MEDIA FREEDOM /Mongolia Report/
2006/11/28
MEDIA FREEDOM
Mongolia Report
October 2005- October 2006
I. INTRODUCTION
We are presenting our first media freedom report to you. We express many thanks to Open Society Forum and Mongolia and Network Media Programme of Open Society Institute for the opportunity to make this report available.
Freedom of expression, particularly freedom of media, is essential to a democratic society. Free and independent press is not a gift from the politicians and authorities. Media freedom is a fundamental human right. The Government duty before their citizens is measured by how the government creates necessary political, economic and legal environments which support free press. Media and journalists do not serve the government and authorities. They serve the public and act as a public watch dog, monitoring the control of power.
This report aims to give the present picture of media freedom and show the abilities of Mongolian journalists to exercise their professional rights and fulfill their duties to the public.
This report has four chapters. Chapter I contains information on the national legislation guaranteeing and restricting freedom of expression. Chapter II includes facts and examples of violations of media and journalists’ rights which are based on the monitoring results. Free expression violation monitoring was part of our project ‘Monitoring Free Expression Violation and Supporting Rights of Independent Media’, which was supported by OSF and Network Media Programme of OSI. It is the first ever monitoring conducted through a national monitoring network based in Ulaanbaatar and the provincial regions: Bayan-Olgii, Darkhan-Uul, Zavkhan, Orkhon, Ovorkhangai, Omnogobi, Khovd, and Khentii. We also used the opinions of journalists and lawyers which were expressed during the meetings, seminars and trainings; official speeches and interviews of elected politicians; and studies on the use of defamatory legislations. The first ever case studies on the court defamation cases and assaults against journalists conducted by Globe International lawyers have also been included in this chapter.
Chapters III and IV contain a conclusion and our recommendations for what we should do in the future.
II. GUARANTEES OF FREE EXPRESSION
Constitution of Mongolia
Freedom of expression is protected in Article 16 of the Constitution of Mongolia which states:
The citizens of Mongolia enjoy the following rights and freedoms:
16) Freedom of thought, opinion, expression, speech, press, and peaceful assembly. Procedures for organizing demonstrations and other assemblies are determined by law.
17) The right to seek and receive information except that which the state and its bodies are legally bound to protect as secret. In order to protect human rights, dignity, and reputation of persons and to ensure national defense, security, and public order, the information which is not subject to disclosure must be classified and protected by law.
Mongolia’s Obligation to International Law
Mongolia is a member of the United Nations and a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As such, Mongolia is legally bound to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law.
This is formally recognized in Article 10 of the Constitution of Mongolia which states:
(1) Mongolia adheres to the universally recognized norms and principles of international law and pursues a peaceful foreign policy.
(2) Mongolia fulfills in good faith its obligations under international treaties to which it is a Party.
(3) The international treaties to which Mongolia is a Party become effective as domestic legislation upon the entry into force of the laws on their ratification or accession.
(4) Mongolia may not abide by any international treaty or other instruments incompatible with its Constitution.
Therefore, both international law and the Constitution of Mongolia require domestic law and practice to be consistent with Mongolia’s ICCPR treaty obligations on freedom of expression.
This guarantee places international treaties on an equal basis with domestic legislation.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees the right to freedom of expression in the following terms:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart informa¬tion and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The UDHR, as a UN General Assembly resolution, is not directly binding on States. However, parts of it, including Article 19, are widely regarded as having acquired legal force as customary international law since its adoption in 1948.
ICCPR, a treaty ratified by over 145 States, including Mongolia, imposes formal legal obligations on State Parties to respect its provisions and elaborates on many rights included in the UDHR. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of expression in terms very similar to those found at Article 19 of the UDHR:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.
2.2 Freedom of Expression and the Media
The guarantee of freedom of expression applies with particular force to the media. It is mass media that makes the exercise of freedom of expression a reality.
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently emphasized the “pre-eminent role of the press in a State governed by the rule of law.”
In order to protect the right to freedom of expression, it is imperative that the media is permitted to operate independently from government control. This ensures the media’s role as public watchdog and ensures that the public has access to a wide range of opinions, especially on matters of public interest.
Media Freedom Law
The Mongolian Parliament passed the Media Freedom Law on 28 August 1998.
Article 1
The purpose of this law is to guarantee freedom to freely express, freedom of speech and freedom to publish stated in the Constitution of Mongolia.
Media Freedom law
Article 2 of this law prohibits adopting any laws restricting media freedom and freedom of media outlet. Article 3 bans censorship and obliges the media outlet to take responsibility for its publications and programs and Article 4 prohibits state-ownership of mass media.
Law on the Public Radio and Television
The establishment of the public broadcaster is the most important step taken by the Mongolian authorities towards consolidating media freedom over the last years.
The Mongolian Parliament passed the Law on the Public Radio and Television on January 27, 2005 after 7 years of delay. The Parliament Resolution #103 on the implementation of the Media Freedom Law was issued on 28 August 1998 and provided for the dissolution of state-owned brodcasting and re-structuring it into public service.
The Law on Public Radio and TV came into force on 1 July 2005. The former Mongolian National Radio and TV was dissolved and a new public broadcaster, Mongolian National Broadcasting (MNB), was registered with the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs on February 8th, 2005.
Globe International’s Monitoring Report on the transitional process of the PSB is attached to this report as Appendix # 1.
Criminal Law
The Criminal Law passed in 2002 states that it is a crime to interrupt lawful professional activities.
Article 139
The person interrupted the lawful and professional activities of the journalist
in order to disseminate or not to disseminate any information, which affects his or her own or other’s interest, shall be fined 31 - 50 times increased amount of the lowest level of salary, or shall be arrested for a period of 1- 3 months.
The Criminal Law of Mongolia
Globe International organized a meeting with 10 lawyers on 23 November 2005 in order to discuss how to efficiently use the above provisions. Unfortunately, lawyers came to conclusion that these provisions are not clear, so it would not work in practice and therefore, interpretation of the Supreme Court is needed.
D.Orosoo, a lawyer from the National Legal Center, and D.Bolorchuluun, an advocate, told us they tried to use this article for a case of journalists who were arrested and detained for 24 hours along with demonstrators during the public demonstration organized by the Fair Land Privatization Movement in 2002. The demonstration was blocked by 1,000 policemen. Unfortunately, the General Prosecutor’s Office denied and ignored their complaints stating the incident had no criminal character. The policemen insisted that it was late night and they were unable to recognize: “who was a journalist”. Secondly, they were not intending to arrest only journalists. If the officials purposefully obstructed the journalists, they should have been sentenced by the Article 139 of Criminal Law. Since policemen arrested the journalists without any purpose, there is no reason to bring them for criminal charge. Later, during the round table: “Judicial protection of media freedom”, a Globe International leader raised this issue and asked the prosecutor to explain their denial. The prosecutor said he denied it because the public demonstration was unlawful.
Article 139.2
If the crime committed by using official position, the person shall be fined 51 - 100 times increased amount of the lowest level of salary, or shall be arrested for a period of over 3 months or up to 6 months
Criminal Law of Mongolia
2.2 Restrictions of Freedom of Expression
State Secret
In Mongolia state secrets are protected by a general Law on State Secrecy and a Law on the List of Secret Information. The Law on State Secrecy was passed in 1995 and it was amended on January 2nd, 2002.
Article 3 titled “The perception about state secrets” provides for definition: “State secrets” shall be reports, documents, substances, items and proceedings which were defined as state secrets according to Mongolian legislation, and contain in themselves information, divulgence of which will cause harm to national security in forms of definitions, illustrations, signs, technological solutions and are related to matters of foreign policy, economics, science, technology, defense, intelligence, counter-intelligence and secret operations of Mongolia.
Article 11 states: “The category of confidentiality of state secrets shall depend on the seriousness to harm state security and interests that occur as the result of their divulgence” and state secrets fall into the following categories: Most confidential, confidential and classified.
Article 5 sets outs five areas of secrecy – national security; defense; economy, science and technology; secret operations and counter-intelligence; and procedures on the execution of criminals with capital charges and the Law on the List of State Secrets protect 59 types of information. 69.5 % of the information is protected for 40-60 years and for indefinite periods.
6 types of information fall are categorized as most confidential, 24 as confidential and 7 as classified, but 25 types of information do not belong to any of the categories.
The amendment made on April 23rd, 2005 provides for an indefinite period of protection for “entire information and documents related to the terrorism”.
