“I absolutely rule out that there is or has been any wiretapping activity against MP Marco Cappato”. Thus, a few hours after the public alarm raised by the treasurer of the association Luca Coscioni, a statement   from the undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council Alfredo Mantovano denied on behalf of the government the rumors about an alleged permanent control operation against Cappato, candidate in the Senate by-elections in Monza in October. Similarly, with a much more detailed statement   which arrived very quickly, the undersecretary had responded in May to the allegations contained in the book by Luigi Bisignani and Paolo Madron, “The powerful at the time of Giorgia”, published by Chiarelettere, in which there was talk of 400 unauthorised interceptions against politicians, journalists, former members of the government, and members of the opposition.

Allegations and denials

“I have never authorised, as the delegated Authority for the security of the Republic, any form of interception of political representatives or journalists”, wrote Mantovano at the end of May  , defining the scenario envisaged by the book as “very concerning”.

These two sensational cases stirred up the political debate for a few days in recent months, but did not lead to complaints or requests for corrections: it had happened in May, with the advertising launch of the book by Bisignani and Madron, and it also happened at the end of August, with the video   posted on Twitter by Marco Cappato, then shared by Ansa   and by various newspapers, for a total of almost half a million views.

Cappato’s complaint was detailed: “I formally ask the Prime Minister to verify whether the information that reached me anonymously that from February 2023 I am allegedly subjected to ‘computer tapping’ of the telephone (permanent and total interception) with state trojans and that wiretaps have been underway in my usual places of work and life since March of this year. The monitoring would be carried out by the Information and Security Agency – Aisi – at the request of the Information Department for the Security of the Republic – Dis – Authority delegated by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers for any cases of contesting the crime of subversive association and any crimes found during the investigation”.

It is not yet known whether the leak that Cappato says he trusts blindly has been artfully manipulated, whether the institutions are hiding something or whether these are unfounded statements. Even in the case of the 400 alleged wiretaps against politicians and journalists, the only comments were by Matteo Renzi, former head of government, and Vittorio di Trapani, president of the Fnsi. “It is urgent to clarify the matter”, was the request   of the president of the journalists’ union. “It would be an unprecedented scandal”, Renzi wrote   in Il Riformista.

Preventive interceptions by the police and secret services

The interceptions mentioned by Bisignani and Madron are be the so-called preventive interceptions, legal for the police and secret services as long as they are authorised in advance by a magistrate. These wiretaps are different from those targeting suspects: the Criminal Procedure Code establishes the differences from procedural wiretaps, which allow the continuation of investigations (articles 266-271 of the Criminal Procedure Code) or facilitate the search for fugitives (art. 295, co. 3, 3-bis and 3-ter c.p.p.). On the other hand, preventive ones, whether police or intelligence, have public security functions and serve to understand whether there are potential risks for the stability of the country’s institutional and economic system.

The mechanism for this type of wiretapping, carried out by the services delegated by the President of the Council of Ministers and subject to authorisation by the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Rome, is simple: the head of government can delegate, under their political responsibility, the directors of the security information services to carry out interceptions of communications or conversations between those present, even if these take place in the home, in a private place of residence, or in their appurtenances, including the acquisition of external data (the so-called metadata) relating to telephone and electronic communications and the acquisition of any other useful information. Thus the Code of Criminal Procedure integrated by other provisions contained in the Pisanu decree of 2005, in the Code of anti-mafia laws of 2011, and in the Budget Law of the Meloni government of December 2022.

Also on the Carabinieri   website, managed by the Ministry of Defence, there is a precise definition: “It is a tool that allows to detect live and with the maximum level of relevance the level of danger both of the clans operating in a territory and the danger of individual subjects. Regardless of the possibility of developing judicial investigations arising from the elements acquired, they can indicate the priorities on which to intervene with targeted preventive investigations”.

