CONTROVERSIAL EFFECTS OF AUTORITARIAN RULE
Croatia:Controversial Effects of Authoritarian Rule
By Milivoj Djilas (AIM Zagreb)
The composition of the body which appoints the editors-in-chief is determined by the statute of a public media or the company that publishes the media. In printed media this is mostly resolved in such a way that representatives of the owners are members of the supervisory board of the company, and they are the ones who appoint the editor-in-chief, and the editor-in-chief appoints other editors in a media.
The only exception is the Croatian Radio-Television (HRT) which has its Council. According to the new Law on HRT (which is at this point in the procedure in Croatian Assembly and which is the special law that regulates operation of HRT) the Council of Croatian Radio-Television will have 15 members who are representatives of non-governmental associations from the territory of Croatia; the Council is expected to ratify election of directors and editors-in-chief in HRT. So far members of the Council were representatives of political parties represented in state parliament, while the new law prescribes that the parliament only approves the election of the nominated candidates for members of the Council. This leaves the possibility for politics to decide on personnel and programme of the most powerful media in Croatia which is owned by the state.
Decision-making by the journalists on the election of the editors also depends on the statute of every media, but as a rule journalists are entitled to influence this election. In practice, this is somewhat different - the journalists are entitled to give their opinion on the new editor, but their opinion is usually not taken into account. An example is Slobodna Dalmacija, daily newspaper from Split which is owned by the state and in which a large number of the employees were against the present editor-in-chief Josip Jovic, but they could not relieve him of duty because directors of the company and the supervisory board were in favour of Jovic's remaining at the post.
The Radio and Television Council is in charge of giving concessions for operation of radio and television stations; it has nine members from the ranks of public, education, cultural, professional and religious workers. Members of the Council are designated by the Chamber of Representatives of Croatian Assembly at the proposal of the Government of the Republic of Croatia. They are nominated for a period of five years, but a part of the members are replaced every year; they cannot be assembly deputies nor workers in any of the electronic media. Therefore, although the Government and the Assembly, or rather political parties whose members sit in them, and other state agencies should not have any influence on editorial policy of state media - since freedom of expression is warranted by the Constitution - by approving members of the council or supervisory boards they can do it which was an exceptionally big problem during the nineties when the ruling party Croat Democratic Community (HDZ) abundantly used this possibility. The new authorities are still not doing it much, but based on some statements and actions their influence on programme policy is evident, especially that of Croatian Radio-Television.
Conditions for getting channels, either for television or radio broadcasting are discriminatory. A single fact speaks about it: the plan of available channels still has not been published in Croatia, so it is possible for a new radio station to appear without anyone knowing where it got its channel. Such a case has happened after the change of the regime. According to the legal provisions in force nowadays, foreign investors can possess 25 per cent of an electronic media, but changes are announced according to which their share might soon amount to 49 per cent. There are no limitations of foreign ownership in printed media.
The range of the signals enables competition between private and public (state) media, but the problem is in the fact that the law permits state media which have existed for years to devote a large time to advertisements, which resulted in the fact that private media have no advertisements and that due to limited financial possibilities private media mostly get rid of information programs production of which is very expensive. This enables state media to have a predominant role in informing.
Croatian Radio-Television has a code of behavior of journalists, and so do some other, even private media. These codes are based on the code of the Croatian Journalists' Society, the leading professional union of the journalists in Croatia. All the existing codes have very high standards, but they are very often violated by journalists themselves, but also by the editors, and the sanctions mostly do not exist. The judiciary, investigative judges and other state institutions are nowadays playing their role much better in offering guarantees for freedom of expression, although trials initiated against journalists and editors at the time of former HDZ regime, are still a great burden on the work of the journalists and their expression. But state institutions are still not quite sure where the limits of the freedom of expression is, and legal provisions are mostly ambiguous.
The rights of the individuals are very well protected by the Law on Public Information which relies on the provisions of Croatian Constitution. But in practice, protection of privacy of politicians and other public figures is very frequent, even when there is a justified interest of the public to learn details from their lives. Legislature protects the right of access to information, state agencies are obliged to give information, but there is no legal deadline by when they have to do it. The Law prescribes that it must be done "within a reasonable time", which most of the state agency tend to evade by delaying to give information. In case of outright refusal to give information, fines for the offence may be paid - between 10 and 40 thousand kunas (2.5 to 10 thousand German marks). There is only one known case in which a journalist sued a state official and got satisfaction. In several other cases the court has not even taken such appeals into consideration. The change of the regime has brought about greater transparency of state agencies which made the work of the journalists considerably easier, mostly putting them into an equal position regardless of whether they come from private or state media and what political option they advocate.