It is a crime, punishable by up to 8 years imprisonment, if the disclosure of state secrets is especially harmful.
It is prohibited to disclose confidential correspondence relating to the work of the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet (Law on the Cabinet of Mongolia, Article 25.4) and the President. (Law on the President of Mongolia, Article 16.5).
Fortunately, there are no reports of journalists punished for disclosing state secrecy, but there are records of threatening arrest.
Organizational Privacy
The Law on Privacy of Organizations passed on May 16, 1995 extends the regime of secrecy to private organizations. This law effectively requires organizations to establish a regime of secrecy and to develop internal procedures to protect such secrets (Article 5.1). The impact of this is somewhat mitigated by Article 6 of the law, which lists a number of areas which may not be kept confidential. It is prohibited to withhold information, if the information pertains to activities, products, services, techniques, and technologies which affect the public health or environment, or contains information on poisonous or radioactive substances held by an organization which may cause public harm or harm the environment should its procedures on storage and protection be breached. The information also cannot be protected if it is about a crime or if it should be revealed to the public in accordance with law.
Article 164 of the Criminal Law makes it a crime punishable by a fine or arrest for a period of 3 to 6 months, if financial secrets or secrets on activities are unlawfully obtained or disclosed. If the harm is big it is punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years.
2.3 National Defamation Law
Article 16.17 of the Constitution, protecting the right to seek and receive information, allows for restrictions on these rights, including “to protect … the dignity and reputation of persons.”
Reputations are protected in both the civil and criminal laws of Mongolia.
Article 111: Libel
111.1 A criminal charge of a fine for 20-50 times of an increased amount of the lowest level of salary or arrest for a period of 1-3 months shall be imposed, if a clear statement on libel is distributed with a purpose to defame a person’s honor and reputation.
111.2 A criminal charge of a fine for 51- 150 times of an increased amount of the lowest level of salary or arrest for a period of over 3 months or up to 6 months shall be imposed, if libel is distributed through media or if the crime on insult and libel is committed by a person who was criminally charged before.
Criminal law
Before the Criminal Law was passed in 1994 the Supreme Court of Mongolia issued a Suggestion on the Usage of Articles 7 and 392 of the Civil Law. Provision 13 of the Suggestion states: “Public criticism on the concept and activities of state and government institutions and its officials does not mean defamation of the institutions and officials, but it can be considered, if the criticism is over standards concerning the defamation of another’s honor or if it leads to such a situation.”
The Civil Law was amended in 2002 and protects a citizen’s name, honor, reputation and business reputation.
21.2
If a person who distributed information defamed a citizen’s name, honor, reputation and business reputation cannot prove its truth he or she shall be imposed to correct it through forms or means that such information was distributed, or other forms or means as demanded by a person whose right was violated.
Civil Code
The Civil Law also states that a person has the right to illuminate the damage caused if a citizen’s image was published or shown to the public through photo, film, video, painting or other forms without permission (21.5).
Other Restrictions
In Mongolia there are many laws restricting freedoms of expression and information. In accordance with Globe International and an Article 19 Legal Analysis conducted in 2001, there were 91 such laws and law provisions. Below are a few examples by which journalists can be criminally charged in the breach of the Criminal Law:
In accordance with the Criminal Law, a criminal charge of a fine and arrest for up to 3 months shall be imposed, ‘if privacy is disclosed’ (136.1), ‘if obscenity is advertised’ (123), ‘if citizen’s correspondents are violated” (135), ‘if extreme religious ideas are advertised or distributed’ (144.1), and ‘if facts of criminal cases are disclosed without the permission of inspectors, detectives, prosecutors and judges (257.1).
In the case of advertising war or calling war, a criminal charge of arrest for 1-3 months shall be imposed. If this case was committed by using mass media or by state officials, a criminal charge of imprisonment for 2-5 years shall be imposed.
231: Insulting state officials and public inspectors for social order
231.1 A criminal charge of a fine for 5-50 times of an increased amount of the lowest level of salary, or forceful works for 100-150 hours, or arrest for a period of 1-3 months shall be imposed, if state officials and public inspectors for social order are insulted before the public in relation to their duties.
Criminal Code
Explanatory Note:
State officials, as detailed in this law, are judges, prosecutors, inspectors, detectives, policemen, customs and tax officers, and other state inspectors who have special powers by law.
2.3 Freedom of Information
Mongolia is missing a Freedom of Information law. Globe International has launched a programme to distribute the idea, concept, principles and international standards of Freedom of Information in 2002 with the support of the Mongolian Foundation for Open Society (the present Open Society Forum), the US Embassy and AUSAID. In 2004 the first draft law was submitted to the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs.
The discussion of the law was in the agenda of the Mongolian Parliament in November 2005, but has been delayed until now. In October 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers discussed the final draft of the law. Unfortunately, it was postponed by reason that it should be discussed in its complexity along with laws on information security and information technology.
Mongolia does not have legislation providing for a comprehensive guarantee of the right to information. There are a number of provisions dealing with the right to information in specific circumstances through various laws. These include the following openness obligations:
-Resolutions of the Cabinet and decrees of the Prime Minister must be published in the Government News Bulletin (Law on the Cabinet of Mongolia, Article 31.1);
-Organisations may not keep confidential information that discloses heath or environmental risks or crimes (Law on Privacy of Organisations, Article 6);
-Candidates for local elections have the right to obtain necessary information from their local administrations (Law on Elections of Citizens Representatives Khurals of Aimags, the Capital City, Soums and Districts, Article 25.1);
-The State Privatisation Committee must make public information on state-owned legal entities before a process of privatisation (Law on Central and Local Government Property, Article 6.1);
-Meetings of the State Ikh Khural shall be open and decisions must be published through the media (Law on the Procedures of Meetings of the State Ikh Khural, Article 4.9); and
-Laws and decisions of the State Ikh Khural, orders of the President, resolutions of the Cabinet, and legal acts issued by Ministries must be published in the Government News Bulletin (Law on the Procedures of Meetings of the State Ikh Khural, Article 46.1).
While these measures are positive, they do not go nearly far enough and in practice it is very difficult for ordinary citizens without special connections to access information held by public authorities. It is now accepted that comprehensive legislation is necessary to ensure practical respect for this important right.
2.4 Protection of Sources
In Mongolia there is no legislation guaranteeing the protection or confidentiality of sources of journalists. The previously mentioned suggestion of the Supreme Court approved in its meeting on May 25th 1994, accepted that ‘journalists have the right to protect their information sources’ (Provision 8).
Provision 4 of Code of Conducts of Journalists adopted by Confederation of Mongolian Journalists on March 11, 2005 states:
The journalist shall protect the source of information obtained in confidence in any case.
III. VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA AND JOURNALISTS
Globe International has registered 35 violations during Free Expression Violation Monitoring conducted between October 2005 and October 2006.
Even though censorship is banned and the interruption of the professional activities of journalists is a crime in accordance with law, it does not work in Mongolia. The various violations of the journalists’ rights are evidence that Mongolian journalists work in difficult conditions and complicated situations.
Some journalists do not want Globe International raise attention to their cases. They are highly self-censored and they are afraid from further possible attacks and assaults. Globe International is investigating a case in which a journalist was raped by those who were affected by her critical article.
3.1 Attacks against Journalists
Attempts to pressure, influence and intervene in journalistic activities are evidence that censorship is a reality in Mongolia.
Attacks against journalists occur in many ways, such as threats, insults, detainment, arrests and assaults. Statements and public denial in newspaper publications and on broadcast programmes are common ways that the Mongolian authorities create confusion in society.
Even the private sector and ordinary citizens are trying to interrupt news gathering and the reporting of public events.
We are concerned that foreign businessmen are pressuring journalists through high officials. For example, while a female TV producer was producing a documentary on child sexual exploitation and was shooting in the Korean-invested Seoul restaurant, she was threatened by Korean businessmen. Later the TV managers forced her to clean up her edited tapes. A female television reporter produced a news story on an automobile incident committed by rich Koreans who were returning from the Golf Course. She was threatened and forced to remove her story.
B.Bold, a reporter of the daily Odriin Sonin, was detained for 2 hours by the police while he was collecting information about the public demonstration protesting against Boroo Gold, which is a 100% Canadian invested gold mining company. B.Bold introduced himself as a journalist and demanded to know who produced an order to block and detain the rebels. His reporter’s identification that was shown to the policeman was confiscated and he was detained for 2 hours along with others.
