Margetic Conviction Sparks Media Ethics Debate
Journalists across the Balkans discuss professional issues raised by tribunal contempt case.
Margetic Conviction Sparks Media Ethics Debate
Journalists across the Balkans discuss professional issues raised by tribunal contempt case.
The case of a Croatian journalist found guilty of contempt of court has sparked a debate in the Balkans over how far journalists should go to make headlines and whether imprisoning those who cross the line is an attack on press freedom.
Tribunal judges last week found freelance journalist Domagoj Margetić guilty of contempt of court for disclosing protected witness lists. He was sentenced to a prison term of three months and fined 10,000 euro.
The tribunal has held contempt proceedings against 19 people so far, including witnesses, defence counsel and journalists.
However, Margetic is the first journalist to be sentenced to prison for violating the court’s rules which govern the protection of witnesses and confidential information.
Margetic was convicted of publishing a list with names of 48 protected witnesses who testified in the case of Bosnian Croat general Tihomir Blaskic on his personal website last summer.
In its judgment on February 7, the trial chamber described this as a “particularly egregious” contempt of court case. It said Margetic “did not only intentionally violate protective measures orders and interfere with witnesses, but did so with reckless disregard for [their] safety”.
When determining its sentence, the trial chamber said it took into account the personal and psychological consequences the disclosure had on the lives of at least three of the protected witnesses.
The judges dismissed the defence claims that Margetic was innocent because he only published names that had already been revealed by someone in the prosecutor’s office by “error and serious neglect”. The defence argued at the time Margetic published the list that it was no longer a confidential document.
The trial chamber noted that “the witness list was from the outset a confidential document and never lost its status as such”. They also added that the accused was well aware of that, because in the article accompanying this document which appeared on his website “he emphasised that he was publishing confidential information”.
Thus, they said, Margetic exposed the protected witnesses to threats, intimidation and possible injury, interfered with the witnesses and dissuaded them from further cooperation with the tribunal.
Explaining their decision, the judges said, “Journalists are free to report and comment on all proceedings before the tribunal, including the testimony of witnesses. However, they are under an obligation to respect the tribunal's orders and protective measures granted to witnesses.”
While some observers in the Balkans consider Margetic’s sentence too harsh, others agree it could send an important message to the local journalists covering war crimes trials at the tribunal and in national courts and may even prevent them from revealing confidential documents and information in the future.
The Margetic case also highlighted issues such as freedom of the press and the responsibility of journailsts in transitional democracies to adhere to the ethics of their profession, especially when it comes to particularly sensitive issues, such as confidential information related to war crimes trials.
As IWPR found out, a dilemma between professional ethics and the opportunity to publish exclusive information is not always an easy one.
Editor of Sarajevo-based weekly Dani Senad Pecanin says he would never reveal the names of protected witnesses at a war crimes trial - even if he would get hold of such information - because he would be concerned how that might affect their lives.
“There is a great possibility that revealing names of protected witnesses would put them in real danger. And not just them, but their families, too,” he said.
However, he adds that if he found out a protected witness was a head of state, prime minister or some other high-ranking official, he would be really tempted to publish such information. He says that “unlike ordinary citizens, these people have at their disposal a whole protection mechanism provided by the state during and even after their mandate”.
But Pecanin admits that even in such a case, he would be concerned about the message this act would send to other protected witnesses.
“They could say: if the court was not able to protect the identity of a head of a state, how on earth is it going to protect me,” continued Pecanin. “To the horror of a journalist in me, I realise that this would probably be the main reason why I would restrain from revealing such information.”
A reporter for the Sarajevo-based daily Avaz, Sead Numanovic, has a similar opinion. He says he would never publish the names of ordinary people who testify at war crimes or any other trials as protected witnesses, but would probably do so if the witnesses were high-ranking officials.
When it comes to the situation in Bosnia, Numanovic says professional standards are generally high, although things could always be better, “There is more self-censorship in the local media than violations of professional ethics, I would say.”
As a positive example, he pointed at the fact that Bosnian journalists exercise a lot of restraint in covering war crimes trials, and so far there has been very little, if any, leakage of confidential information, including documents and names of protected witnesses in the local media.