There are legal limitations in connection with statement of state, business, military, official and professional secrets. Croatian Assembly has a special body, the Council for checking secrecy, which can check whether a fact was proclaimed to be a secret or not at the request of a publisher. The Council has seven members appointed by the Assembly from the ranks of public servants, three of whom must be from media. As a rule, publishers and journalists did not have problems because of publishing secrets, and even the biggest secrets are usually published without any consequences for the media. The responsibility is even greater of those who have presented such data, if it is established, of course, who had betrayed them to the media. But although there are sanctions if it is established that a certain body refuses to give information required by journalists, there are no sanctions for concealing information that is important for the public.
The citizens have a right to insight into data on themselves kept by state administration - the police and secret services. However, these regulations were violated in Croatia, and all the material collected by bugging and tailing was proclaimed as archives and a 30-year embargo was put on it, so that not even the citizens who have reliable evidence on the existence of secret dossiers on them can actually see them. The truthfulness and credibility of the data is very low, because the few documents created in secret police services published by the media show that a large number of the data is incorrect, and even the correct ones are wrongly interpreted. One could say that dossiers made in secret police services were used more for discrediting political opponents, and less for acquiring knowledge about the people the regime considered a threat to itself (although they were nothing of the kind).
The Law entitles all the citizens to publishing corrections of falsities about them presented by the media. This right is respected by all the media. The law prescribes that the correction be published in the same script and on the same amount of space, but this part is mostly disregarded.
The existence of the personal identification number of citizens which is entered on most of identity papers of each citizen testifies that personal data are not protected. According to the Law on Public Information, personal data are protected, but by entering the personal identity number of a citizens into a computer any even slightly skilled computer connoisseur can acquire all the data about any citizen of the Republic of Croatia. At the moment, an amendment of provisions on the personal identification number of the citizens is in preparation in order to ensure additional protection of privacy. The Law does not permit publication of names of minors nor data about them in case they commit or are victims of a criminal act, and an increasing number of laws and legal provisions deal with privacy and their protection.
The attitude of state administration has significantly changed in the past few years and theoretically its slogan is that "the public is entitled to know". But there are still frequent cases of concealing of information and there are no sanctions for that. There have been no cases of concealing or withholding information in court practice, there is only the case of refusal to offer the demanded information.
A journalist has the right to protect sources of information. The law treats it as a right, but not as an obligation of journalists, while journalists consider it their duty. The question of protection of sources of data is regulated by the Law on Public Information founded on the code of journalism and international conventions and it is highly esteemed. In several cases courts have tried to get round this provision and force journalists to give away their sources of information, but it has never occurred. Journalists have a greater right to protect sources of information than other citizens, but in case of slander and insult, the indicted journalists have even greater rights than their colleagues and editors involved in court proceedings as witnesses whose duty is to testify on sources of information. Sanctions are pecuniary, and in case they refuse to testify they can even be sentenced to prison, but there have been no such cases.
There is no practice of taking persons into custody for interrogation, but there is the practice of taking journalists and editors into custody for refusal to respond to subpoena, because some of them have decided not to appear in court even when duly summoned. Investigative judges are entitled to confiscate notes, cassettes and other documentation of journalists, if it is evidence in criminal proceedings. Pursuant these legal provisions, at the time of the former regime apartments of journalists were searched although it was not in connection with criminal acts but in the attempt to reveal informers who gave confidential information to certain media although this is not prescribed by law. Concerning search of apartments or editorial premises journalists' rights are no greater than those of other citizens, but investigative judges are trying to establish a more intimate relations with journalists without abusing their office, which they have increasing success in.
Courts take into consideration standards of the European Court for Human Rights, while in a small number of proceedings for betrayal of military or state secret the right of the public to be informed was taken into account. There are no precise rules when the state should be given prevalence and when the public. However, practice has determined the rule that the right of the public is more important than protection of state interests.