On the night of May 8th, 2006, a television crew with reporters M. Batdorj and T. Orgil and cameramen B.Uuganbayar and L.Bayanbat, all from the independent Eagle TV channel, were assaulted by policemen in the centre of Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, in Sukhbaatar Square, while covering actions by Mongolian police who were breaking and tearing down the gers (traditional Mongolian dwellings) of the protesters. Several civil movements have been protesting against the current government since March 2006, the pending stability agreement with Ivanhoe mines (a Canadian mining company), corruption, and the 2006 budget revisions. Starting mid-April, traders of the burned-down SAPU shopping centre who had lost all their stock and were being denied compensation, joined the protesters. Because of an official visit by the South Korean President, city authorities demanded that the protesters remove their gers. However the protesters did not comply and the police came in the middle of the night to break them down.
The Eagle TV reporters were roughed up by police when they tried to shoot footage for the morning news. Police demanded ID from the journalists before they were allowed onto Sukhbaatar Square (a public place) and then told the journalists that they had no right to record the events, forcibly preventing the Eagle TV crew from taping. One police officer repeatedly smashed his fist into the camera and damaged it. Another officer took journalist T.Orgil by the collar and dragged him away from the area controlled by police. T.Orgil said that none of the senior police at the scene would answer his question,”Why do journalists need to get advance permission to record events on a public place like the central Sukhbaatar Square?”
Mongolchuudyn Amidral, a weekly tabloid, published news about the personal life Mrs. Arvin, MP. In the early morning of March 30 2006, Mrs. Arvin went to the post offices together with the policemen and confiscated all the issues of the newspaper. The next day she returned all the copies of the newspaper.
A Mongolian National Broadcasting news crew was attacked near the Students hostel in the western district of the capital city Ulaanbaatar on April 19th, 2006. The journalist Sh. Aruintsetseg and cameraman G.Delger were filming a bus where students were getting in on their way to support a demonstration organized by the civil movements “Healthy society” and “Mongolian Homeland”. The crew had just finished interviewing one student who confirmed that he was given 5000 Mongolian Togrogs (about 4$) by the leaders of civil movements to support the demonstration. The three staff suffered minor injures and the camera was permanently damaged. They escaped after a UBS television crew arrived soon afterwards and approached while grabbing stones. The UBS crew left their own camera in their van.
The female journalist G. Ganchimeg of the Hovdyn Medee (Hovd News) weekly newspaper, with more than 700 subsribers, was threatened by Mrs. B. Bujinlkham, an Hovd agent of the privately-owned Air Mongolia aviation company, after she published an article in the newspaper entitled “Airticketin Our Permanent Toothache” in the issue dated January 1st, 2006. It claimed that the set price for the Ulaanbaatar-Hovd aimag ticket should be 76, 500 MNT (about 63 US$) but that the agent and her cashier charged 10,000MNT (about 8 US$) more per ticket. Hovd province is located in the Western part of Mongolia and 1500 km from the capital city Ulaanbaatar. Mrs. B.Bujinlkham demanded her to “…reveal the source of information or I will take you to court.” She also demanded that any such articles be submitted to Air Mongolia before future publication. The journalist wrote her article after an investigation revealed material about an airticket problem which had been a topic of discussion among local people for many years.
Mr. L. Gansukh, Governor of North western Zavkhan province of Mongolia, called to his office all staff of the weekly “Zavkhan” newspaper, including editor-in-chief Mr. B.Ider and the Governor’s Office Media Information Department head and spokeswoman D. Natsagmaa, on December 31st, 2005, and yelled at them for some time. His anger was at a notice published in the newspaper’s 35th issue (December 20, 2005) regarding a request from the Court General Executive Department (Zavkhan branch) on the compulsory auction of the “Uliastai” hotel. The governor accused D. Ider of publishing the announcement without permission from him and demanded to publish an immediate correction. He also accused his spokeswoman of not censoring the newspaper’s content. He further threatened, “If you do not rectify your mistake immediately, I will dismiss you and I can close down your newspaper.” He said that he was deeply concerned that confidential information was nationally distributed because the Zavkhan newspaper has a national subscriber network.
Female journalist S.Enkhtuul of the national newspaper Udriin Sonin (Daily news) has been threatened for her published serial articles relating to the sensational bankruptcy of some private savings and credits associations. On June 13th, 2006, after her published article entitled “Are the bankprupted financial associations guiding police to a mafia network?”, she was called for the meeting by Mr. B.Tamir, whose name was mentioned in the article, at her office. B.Tamir, together with two young men, invited her to sit in their car and asked her to publish an immediate correction. The journalist refused to sit in the stranger’s car. Furthermore she told them that the published article was the result of considerable investigative work. According to journalist Enkhtuul, they said that, “If you do not rectify your mistake immediately, we’ll solve this problem our own way”.
Since then someone has started to call her mobile phone and threatening that, ”We have been watching you. The article you published on us was based on false information”. Along with these threatening calls, she feels as though she is regularly being followed.
The executives of the Udriin sonin (Daily news) helped change her cell phone number and informed the Police Department of the Sukhbaatar district of the capital, Ulaan Baatar. The Police Department provided a police guard to the journalist on the newspaper editors request.
Two days after this, the chairman of the Goverment’s Financial regulatory committee, who had closely examined all issues relating to private savings and credit associations, was murdered in his office on June 15th, 2006. According to the media, the killer was the owner of a private saving and credit association which was in severe financial trouble.
Thus, the Police Department filed a criminal suit against Mr. B. Tamir, who had threatened the journalist to publish a correction on her published article.
The female journalist M.Odgerel of the “Dornod” newspaper, which has a national subscriber network, has been threatened by Mr. D. Sukhbaatar, the former deputy head of the Dornod province branch of the National Emergency Management Agency, after she published an article headed “Slander worth a million: unlawful action by Mr. Sukhbaatar” on December 25th, 2005, in this newspaper. Since its publication, D.Sukhbaatar has been sending threatening messages to her mobile phone and demanding her to publish a correction.
D.Sukhbaatar was informed about the article before its publication and called the editor-in-chief of this newspaper, Mrs. B.Tuya, demanding that it not be published. Other aimag officials repeatedly rang Tuya with the same demand.
A journalist of the northern Huvsgul province and her coworkers have repeatedly received threats from a businessman concerning a critical publication. U. Gereltuya, editor of the Huvsgul-based newspaper Khuvsguliin Erkh Chuluu (Freedom of Khuvsgul), which has approximately 500 subscribers, said “We repeatedly receive threats and are insulted by businessmen.”
For instance, last year Mr. L.Tumurbaatar, director of Khuvsgul Geology Company and owner of Dalai Eej newspaper, threatened U.Gereltuya concerning a publication which claimed that he was lobbying a judge for selecting his newspaper as the “best media of the year”.
In another case last year, unidentified people in a car passed through the fence of one of the journalist’s houses. “We reported it to the police but they didn’t reveal the criminals. We are still receiving threats concerning our publication,” she said.
On October 27, 2006 daily newspaper reporters G.Erdenebat, B.Khajidmaa, photographer Ya.Aranjinbaatar of “Udriin sonin” and photo reporter Sh.Gerelsaikhan of “Ardiin erkh”, who were covering a civil society demonstration, were detained around 2 hours by policemen.
During the mass arrest policemen assaulted the journalists, destroyed a photo camera, confiscated documents, and didn’t give any chance for the journalists to explain their purpose. One of the detainees, Mr. G.Erdenebat of “Udriin sonin”, said, “No policemen asked us to show documents, instead they disregarded them and threw them away. Ms. B.Khajidmaa, a female journalist, was beaten by policemen with batons, and her face and body were severely injured. The photo camera was destroyed while the policemen were trying to confiscate it. Policemen packed us in the car and brought us to the police station.”
Mr. G.Davaakhuu, head of the public relations office of the General Police Department, said, “We dispersed the demonstration according to the law and we didn’t use any force. Yes, we agree that the journalists were detained, but how can we differentiate journalists from the demonstrators?”
Because of this incident “Udriin sonin” organized a press conference demanding authorities to stop violating the rights of journalists and urged journalists to have solidarity against the violation of journalist’s rights.
The Confederation of Mongolian Journalists also issued a media release. It sharply condemned the incident and stated that this was a violation of the journalists’ rights to deliver the truth of events. In other words, these violations are a method to oppress the right to know truth.
