Media freedom in Azerbaijan

Attacks and threats against journalists

Threats, physical attacks, harassment against journalists are common. Nearly 100 journalists were victims of physical assault in 2003. More than 50 were attacked covering violent clashes between the security forces and demonstrators after the 2003 presidential elections. The International Federation of Journalists recorded 15 attacks on journalists in 2013.

Other legislative measures - from hooliganism to the possession of drugs and weapons, treason, and tax evasion - are regularly used by authorities to punish and prevent critical reporting.

Unfair trials and imprisoned journalists

Azerbaijani authorities have imprisoned several notable journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists has stated the charges against many journalists are "fabricated" and "politicized". At the end of 2014, eight journalists remained behind bars. International instances such as the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe have consistently refuted the justifications by the Azerbaijani authorities that jailed journalists had been prosecuted and sentenced for common crimes. Prison conditions for journalists are reported as dire, with routine ill-treatment and denial of medical care. More than 10 journalists remain in jail in Azerbaijan by the end of 2015. They include:

The full list of cases of imprisoned journalists in the last years is the following:

Refusal of access and arbitrary expulsions

A number of foreign journalists have also been refused entry to Azerbaijan or have been expelled from the country for reporting unfavorably on domestic and foreign matters.

Political interferences

The president Ilham Aliyev and his party control most of media and informations, despite the official 1998 ban on censorship. Political parties use economic pressure to control the media, mostly through advertisement.

Defamation lawsuits

Defamation is a criminal offense punishable by up to three years in prison. As the same time journalists that damage the honor and the dignity of the president can be punished up to two years in prison. The government in this way can make pressure on independent journalists and opposition media. Since 2013 defamation include internet content, too.

Cyber-attacks

In the recent years had strengthen the control on the internet activities of bloggers, social-media activists and journalists. The blogger Elsevar Mursalli was imprisoned for alleged drug possession and released in October.

In 2013 the government blocked an image-sharing website about security service. As the same time, Azadliq and RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) reported cyber-attacks.

Smear campaigns

Internet censorship and surveillance

The Azerbaijani government has increased its control over the internet, harassing social media activists, bloggers an online journalists. The email and telephone communications of journalists have been denounced as under surveillance. Real-life intimidations are used to deter online criticism, rather than content blocking. Legal norms criminalising online defamation have deterred social media mobilisation too, together with the arrests of bloggers and activists. DDoS attacks against independent outlets such as Azadliq and RFE/RL have been reported.

Transparency of media ownership

Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies.

The Law on Mass Media provides that print media ownership must be disclosed publicly. However, the law does not regulate transparency of media's financial resources and flows. This is a particularly concerning point in a country where, according to some experts, the state and one single oligarch owns more than 90 percent of the country's media.

Overall, according to Access-Info Europe, an NGO advocating for enhancing access to information, the legislative framework for transparency is vague and requires little ownership information to be disclosed.

As a consequence, in practice it is difficult to obtain comprehensive information on the ownership structures of some media outlets, in particular private broadcasters. In fact, in June 2012, some amendments to the Law on the Registration of Legal Entities, on Commercial Secrecy and the Law on Obtaining of Information further worsened the transparency situation since information about corporate owners and their shareholdings of private media have been declared commercial secrets and deleted from public websites and registers. This makes possible for members of Parliament and other public officials that are banned from owning a business to not to be accountable to public scrutiny.

There is a lack of political willingness in improving transparency of media ownership in Azerbaijan, where many media outlets, in particular print media, are controlled by persons or companies connected to the political power, from both and editorial and financial point of view. In some cases, this control is exerted through nominal intermediaries. Transparency of media ownership has been a neglected issue amid the frequent and vibrant public debates on the challenges and problems affecting media freedom in the country. Further, the practice, not the law, for broadcast media sees the government to strictly control ownership and any changes in ownership in the broadcast sector. In such a context, the media regulatory authority does not enforce sanctions without the order of the Presidential Administration.

Background

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

The Law on Access to Information was adopted in Azerbaijan in 2005. The Law entitles citizens of Azerbaijan to send, both as individuals and legal entities, requests for information to any public institution as well as the agency in charge of managing public finance, and get the corresponding answer. It is an "ambitious information access Law", according to Revenue Watch Institute (RWI). However a monitoring report by RWI and the Open Society Institute (OSI) found that the reality of access to information fell short of the ideal. According to the research carried out, Azerbaijani officials were in poor compliance with the 2005 law - over half of the inquiries made were ignored, while the 65 inquiries that received responses included 16 refusals of information and 3 incomplete answers. Few oil companies responded to the request.

Organisation Article 19 also found that there were inadequate mechanisms to facilitate information requests from the public, and no dedicated public information offices in Ministries. In addition, their report found an entrenched culture of secrecy within Azerbaijani government institutions and a lack of awareness of the right to information among the public.

FOI provisions under the law

Under the law, responses to requests for information is due within 7 days and, if necessary, no later than in 24 hours. A public authority may refuse to reply to the request only when it is not the owner of the information, the disclosure of the requested information is restricted by law, the request does not contain information for identifying the information requested, the applicant is not entitled to request such information, or when he/she has not provided information on his/her identity.

The law defines two categories of information, i.e. "public information" and "information with limited access". Two types of information fall within the definition of "information with limited access", as defined by the law: secret information (state secrets), and confidential information (proprietary, professional, commercial, investigative or judicial secrets, and personal information). Since 2012, commercial confidentiality includes also "information about founders (participants) of legal entities and their share in equity capital, and this significantly hampers journalistic anti-corruption investigations".

The law established the set up of the Commissioner for Information Issues, in charge of supervising the implementation of the law. However, over the six years that followed its establishment, the Office failed to comply with its duties. As a consequence, in 2011 the Parliament amended the relevant legislation, abandoning the idea of the Commissioner position, and instead entrusting the Ombudsman for Human Rights with the former responsibilities of the Commissioner for Information.

Access to public information in practice

Media outlets and journalists face several problems when trying to access public information. Such problems, however, are unevenly distributed as some public authorities offer complete and timely answers to FOI requests in most cases while many other institutions widely ignore journalists' requests. Some ministries make decisions to limit the access of journalists to information. Problems of access to public information are not limited to authorities' illegal refusals to respond to information requests. Indeed, journalists' right to access information are violated both by the courts and the Parliament. For instance, in 2013 there were cases of journalists to whom was impeded to cover trials even though all the hearings were open. In 2013, the Parliament impeded journalists to bring their equipment and smartphones to the meeting rooms following the episode of a video recorded by a journalist on a smartphone and published on the Internet showing MPs voting with e-cards on behalf of their colleagues.

In January 2014, the Minister of education signed a decree to forbid educational institutions, including universities, to make information public without approval from the Ministry’s press service. Acting in compliance with this decree, the security service of the Baku State University impeded journalists from covering a students’ protest. As a result, journalists who wanted to interview students were injured and their equipment was broken.