Human rights in Ukraine – 2007. 8. Freedom of expression

[1]

1.  Overview

The situation during 2007 did not change significantly.

After 2004 there was a considerable easing in pressure on the media and journalists from the authorities, however during the last two years pressure has been gradually increasing, especially at the local level.

.Nor has independence from the authorities become a guarantee of independence for the media. The lack of separation of editorial policy from the media outlet owners has made media outlets too dependent on the wishes of their owners which are increasingly controlling editorial policy.

The situation has not been improved by the gradual transformation of a certain part of the media into a profit-making business. Financial independent has not resulted in editorial independence.

Another growing problem is the inclusion of paid material or as it is commonly called “jeansa” on television[2].  This problem is particularly acute during elections when, for example, all television cameras of the channels are occupied with commissioned features, while omitting events of public significance which don’t appear in the news.

Under such conditions one can only speak of a certain degree of press freedom. There are considerable problems with freedom of speech due to the lack of access to the media in order to express points of view since such access is sometimes available virtually entirely for payment or in accordance with the media owners’ instructions.

This situation could be changed through the creation of public broadcasting however the political will for this from the President, the government and parliament is clearly lacking

Journalists feel safer than before, although attacks on journalists are frequent and the investigations into them usually lead nowhere. Journalists are also under economic pressure from the administration of the media outlets. Many of them work and are paid unofficially, and are not protected by labour law. Therefore, for example, if they speak out openly against the media outlet’s management they risk remaining without pay for at least the last month.

Journalists have not organized themselves sufficiently. Ethical mechanisms virtually don’t work, while independent trade unions are, as a rule, small or not well-developed.

During 2007 the Ministry of Justice continued drawing up a draft law “On reform of State and municipal printed media outlets” (registration No. 4003). It was tabled in parliament, however by letter № 21-12-1702 from 1 March 2007 it was withdrawn due to a change in the makeup of the government. The Ministry of Justice applied to the Cabinet of Ministers to extend the term of the reworked draft Law to 1 July 2008 (letter № 21-9/213 from 17 January 2008).

The reform of State and municipal media has not thus taken place. Living off subsidies from public funding, these media outlets are most often mouthpieces for the authorities which do not observe the standards of freedom of speech

In the view of the Institute for Mass Information, Ukraine is gradually improving its situation according to all the “classic” criteria which international human rights structures use to assess the situation with freedom of speech. At the same time a dangerous trend is emerging in the country with the spread of “jeansa” – commissioned texts containing covert advertising. The situation could lead to the loss of the right to the profession since it exists with the tacit consent of the media owners, a large percentage of politicians and the journalists themselves”.

“Reporters without frontiers” consider that it is easier for journalists to work now than before, however through polarization of society and the press, it is hard for journalists to take an independent editorial position.  They cite as an example the closure of the television programme “Toloka” on UT-1[3] і, the resignation of the Editor of “Gazeta-24”[4]  because one of the main shareholders wanted to dictate the political line.[5].

Monitoring showed a rise in tolerance by the local authorities to the media. However there remains a problem with constant intrusion by owners in the work of the media outlets. These were the conclusions from the regional monitoring carried out by the Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives, the Civic Network OPORA and the Committee of Voters of Ukraine carried out with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation.[6].

2.  Compulsory State registration of media outlets and of publishing activities

The printed press

Registration of printed media outlets remains mandatory which, UHHRU considers is an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. There is still liability for circulating media outlets without State registration.

As of 1 January 2008 the Ministry of Justice had registered or re-registered 2, 486 printed media outlets (in 2007 - 1331, in 2006 – 1048) and 35 information agencies (in 2007 – 24, in 2006 – 11).

Territorial offices of the Ministry registered (/re-registered) over two thousand printed publications (during 9 months of 2007 – 1102, 9 months of 2006 – 960).[7]

In order to create a single system for keeping track of printed media outlets in the country and information agencies a State Register of Media Outlets and Information Agencies has been created[8]. The administrator of the Register is the State enterprise “Information Centre” of the Ministry of Justice which is creating and maintaining the programme software for the Register, ensuring the storage and protection o f data kept in the Register and issues authorized extracts from it. Information from the Register is provided either in shortened form or in full in response to written requests either from individuals or legal entities for a fee set by the Ministry. Information from the Register is provided free of charge to the court, prosecutor’s office, detective inquiry or criminal investigation units in connection with a criminal investigation which they are dealing with, other State authorities and bodies of local self-government.