On October 26, civil society representatives, who demanded the release of Mrs.G.Baasan, head of the Free Elder’s Union, set up a tent in the central street of Ulaanbaatar and closed the road traffic at 13 a.m. Law-enforcement organizations repeatedly demanded demonstrators to disperse but they didn’t obey the demands and policemen dispersed them with force that night.
On October 24, Mrs. Baasan was detained by Chingiltei district police department, for reason of assaulting the police.
Colonel J.Vyachaslav, director of the ordinary security prison 439 of the Mongolian General Court Decisions Executive Department in Bulgan province has threatened journalist Mr. J.Munkh-Ochir of the weekly newspaper Zindaa (Rank) for an article entitled “Lacking control of prisoners”, published on the September issue, 2005.
At a province executive meeting at the governor’s administration office on March 13, 2006, Vyachaslav said to the journalist, ”Why have you spread false information to the public? Do you know that for this you must be taken to court and punished? I’ll resolve this problem through the law.”
One month ago, at another such meeting, the province police office director gave details about two recent car accidents in the province which possibly involved prisoners of the above prison whom Byachaslav had allowed to work as drivers. When journalist Munkh-Ochir heard this, he investigated and met policemen Mr. Ganbat and Mr. Bayarsaikhan, who had been assigned to investigate the accidents. The policemen confirmed that prisoners were involved in both accidents. The journalist then published an article in the newspaper.
“Colonel Vyachaslav was deeply concerned at having his secret and irresponsible behaviour publicly revealed and threatened me,” Munch–Ochir told the Globe International monitor.
3.3 Denial of Information
In its very first session in 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I), which stated, “Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touch¬stone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated”.
Journalists are acting on behalf of the public in order to disseminate information to them. Unfortunately, denial of information by the public officials in Mongolia is very common.
National Taxation Agency Denied in Information
We regret that the National Taxation Agency denied information to our newspaper. In the past, media reported on the privatization of the Savings Bank. Some media were informed of a decrease of taxes paid by the Bank. In order to clarify the objectivity of the information we approached Mr. B.Batgerel, the inspector of information section, and requested information about the tax payment of 2003-2005. Unfortunately, it was denied. He demanded to request the information in written form and that it must be signed by the chairman. We could not get the information, which is not state secret, by following their procedure. Is that strict rule determined by the leader of the National Taxation Agency or bureaucracy of Mr. B.Batgerel?
Source: ‘Onoodor’ daily newspaper. No 008, 11.01.2006
.
On 12 June, 2006, S.Munkhdalai, a reporter for the community radio station Noyon Uul, and Uvurkhangai TV journalist G.Puntsagsuren, were denied information by G.Dashtudev, chief secretary of the Crime Prevention Council of the Mongolian Justice and Domestic Ministry. While S.Munkhdalai was taping a meeting about inspections at the council’s Uvurkhangai aimag (province) branch, the secretary twice turned off the recorder and ordered the journalists to leave the meeting. The journalists were denied information by G.Dashtudev, who was speaking about a Justice Ministry report of an inspection in Uvurkhangai aimag, which he said was classified an organizational secret. He ordered that the journalists leave the meeting unless they stopped voice and video recording. S.Munkhdalai, Globe International NGO’s central region monitor, said, “The information classified secret by G.Dashtudev was that there were herders who could name livestock rustlers who would be liable to legal punishment. He also criticized the Uvurkhangai aimag police staff who didn’t act promptly.”
On July 27, Mr. M.Yadmaa, governor of Omnogovi province, ordered department heads not to give information to "Altangobi" television while the TV cameraman, Mr. M. Shinekhuu, was reporting on a meeting of the heads of the governor’s department offices.
A day before, on July 26, "AltanGobi" television aired a TV program covering the large increase of meat prices and interviewed a meat retailer, Dolgor, who said, “The Governor of the province gave out money from the Governor's Office to his relatives who purchased meat from neighboring provinces, and resold it here."
After the TV program, the Omnogovi province Governor called the salesperson Dolgor to his room and demanded her to make a withdrawal of her interview, and threatened to take her to court if she didn’t agree to. The governor of the province also ordered to call the journalist who developed the program, but the TV journalists refused.
Incidentally, Mr. N.Naranbaatar, the chairman of the Governor’s Office, also expelled journalists from the meeting on introducing inspection results of the Governor’s Office by the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of Mongolia.
The former governor of the province, Ts.Tserenbayar, also repeatedly violated the journalist’s right to access to information. He threatened them, stating “I’m talking about shutting off your TV, you have no right to interview me”, then he demanded the accreditation and twice expelled journalists of ‘Altan Gobi’ television who came to collect information regarding the process of handing over the Governor’s post.
Omnogobi province is located 600 kilometers from the capital of Mongolia and has a population of 43.5 thousand. It has two television stations and two newspapers as well as multiple radio stations. The only independent television “Altan Gobi” currently has 16 thousand viewers.
T.Bayartsogt, a reporter for the community radio Orkhon, was restricted to access information about the activities of the Tsavchirt local lime processing company in the north Mongolian aimag of Darkhan-Uul. May 24th, 2006, he entered a company production site. The company manager Sh. Munkhtsetseg invited a group of journalists from central and local media outlets, including TV and radio, to get a look at company operations, but she would not allow Bayartsogt to cover the event for his radio station. The Globe’s northern region monitor tried to clarify the reasons for the restriction and why the company manager refused to give information to the Orkhon radio reporter and refused to allow him access to the company building. Munkhtsetseg said,”When I checked the list of names of journalists who had arrived by invitation, I saw the name of the journalist who represents the Orkhon community radio station. Last year this radio aired a radio programme which defamed this company’s reputation.”
On August 19-20, 2005, Orkhon broadcasted a programme entitled “White Smoke Harms the Environment” twice, which included an interview with an environmental expert and local residents who criticized Tsavchirt and other local companies as harming the environment, claiming that they never rehabilitated the areas from which they extracted lime. Following this programme, the Darkhan-Uul Aimag Department for Environmental Protection fined each of the named companies 100,000-150,000 MNT (US$80-120).
3.1 Protection of Sources
In Mongolia, it is normal to demand the journalists to reveal their information sources.
The first question asked by complainants affected by critical materials, advocates, and judges is ‘Who gave you this information?’ In most cases the journalists are threatened with arrest, imprisonment, bringing a case before the court, and calling the police. There are cases in which journalists are pressured to reveal their information sources. Usually the journalists are afraid from reporting or alerting their cases.
The female journalist Sh.Otgonjargal of the daily and nationwide distributed newspaper “Unen” (True), with more than 50000 subscribers, was called by a special agent who called himself Batsaikhan (not his real name) of the General Intelligence Agency of Mongolia regarding her published article about the inspection conducted by the National Audit Department on the construction work of a State residence of ceremony and monument of the Chinggis Khaan. A journalist informed the public about embezzlement from the monument construction budget. A special agent strongly demanded her to reveal her source of information and when the journalist refused to come to the Agency for an interview, he threatened to arrest her. The scared journalist called the Globe lawyer for legal advice and defense. According to Globe’s lawyer, a special agent of the GIA hoped to easily get information about this case by threatening the journalist.
She has published a story and informed the public about financial violations on on-going construction works of the Chinggis Khaan memorial complex. The facts have been exposed by the State Auditing Department and the article was published before the auditing had been finalized. She was demanded by an officer of the Intelligence Service to reveal her information source.
A female journalist from Mongolyn Medee, a daily newspaper, was threatened by the police that they would arrest her for 6 hours, if she did not reveal her information source. She covered a murder, and according to the policeman she described the way the murder was committed.
Freelance journalist D.Ganhuyag was demanded many times to reveal his information sources during a criminal investigation of a libel case brought by Mr. O.Chuluunbaatar, the President of Mongol Bank.
The case study is enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
Considering the importance of the protection of journalist’s sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect demands to reveal one’s source have on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with international standards unless it is justified by overriding benefits to the public interest.
Although suggestions on this topic by the Supreme Court are welcome, we believe legislation providing protection for the right not to reveal confidential sources of information is necessary.
3.2 Safety of Journalists
Journalists receive threats to their personal safety. We are deeply concerned that intolerance towards journalists appears to have increased. The majority of journalists do not want to report or alert their cases because of possible future assaults. Unfortunately, none of the incidents have been investigated by the police.
At Globe International, for example, a male journalist from Erdenet provincial newspaper was beaten by unknown people and his photo camera broken. His kidney and liver were seriously damaged, but he has refused to raise attention to this incident. He reported his case to the police next morning.
