USAID Project to Monitor Defamation Cases
With the support of USAID and its principal implementing partner, the Eurasia Partnership Foundation (EPF), Media Rights Institute (MRI)—a subgrantee organization—recently completed the “Monitoring of the Legal Cases on Defamation” project in the Azerbaijani media. The project supported the protection of journalists’ rights and responsibilities through independent monitoring and analysis of court decisions related to defamation, access to information, protection of sources and physical injury. The project conducted monthly, semi-annual and annual surveys of relevant court decisions made over the past two years and compared them to standards and criteria defined by the European Court on Human Rights. Within the scope of the project, the first ever “Amicus Curiae” or “friend of the court” letter was drafted and received by the appropriate district courts regarding recommendations and international standards. What is more, Azerbaijan’s high court recognized the right of precedent of the European Court – another first in Azerbaijan.
 |
The Media Rights Institute presented the results of its semi-annual report
Photo Credit: Eurasia Foundation |
MRI’s annual report noted that 36 judgments assigned liability for moral damage during the survey period. A Court of Appeals overturned eight of the findings. In seven cases, the Court of Appeals decreased the amount of the compensation and in one case, cancelled the requirement for monetary compensation altogether. In five of the cases, parties were able to reach amicable resolution. In certain cases the courts ruled to destroy copies of the publications evincing the injury. Finally, in three cases the court rejected the requirement for compensation while allowing publication of the unsubstantiated claims.
MRI recommends that the government enact an extensive series of reforms to protect the development of an independent media, including revocation of the provisions the Criminal Code prescribing criminal liability for defamation; initiation of measures to release confined journalists and prohibit this dangerous practice; reinvestigation of current defamation claims and reconsider the amounts of compensation; review of laws which violating journalists rights; establishment of “progressive practice” by adopting decisions based on the provisions of the European Convention on Defamation, Insult, Personal Life, Business Reputation and application of case law of the European Court; and, provision of educational trainings for judges enabling them to solve defamation cases employing advanced criteria and legal instruments.
Back to Top ^ |