Television and Radio Broadcasting

The National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council of Ukraine carries out compulsory registration of television and radio broadcasting organizations.  Even those which only produce audiovisual production without circulating it themselves need to have registration.

Furthermore, any type of broadcaster of information, satellite, digital, cable and wire needs registration this not being in line with international standards.

As of 31 December 2007 the State Register held information about 1, 523 television and radio companies (hereafter TRC) and providers of information, namely 1426 TRC and providers of programme services, 97 providers of information. Of the 1426, 96 were State-owned, 396 – municipal and 994 - private.[9]

Publishing

All those engaged in publishing activities must have State registration. Furthermore, only enterprises may be publishers, not civic religious or charitable organizations.

3.  The Rights of Journalists and the Media

The Institute for Mass Information has stated that Ukraine is gradually becoming a country with a relatively low level of serious violations of the principles of freedom of speech. This is reflected first and foremost in the fact that there have not been any killings or suspicious disappearances of journalists for a few years running. No journalist is behind bars for any offence linked with carrying out journalist work.

Information on recorded offences[10]

a)  Killings, beatings, threats and other forms of violation against journalists

Information about victims of crimes among media employees[11]

Last year did not bring the desired progress in the Gongadze investigation. The court hearings into the case against the men who carried out the killing – former high-ranking officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs [VIA] lasted all twelve months. However there were no results in the search for those who ordered the killing and those who organized it. The verdict with respect to the men who carried out the murder was handed down in March 2008 however on this the investigation reached a dead end, with the organizer of the crime being declared in his absence Oleksy Pukrach who has for years being in hiding. Other witnesses who could point to those who really ordered the killing were not named in court.

The Supreme Court on 22 June upheld the verdict against the killers of the journalist Ihor Aleksandrov. The ruling from the Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal which sentenced 5 men to periods of imprisonment from 3 to 15 years for their involvement in the killing of the journalist was passed in July 2006.  The Prosecutor General soon afterwards applied to the Supreme Court to review the sentences which the prosecutor’s office believed too lenient...Compensation awarded to the relatives of the journalist was not paid since the investigators did not take care to record the property of the accused at the right time.[12].

The most brutal attack on a journalist was the assault on 7 December on Maxim Birovash, correspondent for the newspaper “Business”. It took place in the lift of his apartment block. When he got into the lift, two men entered it, knocked him to the ground, grabbed his bag and fled.  He says that the bag contained internal correspondence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, protocols of meetings of the commission on passport provision, and other documents forming the basis for a journalist investigation into machinations over issuing passports. The journalist was due to present these documents during a court hearing on 10 December in connection with a civil suit brought by the Chair of the Consultative Council of the private concern SSAPS [Single State Automated Passport System] Yury Sidorenko.  In November representatives of the company lodged a defamation suit against Maxim Birovash and “Business” demanding compensation of 46 million UAH.  The journalist links the attack to his professional activities given that the assailants took virtually none of his personal things, discarding the bag in the entrance to the block.  However a pocket computer and all documents relating to the SSAPS case had disappeared. Maxim Birovash reported the attack to the Darnytsa District Police and within a few hours one of the assailants was detained. They found two telephones on him belonging to the journalist with the memory cards removed. The Darnytsa Police initiated a criminal investigation into the robbery. On 18 February the man detained then was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The databases of Mr Birovash’s investigations were never found since the other assailant has still not been caught.[13].

On 26 August, some young people who introduced themselves as employees of the Odessa branch of BYuT (Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko) beat up a photographer from the newspaper “Sevodnya” Oleksandr Lesyk. Lesyk noticed that the young people at the end of the rally began loading tents and flags with BYuT symbols into an ambulance. The photographer began photographing this. Young men standing near the ambulance went up to him and asked him to erase the last shots. When he refused, they pushed him to the ground and began beating him. The police found the assailants and on 31 August initiated a criminal investigation for hooliganism (Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code). The case as of April 2008 was still being investigated.

In Donetsk on 21 September 5 cars were set on fire, one of them belonging to the Editor of the Internet publication “Ostrov” Serhiy Harmash. He claims that the arson attack on his car was no chance crime and links it to his own journalist activities. He says that the criminals first set fire specifically to his car and then after it had burned completely began setting fire to other cars of the same make. He assumes that they did this deliberately in order to deflect attention from the arson attack on specifically his car. At the first stage of the investigation the police were inclined to think that this was small-time hooliganism without taking into account the version about arson as the result of his journalist activities. The police have not made any conclusions from their investigation public.