On the night of December 19th, 2005, an unknown individual vandalised the vehicle of television journalist G. Batjav near his home in Ulaanbaatar. All of the windows were broken, both mirrors were torn apart and the interior of the car was destroyed. However, no valuables or car parts were taken. Previously, on November 9th, three individuals assaulted Batjav while he was having lunch in a small restaurant in the Sukhbaatar district of Ulaanbaatar.
More information on this case study is enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
On July 6th, 2006, B.Tsevegmid, the editor of Nomin television station in the northern Mongolian province of Orkhon, was beaten at the entrance of her building and had to be hospitalized for treatment. Before being attacked she had received many threats by telephone concerning an investigative television program, "Forbidden to Watch," which covered the Erdenet mining industry employees' privatization vouchers.
On June 11th, "Forbidden to watch" aired the fate of privatization vouchers for 9,000 employees of the Erdenet mining industry. After the television program, unknown people threatened her over the phone. The director of the Erdenet brokerage company, which held the vouchers, also warned the journalist, "It is a very complicated issue, you could be killed".
More information is in the Case Study enclosed in of this report.
3.3 Media Ownership
There are no laws regulating cross media ownership or media concentration, and general broadcast law.
The 1998 Media Freedom Law prohibits the state-ownership of mass media. The only media which remained state-owned was MONTSAME, the only nation-wide news agency. After the 1998 Media Freedom Law MONTSAME had to be converted into public media.
On December 15th, 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers decided to transfer MONTSAME, which is a government agency, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and present the decision to the Parliament for discussion.
Mr.B.Dorj, Press officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: “The Ministry’s position is to use MONTSAME in strengthening overseas information distribution and to have one united policy for overseas information policy. The General Director has not been appointed since 2002. Even though the acting General Director has been working the information policy is lacking. That is why it leads to this decision”.
No decisions have been taken as of now.
According to a Press Institute study, there are 325 media outlets operating by the end of 2005. Today, there are 9 daily newspapers and 10 television channels.
Information on media ownership is not open to the public. There are various opinions surrounding the ownership of media outlets, particularly of television channels which are allegedly owned by influential politicians and businessmen.
Ts.Nyandorj, Speaker of the Parliament
I do not understand those comrades who put themselves in the hands of the media. I know all the politicians who are behind the new televisions. It is meaningless to determine their personal influence to the society through media. It will be enough to have 3-4 television in Mongolia. In China there are 5-6 television channels.
Source: Interview published ‘Onoodor” daily newspaper, No 228(2882), 29/09.2006
The only person who openly stated his ownership is H.Enkhbayar, the President of Mongolia.
Interview with the President of Mongolia
Reporter: - I would like to ask about TV9. There are complaints that you have paid 60 million togrogs to Bishop Choichamts and obtained the television studio, which was given to Gandan (Buddhist Center) and MPRP (Mongolian People’ Revolutionary Party).
H.Enkhbayar: It is not nice talking about this, but I have to explain the truth. I have believed in Buddha since my childhood and I have had a teacher since 1982. Bishop Choijamts and I have been discussing about creating a Buddhist television station since the establishment of Christian Eagle TV broadcasting. The Japanese religious organization Agun Shu gave us a television studio when they invited us to a Buddhist religious ceremony. They said it was given to private individuals named Enkhbayar and Choijamts, so we came to Mongolia with equipment costing 110,000 USD. It does not belong to Gandan, and does not belong to MPRP. It was difficult to directly establish a new television station because there was no channel. The studio equipment was kept in the Betub monastery at first and was later kept in the building of MPRP. Friends of the Party asked for a camera during the Election campaign and it was not given. I had made a promise to my Japanese friends, which is why I would not use the camera. One day Munkh-Orgil (MP) said: ‘I have a channel. You have a studio’. That is how TV9 was established.
We handed 60 million togrogs to Bishop Choijamts over ceremonially. Before that I was joking and said to the Bishop: ‘Our studio costs 100, 000USD. Right?’ He said: ‘No. 110, 000 USD’. He has very good memory. That is why he is good in his studies. The Bishop said he will spend the money to build a monastery.
I was told that the Bishop appears on TV9 when he wants. I cannot watch. Ts.Enkhbat, the director, manages well. Some politicians call me saying: ‘You are killing MPRP’. I cannot participate in activities of television.
Source: ‘Onoodor’ daily newspaper. No 104(2758), 05.05.2006
The only foreign invested media is EBC (Eagle Broadcasting Company). EBC is a television news channel, which returned to Mongolia in 2004 after being shutdown for over 2 years, by the Speaker of Parliament Ts. Nyamdorj. It is active in covering citizen’s movements and broadcasting citizens’ opinions in live.
“Can there be media with foreign investment that is airing advertisements to break up the Mongolian State? ….There should certainly be a boundary to everything,” Ts.Nyamdorj stated on the floor of Parliament.
However, Ts.Nyamdorj’s statements were followed by the release of The Press Institute of Mongolia’s research report on TV viewers for June, 2006. Eagle TV was the most watched station Monday through Friday and was the overall most watched station, scoring almost double of the closest competitor.
Overseas experiences suggest that diversity of opinions, comments and news sources only results from diversity of ownership. Therefore, we are aware that the government goal should be to protect and promote diversity.
More information on Eagle TV is available at http://terrycom.net
3.6 Use of Defamation Laws
Mongolian public officials efficiently use the criminal and civil defamatory legislation to censor the media.
The latest study of the use of the defamation laws by Globe International covered the period between 2001 and 2005. The Courts reviewed 187 defamation cases in total. Of the 178 civil cases and 9 criminal defamation cases, 151 cases were against media and journalists. 146 of those were civil and 5 were criminal cases.
In comparison, a previous study by the Mongolian Foundation for Open Society (1999- 2001) found an average of 31.5 civil and 1.6 criminal cases that were brought forth as defamation cases per year. The results of our study show an average of 29.2 civil and one criminal case that were brought for defamation per year. The number of defamation cases has slightly decreased at 0.9%.
The media won 9.6% of the cases and in 59.6% of the cases they lost. In 31.5 % of the cases the plaintiffs and media reconciled.
According to the study 92 or 63% of the cases occurred because elected bodies, public officials or public institutions sued (4).
Civil cases:
Information containing public interest and public concern 45
Information accusing the politicians, high officials and public
officials in wrong-doings, corruption and bribery 32
Information affecting personal lives 10
Criminal defamation
From 5 criminal cases, MPs were plaintiffs for 4 cases and one case was brought forth by a doctor working in the state-owned hospital. As a result of the courts decisions, two female journalists were arrested and detained from 23 days to 6 months, one case was dismissed and one case which involved 4 journalists resulted in a sentence of a fine. Another case was still ongoing at the end of 2005.
In its second issue of 2006, the weekly Uls Turiin Sonin published an article headed “President, the Millionaire,” in which the writer argued that President Enkhbayar might own a substantial share of the TDB.
The article said that the privatization of the TDB occurred under extraordinary circumstances when President Enkhbayar was prime minister, and that the new TDB owners were allowed to pay the cost of sale later than was stipulated in the sale contract.
The weekly further claimed that the president’s substantial interest might be behind the soon-to-be-built Shangri La office tower, construction of which is licensed to the MCS Company. The Shangri La is in the centre of Ulaanbaatar, and the building site was cleared by destroying a large section of a beautiful public park, prompting such public outrage that a group of demonstrators damaged property in the site a few months ago.
On February 23rd, 2006, the Chingeltei District Court of Ulaanbaatar accepted the demands of the TDB, with some modifications. Mrs. Uyanga was ordered to pay 10 million tugrigs (approximately US$9,700) to the TDB and to publish a correction in the newspaper.
Also, the Court, accepting documents provided by the TDB, found that President Enkhbayar was not among the named shareholders of the bank.
Mr. G. Dashrentsen, who was accused of criminal defamation in a suit that has been pending in the Mongolian Police Enquiry Department since January 28th, 2006, is now accused of publishing defamatory articles about President Nambariin Enkhbayar.
“After checking through all my published articles in newspapers since May 2005, the president lodged a complaint with the Bayanzurkh district court of Ulaanbaatar through his attorney, Mr. D.Batsukh, on 21 March 2006” he told Globe International.