The right to defence and to be informed

But as Leonardo Filippi, professor emeritus of Criminal Procedure at the University of Cagliari, writes in the online magazine Penale Diritto e Procedura  , the changes recently introduced by the government increasingly lead to the question to what extent our Constitution tolerates “a limitation of fundamental freedoms for the purposes of crime prevention without even subsequent information to the person who suffers it”. The question is all the more justified by the fact that the recent changes do not indicate “any serious crime to be prevented, therefore an authorisation for any crime would be legitimate, even trivial or considered inoffensive, as long as the operations are considered indispensable for carrying out prevention activities” of the secret services. Instead, argues Filippi, “it is left to the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Rome to make a generic assessment of the indispensability of the prevention activity for the purposes of carrying out the prevention activities delegated to the security information services: if they consider them indispensable, they authorise, with their own reasoned decree, the interceptions”.

The change compared to the past is not insignificant: if preventive interceptions were previously approved when the Public Prosecutor believed there were “investigative elements” that justified the prevention activity, now the authorisation must be based exclusively on the fact that such interceptions are “essential for carrying out the activities delegated” to the services themselves.

A critical element of preventive interceptions lies, according to prof. Filippi, in the total absence of the right of defence, as there is no formal suspect or charges. Filippi writes: “Given the natural secrecy of preventive activities, the procedure for verifying the regularity of operations and subsequent destruction is not assisted by any guarantee to protect the person subjected to ante delictum collections, who is, ordinarily, destined to remain unaware of the activities carried out against them.

And he continues: “However, the targets of interception and therefore of the limitation of the secrecy of their communications or conversations would have the right at least to be informed of the capture of their dialogues, once the prevention needs have been satisfied”.

All the more disturbing, then, is the thought, fuelled by what is written in Bisignani and Madron’s book, that in recent years such interceptions have expanded and have included newspaper editors, MPs, and members of the opposition.

Unconfirmed rumors from Copasir

At the moment there are no complaints or requests for corrections on the book, which in any case has undergone some television censorship: at the beginning of June Mediaset had cancelled two appearances by Bisignani in Nicola Porro’s programme “Quarta Repubblica”, and in “Stasera Italia”, the talk hosted by Barbara Palombelli, communicating the cancellation a few hours before the broadcast.

On the other hand, there could be a judicial initiative against Bisignani by Tim, which at the beginning of July announced   that it had given a mandate to its lawyers to proceed in court to protect the actions of its employees and shareholders. In fact, on 2 July, Bisignani returned to the subject of wiretapping in an article in il Tempo   (“The 400 intercepted without their knowledge”), and had said that, in a hearing at Copasir (Parliamentary Committee for Security) on 20 June, Tim’s head of security and public affairs Eugenio Santagata confirmed that the activities of the former telephone monopolist would include not only carrying out interceptions useful for national security, but also extending them, if the authority so considered, to ordinary citizens, with what is commonly defined as a “trawl” system.

Here Bisignani quotes his co-author Madron: “According to what Madron was able to ascertain from some members of the Parliamentary Committee for Security (and the Secret Services) who requested anonymity”, the manager would have reported that among the institutional activities of his group there is the possibility of listening to the voice and airwaves of unaware Italian citizens. With the possibility, depending on the interest of the conversations captured, to extend the listening to other users too: the so-called trawl system. With this Bisignani alleges that under the grounds of national security there would be a risk of violating everyone’s privacy.

The hearings at Copasir and a parallel investigation by the Rome prosecutor’s office are at the moment the only concrete consequence of Bisignani and Madron’s book; the hearings are secret, and everything Bisignani writes in retrospect are conjectures which, although denied by the government and Tim, remain debated on the political scene. For the rest, there are no other complaints or requests for rectification affecting the book, which over the summer had some success with the public, including at the Trento Economics festival and in presentations in Capalbio, Avellino, Rome, the Vicenza Golf Club, and the Kalè bathing establishment in Castellaneta Marina in the province of Taranto.

This article was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.

Turkish translation available here.

