof fundamental human rights. I would like to take thisopportunity and value the work of journalists aroundthe world who sometimes risk their lives while exer-cising their right to freedom of expression."

U.S. Ambassador to Armenia H.E. Mr. John Hefferncommended the organizers and valued the role offree press and access to information for a well-func-tioning democracy. Ambassador Heffern encour-aged the Freedom of Information Center of Armeniato continue the successful efforts in promoting trans-parency and accountability of public institutions.

Ambassador Mr. Andrey Sorokin, Head of the OSCEOffice in Yerevan emphasized the role of freedom ofpress and information in formation of open andaccountable government. "I hope today's exhibitionwill remind the Government, the media and the soci-ety what is the role of each of them in exercising thefreedom of expression and information."

President of the Freedom of Information CentreShushan Doydoyan said, "This is a special exhibi-tion since everybody including citizens, journalists,professional photographers had the opportunity topresent his or her works. Heroes depicted in thesephotos voice their disagreement with the violenceagainst the freedom of press as well as try to exer-

A Photo Exhibition on Free Speech andInformation Marks Press Freedom Day in Armenia

In 1993, valuing the development of free and unbiased press and its role in estab-lishing and developing democratic societies, the United Nations General Assemblydeclared May 3 as the World Press Freedom Day.

NEWS AND EVENTS

4

www.foi.am

cise their right to access information despite in anyobstacles and barriers they face."

The photo exhibition was participated by photogra-phers, cartoonists, journalists, students ad otherswho presented over 200 photos and caricatures, ofwhich the jury selected 50 photos and 20 carica-tures to demonstrate at this exhibition. The mainsubject of the photos was freedom of press andinformation. All exhibited photos and caricatures arepublished in the photo catalogue dedicated to theWorld Press Freedom Day.

All photos can be viewed at:http://www.foi.am/en/exhibition/

Gayane Arakelyan, "The First Sample of ArmenianPeriodical"

Nazik Armenakyan, "From Taking up the Square Series - 1"

Photolur, "The Gibbet"

Arsen Gevorgyan/DIZO/, "The Editor"

5

www.foi.am

Then the groups of member countries present-ed their action plans and their commitments tothe open government to be implemented dur-

ing 2012-2014. The three countries involved in theSouth Caucasus group, Armenia, Georgia andAzerbaijan, presented their detailed action plans.Ashot Hovakimyan, RA Deputy Foreign Minister andhead of the Armenian OGP working group spokeabout the main goals, directions and responsibilitiesof the RA action plan. He emphasized that the deci-sion to join the "Open Government Partnership ini-tiative expresses Armenia’s willingness to ensuremore transparency and accountability while deliver-ing public services. Rule of law and strengtheningthe efficient governance is the state’s priority; andthe Armenian authorities have had a number ofaccomplishments over the recent decade." Themain provisions of Armenia’s actions are focused onimprovement of the efficiency, transparency andaccountability of the public government system inthe country: enhancing the efficiency of manage-ment of public resources, developing electronicmanagement, improving the procurement processand providing transparency thereof, improving thefreedom of and access to information, publicizingthe declarations of property and incomes of officials,fight the corruption, etc.

Expert of the Freedom of Information Center andmember of the OGP Armenian working group LianaDoydoyan informed those present that theArmenian working group of action plan developmenthas involved 8 representative of the civil society,and all their proposals were incorporated in the doc-ument. "The Freedom of Information Center, in par-ticular, had suggested to include over 10 points inthe two-year program of Open Government basical-

ly covering the improvement of the content of officialwebsites and the information published therein,knowledge and skills of officials in the freedom ofinformation domain, ensuring the publicity of decla-ration of the property and incomes of officials, andothers," Liana Doydoyan says.

Action plans of Georgia and Azerbaijan were present-ed by the Georgian Deputy Ministry of Justice GiorgiVashadze and Azerbaijani Minister of Communicationand Information Technologies Ali Abasov, respective-ly. Both countries had sent quite large official delega-tions to Brazil. The Georgian delegation led by thePrime Minister of that country was among the mostrepresentative ones. The Azerbaijani official delega-tion consisted of 15 members.