Ihor Stsibailo, head of the Media Union in Ternopil, correspondent for the newspaper “Tochka OPORY”, was attacked during the early hours of 20 October near the Ternopil Youth Centre “Las Vegas” by two men in civilian clothes, one of whom produced a pass identifying him as a criminal investigation officer Oleh Mohyla. The journalist was then taken to Ternopil Police Station No 2.

The police officers took away all the journalist’s possessions and, without writing up a protocol, placed him in a cell. In the morning when Ihor demanded to be released, he says that Captain Kravchuk opened the door to the cell and said that he had been detained for forging documents. When Ihor began protesting, Kravchuk hit in the chest and told him to sit quietly or he’d get more of the same.

Around 11.30 the police released him, but did not return one mobile phone or 300 UAH.  When asked for the remaining items, they denied their existence and asked Ihor to sign that his possessions had been returned. When he refused, he was taken to No. 1 police station where he was released by the head of the station. He made statements to both the City and regional prosecutor’s offices.  The journalist ended up in the neurological unit of the Ternopil Regional Hospital with a preliminary diagnosis of concussion. There was no response from the prosecutor’s office. The journalist has lodged civil suits against them. The first hearing was scheduled for March 2008.

b)  Censorship and other forms of pressure on the media and journalists

A survey of journalists suggests the existence of censorship.[14].

  Is there censorship in Ukraine and in your region?

Yes

Probably yes

Probably not

Hard to say

No

  - overall in Ukraine  - in your region

According to the survey, journalists most often encounter the following:  demands from the authorities to see their material before it’s published; direct instructions to the management of the media outlet from the authorities on the nature of coverage of the events, as well as with the removal by the editor of information which the editorial deems undesirable from the author’s text; the editor’s refusal to publish material; or direct instructions on how to cover it.

The repeat showing of the television program “Toloka”, with opposition leaders Tymoshenko and Kyrylenko on the First National Television channel [UT-1], first broadcast live on 19 March in the evening did not eventuate. Later the producer (and presenter) Viktor Pavlyuk was told that the programme had been cancelled. He is convinced that this was because of the last programme with the leaders of the opposition. The Director of UT-1 Vitaly Dokalenko claimed that the programme had been cancelled due to the lack of professionalism of the presenter. The Kyiv Independent Media Trade Union did not agree, pointing out that the ratings for the last programme had probably been the highest ever. After the broadcast was suspended, Vitaly Dokalenko set up an internal investigation, accusing the presenter of the programme of covert advertising for the opposition. On 23 March during the programme “Freedom of speech”, Dokalenko stated that the programme would not appear on 26 March and that it would not be reinstated until the internal investigation was concluded. Later the investigation found that the programme had been removed without justification. It resumed broadcasting two months later but with a new presenter.

In September the National Union of Journalists made a statement about growing pressure from the authorities on the local media and journalists[15].

The Chief Editor of “Gazeta 24” Vitaly Portnikov resigned on 9 October over censorship. The decision was taken after a conversation with the investor of the holding “MediaDim” Volodymyr Kosterin. The latter said that it was necessary fro the company to carry out internal supervision over the work of the editorial board and expressed the wish, in Portnilov’s words, to establish political control over the publication. Vitaly Portnikov described all of this in an open letter published in a number of media outlets.

“I will not conceal the fact that I encountered attempts to publish material which is at variance with the concept of the publication from my first days working as one of the main editors and then Chief Editor of “Gazeta 24”. However at first I was able to more or less effectively withstand and therefore shield the members of the editorial staff from attempts at political exploitation by the investor and his closest people”. Mr Portnikov explains that the situation radically changed after the parliamentary elections during which the party headed by Volodymyr Kosterin (Ukrainian Green Party) made an “extremely unsuccessful” showing.

On the same day the President of the holding “MediaDim” and head of the board of the channel “Tonis” Mykola KnyazytskyУ confirmed that the accusations against the owner of the holding Volodymyr Kosterin which Vitaly Portnikov had made were fair. And on 13 October Artyom Shevchenko, , news editor on “Tonis” which is part of the “MediaDim” holding, also handed in his resignation.