 

This year’s parliamentary and presidential elections have brought no relief for press freedom. On the contrary, pressure continues to mount on critical journalists ahead of next year’s municipal vote, including mayoral elections in Istanbul and Ankara. And the tragic February 2023 earthquakes laid bare efforts by authorities to control news and information, with local media being particularly targeted.

 

This week, five international media freedom and journalism organizations met with a range of key stakeholders in Turkey, including journalists, civil society groups, the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK), and diplomatic representatives, including the EU Delegation, to discuss Turkey’s media freedom crisis. The delegation also met with members of parliament of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA), Green Left Party (YSP), and Labor Party (EMEP). The delegation also monitored the trial of Tele1 Editor-in-Chief Merdan Yanardağ in Istanbul on October 4.

 

Led by the International Press Institute (IPI) and IPI’s Turkey National Committee, the mission included representatives from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

 

The mission’s requests for meetings with the Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç, Minister of Interior Ali Yerlikaya, head of the Turkish Parliament’s Chair Human Rights Investigation Commission Derya Yanık, head of the Digital Platforms Commission Hüseyin Yayman, head of the Justice Commission Cüneyt Yüksel, RTÜK Chair Ebubekir Şahin and Fahrettin Altun, the head of Directorate of Communications, were left unanswered.  The mission regrets not having the opportunity to engage in dialogue with key public officials and public authorities responsible for upholding fundamental rights and the rule of law and ensuring media freedom and pluralism in the country.

 

A key topic of this year’s mission was Turkey’s disinformation law. Last year, the AKP head of the Human Rights Investigation Commission of the Turkish Parliament assured our delegation that disinformation law would not be used to punish journalists. But in the past year, at least 20 journalists were targeted (with three jailed) on the basis of the disinformation law, mainly in relation to coverage of the earthquake.

  

Physical safety remains an issue of grave concern. In meetings with journalists, the delegation heard alarming examples of threats to reporters’ safety with authorities in some cases turning a blind eye, failing to uphold their duty to conduct an effective investigation and provide safety measures. Meanwhile, politicians, government authorities, and the courts continue to equate critical journalism with “terrorist propaganda”, disinformation, or a threat to national security, further increasing journalists’ physical and legal vulnerability.

 

Journalists targeted with legal harassment continue to face egregious violations of rule of law guarantees. The systematic use of pretrial detention for journalists has now become the norm, effectively resulting in punishment without conviction. Recent cases have seen Kurdish reporters jailed for over a year pending trial following mass arrests.

 

The granting of official press cards remains arbitrary – and their power is limited in the face of information control. Independent journalists fortunate to receive such cards reported that they were in some cases prevented by authorities from reporting in the earthquake zone despite providing their credentials. 

 

The Constitutional Court continues to issue important rulings in support of press freedom. However, it is hampered by a lack of resources, a failure by lower courts to implement the Court’s rulings, and a failure by the Turkish Parliament to introduce legislation addressing systematic violations identified by the Court.

 

Local elections are due to take place in Turkey in March 2024. The free flow of independent news and information is an essential condition to any democratic election. We call on the government of Turkey to guarantee that journalists are able to do their work free of intimidation and harassment in particular during the election period. 

 

Finally, amid the continued crackdown by the Turkish authorities, the delegation notes with concern a pattern of visa denials, delays, and arduous procedures for Turkey journalists applying for visas to Europe. This trend undermines the ability of Turkey’s journalists to build and sustain links to their peers abroad. The delegation calls on European governments and the EU to maintain firm and active support for Turkey’s free press. In addition to strong and clear public support for independent journalists, this must include ensuring that journalists’ applications for visas for professional purposes are fast tracked. 

Uluslararası heyet açıklaması: Türkiye’de basın özgürlüğü krizi deprem ve genel seçimlerin ortasında derinleşti

 

Beş uluslararası basın özgürlüğü ve gazetecilik kuruluşu Türkiye’deki basın özgürlüğü misyonunu tamamladı

 

Türkiye’nin basın özgürlüğü krizi geçtiğimiz yıl daha da derinleşti. Gazeteciler, keyfi tutukluluk ve kovuşturma dahil olmak üzere, mesleki faaliyetlerinden ötürü ağır tehditlerle karşı karşıya kaldı. Basına yönelik saldırı ve tehditlerden sorumlu olanlara karşı cezasızlık artarak devam etti. 

