VERDICTS IN FAVOUR OF FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA

AIM Zagreb, 22 April, 1998

A few court verdicts - although still not legally valid - seem to be indicating to a new trend in the attitude to journalism in Croatia: Davor Butkovic, former editor-in-chief of the weekly Globus, on Monday 20 April, was released of charges that he had slandered and insulted Croatian prime minister Zlatko Matesa and his 22 ministers, by having carried in his journal the for the government unfavourable report of the American advisory Kroll company, specialized in evaluation of safety of international economic investments. The article was titled; "Croatian government corrupt and greatly influenced by organizesd crime" and "Corruption reaches to the highest instances in the government". Judge of the municipal court in Zagreb, Ranko Marijan, pleased the journalists by the verdict in which he stressed that the public was entitled to know all the news regardles of how bad they were for the government, and a journalist might not be punished if the article was written in compliance with professional ethical norms.

The joint complaint of all members of the cabinet - unique in Europe - attracted attention of foreign observers of freedom of the media and it was mentioned in reports as the attempts of the Croatian government to shut up criticism by using court. A contribution to encouragement of journalists to persist in resistance to pressure arrived also from the interior of the country where problems of journalists were not so closely watched as Butkovic's case: a week before, another joournalist was released in Ivanic Grad, where Bozidar Balenovic, editor-in-chief of the local fortnightly Otok Ivanic, had been put in the dock.

Balenovic ended up in military prison due to his critical writing in December 1995. He was first issued call-up papers, which he objected to on the grounds of being a former priest, a Fransiscan, who pursuant the law, had the right to be exempted from joining the army. But, the head of the municipal military department, member of the Croat Democratic Community (HDZ) like all the other local politicians who Balenovic criticized, refused to accept such an excuse and ordered that the editor be escorted by force to a military unit. For refusing to respond to call-up, Balenovic was sentenced to thirty days in prison, but he was released after having served half of the sentence, when articles appeared in newspapers and protests addressed by the Croatian Journalists' Society to the authorities with support of foreign organizations for protection of media and human rights.

Before he was escorted to the military barrack, Balenovic had written an article in which he described actions of the head of the military department and explained why he believed that the call-up was a form of pressure on his editorial policy. He pointed out to constitutional and legal provisions due to which he was entitled to be exempted from military service. He called upon the minister of defence to relieve the local official of duty, because "he infringed the law", "acted arbitrarily and irresponsibly" and "inflicted damage on Croatia and the HDZ". The head of the department replied to it by raising private criminal charges. But, young judge, Jasna Grguric, in the minicipal court in Ivanic Grad released the editor of all charges. She concluded that the article was well corroborated, and that it was clear that the author had no intention to either insult or slander anyone. She especially stressed that she had reached such a decision because it was a criminal case which implied a sentence in prison and that she might have had doubts about the sentence if it had been an appeal for compensaton of damage.

In Butkovic's case, the judge used the possibility provided by criminal law according to which the author of an information should not be sentenced - although it might be insulting or slanderous, if it is stated in a journalist job, and the treatment of the topic showed that the author had no intention to slander or insult. Kroll's report was carried with no comment, results of a public opinion poll were also published in which 75 per cent of the pollees said they believed that spread corruption in the country was a big problem. A powerful piece of evidence followed: in the same volume Globus published stenograms of the investigation against the director of state stockpiles and his deputy who had just been caught red-handed in the purest form of corruption - accepting a bribe for preferential treatment of a few debtors of stockpiles. And these two are part of the government...

The defence took the government unawares on a few other items: it managed to have the first, very biased judge, replaced, because it was revealed that he had previously, in a private law-suit, been represented by the same attorney's firm as in the government versus Butkovic (it is a comparatively well-known firm of the Zagreb lawyer Zvonimir Hodak, husband of vice prime minister Ljerka Mintas Hodak, who was one of the plaintiffs). The government was forced to separate the prime minister's appeal from the other private appeals of the ministers because pursuant the broadly criticized Croatian law, the prime minister is defended from slander by the public prosecutor, as well as the president of the Republic, chairman of the assembly, and presidents of the constitutional and the Supreme court. There was no evidence that the members of the cabinet paid high court taxes which must be paid by all the citizens when they lodge a complaint against anybody, and there were objections because of the hastiness of the procedure which ordinary citizens can hardly ever benefit from.

In the end, the brisk judge Ranko Marijan who took over the case, in a single day held the main hearing, presentation of evidence, heard the statement of the defence and reached the verdict with an explanation that gave joy to all the observers concerned about the destiny of the journalists. "If the journalists were to be punished for carrying bad news, nothing worth mentioning would be left of the journalistic profession, and the public would be condemned to autarchy, uncritical acceptance, privincialism and one-sidedness. With no media and free flow of information, there can be no critical mass which in a democratic public forms the awareness about necessity of existence of preconditions for a democratic legal state, independent judiciary and the rule of law. That is why it is only natural when journalists are more concerned with the public authorities and courts, than the courts are with - journalists".

Since the courts around here do not reach decisions on the basis of precedents, although court practice has certain influencve on determinatiion of standards of trials, it is difficult to say whether this verdict will be a guideline for resolving similar cases. At the moment there are 130 criminal and about 400 civil law-suits for compensation of damage due to alleged insults and slander. Majority of plaintiffs are ministers, public officials and other politicians, so Croatia has earned a bad reputation as a country in which the authorities are using the judiciary for getting rid of their critics. In the severest cases - for example when the public prosecutor's office instigated proceedings in the name of the president of the Republic, Franjo Tudjman, against journalists of Feral Tribune who had written a negative evaluation of his idea to change the purpose of the memorial park on the site of the Jasenovac concentration camp - with the support of the public the courts reached releasing verdicts which were interpreted as a turning point in relations of politics, the judiciary and journalism. But members of the cabinet and other powerful officials were not prevented from trying to take vengeance on their critics at court.

IGOR VUKIC