The Georgian Deputy Justice Minister stated thatGeorgia will apply the so called one window princi-

Armenia presented the country’s action plan inBrazil under Open Government Partnership

The annual meeting of the Open Government Partnership drew 800 representatives andabout 200 NGOs from 60 member countries. U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton,Georgian Prime Minister Nika Gelauri, President of Tanzania Jakaya Kikwete, andPresident of Brazil Dilma Rousseff made remarks presenting the key issues of this largescale initiative and further actions to be taken.

6

www.foi.ample while delivering public services: people willattend to one united center for all necessary docu-ments and transactions. Azerbaijan’s programincluded 21 pages, which was twice more thanrequired. The document included control of corrup-tion and criminal offences, measures focusing stim-ulation of public government, etc. Following theMinister’s speech, representative of the NationalBudget Group NGO Galib Abaszade criticizedAzerbaijan for corruption, and the criticism was neg-atively reacted by the Minister and other Azeri offi-cials present.

To the question by the Head of Asparez JournalistClub Levon Barseghyan about what agencies ordepartments will be responsible for implementationof the action plans in the three countries, the RADeputy FM Hovakimyan answered that differentdepartments will be implementing those actions; theGeorgian Deputy Justice Minister gave a similaranswer, and the representative of Azerbaijanexplained that a particular ministry or departmentwill be involved in each section of the program,while the overall leadership is given to the country’spresident.

Representatives of civil society, in turn, attachedimportance to the further implementation of theaction plan and the civil control over these commit-ments of the authorities.

The Open Government Partnership was launched inSeptember 2011, by the initiative of 8 countries(Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines,South Africa, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates). Over 60 countries have now joined the ini-tiative. The Republic of Armenia became a memberin November 2011. The OGP Declaration reads thatit is aimed to make the governmental activities morepublic, promote the society’s participation in thegovernance of public life, and have more transpar-ent and responsible authorities.

The Action Plan of Armenia is available at:http://mfa.am/u_files/file/OGPAP_Armenia_English.pdf

7

www.foi.am

Since March, 2012 Freedom of InformationEducational Center has restarted its trainingcourses, where community servants from the

regions of Kotayk, Aragatsotn, Ararat participated.The trainings are held with the training program "nter-personal Relations, Freedom of Information andPublic Affairs in the Local Self-Government System",established by the 20 October, 2011 N 129-² order ofthe RA Vice Prime Minister, Minister of TerritorialAdministration Armen Gevorgyan.

Each training lasts for 3 days. Upon graduation theparticipants are given state certificates accredited bythe Ministry of Territorial Administration, Freedom ofInformation Center of Armenia and the Union ofArmenian State Employees.

"The training was extremely instructive. It is desir-able that at least on a yearly basis we becomeaware of the important developments in the freedomof information field so that we are able to considerourselves full-fledged community servants and behelpful to the community population", it is with thesewords of satisfaction that Loris Marz (region) com-munity servants departed following the training heldin the Education Center of the Freedom ofInformation Center.

As of 16 May 2012, 316 Community Servants fromurban and rural communities of Kotayq, Ararat,Aragatsotn and Lori Marzes have taken part in thethree-day training held at the Freedom ofInformation Center’s Education Center.

The training course was a great satisfaction to allparticipants, who expressed readiness to onceagain pass such training with the non-formal educa-tion center of the Freedom of Information Center.The trained community servants noted in their eval-

uation sheets: "The training workshops were veryuseful and henceforth we will not only apply but alsouse the Freedom of Information Law, since manyissues can be clarified through the right to freedomof information", "was useful and instructive", "it wasinteresting, I will try to apply the knowledge gainedin practice", "we received a lot of new and effectiveknowledge".

87% of the community servants having participatedin the training course assessed the course as veryuseful, 13% - useful. All participants - 316 communi-ty servants, gave positive answer to the question onwhether they feel it is necessary to further updatetheir knowledge in the topic covered by the trainingand whether they will apply their knowledge in theirevery-day work.