 

Bu yıl yapılan meclis ve cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri basın özgürlüğü açısından herhangi bir rahatlama getirmedi. Aksine, gelecek yıl yapılacak yerel seçimler öncesinde eleştirel gazeteciler üzerindeki baskı artmaya devam ediyor. Şubat 2023’te meydana gelen yıkıcı depremler sırasında yerel medyanın özellikle hedef alınması, yetkililerin haber ve bilgi akışını kontrol etmeye yönelik çabalarının açık bir örneğiydi.

 

Bu hafta, basın ve ifade özgürlüğü alanında çalışan beş uluslararası kuruluş; Türkiye’de gazeteciler, sivil toplum grupları, Anayasa Mahkemesi, Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu (RTÜK) ve Avrupa Birliği Türkiye Delegasyonu gibi pek çok paydaş ile ülkede medya özgürlüğünün içinde bulunduğu krizi görüşmek üzere toplantılar düzenledi. Heyet ayrıca Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP), Demokrasi ve İlerleme Partisi (DEVA), Emek Partisi (EMEP) ve Yeşiller ve Sol Gelecek Partisi (YSP) milletvekilleriyle de bir araya geldi.

 

Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI) ve IPI Türkiye Ulusal Komitesi öncülüğündeki heyette Gazetecileri Koruma Komitesi (CPJ), Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi (ECPMF), Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) ve Sınır Tanımayan Gazeteciler (RSF) temsilcileri yer aldı.

 

Heyetin, Adalet Bakanı Yılmaz Tunç, İçişleri Bakanı Ali Yerlikaya, TBMM İnsan Haklarını İnceleme Komisyonu Başkanı Derya Yanık, Dijital Mecralar Komisyonu Başkanı Hüseyin Yayman, Adalet Komisyonu Başkanı Cüneyt Yüksel, RTÜK Başkanı Ebubekir Şahin ve Cumhurbaşkanlığı İletişim Başkanı Fahrettin Altun ile görüşme talepleri yanıtsız kaldı. Heyet, temel hakların ve hukukun üstünlüğünün korunmasından ve ülkede medya özgürlüğü ve medyada çok sesliliğin sağlanmasından sorumlu görevlileri ve kamu makamlarıyla diyalog kurma fırsatı bulamamaktan üzüntü duyuyor.

 

Bu yılki heyet ziyaretinin öne çıkan başlıklarından biri Türkiye’nin dezenformasyon yasasıydı. Geçen yıl TBMM İnsan Haklarını İnceleme Komisyonunun AKP’li başkanı, dezenformasyon yasasının gazetecileri cezalandırmak için kullanılmayacağı konusunda heyetimize güvence vermişti. Ancak geçtiğimiz yıl, başta deprem haberleriyle ilgili olmak üzere, en az 20 gazeteci dezenformasyon yasasına dayanılarak hedef alındı (üçü hapse atıldı).

 

Gazetecilerin fiziksel güvenliği ciddi bir endişe konusu olmaya devam ediyor. Heyet, gazetecilerle yaptığı görüşmelerde, muhabirlerin güvenliğini tehdit eden birçok endişe verici örnekle karşılaştı ve yetkililerin bazı durumlarda etkili bir soruşturma yürütme ve güvenlik önlemleri sağlama görevlerini yerine getirmek yerine bu tehditlere göz yumduklarını gördü. Aynı zamanda siyasetçiler, hükümet yetkilileri ve mahkemeler eleştirel gazeteciliği “terör propagandası”, dezenformasyon veya ulusal güvenliğe tehditle eş tutmaya devam ederek gazetecilerin fiziksel ve yasal savunmasızlığını daha da artırdı.