While most journalists say their responsible approach to sensitive information is due to their own high professional standards, some claim strict laws governing this issue also help.
Spokesman for Bosnia’s state prosecutor Boris Grubesic points out the fact that those who reveal information classified by the Bosnian court as confidential can be charged with contempt and ordered to pay a fine, or even sentenced to one to three years imprisonment.
“Generally speaking, all parties in court proceedings at the War Crimes Chamber have so far respected their obligation to protect identities of the witnesses who testify under protective measures,” said Grubesic.
In Serbia, however, as of last year, journalists cannot be sent to prison for revealing confidential information. Sasa Gajin, a senior lecturer at the law faculty of the Union University in Belgrade, says this is good, because he was always against the penalisation of journalists. But he also draws attention to another problem.
“It’s hard for the media to know what classified information is, when Serbia currently has no law which would clearly define it,” he said.
Radio Free Europe’s correspondent from Belgrade and former head of Serbia’s Independent Journalists Association, Nebojsa Bugarinovic, agrees with Gajin that imprisoning media representatives who cross the line is probably not the best solution.
“I would be a cynic if I said a prison sentence in Margetic case was appropriate, because I was the one who always opposed such drastic measures. Any sentence is fine, as long as it is not imprisonment,” he said.
Speaking of Margetic case, Bugarinovic says that - from what he knows - Margetic’s act was “neither ethical nor professional”.
As for some observers’ claims that tribunal’s judgements against the Croatian journalist was an attack on freedom of the press, Bugarinovic disagrees.
“In the Balkans, many see freedom of the press as an excuse to be irresponsible,” he said. “But that freedom also means responsibility towards the facts, as well as protected categories of people, such as protected witnesses.”
Some analysts in the Balkans say media ethics standards should be set by journalists themselves, because misplaced calls for guidelines and legal constraints could only encourage direct political interference.
Bugarinovic agrees and adds that the competitive nature of today’s media with the emphasis up-to-the-minute news and sensational coverage puts additional pressure on journalists to produce articles that sell best, which often means putting professional ethics aside. Therefore, revealing private and confidential information is not a rare occurrence.
This, in turn, results in a large number of lawsuits launched against journalists.
According to the Croatian Journalists’ Association, Croatia is one of Europe’s transitional countries with the highest number of lawsuits involving media. Between 1990 and 1999, a staggering 1,000 cases were launched, with at least another 500 lawsuits registered in the following years.
In his recent speech delivered at the traditional annual reception for media representatives, Croatia’s president Stjepan Mesic said freedom of the press is one of the foundations of every democratic society, but warned that not every truth serves the public interests. It’s up to the reporters and editors themselves to draw a line between professional journalism and sensationalism, said Mesic.
Some say in Margetic case this line was not clear enough.
When Margetic explained his reasons for publishing lists of protected witnesses from Blaskic trial on his own website, more than a few eyebrows were raised.
In his official statement dated September 12, 2006, he said, “The reason I published the witness list in part was to reveal to the world that some witnesses were in fact mujahedeen, or better known to the world as ‘terrorists’. In light of the five year anniversary of 9/11, it is important for the public to know with whom the tribunal was working with to prosecute Croatian general Tihomir Blaskic.”
Margetic also insisted the court was “terrorizing an innocent Croatian journalist”, and that the only reason he was indicted was because he was always an open critic of the tribunal.
“Moreover, I published the witness list because of my staunch and profound belief in freedom of the press and independence of media,” he said in his statement.
British journalist Brian Gallagher, who has closely followed Margetic case and maintained the Croatian journalist was falsely accused, says his judgment “sets a dangerous precedent” which could “easily lead to entrapment of difficult journalists”.
However, Professor Stjepan Malovich, from the Faculty of Political Sciences at the Zagreb University, can find no excuse for what Margetic did.
“A real journalist would never publish names of protected witnesses and thus put them in danger,” he said.
Malovich adds witnesses testifying in war crimes trials today - and especially those who testified shortly after the war - are very brave and “Margetic poses a real threat to such people”.
“It doesn’t matter what information I obtain or how – if I know it is confidential, then from the professional and ethical point of view it is absolutely unacceptable for me to publish it,” said Malovich.