To note, the community servants who took part inthe training, received state certificates. Until 2013the Freedom of Information Education Center willtrain another 84 community servants.

Freedom of Information Educational Center wasfounded on 22 November, 2010 by Freedom ofInformation Center of Armenia in the framework ofthe "Access to Information for CommunityInvolvement" project financed by USAID Armenia.

316 Community Servants Received StateCertificates

In 2011-2012, 316 community servants have been trained in the Freedom ofInformation Educational Center.

8

www.foi.am

Gergana Jouleva, AIP Executive Director,opened the conference Access toInformation Programme (AIP) held the

Conference Advocacy for Access to Information –Achievements and Challenges on June 15-16, 2012in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Among the panelists were Liana Doydoyan andGevorg Hayrapetyan, representatives of Freedomof Information Center of Armenia; Toby Mendel,Director of the Center for Law and Democracy andcurrent chairperson of the Freedom of InformationAdvocates Network Steering Committee; HelenDarbishire, Director of Access Info Europe, andTony Bunyan, Director of Statewatch. Also, repre-sentatives of leading nongovernmental organiza-

tions in the field of access to information fromCyprus, Georgia, Macedonia, Poland, Russia,Romania, and the Czech Republic took part. Morethan 50 representatives of media, partner NGOsand state institutions from Bulgaria attended.

Latest developments with regard to the proposedamendments to the Regulation (EC) 1049/2011related to access to documents of the EU bodieswere reviewed and standards set forth by interna-tional treaties and bodies were presented. Theimpact of the monitoring of proactive publication ofinformation by government bodies for increasinggovernment transparency were discussed.

NGOs and journalists shared tactics in using theaccess to public information for campaigns and pub-lic participation and for journalistic investigations.Results from FOI legal help and litigation were pre-sented. Raising awareness campaigns and moreparticularly, the Right to Know Day campaign, werepresented as a successful advocacy tool. The roleof the FOI advocates in the Open GovernmentPartnership and possibilities for future initiativeswas discussed.

Conclusions drawn and outlined strategies will beincluded in a final document which will be sent outto the Freedom of Information Advocates Network.

See more: Access to Information Programmewesite: http://www.aip-bg.org.

Advocacy for Access to Information -Achievements and ChallengesAccess to Information Programme (AIP) held the Conference Advocacy forAccess to Information-Achievements and Challenges on June 15-16, 2012 inSofia, Bulgaria. The conference was dedicated to AIP 15 years’ advocacy work inthe field of access to information.

Freedom of Information Center of Armeniaapplied to the court asking to oblige the RAMinistry of Emergency Situation to provide the

requested information within five days and toimpose an administrative fine of 50,000 AMD on theMinister of Emergency Situation Armen Yeritsyan.

On February 7, 2011, the Freedom of InformationCenter sent an information request to the RAMinistry of Emergency Situation asking to providethe following information:

1. Does the Ministry have any documents that weredeclassified in 2010?

2. If yes, please, provide copies of those docu-ments.

The Ministry of Emergency Situation made a refer-ence to the RA Special Investigatory Service(SIS),nothing that the requested documents were confis-cated by the SIS. However, the Special investigato-ry Service informed the Freedom of InformationCenter that the copies of the confiscated documentswere left in the Ministry of Emergency Situation. Inother words, the Ministry of Emergency Situation isconsidered to be the information holder.

Thus, on March 29, 2011, the Freedom ofInformation Center once again sent an informationrequest to the Ministry asking to provide the above-

mentioned information, but this time the FOICA'srequest was left unanswered. The Ministry left unan-swered the FOICA's requests dated on May 25,2011, and October 20, 2011.

As a result, Freedom of Information Center ofArmenia applied to the court asking to oblige the RAMinistry of Emergency Situation to provide therequested information within five days and toimpose an administrative fine of 50,000 AMD on theMinister of Emergency Situation Armen Yeritsyan.

On May 21, 2012, the first court hearing took place,when the RA Ministry of Emergency Situation pro-vided the whole requested information. As a resultan agreement was signed between the FOICA andthe Ministry of Emergency Situation.