 

Hukuki tacizin hedefi olan gazetecilerin yasal güvenceleri, ağır ihlallere maruz kalmaya devam ediyor. Gazetecilerin sistematik bir biçimde tutuklu yargılanması artık olağan bir hale geldi ve bu durum sıklıkla mahkûmiyet kararı olmaksızın cezalandırma ile sonuçlandı. Geçtiğimiz yıl görülen bazı davalarda, Kürt gazeteciler toplu gözaltıların ardından bir yıldan fazla tutuklu kaldı.

 

Resmi basın kartlarının kime verileceği konusundaki keyfi uygulamalar devam ediyor ve bu kartlar bilgi kontrolü karşısında sınırlı bir güce sahip. Basın kartı alma şansına sahip olan bağımsız gazeteciler, kimlik bilgilerini vermelerine rağmen deprem bölgesinde bazı durumlarda haber yapmalarının yetkililer tarafından engellendiklerini bildirdi.

 

Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM) basın özgürlüğünü destekleyen önemli kararlar vermeye devam ediyor. Ancak, kaynak yetersizliği, alt mahkemelerin AYM kararlarını uygulamadaki başarısızlığı ve TBMM’nin AYM  tarafından tespit edilen sistematik ihlalleri ele alan mevzuatı yürürlüğe koymadaki yetersizliği nedeniyle AYM’nin çalışmaları sekteye uğruyor.

 

Bir sonraki yerel seçimlerin Mart 2024’te yapılması planlanıyor. Bağımsız haber ve bilginin serbest dolaşımı tüm demokratik seçimler için hayati bir koşul. Türkiye hükümetini, özellikle seçim döneminde gazetecilerin işlerini tehditlere ve ihlallere maruz kalmadan yapabilmelerini güvence altına almaya çağırıyoruz.

 

Son olarak heyet, Türkiye’de baskıcı koşullar altında çalışırken Avrupa’ya vize başvurusunda bulunan gazetecilerin vize reddi, gecikme ve zorlu prosedürlerine ilişkin endişelerini dile getiriyor. Bu eğilim, Türkiye’deki gazetecilerin yurtdışındaki meslektaşlarıyla bağlantı kurma ve sürdürme imkanlarını azaltıyor. Heyet, Avrupa hükümetlerine Türkiye’deki özgür basına yönelik kararlı ve aktif desteklerini sürdürmeleri çağrısında bulunuyor. Bağımsız gazetecilere yönelik güçlü ve belirgin desteğinin yanı sıra, gazetecilerin mesleki amaçlarla yaptıkları vize başvurularının hızlı bir şekilde işlem görmesi de bu desteğin bir parçası olmalı.

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Media freedom is under serious pressure in Europe, in a context of political interferences, verbal, physical and legal attacks as well generalised conditions characterised by  lack of protection, that – albeit to different degrees – affect journalists and media professionals across all member states and candidate countries.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are on the rise, employed by powerful individuals and companies to avoid public scrutiny and silence critical voices. At the same time, online harassment and intimidation, as well as surveillance incidents, are a growing phenomenon, directed against those dealing with corruption, human rights and other issues relevant to the rule of law.

Alongside with ensuring fair elections, and countering disinformation, strengthening media freedom figures as one of the key priorities on the EU current agenda, as articulated in the 2020 European Democracy Action Plan. Throughout the past few years, EU institutions have been issuing and discussing a number of measures directed towards ensuring a better protection of journalists, countering abusive and exaggerated   lawsuits, and protecting media pluralism and independence. Such endeavours testify to the role played by civil society in drawing the attention and establishing a dialogue with EU policymakers on the ways to support and promote media freedom and freedom of expression, and on the pivotal role played by such rights in strengthening the resilience of EU democracies.

Three thematic sessions will explore the intersection between media and rule of law across Europe from different thematic angles, geographic and/or professional backgrounds.

The event will take place in English with simultaneous translation in Italian.