The Chief Editor of the First Business Television Channel Svitlana Kolyada reported on 9 February that a considerable amount had been deducted from her salary because a feature had been shown from Lviv about how the local authorities had allocated additional funding to pay the communal services of veterans of UPA [the Ukrainian Resistance Army]. The feature was absolutely balanced with different points of view presented (for example, from communists). “I was told that this was because there couldn’t be such a feature on our channel for political reasons”, Ms Kolyada explained. “Our accountant told me “I don’t understand anything but there was an order to deduct money for the feature from Lviv”. After this she telephoned the assistant to the investor who confirmed that this had been the investor’s decision.

The Kyiv Media Trade Union spoke of pressure on journalists of Radio “Era” who had come out with the initiative to create a branch of the media trade union. For example, straight after its creation, the administration found grievances against its members and one of the activists Mykhailo Hlukhovsky was asked to right a letter of resignation. Later he and other initiators of the trade union were dismissed.

c) Obstruction of journalists’ work

In 2007 one criminal case reached the court against a person charged under Article 171 of the Criminal Code (obstruction of legitimate professional activities of journalists). It was returned for further (pre-trial) investigation.[16]. In general we are aware of only one case where this article was applied however in our view it is rather dubious and contradictory.[17].

d) Proportionality of punishment for abuse of freedom of speech

After a spurt of law suits against the media in 2006, there has been a fall in these. The reduction, moreover, is not only in suits filed, but in claims allowed.

Information about suits in law suits defending honour, dignity and business reputation against media outlets[18]

According to data from the Association of Media Lawyers, overall from 1998 to 2008 according to an analysis of 738 court rulings, only 25% demanded retraction of information, while 70% demanded not only retraction, but also compensation for moral damages, and 1.37% that the media outlet’s issue be suspended. Only 7% had demanded compensation between 1 – 1, 700 UAH, while 68.7% wanted between 1, 700-170, 000 UAH, and another 25% hoped to receive more than 170, 000 UAH.  The largest number of claims for big amounts are allowed in the years following elections, and the most “greedy” claimants are politicians and public officials making up 48.8%[19].

The following are some examples of law suits.

On 27 June 2007 the Kyiv Court of Appeal closed the page on a three-year court case against TV Channel 5.  The claim brought by National Deputy Volodymyr Sivkovych was rejected. Previously, on 20 July 2006, the same ruling had been issued by the Pechersky District Court in Kyiv. In autumn 2004 Volodymyr Sivkovych lodged a defamation suit with the Pechersky District Court against Channel 5 and specifically Petro Poroshenko. As a consequence, in the thick of the electoral campaign, 10 days before the first round of voting in the presidential elections, the bank accounts of both Channel 5 and of Petro Poroshenko were frozen. Broadcasting of the only opposition channel at that time began being disconnected in the regions.[20].

The Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 14 July lodged a suit against the newspaper “Litsa” [“People”] for two articles on law enforcement subjects. The MIA Department demanded protection of honour, dignity and business reputation and compensation of 15, 000 UAH. The examination into the case carried on till the end of the year then in February 2008 the MIA withdrew its claim.

On 31 October Delta Bank filed a suit against the information agency “Economic news” demanding compensation for alleged damage to their reputation of 100 thousand UAH.  In the claimant’s view, the Chief Editor of “Economic news” Taras Zahorodny had done damage to the bank by circulating information at a press conference on 4 July 2007. It had been stated there that in the course of a journalist investigation in June 2007, the conclusion had been drawn that banks had ignored the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine No. 168 which prohibited banks from concealing their real interest rates. The bank’s lawyers claimed that the information circulated by Mr Zahorodny had led to a fall in the rate of loans issued by the bank. The preliminary hearing took place on 5 November 2007, and the examination of the case was adjourned until 2008.

On 4 August the Supreme Court rejected a claim made by the former leader of the Social Democratic Party (United) Viktor Medvedchuk calling for information presented in the book “Narcissus” to be declared false. Previously, on 26 July 2004, the Kyiv Court of Appeal had found the author of the book Dmytro Chobit guilty of intrusion into Medvedchuk’s private life. Then the Court of Appeal ordered Chobit to pay Medvedchuk 10 thousand UAH for moral damages, and the publishing house “Prosvita” which had published the book was ordered to pay him 20 thousand UAH.

On 28 December 2007 the City-District Court in Slovyansk (Donetsk region) passed a ruling partially allowing a law suit filed by Valentin Rybachuk; Mayor of Slovyansk, against a television company SAT plus and journalist Natalya Popova, ordering the respondents to retract information made public and pay the Mayor 80 thousand UAH in moral damages. On 18 March 2008 the Donetsk Court of Appeal revoked this ruling and rejected the claim.[21].