9

FOI COURT CASES

FOICA vs. Ministry of Emergency Situation

On May 21, 2012, the first court hearing took place, when the RA Ministry ofEmergency Situation provided the whole requested information. As a result an agree-ment was signed between the FOICA and the Ministry of Emergency Situation.

10

FOI MONITORING

In February 2012 the Freedom of InformationCenter submitted written information requests tothe Heads of 49 cities of Armenia (including

Yerevan Municipality), requesting information on thefunds (expenses) envisaged for and allocated in2001 and 2012 for snow-cleaning works in thosecities. This initiative of the FOICA provided with anopportunity to find out how the Heads of city com-munities representing various Marzes (regions)implemented the Law on Freedom of Information.We have analyzed the answers provided by munic-ipalities in accordance with 2 criteria: completenessof the responses and timelines of their provision.

Content of the Reponses

The Freedom of Information Center received 34complete responses, out of 49 requests sent to theMunicipalities. 22 out of complete responses wereprovided in time and 12 - with violation of thedefined timeframes. In response to 6 out of 49requests, the municipalities have provided incom-plete responses and 1 response was invalid. 8requests have remained unanswered.

The author of the invalid response was the munici-pality of Tumanyan. The response was deemedinvalid since it included data having nothing in com-mon with the content of the request (see responsehere: http://givemeinfo.am/hy/case/854/). TheFreedom of Information Center sent a repeatedrequest to Tumanyan municipality requesting to pro-vide relevant information. Eventually, the Tumanyanmunicipality provided complete response to theFOICA’s second request without violating time-frames.

Incomplete responses were provided by the munic-ipalities of Artashat, Vedi, Abovyan, Nor Hatchn,Akhtala and Gyumri. These municipalities had pro-vided the requested information to the FOICA onlypartially. The FOICA applied to the Head ofMunicipalities requesting to provide the missinginformation. The municipalities of Vedi and NorHatchn provided timely and complete responses tothe repeated request and Artashat, Abovyan,Akhtala and Gyumri municipalities have left therepeated requests unanswered.

As noted, 8 requests submitted by the FOICremained unanswered. The municipalities ofVardenis, Yeghvard, Vanadzor, Stepanavan, Spitak,Sisian, Goris and Noyemberyan did not reply toFOICA’s requests. Repeated requests were sent tothese bodies as well, requesting to provide informa-tion demanded in the first requests. As a result, themunicipalities of Stepanavan, Sisian, Goris providedtimely and complete replies and the municipalities ofYeghvard and Spitak provided late complete replies.Noyemberyan municipality provided invalid reply inresponse to FOICA’s repeated request. The replywas deemed invalid since it included informationwhich was different from what was requested (seeresponse here: http://givemeinfo.am/hy/case/916/).

Vardenis and Vanadzor municipalities have left theFreedom of Information Center’s repeated requestsunanswered as well. It is only these two municipali-ties that have not reacted in any manner followingthe submission of a repeated request by the FOICA.The municipalities of Vardenis and Vanadzor havebeen included in the Freedom of InformationCenter’s quarterly Black List for 2012.

Freedom of Information in Municipalities - 2012

The FOICA received 34 complete responses, out of 49 requests sent to theMunicipalities. 22 out of complete responses were provided in time and 12 - with viola-tion of the defined timeframes. In response to 6 out of 49 requests, the municipalitieshave provided incomplete responses and 1 response was invalid. 8 requests haveremained unanswered.

11

www.foi.amAnalysis of the Responses as per Timeframes

According to point 7 of Article 9 of the RA Law on"Freedom of Information", a response to a requestfor information should be provided within 5 days fol-lowing the receipt of such request. The FOICA hassent the requests via post. Hence, the response hasnot been considered late if it was provided within 9calendar days, out of which 5 days period is thetimeframe defined by law, 2 days are calculated forpostal delivery and the remaining 2 are the non-working days - Saturday and Sunday. In any case,in order to avoid inaccuracies, the timeframes havebeen calculated based on the day when therequests were actually sent out and the date ofsending the response back, as indicated on thestamp of the postal service marked on the envelopecarrying the response.