Dashrentsen said, “The claim to the court stated that as a journalist, I violated article 16 of the Mongolian Law on the President, which states ‘the President’s…name shall be inviolable”. Dashrentsen added: “Anyone who criticized the President before had to deal in court with someone to whom President Enkhbayar has showed special consideration. This is the first time the president himself has appealed to the civil court with his own complaint.”
The Mongolian media, including Dashrentsen’s colleagues at Udriin Sonin (Daily news), have been covering the issue intensively and have called on other journalists to defend him.
The above 2 cases are civil ones and 2 journalists lost at the Courts.
In the civil defamation case, the Bayanzurkh District Court decided to fine the journalist G. Dashrentsen 300,000 MNT (app.260USD) and ordered him to publish a correction on his publication about Mr. Adisha, a customs officer. Soon afterwards Mr. Adisha was arrested after a police investigation into a customs corruption case.
Mr. G. Dashrentsen also had been under criminal investigation, and has been accused of libel since January 28th, 2006, after a complaint made by the Buddhist lama Purevbat.
More information is in the Case Study enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
In another case, President U.Chuluunbat of the state-owned Mongol Bank filed a criminal defamation suit against Mr. D.Ganhyag, a political researcher, for an article published in the newspaper Mongol Times, in March 2005, headed “Big debt, U.Tsolmon (first lady of Mongolia) and US$8 million.“
More information in the Case Study is enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
4. Conclusion
Mongolia has some positive laws which protect media freedom. However, in reality, rights of media and journalists are often violated. Because of such violations, journalists cannot tell the truth and are thus detrimental to the public interest.
Censorship is banned by law in Mongolia. However, direct and indirect censorship still exist. Demand on journalists to serve the government should not be tolerated, and government control over media does conform to the nature, standards and principles of democracy.
It is common for elected politicians, authorities and public officials to use criminal defamatory legislation as censorship. The public’s legitimate right to be informed does not take precedence over defamation cases in Mongolian courts, so it is difficult to get fair trials in Mongolia.
Authorities use their power to prevent media criticism and neutralize true information. They do this in order to hide their wrong doings and thus deny the public interest their right to know about their activities.
The Mongolian public as well as journalists do not have the right to access information and official documents, which detracts from the democratic principle of transparency and openness. This shows how difficult it is for investigative reporters to find and prove information sources and facts that are hidden.
When media ownership is not transparent, it does not promote pluralism in the society. Instead, it confuses the public and allows for the dissemination of one-sided information and makes the public unable to confront the opinions of unknown media owners. The Mongolian public is becoming unaware of who is telling the truth and is starting to lose their trust in journalists, which is not conducive to social justice.
Being pressured to reveal information sources harms not only informators, but the entire responsibility of the media before the public. Without whistle-blowers, journalists are unable to control the powers. If journalists lose the values of investigative journalism, society will never be healthy.
Any types of attacks, assaults or threats which result because of attempts to tell the truth are serious crimes against journalists. It is regrettable that the Mongolian police and courts do not fulfill their duties to protect Freedom of Media.
5. What should be done in the Future?
Media freedom does not come easily. We have to fight to obtain it.
First, it is important to reveal all rights violations against media and journalists, document it and inform it to the public. Only in close cooperation with civil society, the public and the media, can we overcome these attacks.
Second, journalists should be aware of when their rights are being violated. By hiding violations they make the situation worse. Journalists should understand that they will be able to decrease the chance of future abuses by disclosing the facts of violations and raising awareness to them.
Third, solidarity is important in our fight. It will play a key role in the creation of more favorable political, economical and legal environments, improve working conditions, and help defend against government attacks. Media freedom should be the main concern of the journalists’ and publishers’ organizations working in Mongolia.
Fourth, dissemination and distribution of information to the world are important. Media freedom can be a reality in Mongolia with the support of our colleagues around the world, donors, inter-governmental organizations and international human rights organizations.
Mongolia Report
October 2005- October 2006
I. INTRODUCTION
We are presenting our first media freedom report to you. We express many thanks to Open Society Forum and Mongolia and Network Media Programme of Open Society Institute for the opportunity to make this report available.
Freedom of expression, particularly freedom of media, is essential to a democratic society. Free and independent press is not a gift from the politicians and authorities. Media freedom is a fundamental human right. The Government duty before their citizens is measured by how the government creates necessary political, economic and legal environments which support free press. Media and journalists do not serve the government and authorities. They serve the public and act as a public watch dog, monitoring the control of power.
This report aims to give the present picture of media freedom and show the abilities of Mongolian journalists to exercise their professional rights and fulfill their duties to the public.
This report has four chapters. Chapter I contains information on the national legislation guaranteeing and restricting freedom of expression. Chapter II includes facts and examples of violations of media and journalists’ rights which are based on the monitoring results. Free expression violation monitoring was part of our project ‘Monitoring Free Expression Violation and Supporting Rights of Independent Media’, which was supported by OSF and Network Media Programme of OSI. It is the first ever monitoring conducted through a national monitoring network based in Ulaanbaatar and the provincial regions: Bayan-Olgii, Darkhan-Uul, Zavkhan, Orkhon, Ovorkhangai, Omnogobi, Khovd, and Khentii. We also used the opinions of journalists and lawyers which were expressed during the meetings, seminars and trainings; official speeches and interviews of elected politicians; and studies on the use of defamatory legislations. The first ever case studies on the court defamation cases and assaults against journalists conducted by Globe International lawyers have also been included in this chapter.
Chapters III and IV contain a conclusion and our recommendations for what we should do in the future.
II. GUARANTEES OF FREE EXPRESSION
Constitution of Mongolia
Freedom of expression is protected in Article 16 of the Constitution of Mongolia which states:
The citizens of Mongolia enjoy the following rights and freedoms:
16) Freedom of thought, opinion, expression, speech, press, and peaceful assembly. Procedures for organizing demonstrations and other assemblies are determined by law.
17) The right to seek and receive information except that which the state and its bodies are legally bound to protect as secret. In order to protect human rights, dignity, and reputation of persons and to ensure national defense, security, and public order, the information which is not subject to disclosure must be classified and protected by law.
Mongolia’s Obligation to International Law
Mongolia is a member of the United Nations and a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As such, Mongolia is legally bound to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law.
This is formally recognized in Article 10 of the Constitution of Mongolia which states:
(1) Mongolia adheres to the universally recognized norms and principles of international law and pursues a peaceful foreign policy.
(2) Mongolia fulfills in good faith its obligations under international treaties to which it is a Party.
(3) The international treaties to which Mongolia is a Party become effective as domestic legislation upon the entry into force of the laws on their ratification or accession.
(4) Mongolia may not abide by any international treaty or other instruments incompatible with its Constitution.
Therefore, both international law and the Constitution of Mongolia require domestic law and practice to be consistent with Mongolia’s ICCPR treaty obligations on freedom of expression.
This guarantee places international treaties on an equal basis with domestic legislation.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees the right to freedom of expression in the following terms:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart informa¬tion and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The UDHR, as a UN General Assembly resolution, is not directly binding on States. However, parts of it, including Article 19, are widely regarded as having acquired legal force as customary international law since its adoption in 1948.
ICCPR, a treaty ratified by over 145 States, including Mongolia, imposes formal legal obligations on State Parties to respect its provisions and elaborates on many rights included in the UDHR. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of expression in terms very similar to those found at Article 19 of the UDHR:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.
2.2 Freedom of Expression and the Media
The guarantee of freedom of expression applies with particular force to the media. It is mass media that makes the exercise of freedom of expression a reality.
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently emphasized the “pre-eminent role of the press in a State governed by the rule of law.”
In order to protect the right to freedom of expression, it is imperative that the media is permitted to operate independently from government control. This ensures the media’s role as public watchdog and ensures that the public has access to a wide range of opinions, especially on matters of public interest.
Media Freedom Law
The Mongolian Parliament passed the Media Freedom Law on 28 August 1998.
Article 1
The purpose of this law is to guarantee freedom to freely express, freedom of speech and freedom to publish stated in the Constitution of Mongolia.
Media Freedom law
Article 2 of this law prohibits adopting any laws restricting media freedom and freedom of media outlet. Article 3 bans censorship and obliges the media outlet to take responsibility for its publications and programs and Article 4 prohibits state-ownership of mass media.
Law on the Public Radio and Television
The establishment of the public broadcaster is the most important step taken by the Mongolian authorities towards consolidating media freedom over the last years.
