Part II. Ending impunity: an imperative for the osce
Special and growing concern is attached to the fact that in a number of participating States journalists have been charged and convicted of a criminal offence for defamation of a public figure or state institution, in contradiction to the norms established by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments related to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, dealing with the right to freedom of expression. More than 20 years ago the court established the principle that politicians must accept more criticism than private individuals. In a 1986 judgment in a criminal defamation case involving a critical press report about the then chancellor of Austria, Bruno Kreisky, the court ruled that a politician knowingly opens himself to close scrutiny, and must tolerate a higher level of criticism (Lingens v Austria, 1986 8 EHRR40). Explaining its decision, the European Court of Human Rights noted that political debate rests “at the very core of the concept of a democratic society. Politicians should therefore accept that courts will seriously consider the value of political debate when ruling in a defamation suit.” That judgment has been reflected in subsequent rulings by the Strasbourg court. Persistent threats of prosecution which contradict the accepted right to the protection of sources are also a persistent cause for concern. The press has been accorded the broadest scope of protection in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including with regard to confidentiality of journalistic sources. In a landmark ruling in 1996 the Court ruled that the protection of sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom. “Without such protection”, the Court said, “sources may be deterred from assisting the
22
OSCE_SoJ_UK.indd 22
06/03/12 11.11