As noted, in 34 cases the municipalities have pro-vided complete responses. Out of these 34responses, 22 were provided in time and 12 – withdelay. The invalid response by Tumanyan munici-pality was provided without violating the deadline(http://givemeinfo.am/hy/case/854/).

The complete response to the repeated informationrequest was also provided by the municipality with-out violating the deadline (see response here:http://givemeinfo.am/hy/case/892/).

4 out of 6 incomplete responses were provided with-in the timeframes defined by law and the other 2were provided with delay (Artashat and Gyumrimunicipalities). Amongst the repeated requests sentto the authors of incomplete responses, 2 havebeen answered, both without violating the deadline.As noted, 2 of the repeated requests sent to the 8authors of mute refusals have remained unan-swered. 4 answers to the remaining 6 requests wereprovided in a timely manner (3 complete and 1invalid response) and the other two - with violationof the deadline.

So, out of 49 requests sent by the FOICA, 41 havebeen answered, of which 27 have been providedwithout violating the deadline and 14 have been lateresponses. Out of 15 repeated requests 9 havebeen answered, of which 7 responses were provid-ed in a timely manner and 2 - by violating the dead-line.

Thus, out of the total number of 64 requests(FOICA’s first and repeated requests) 50 have beenanswered, out of which 34 were provided in a time-ly manner and 16 were provided with a delay.

From the point of view of timeliness, the best resultswere shown by the municipalities of Talin,Tchambarak, Byureghavan and Tashir, which pro-vided complete responses after 3 days following thesending of the request. Amongst the best is also themunicipality of Meghri, which has provided completeresponse after 4 days following the sending of therequest. The worst results come from the municipal-ities of Alaverdi and Yerevan, which have respond-ed after 29 and 27 days respectively, following theFOICA’s requests.

12

First IDC Workshop with Journalists and Lawyers

Resolving cases of defamation and insult without resorting to the courts is thefocus of a two-day OSCE-supported workshop for journalists and lawyers thatstarted on June 30 in Aghveran, Armenia.

INFORMATION DISPUTES COUNCIL

The event, organized by the OSCE Office inYerevan and the Armenian Freedom ofInformation Centre, aims to inform journalists

and lawyers about the work of the InformationDisputes Council (IDC) as an extra-judiciary bodythat can solve media-related disputes. The IDC wasestablished in May 2011 in response to a significantincrease in the number of defamation court casesagainst the media.

“While civil society reports show a considerabledecrease in the number of defamation and insultcases this year, it remains important that local andinternational stakeholders continue to monitor thesituation and advocate for improvement. In support-ing the activities of the IDC, we backstop mecha-nisms for out-of-court dispute resolution, and pro-mote ethical journalism which will ultimately have apositive effect on the overall quality of the medialandscape,” said Oliver McCoy, DemocratizationProgramme Officer at the OSCE Office in Yerevan.

The mandate of the IDC is to protect freedom ofspeech and improve access to information, as wellas to protect human dignity and the right to a privatelife by publishing expert opinions and recommenda-tions based on Armenia’s Constitution, internationallegal acts and ethical norms, in cases when judicialdisputes occur.

Shushan Doydoyan, the Head of the Freedom ofInformation Centre, and a founding member of theIDC, added: “In some cases the IDC rings a bellwhen problematic legal issues arise for media free-dom, as was the case with the decision of the Courtof Cassation regarding the definition of newssources. The IDC also serves as an alternative,unbiased body for media-related dispute resolution.The decisions of the IDC can also have a preventiveimpact when parties to a dispute try to solve theirdispute without the court’s involvement”.

The workshop introduced and elaborated on theopinions prepared by the IDC, as well as reviewedcourt cases related to defamation and insult. Byanalyzing litigation and highlighting the role of theIDC, the organizers hope to promote improved pro-tection for free speech in Armenia pursuant toOSCE commitments.