On 19 November 2007 the Head of the Consultative Council of the consortium SSAPS [Single State Automated Passport System].filed a claim against “Blitz-Inform” for 46 million UAH. The seriousness of the intensions of the claimant is reflected in the fact that the sum entailed the need to pay state duty of 4, 6 million UAH.[22].  The claim was allowed on 23 May 2008.  The amount awarded against the newspaper and two journalists was 27 million UAH, this being the largest amount to date in Ukraine. and more than all claims against the media in 2004. Now In order to lodge an appeal, the newspaper and journalists will have to pay state duty of between 1 and 2.5 million UAH, depending on the court ruling.

In 2007 the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council carried out 270 checks of television and radio companies [TRC] and reviewed the results at sessions of the National Council, these being 186 scheduled checks, and 84 not according to set plans.

As a result of the checks, the National Council issued warnings to 92 TRC and fined one – the TRC “Melitopol”. Court applications were made to remove the licences (in accordance with Article 37 of the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting”) of five TRC.[23].

4.  Recommendations

1)  Implement a programme for reforming State-owned media outlets by changing their system of management and financing in accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe and OSCE. The best example of such reform is the introduction of public TV and radio broadcasting on the basis of UT-1 National Television Channel and the First National Radio Channel. The process of privatization must be accelerated.

2)  Abolish the procedure for permission-based registration of printed media outlets which is not in line with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.[24]

3)  Extend those with the right to engage in publishing activities from enterprises to all forms of legal entities. For this amendments are needed to the law on publishing.

4)  Draw up and introduce the appropriate legislation and programmes of self-regulation for journalists and media outlets in order to reduce the spread of material which is paid for or produced on commission with infringements of journalist standards of objectivity and balanced presentation of information.

5)  Abolish the laws “On the procedure for media coverage of the activities of public authorities and bodies of local self-government in Ukraine” and “On government support for the media and social protection for journalists”, allowing for the cancellation of particular benefits for journalists of State media outlets, and to ensure that they have the same rights as journalists on private media outlets.

6)  It would be advisable to review legislation on the elections in order to ensure free discussion in the media about candidates, their weak and strong points and various aspects of their political programme and activities. For this the understanding of advertising and campaigning should be more clearly defined.

7)  Paid sponsorship of news items should be prohibited by law

8)  Review the possibility of adopting and developing a law on journalists’ rights, using preparatory work carried out by the State Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting and draft law № 9175 from 27 February 2006 “On protection of journalists’ professional activities”. This issue is of practical importance since, for example, the rights of journalists working for television and radio companies are not defined at all..

9)  Introduce amendments to the law on television and radio broadcasting in order to bring it into line with standards of the Council of Europe, OSCE and the European Union.

10) Introduce amendments to legislation making it possible to identify the real owner of a media outlet, especially of television channels and radio stations; to introduce effective control over the concentration of media outlets in the hands of one owner or members of his or her family; to introduce anti-monopoly restrictions for the information market in compliance with recommendations of the Council of Europe, OSCE and the European Union; to introduce necessary procedure for punishing those who infringe legislation on the concentration of the media.

11) З Ensure quick and transparent investigation into all reports of violence and deaths of journalists, as well as into cases of interference in journalists’ activities.

12) Accelerate the procedure for ratifying the European Convention on trans-border television, the Additional protocol to the Convention on trans-border television, and also introduce amendments to legislation on the implementation of its regulations, as well as the provisions of the EU Directive 85/552/ЕU, 97/36/ЕU «Television without Borders.”.

13) Disband the State Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting during an overall consideration of Draft amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine. Control also needs to be heightened over the use of funds by this government agency due to numerous cases of abuse. The system, for example, of ordering State-funded television and radio programmes, book publications, films and other services needs to be made more transparent.

14) Pass a new version of the Law “On protection of public morality” which sets out clearer grounds for restricting freedom of expression of views in order to protect public morals, as well as removing preliminary control over the distribution of films, etc..

[1] Prepared by UHHRU Executive Director Volodymyr Yavorsky.

[2]  The term clearly comes from the word for jeans and refers to news items, discussion programmes, etc, which have been paid for, and do not therefore meet the requirements of independent journalism.  One of the media actions against this is called “We’re not for sale”. See: http://khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1210290762 and follow the links below for more detail both of the phenomenon and how some are fighting it  (translator).