The Mongolian Parliament passed the Law on the Public Radio and Television on January 27, 2005 after 7 years of delay. The Parliament Resolution #103 on the implementation of the Media Freedom Law was issued on 28 August 1998 and provided for the dissolution of state-owned brodcasting and re-structuring it into public service.
The Law on Public Radio and TV came into force on 1 July 2005. The former Mongolian National Radio and TV was dissolved and a new public broadcaster, Mongolian National Broadcasting (MNB), was registered with the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs on February 8th, 2005.
Globe International’s Monitoring Report on the transitional process of the PSB is attached to this report as Appendix # 1.
Criminal Law
The Criminal Law passed in 2002 states that it is a crime to interrupt lawful professional activities.
Article 139
The person interrupted the lawful and professional activities of the journalist
in order to disseminate or not to disseminate any information, which affects his or her own or other’s interest, shall be fined 31 - 50 times increased amount of the lowest level of salary, or shall be arrested for a period of 1- 3 months.
The Criminal Law of Mongolia
Globe International organized a meeting with 10 lawyers on 23 November 2005 in order to discuss how to efficiently use the above provisions. Unfortunately, lawyers came to conclusion that these provisions are not clear, so it would not work in practice and therefore, interpretation of the Supreme Court is needed.
D.Orosoo, a lawyer from the National Legal Center, and D.Bolorchuluun, an advocate, told us they tried to use this article for a case of journalists who were arrested and detained for 24 hours along with demonstrators during the public demonstration organized by the Fair Land Privatization Movement in 2002. The demonstration was blocked by 1,000 policemen. Unfortunately, the General Prosecutor’s Office denied and ignored their complaints stating the incident had no criminal character. The policemen insisted that it was late night and they were unable to recognize: “who was a journalist”. Secondly, they were not intending to arrest only journalists. If the officials purposefully obstructed the journalists, they should have been sentenced by the Article 139 of Criminal Law. Since policemen arrested the journalists without any purpose, there is no reason to bring them for criminal charge. Later, during the round table: “Judicial protection of media freedom”, a Globe International leader raised this issue and asked the prosecutor to explain their denial. The prosecutor said he denied it because the public demonstration was unlawful.
Article 139.2
If the crime committed by using official position, the person shall be fined 51 - 100 times increased amount of the lowest level of salary, or shall be arrested for a period of over 3 months or up to 6 months
Criminal Law of Mongolia
2.2 Restrictions of Freedom of Expression
State Secret
In Mongolia state secrets are protected by a general Law on State Secrecy and a Law on the List of Secret Information. The Law on State Secrecy was passed in 1995 and it was amended on January 2nd, 2002.
Article 3 titled “The perception about state secrets” provides for definition: “State secrets” shall be reports, documents, substances, items and proceedings which were defined as state secrets according to Mongolian legislation, and contain in themselves information, divulgence of which will cause harm to national security in forms of definitions, illustrations, signs, technological solutions and are related to matters of foreign policy, economics, science, technology, defense, intelligence, counter-intelligence and secret operations of Mongolia.
Article 11 states: “The category of confidentiality of state secrets shall depend on the seriousness to harm state security and interests that occur as the result of their divulgence” and state secrets fall into the following categories: Most confidential, confidential and classified.
Article 5 sets outs five areas of secrecy – national security; defense; economy, science and technology; secret operations and counter-intelligence; and procedures on the execution of criminals with capital charges and the Law on the List of State Secrets protect 59 types of information. 69.5 % of the information is protected for 40-60 years and for indefinite periods.
6 types of information fall are categorized as most confidential, 24 as confidential and 7 as classified, but 25 types of information do not belong to any of the categories.
The amendment made on April 23rd, 2005 provides for an indefinite period of protection for “entire information and documents related to the terrorism”.
It is a crime, punishable by up to 8 years imprisonment, if the disclosure of state secrets is especially harmful.
It is prohibited to disclose confidential correspondence relating to the work of the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet (Law on the Cabinet of Mongolia, Article 25.4) and the President. (Law on the President of Mongolia, Article 16.5).
Fortunately, there are no reports of journalists punished for disclosing state secrecy, but there are records of threatening arrest.
Organizational Privacy
The Law on Privacy of Organizations passed on May 16, 1995 extends the regime of secrecy to private organizations. This law effectively requires organizations to establish a regime of secrecy and to develop internal procedures to protect such secrets (Article 5.1). The impact of this is somewhat mitigated by Article 6 of the law, which lists a number of areas which may not be kept confidential. It is prohibited to withhold information, if the information pertains to activities, products, services, techniques, and technologies which affect the public health or environment, or contains information on poisonous or radioactive substances held by an organization which may cause public harm or harm the environment should its procedures on storage and protection be breached. The information also cannot be protected if it is about a crime or if it should be revealed to the public in accordance with law.
Article 164 of the Criminal Law makes it a crime punishable by a fine or arrest for a period of 3 to 6 months, if financial secrets or secrets on activities are unlawfully obtained or disclosed. If the harm is big it is punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years.
2.3 National Defamation Law
Article 16.17 of the Constitution, protecting the right to seek and receive information, allows for restrictions on these rights, including “to protect … the dignity and reputation of persons.”
Reputations are protected in both the civil and criminal laws of Mongolia.
Article 111: Libel
111.1 A criminal charge of a fine for 20-50 times of an increased amount of the lowest level of salary or arrest for a period of 1-3 months shall be imposed, if a clear statement on libel is distributed with a purpose to defame a person’s honor and reputation.
111.2 A criminal charge of a fine for 51- 150 times of an increased amount of the lowest level of salary or arrest for a period of over 3 months or up to 6 months shall be imposed, if libel is distributed through media or if the crime on insult and libel is committed by a person who was criminally charged before.
Criminal law
Before the Criminal Law was passed in 1994 the Supreme Court of Mongolia issued a Suggestion on the Usage of Articles 7 and 392 of the Civil Law. Provision 13 of the Suggestion states: “Public criticism on the concept and activities of state and government institutions and its officials does not mean defamation of the institutions and officials, but it can be considered, if the criticism is over standards concerning the defamation of another’s honor or if it leads to such a situation.”
The Civil Law was amended in 2002 and protects a citizen’s name, honor, reputation and business reputation.
21.2
If a person who distributed information defamed a citizen’s name, honor, reputation and business reputation cannot prove its truth he or she shall be imposed to correct it through forms or means that such information was distributed, or other forms or means as demanded by a person whose right was violated.
Civil Code
The Civil Law also states that a person has the right to illuminate the damage caused if a citizen’s image was published or shown to the public through photo, film, video, painting or other forms without permission (21.5).
Other Restrictions
In Mongolia there are many laws restricting freedoms of expression and information. In accordance with Globe International and an Article 19 Legal Analysis conducted in 2001, there were 91 such laws and law provisions. Below are a few examples by which journalists can be criminally charged in the breach of the Criminal Law:
In accordance with the Criminal Law, a criminal charge of a fine and arrest for up to 3 months shall be imposed, ‘if privacy is disclosed’ (136.1), ‘if obscenity is advertised’ (123), ‘if citizen’s correspondents are violated” (135), ‘if extreme religious ideas are advertised or distributed’ (144.1), and ‘if facts of criminal cases are disclosed without the permission of inspectors, detectives, prosecutors and judges (257.1).
In the case of advertising war or calling war, a criminal charge of arrest for 1-3 months shall be imposed. If this case was committed by using mass media or by state officials, a criminal charge of imprisonment for 2-5 years shall be imposed.
231: Insulting state officials and public inspectors for social order
231.1 A criminal charge of a fine for 5-50 times of an increased amount of the lowest level of salary, or forceful works for 100-150 hours, or arrest for a period of 1-3 months shall be imposed, if state officials and public inspectors for social order are insulted before the public in relation to their duties.
Criminal Code
Explanatory Note:
State officials, as detailed in this law, are judges, prosecutors, inspectors, detectives, policemen, customs and tax officers, and other state inspectors who have special powers by law.
2.3 Freedom of Information
Mongolia is missing a Freedom of Information law. Globe International has launched a programme to distribute the idea, concept, principles and international standards of Freedom of Information in 2002 with the support of the Mongolian Foundation for Open Society (the present Open Society Forum), the US Embassy and AUSAID. In 2004 the first draft law was submitted to the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs.
The discussion of the law was in the agenda of the Mongolian Parliament in November 2005, but has been delayed until now. In October 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers discussed the final draft of the law. Unfortunately, it was postponed by reason that it should be discussed in its complexity along with laws on information security and information technology.