13

The lawyer of the Religious Organization "Wordof Life" Church of Evangelical Christians ofArmenia has applied to the Information

Disputes Council, requesting to provide opinion onthe lawsuit filed by the organization on 18.11.2011against "Iravunk Hetaqnnutyun" and "ArgumentiNedelii v Armenii" weeklies. Examining the case, theInformation Disputes Council publishes its profes-sional conclusion.

In October 2011 the afore-mentioned media pub-lished articles and photographs, which, according tothe Religious Organization "Word of Life" Church ofEvangelical Christians of Armenia are of insulting anddefamatory nature. In particular insulting are titles ofthe articles "èñòîðèÿ ñ ñåêòàòíòñòâîì è ïîðíóõîé"("Story with sectarianism and porn") and "The Themeof Sect-Mixed Photos “Bloomed" with PedophileCharges"; and the prescription of the word "sect" tothe religious organization. The religious organizationhas deemed the titles of articles defamatory sincewith these titles a statement of fact is being made thatthe religious organization, with its belief and activities,propagates immoral values - pornography, as well asdissemination of pornographic materials, perpetrationof pedophilia and sponsorship of such acts, as wellas that Angela Sargsyan is a member of the religiousorganization, etc.

In addition, the religious organization has deemedinsulting and defamatory the photos edited througha computer programme, which, in the opinion of theclaimants, create the impression that the membersof the organization resort to the same behaviour asattributed to the woman in the photographs dissem-inated by the media - actress Angela Sargsyan.

The Religious Organization "Word of Life" and itsHead Arthur Simonyan have submitted a lawsuitagainst "Iravunk Hetaqnnutyun" and "ArgumentiNedelii v Armenii" periodicals, requesting that thecourt obliges the media to publicly apologize andpublish the court verdict on the grounds of insult; topublish refutation on the grounds of defamation andto charge 36000 AMD from the respondents as acompensation - 4000 AMD as a state duty and 32000 AMD for translation and notary related expens-es incurred.

The Information Disputes Council finds that the dis-pute under discussion touches upon the media’sright to free expression from the one side and thepublic right to the freedom of thought, conscienceand belief, on the other.

The word "sect" with its usual, daily applicable con-notation can disturb, shock and in this sense bedeemed as unacceptable for some religious groups.However, this circumstance is still not sufficient toclaim that the media have circumvented the permis-sible limits of criticism, in accordance with today’sdemocratic principles. Essential here is the contextin which the word "sect" has been used. In thissense the Council finds that while the word “sect”itself does not contain a derogatory meaning, itscontinuous and accentuated use in light of the gen-eral context of the two articles is problematic.

The Council finds that when expressing theirassessments, opinions and judgments about thereligious organization and the ideas it advocates,the media did not have factual data but based onjust one factual data, i.e. a third party statement,with a number of generic and abstract conclusionsand judgments stemming from this statement. Andwhen factual circumstances are missing, the legalposition of the Constitutional Court comes to the

The Expert Conclusion of theInformation Disputes Council N 7

About the court case "Religious Organization "Word of Life" and theHead of Organization Arthur Simonyan vs. "Iravunk Hetaqnnutyun"(Law and Investigation) and "Argumenti Nedeli v Armenii" Periodicals.

www.foi.am

14

www.foi.am

forefront stating that when factual data are absent,the intention to harm dignity becomes evident. Thepresence of this criterion is essential for deeming astatement as insulting and defamatory.

The Council has assessed as well the photosaccompanying the articles. Although as caricaturesthey are considered as a way of free expression andare under the protection of free speech, howeverthe absence of factual data in the substantial part ofarticles makes meaningless the provocative depic-tion of the organization’s attributes and its leader. Asa result, such way of caricature presentation couldinsult the religious feelings of the members of thereligious organization.

The Council finds that the general context of thearticle and the continuous and persistent use of theword “sect” therein transforms the information iteminto a speech cultivating or inciting religious hatred.

The Council finds as well that the facts of the caseutterly provide with an opportunity to resolve thecase through extra-judiciary means and calls on theparties to use this opportunity.