[3]  See the report on the work of the Commission investigating the temporary suspension of broadcast of the UTV-1 talk-show “Toloka” http://1tv.com.ua/about/1tvnews/07/04/03/18/05.html.

[4] See also “Vitaly Portnikov will be dismissed from “Gazeta 24” for skiving off if he doesn’t withdraw his statement about censorship  http://helsinki.org.ua.index.php?id=1196345223;  Portnikov leaves “24”, Knyazhytsky – from “Tonis” Over censorship   http://helsinki.org.ua.index.php?id=1191918482.

[5] “Reporters without frontiers” “It’s dangerous to be a journalist these days // Radio Svoboda http://radiosvoboda.org.

[6]  Project: “Ukraine: a year after the elections: monitoring of the regions”. Carried out in the following 10 regions: Volyn, Lviv, Vinnytsa, Odessa, Donetsk, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Kherson. The monitoring looked at the following: the structure of the media market (media ownership, specific features of the information realm the relations between the authorities and the media, the availability of influential Internet publications: http://helsinki.org.ua.index.php?id=1185451112.

[7] Information on the results of the Ministry of Justice’s activities in 2007 http://minjust.gov.ua/0/zvit_2007.

[8] Adopted by Ministry of Justice Order No. 4125 from 21 June 2007

[9] Report of the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council for 2007 // National Council’s official website http://nrada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/go?page=117.

[10]  For data from IMI monitoring over many years, see  http://imi.org.ua/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=172036&Itemid=42. See also the description of violations. Institute for Mass Information Chronicle of Infringements of Freedom of Speech http://imi.org.ua/media/hronique.doc.

[11] According to figures from the Ministry of Internal Affairs posted on their website: http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/53966;jsessionid=90E9A16E35E13DD262262B3724A663C5

[12] Institute for Mass Information Chronicle of Infringements of Freedom of Speech, http://imi.org.ua/media/hronique.doc.

[13] Ibid.  See also http://khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1197931105&w=Birovash.

[14] From November 2006 – February 2007 the Ukrainian Independent Media Trade Union conducted a study as part of the project “Effective control over the work of the local authorities by the local media and Ukrainian journalists”, supported by the International Renaissance Foundation. The study involved interviews with media experts and representatives of the local authorities, as well as questionnaires to journalists in three regions – Donetsk, Lviv and Kyiv (the city as well as Kyiv region). 143 questionnaires were obtained (48 in the Lviv region; 47 – Donetsk region, and 48 from Kyiv and Kyiv region). The results were compared with those of a study commissioned by the Kyiv Independent Media Trade Union in November 2004 – January 2005. On that occasion the geographical scope of the survey was considerably greater. In neither case was the selection representative of all journalists working in Ukraine and the results can therefore only be used to gain a picture of the problems experienced and to identify trend, and not to gauge their prevalence in terms of scale or numbers of journalists. // “Censorship in Ukraine exists” http://telekritika.kiev.ua/articles/143/0/9120/nmpu_doslidzhennia/. Some information in English at http://khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1176283386&w=censorship

[15] Memorandum of the National Union of Journalists “On the situation in the national information realm” // Internet publication “Telekritika” 4 September 2007 http://telekritika.kiev.ua/articles/143/0/9777/memorandum_nacЈonalnoi_spЈlki_zhurnalЈstЈv_ukraini_pro_stanoviщe_u_nacЈonalnomu_/.

[16]  Data from the State Judicial Administration for 2007

[17]  “The Case of the newspaper “Perrekrestya”. Institute for Mass Information  http://imi.org.ua/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170363&Itemid=37.

[18]  Data from the State Judicial Administration for various years.

[19] « Their hypnosis is our fear”  // http://telekritika.ua/media-corp/prava/2008-06-06/38854

A slightly abridged version is available in English here: http://khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1212763363  

[20]  Freedom of speech in Ukraine: developing mechanisms and methods for the struggle // UNIAN Information Agency  05.07.2007, http://unian.net/.

[21]  Natalya Popova (“SAT plus”) has won her appeal against the Mayor of Slovyansk  http://telekritika.ua/news/2008-03-18/37202.

[22] http://telekritika.ua/daidzhest/2007-11-25/35141. and also (in English) http://khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1212763363

[23] National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council Report for 2007 http://nrada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/go?page=117

[24] More detail on this can be found in the Special Report by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Harazhti “Media registration in the OSCE region: observations and recommendations from 29 March 2006 http://osce.org/fom/