Attendance is free, but registration is required. Register here.

It will also be broadcast live on OBC Transeuropa Facebook page.

You can find the full programme on the OBC Transeuropa website.

This event is coordinated as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

The International Press Institute (IPI) today renews its two-decade long demand for the killers of Serbian journalist and newspaper publisher Slavko Ćuruvija to face justice for their crimes and for the Court of Appeal to reach its verdict on the landmark retrial in a fully impartial and independent manner.

IPI’s latest call comes as rumours swirl in Belgrade about the pending decision by the judges at the Court of Appeals to acquit the four former state security officers who have twice been convicted of orchestrating and carrying out the killing of Ćuruvija outside his apartment in the capital in 1999.

Multiple sources, including IPI World Press Freedom Hero Veran Matić, a member of the Permanent Working Group for the Safety of Journalists and head of the Commission for Investigating Murders of Journalists, have warned that they have received credible information in recent months that the court has already passed and written its verdict: to overturn the two previous convictions and find all the defendants not guilty.

Alarm bells were first sounded in May 2023 about the apparent verdict of the three-member judicial panel, which deliberated in private after the retrial hearings concluded in March 2023. Seven months later, it is unclear why no verdict has yet been announced and state authorities have not commented. In recent weeks reports emerged that the court was poised to publicly announce its decision.

IPI Executive Director Frane Maroević said: “If the acquittal  is confirmed, the state’s inability to secure the convictions of the four former members of the State Security Service (SBD) would represent an abysmal failure of the rule of law and deal a devastating blow to media freedom and the fight against impunity for the murder of journalists in Serbia. The relaunch of the investigation, subsequent trial and conviction for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija were pioneering developments in combating impunity for killings attacks on journalists in Serbia. An acquittal in this case would be a terrible retrograde step.”

The four individuals have twice been convicted of carrying out the broad daylight assassination on April 11, 1999, which took place amidst the NATO intervention against Serbia. Among them is Radomir Marković, former head of the SDB. At the time Ćuruvija was the editor and founder of the Daily Telegraph and Evropljanin. The first trial began 16 years after the murder, in June 2015. In 2019, all four men were sentenced to a combined prison sentence of 100 years for their roles in the killing. A retrial confirmed the guilty verdicts in December 2021.

However, after the appeal was launched in 2022 leading journalist associations in Serbia, as well as media experts, journalist groups and the family of Slavko Ćuruvija, as well as the foundation set up in his name, have consistently warned that hard-won the guilty verdicts were in jeopardy amidst fears of political interference in the work of the court.

IPI joined several international media freedom organizations in Belgrade in April 2023 to jointly call for justice for Ćuruvija, warning that the verdict would be the most significant for the freedom of media and journalism in the modern history of Serbia and would serve as a litmus test for the rule of law and democracy in the Balkan country.

“As the Court of Appeal verdict approaches, IPI today renews these warnings and our calls for justice for those convicted of carrying out the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija to be confirmed”, Maroević said. “Media freedom and Ćuruvija journalism in Serbia are already in a deep and sustained crisis. An acquittal for Curuvija’s murder – for which the family and colleagues have fought for 24 years to secure – would further damage Serbia’s standing on media freedom within the international community and severely undermine its press commitments as part of its potential EU accession process.”

He added: “Regardless of the verdict, IPI will continue to fight for justice for Slavko Ćuruvija and his family until the very end and until convictions are secured. Our global network of journalists, editors and media executives also continue to stand with all those who have fought for accountability for this murder, and all journalists in Serbia who continue to uphold the values Curuvija exemplified: fiercely independent journalism which strives to hold power to account, even under significant pressures.

“IPI will continue to closely monitor the situation and expects the Court of Appeal to reach its verdict in an impartial and independent manner, based on the evidence presented, rather than on external pressures. The rule of law must be upheld and the cycle of impunity for the killing of Slavko Ćuruvija must end.”

This article was originally published by the International Press Institute (IPI) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.