Information Disputes Council

May 11, 2012

see more: http://www.foi.am/en/IDC

15

www.foi.am

On 07 March 2012 the First Instance Court ofGeneral Jurisdiction of Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts of Yerevan

made its verdict on the application submitted byattorney Arthur Grigoryan against "Hraparak" daily,expressing its legal position over a number of prob-lematic issues, which are currently subject of thejournalistic communities’ discussion in variouscountries. The subject matter pertains to the scopeof protection of information flows from social net-works to the traditional media field, in circumstanceswhere due to the development of media technolo-gies, online media are in active conjunction with theprint media. Taking into account the importance ofthe issue, the Council, on its own initiative, presentsits comments on the positions expressed by Court:

The application with regard to the afore-mentionedcase was submitted following six comments madeby a group of readers in response to an article pub-lished on "Hraparak"’s website, which, in the opinionof the plaintiff, contained insulting and defamatorystatements. Since the persons having made com-ments were unknown, the application was filedagainst the media outlet, despite the fact that theproblematic statements were not made by themedia outlet.

In the justification part of its verdict the court hasdefined that since the plaintiff, before applying tocourt, did not demand that the media outlet deletesand removes comments, the media outlet thencould not bear the responsibility of removing com-ments authored by other persons since by resortingto this it would have limited its readers’ right to freeexpression, which is an interference to the right tofreedom of speech, that is not necessary in a dem-ocratic society. The Court continued its conclusionsby finding that since the authors of the commentswere other persons and the media outlet has onlyprovided with a forum for these comments, as wellas since the media outlet deleted and removed the

afore-mentioned comments after some time, therewas no intention of the media outlet to insult ordefame.

The Information Disputes Council welcomes theverdict issued by the Court on the present case,since the above-mentioned stance of the Court sig-nificantly enlarges the scope of protection of elec-tronic media. At the same time the Council finds thatit would be desirable if in its decision the Courtwould have touched upon other important aspectsof the subject matter as well. The study of the inter-national law and practice shows that when examin-ing media related cases the Courts and the regulat-ing legal norms consider such circumstances as themedia’s awareness of the comments and the dis-tinct moderation of comments .

In other words, it is important to take into accountwhether the media outlet is distinctly moderating theflow of comments placed on its news portal. Factualcircumstances like, for instance, application ofsearching systems by the media through key-words,providing the readers with a possibility to underlineinsulting and defamatory comments, prior selectionof comments subject to publication by the mediaoutlet (alternatively, introduction of some editorialactivities) serve as an assessment feature in orderto consider the fact of the media outlet’s moderationof reader comments as confirmed, which in its turnserves as a basis when deciding the issue of amedia outlet’s liability.

In this case the Court has taken into account the factthat before applying to court the plaintiff did notrequest the media outlet that problematic commentsbe removed and hence the media outlet was notmade aware of the presence of comments withinsulting and defamatory nature on its platform,however the court did not examine at all the avail-ability of the second circumstance mentionedabove, i.e. to what extent the media outlet moderat-

The Expert Conclusion of theInformation Disputes Council N8

About the Court Case attorney A. Grigoryan vs. "Hraparak" daily.

16

www.foi.am

ed (administered) the flow of comments on its elec-tronic page. The Council finds that such scope ofthe court’s fact-checking does not ensure possibilityfor effective legal protection. Moreover, such legalregulation contradicts point 9 of Article 1087.1 of theCivil Code, according to which if the informationsource is unknown, the responsibility for compensa-tion shall be held by the presenter of insulting anddefamatory statement in public. In this case theauthors of the comments were not known howeverto an extent that the comments were publicly dis-seminated from a domain provided by the mediacompany, that company automatically becomessubject to legal relations. From this point of view theCouncil does not agree with the position of"Hraparak Daily" LLC expressed during court proce-dure, according to which the company does notbear any responsibility for the others’ commentspublished on its website, as long as they flow fromsocial networks and do not belong to the contentproducer. According to part 2 of Article 10 of theEuropean Convention, the right to receiving and dis-seminating information and ideas is linked with obli-gations and responsibilities. Along with the right tofree speech, everyone also has certain responsibili-ties. The notions of rights and responsibilities walkhand in hand. This format continues remainingunchanged, even in the current world of rapid devel-opment of media technologies. Hence, the very factthat the media outlet provided a technical platformfor the others’ comments does not make the mediaexempt from obligations and responsibilities.