“I am by all means for freedom of the press, but it does not mean I can use that freedom irresponsibly and publish everything I like, just because I am free to do so.”
Merdijana Sadovic is IWPR’s Hague programme manager.
Tribunal judges last week found freelance journalist Domagoj Margetić guilty of contempt of court for disclosing protected witness lists. He was sentenced to a prison term of three months and fined 10,000 euro.
The tribunal has held contempt proceedings against 19 people so far, including witnesses, defence counsel and journalists.
However, Margetic is the first journalist to be sentenced to prison for violating the court’s rules which govern the protection of witnesses and confidential information.
Margetic was convicted of publishing a list with names of 48 protected witnesses who testified in the case of Bosnian Croat general Tihomir Blaskic on his personal website last summer.
In its judgment on February 7, the trial chamber described this as a “particularly egregious” contempt of court case. It said Margetic “did not only intentionally violate protective measures orders and interfere with witnesses, but did so with reckless disregard for [their] safety”.
When determining its sentence, the trial chamber said it took into account the personal and psychological consequences the disclosure had on the lives of at least three of the protected witnesses.
The judges dismissed the defence claims that Margetic was innocent because he only published names that had already been revealed by someone in the prosecutor’s office by “error and serious neglect”. The defence argued at the time Margetic published the list that it was no longer a confidential document.
The trial chamber noted that “the witness list was from the outset a confidential document and never lost its status as such”. They also added that the accused was well aware of that, because in the article accompanying this document which appeared on his website “he emphasised that he was publishing confidential information”.
Thus, they said, Margetic exposed the protected witnesses to threats, intimidation and possible injury, interfered with the witnesses and dissuaded them from further cooperation with the tribunal.
Explaining their decision, the judges said, “Journalists are free to report and comment on all proceedings before the tribunal, including the testimony of witnesses. However, they are under an obligation to respect the tribunal's orders and protective measures granted to witnesses.”
While some observers in the Balkans consider Margetic’s sentence too harsh, others agree it could send an important message to the local journalists covering war crimes trials at the tribunal and in national courts and may even prevent them from revealing confidential documents and information in the future.
The Margetic case also highlighted issues such as freedom of the press and the responsibility of journailsts in transitional democracies to adhere to the ethics of their profession, especially when it comes to particularly sensitive issues, such as confidential information related to war crimes trials.
As IWPR found out, a dilemma between professional ethics and the opportunity to publish exclusive information is not always an easy one.
Editor of Sarajevo-based weekly Dani Senad Pecanin says he would never reveal the names of protected witnesses at a war crimes trial - even if he would get hold of such information - because he would be concerned how that might affect their lives.
“There is a great possibility that revealing names of protected witnesses would put them in real danger. And not just them, but their families, too,” he said.
However, he adds that if he found out a protected witness was a head of state, prime minister or some other high-ranking official, he would be really tempted to publish such information. He says that “unlike ordinary citizens, these people have at their disposal a whole protection mechanism provided by the state during and even after their mandate”.
But Pecanin admits that even in such a case, he would be concerned about the message this act would send to other protected witnesses.
“They could say: if the court was not able to protect the identity of a head of a state, how on earth is it going to protect me,” continued Pecanin. “To the horror of a journalist in me, I realise that this would probably be the main reason why I would restrain from revealing such information.”
A reporter for the Sarajevo-based daily Avaz, Sead Numanovic, has a similar opinion. He says he would never publish the names of ordinary people who testify at war crimes or any other trials as protected witnesses, but would probably do so if the witnesses were high-ranking officials.
When it comes to the situation in Bosnia, Numanovic says professional standards are generally high, although things could always be better, “There is more self-censorship in the local media than violations of professional ethics, I would say.”
As a positive example, he pointed at the fact that Bosnian journalists exercise a lot of restraint in covering war crimes trials, and so far there has been very little, if any, leakage of confidential information, including documents and names of protected witnesses in the local media.
While most journalists say their responsible approach to sensitive information is due to their own high professional standards, some claim strict laws governing this issue also help.
