Yesterday the NA Standing Committee on Legal Issues discussed the bill on amending the RA civil code related to the provisions on decriminalization of offenses and false information. Let us recall that this bill was adopted by the first reading. This version of the bill was re-elaborated. It preliminarily implied quite dangerous provisions for the mass media agencies. A citizen, who’d think that the given media source or individual had vilified or published false information about him would have the right to sure the given media source and demand financial remuneration in the amount of the minimum salary multiplied by 250-2000. Besides that the media outlet would also be punished by commenting and spreading the given false information. The bill raised the criticism and controversy of certain media agencies and journalists. And it was finally decided to create a working group comprised of the authors of the bill and journalistic organizations and as a result revise the bill. And so yesterday the Legal Issues Committee discussed this revised version. When speaking to us one of the authors of the bill a Republican MP Hovhannes Sahakyan told that the concrete amounts defined for insult and humiliation are now substituted and multiplied by the 1000 times of the minimum salary and up to 2000 times of the minimum wages. Therefore in the words of the author in the past if the minimum of the fine was 25o times of the minimum wages then now the judge may define amount starting from 50 times of the salary. The amount of the fine should be determined by the judge depending on the impact of the published false information. “If you insult the person among 10 people it gives certain impact but if you insult the person via TV or radio and then your words acquire larger publicity then the issues becomes more complicated. Based on these factors it is up to the court to decide the amount of penalty,” says Sahakyan. Moreover, the third highest amount of fine was defined for the media agencies. In the revised version the agency and the individual journalist were equaled in terms of penalties. Besides that, the provision was clarified, according to which if the media agency passes on the humiliating information it shouldn’t be fined. Besides that, in the words of Sahakyan, the agency will not be fined if it besides passing on the information adds comments to the publication. Sahakyan ensures that they have taken into account all the recommendations of the working group. An expert of the freedom of speech committee Mesrop Harutyunyan, who had also submitted recommendations to the working group, told us that the working group couldn’t possibly do more. The overall impression and belief is that this bill was initiated to punish those media outlets, which are not under the control of the government. And this especially relates to the newspapers. If the court approves the suit and determines a fine in the amount of is 1.2 million AMD then it will become a serious problem for the newspaper. This is immense amount of money for newspapers, which have a 5000-6000 daily circulation. And if the government decides to shut down a newspaper similar to what it has done to the A1+ then the court procedure, which may last up to 1 year, may be enough to shut down any newspaper. The officials don’t even hide that and during their private conversations they mention that the end of presumptuous publications is close. The Minister of Justice Gevorg Danielyan, who was also present at the discussion, didn’t deny that this bill will serve as a baton to restrict the articles of certain newspapers. He only mentioned that due to the revised version of the bill the amount of fines and restrictions were tempered. “Perhaps the preliminary version left some room for arguments and concerns but how can you express the same concerns regarding the revised version? The media agencies submitted their recommendations and those were taken into account. It means that the bill reflects your suggestions. The bill will not serve as a punishing lash,” said Danielyan. Will he minister personally demand redemption from the media agencies if he finds that those have insulted him? “I am personally not inclined to that but am having a hard time answering your question. At any rate, the person should have this opportunity,” responded the minister. During a telephone conversation with us the president of the press club of Yerevan Boris Navasardyan told us that the revised bill hasn’t satisfied the main concerns of the journalists. He finds it really concerning that this time again it is up to the courts to determine the size of the fine. He doesn’t see any deliberation here but thinks that a more serious work should have been done on the bill and more time was needed for the authors to be more accurate. “The legislative tradition of our country is that authors are inclined to push ahead their bills to the maximum extent,” said Navasardyan. On Monday this bill should be subject to a short discussion one more time in the Legal Issues Committee of the NA in order to clearly define that the only goal of the law is to compensate for the moral offence. Perhaps on the same day it will be included in the full session agenda of the NA.