The Council finds that when being guided with theafore-mentioned legal regulation, a reasonable bal-ance will be achieved between public and individualrights, the right to freedom of expression and theright to human dignity.

Considering the afore-said, the Council

Finds that the legal positions expressed in theConstitutional Court’s decision No. ê¸à 997 isequally applicable also for the "comments" dis-seminated from the platforms of electronicmedia;

Calls on all media to moderate reader com-ments, in light of the popular principles of theright to freedom of expression;

Calls on the electronic media to develop andplace on their electronic pages, rules of modera-tion, to make them easily accessible for readersand thereby make the moderation rules’ applica-tion clear and transparent.

Information Disputes Council

30 May, 2012

17

www.foi.am

1st quarter of 2012

Volodya Khloyan - Mayor of Vardenis

On February 21, 2012, the Freedom of Information Center sent an information request to the Mayor ofVardenis asking to provide information about the money allocated and provided by Vardenis city budget forsnow cleaning works. The Mayor of Vardenis left the FOICA’s request unanswered. Thus, on March 15, 2012,the FOICA sent the second request with the same content. But the second request also was left unanswered.

Samvel Darbinyan - Mayor of Vanadzor

On February 21, 2012, the Freedom of Information Center sent an information request to the Mayor ofVanadzor asking to provide information about the money allocated and provided by Vanadzor city budget forsnow cleaning works. The FOICA’s request remained unanswered. Thus, on March 15, 2012, the FOICA sentthe second request with the same content. But the second request also was left unanswered.

2nd quarter of 2012

Mr. Serge Sargsyan - President of the Republican Party of Armenia

On May 25, 2012, the Freedom of Information Center sent an information request to the Republican Party ofArmenia asking to provide information about the event organized by the Republican Party on May 4, 2012, atthe Republic Square in Yerevan. The Party has left unanswered the FOICA’s information request. Thus, theFOICA sent the second information request, which also was left unanswered.

Mr. Aram Sargsyan -President of the Democratic Party of Armenia

On April 25, 2012, the Freedom of Information Center of Armenia sent an information request to theDemocratic Party of Armenia asking to provide information on finances spent for pre-electoral campaign. TheParty has left unanswered the FOICA’s information request. Thus, on May 16, 2012, the Freedom ofInformation Center sent the second information request to the Democratic Party of Armenia. The FOICA'ssecond information request also was left unanswered.

Mr. Gagik Tsarukyan - President of the "Prosperous Armenia" Party

On April 25, 2012, the Freedom of Information Center of Armenia sent an information request to the"Prosperous Armenia" Party asking to provide information on finances spent for pre-electoral campaign. TheParty has left unanswered the FOICA’s information request. Thus, on May 16, 2012, the Freedom ofInformation Center sent the second information request to the "Prosperous Armenia" Party. The FOICA's sec-ond information request also was left unanswered.

Mr. Levon Ter-Petrosyan - President of the "Armenian National Congress" Pact

On April 25, 2012, the Freedom of Information Center of Armenia sent an information request to the"Armenian National Congress" Pact asking to provide information on finances spent for pre-electoral cam-paign. The Pact has left unanswered the FOICA’s information request. Thus, on May 16, 2012, the Freedomof Information Center sent the second information request to the "Armenian National Congress" Pact with thesame content. However, the second request also was left unanswered.

Black List, 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2012These officials have violated the people’s access to information right duringthe 1st (January-March) and 2nd (April-June) quarters of 2012.

18

www.foi.am

www.foi.amwww.givemeinfo.am

Address: 4th floor,1/3 P. Buzand str., Yerevan, Armenia

Tel/fax: 560 360

E-mail: foi@foi.am

Homepage: www.foi.am

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER OF ARMENIA