Spokesman for Bosnia’s state prosecutor Boris Grubesic points out the fact that those who reveal information classified by the Bosnian court as confidential can be charged with contempt and ordered to pay a fine, or even sentenced to one to three years imprisonment.
“Generally speaking, all parties in court proceedings at the War Crimes Chamber have so far respected their obligation to protect identities of the witnesses who testify under protective measures,” said Grubesic.
In Serbia, however, as of last year, journalists cannot be sent to prison for revealing confidential information. Sasa Gajin, a senior lecturer at the law faculty of the Union University in Belgrade, says this is good, because he was always against the penalisation of journalists. But he also draws attention to another problem.
“It’s hard for the media to know what classified information is, when Serbia currently has no law which would clearly define it,” he said.
Radio Free Europe’s correspondent from Belgrade and former head of Serbia’s Independent Journalists Association, Nebojsa Bugarinovic, agrees with Gajin that imprisoning media representatives who cross the line is probably not the best solution.
“I would be a cynic if I said a prison sentence in Margetic case was appropriate, because I was the one who always opposed such drastic measures. Any sentence is fine, as long as it is not imprisonment,” he said.
Speaking of Margetic case, Bugarinovic says that - from what he knows - Margetic’s act was “neither ethical nor professional”.
As for some observers’ claims that tribunal’s judgements against the Croatian journalist was an attack on freedom of the press, Bugarinovic disagrees.
“In the Balkans, many see freedom of the press as an excuse to be irresponsible,” he said. “But that freedom also means responsibility towards the facts, as well as protected categories of people, such as protected witnesses.”
Some analysts in the Balkans say media ethics standards should be set by journalists themselves, because misplaced calls for guidelines and legal constraints could only encourage direct political interference.
Bugarinovic agrees and adds that the competitive nature of today’s media with the emphasis up-to-the-minute news and sensational coverage puts additional pressure on journalists to produce articles that sell best, which often means putting professional ethics aside. Therefore, revealing private and confidential information is not a rare occurrence.
This, in turn, results in a large number of lawsuits launched against journalists.
According to the Croatian Journalists’ Association, Croatia is one of Europe’s transitional countries with the highest number of lawsuits involving media. Between 1990 and 1999, a staggering 1,000 cases were launched, with at least another 500 lawsuits registered in the following years.
In his recent speech delivered at the traditional annual reception for media representatives, Croatia’s president Stjepan Mesic said freedom of the press is one of the foundations of every democratic society, but warned that not every truth serves the public interests. It’s up to the reporters and editors themselves to draw a line between professional journalism and sensationalism, said Mesic.
Some say in Margetic case this line was not clear enough.
When Margetic explained his reasons for publishing lists of protected witnesses from Blaskic trial on his own website, more than a few eyebrows were raised.
In his official statement dated September 12, 2006, he said, “The reason I published the witness list in part was to reveal to the world that some witnesses were in fact mujahedeen, or better known to the world as ‘terrorists’. In light of the five year anniversary of 9/11, it is important for the public to know with whom the tribunal was working with to prosecute Croatian general Tihomir Blaskic.”
Margetic also insisted the court was “terrorizing an innocent Croatian journalist”, and that the only reason he was indicted was because he was always an open critic of the tribunal.
“Moreover, I published the witness list because of my staunch and profound belief in freedom of the press and independence of media,” he said in his statement.
British journalist Brian Gallagher, who has closely followed Margetic case and maintained the Croatian journalist was falsely accused, says his judgment “sets a dangerous precedent” which could “easily lead to entrapment of difficult journalists”.
However, Professor Stjepan Malovich, from the Faculty of Political Sciences at the Zagreb University, can find no excuse for what Margetic did.
“A real journalist would never publish names of protected witnesses and thus put them in danger,” he said.
Malovich adds witnesses testifying in war crimes trials today - and especially those who testified shortly after the war - are very brave and “Margetic poses a real threat to such people”.
“It doesn’t matter what information I obtain or how – if I know it is confidential, then from the professional and ethical point of view it is absolutely unacceptable for me to publish it,” said Malovich.
“I am by all means for freedom of the press, but it does not mean I can use that freedom irresponsibly and publish everything I like, just because I am free to do so.”
Merdijana Sadovic is IWPR’s Hague programme manager.