Mongolia does not have legislation providing for a comprehensive guarantee of the right to information. There are a number of provisions dealing with the right to information in specific circumstances through various laws. These include the following openness obligations:
-Resolutions of the Cabinet and decrees of the Prime Minister must be published in the Government News Bulletin (Law on the Cabinet of Mongolia, Article 31.1);
-Organisations may not keep confidential information that discloses heath or environmental risks or crimes (Law on Privacy of Organisations, Article 6);
-Candidates for local elections have the right to obtain necessary information from their local administrations (Law on Elections of Citizens Representatives Khurals of Aimags, the Capital City, Soums and Districts, Article 25.1);
-The State Privatisation Committee must make public information on state-owned legal entities before a process of privatisation (Law on Central and Local Government Property, Article 6.1);
-Meetings of the State Ikh Khural shall be open and decisions must be published through the media (Law on the Procedures of Meetings of the State Ikh Khural, Article 4.9); and
-Laws and decisions of the State Ikh Khural, orders of the President, resolutions of the Cabinet, and legal acts issued by Ministries must be published in the Government News Bulletin (Law on the Procedures of Meetings of the State Ikh Khural, Article 46.1).
While these measures are positive, they do not go nearly far enough and in practice it is very difficult for ordinary citizens without special connections to access information held by public authorities. It is now accepted that comprehensive legislation is necessary to ensure practical respect for this important right.
2.4 Protection of Sources
In Mongolia there is no legislation guaranteeing the protection or confidentiality of sources of journalists. The previously mentioned suggestion of the Supreme Court approved in its meeting on May 25th 1994, accepted that ‘journalists have the right to protect their information sources’ (Provision 8).
Provision 4 of Code of Conducts of Journalists adopted by Confederation of Mongolian Journalists on March 11, 2005 states:
The journalist shall protect the source of information obtained in confidence in any case.
III. VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA AND JOURNALISTS
Globe International has registered 35 violations during Free Expression Violation Monitoring conducted between October 2005 and October 2006.
Even though censorship is banned and the interruption of the professional activities of journalists is a crime in accordance with law, it does not work in Mongolia. The various violations of the journalists’ rights are evidence that Mongolian journalists work in difficult conditions and complicated situations.
Some journalists do not want Globe International raise attention to their cases. They are highly self-censored and they are afraid from further possible attacks and assaults. Globe International is investigating a case in which a journalist was raped by those who were affected by her critical article.
3.1 Attacks against Journalists
Attempts to pressure, influence and intervene in journalistic activities are evidence that censorship is a reality in Mongolia.
Attacks against journalists occur in many ways, such as threats, insults, detainment, arrests and assaults. Statements and public denial in newspaper publications and on broadcast programmes are common ways that the Mongolian authorities create confusion in society.
Even the private sector and ordinary citizens are trying to interrupt news gathering and the reporting of public events.
We are concerned that foreign businessmen are pressuring journalists through high officials. For example, while a female TV producer was producing a documentary on child sexual exploitation and was shooting in the Korean-invested Seoul restaurant, she was threatened by Korean businessmen. Later the TV managers forced her to clean up her edited tapes. A female television reporter produced a news story on an automobile incident committed by rich Koreans who were returning from the Golf Course. She was threatened and forced to remove her story.
B.Bold, a reporter of the daily Odriin Sonin, was detained for 2 hours by the police while he was collecting information about the public demonstration protesting against Boroo Gold, which is a 100% Canadian invested gold mining company. B.Bold introduced himself as a journalist and demanded to know who produced an order to block and detain the rebels. His reporter’s identification that was shown to the policeman was confiscated and he was detained for 2 hours along with others.
On the night of May 8th, 2006, a television crew with reporters M. Batdorj and T. Orgil and cameramen B.Uuganbayar and L.Bayanbat, all from the independent Eagle TV channel, were assaulted by policemen in the centre of Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, in Sukhbaatar Square, while covering actions by Mongolian police who were breaking and tearing down the gers (traditional Mongolian dwellings) of the protesters. Several civil movements have been protesting against the current government since March 2006, the pending stability agreement with Ivanhoe mines (a Canadian mining company), corruption, and the 2006 budget revisions. Starting mid-April, traders of the burned-down SAPU shopping centre who had lost all their stock and were being denied compensation, joined the protesters. Because of an official visit by the South Korean President, city authorities demanded that the protesters remove their gers. However the protesters did not comply and the police came in the middle of the night to break them down.
The Eagle TV reporters were roughed up by police when they tried to shoot footage for the morning news. Police demanded ID from the journalists before they were allowed onto Sukhbaatar Square (a public place) and then told the journalists that they had no right to record the events, forcibly preventing the Eagle TV crew from taping. One police officer repeatedly smashed his fist into the camera and damaged it. Another officer took journalist T.Orgil by the collar and dragged him away from the area controlled by police. T.Orgil said that none of the senior police at the scene would answer his question,”Why do journalists need to get advance permission to record events on a public place like the central Sukhbaatar Square?”
Mongolchuudyn Amidral, a weekly tabloid, published news about the personal life Mrs. Arvin, MP. In the early morning of March 30 2006, Mrs. Arvin went to the post offices together with the policemen and confiscated all the issues of the newspaper. The next day she returned all the copies of the newspaper.
A Mongolian National Broadcasting news crew was attacked near the Students hostel in the western district of the capital city Ulaanbaatar on April 19th, 2006. The journalist Sh. Aruintsetseg and cameraman G.Delger were filming a bus where students were getting in on their way to support a demonstration organized by the civil movements “Healthy society” and “Mongolian Homeland”. The crew had just finished interviewing one student who confirmed that he was given 5000 Mongolian Togrogs (about 4$) by the leaders of civil movements to support the demonstration. The three staff suffered minor injures and the camera was permanently damaged. They escaped after a UBS television crew arrived soon afterwards and approached while grabbing stones. The UBS crew left their own camera in their van.
The female journalist G. Ganchimeg of the Hovdyn Medee (Hovd News) weekly newspaper, with more than 700 subsribers, was threatened by Mrs. B. Bujinlkham, an Hovd agent of the privately-owned Air Mongolia aviation company, after she published an article in the newspaper entitled “Airticketin Our Permanent Toothache” in the issue dated January 1st, 2006. It claimed that the set price for the Ulaanbaatar-Hovd aimag ticket should be 76, 500 MNT (about 63 US$) but that the agent and her cashier charged 10,000MNT (about 8 US$) more per ticket. Hovd province is located in the Western part of Mongolia and 1500 km from the capital city Ulaanbaatar. Mrs. B.Bujinlkham demanded her to “…reveal the source of information or I will take you to court.” She also demanded that any such articles be submitted to Air Mongolia before future publication. The journalist wrote her article after an investigation revealed material about an airticket problem which had been a topic of discussion among local people for many years.
Mr. L. Gansukh, Governor of North western Zavkhan province of Mongolia, called to his office all staff of the weekly “Zavkhan” newspaper, including editor-in-chief Mr. B.Ider and the Governor’s Office Media Information Department head and spokeswoman D. Natsagmaa, on December 31st, 2005, and yelled at them for some time. His anger was at a notice published in the newspaper’s 35th issue (December 20, 2005) regarding a request from the Court General Executive Department (Zavkhan branch) on the compulsory auction of the “Uliastai” hotel. The governor accused D. Ider of publishing the announcement without permission from him and demanded to publish an immediate correction. He also accused his spokeswoman of not censoring the newspaper’s content. He further threatened, “If you do not rectify your mistake immediately, I will dismiss you and I can close down your newspaper.” He said that he was deeply concerned that confidential information was nationally distributed because the Zavkhan newspaper has a national subscriber network.
Female journalist S.Enkhtuul of the national newspaper Udriin Sonin (Daily news) has been threatened for her published serial articles relating to the sensational bankruptcy of some private savings and credits associations. On June 13th, 2006, after her published article entitled “Are the bankprupted financial associations guiding police to a mafia network?”, she was called for the meeting by Mr. B.Tamir, whose name was mentioned in the article, at her office. B.Tamir, together with two young men, invited her to sit in their car and asked her to publish an immediate correction. The journalist refused to sit in the stranger’s car. Furthermore she told them that the published article was the result of considerable investigative work. According to journalist Enkhtuul, they said that, “If you do not rectify your mistake immediately, we’ll solve this problem our own way”.
Since then someone has started to call her mobile phone and threatening that, ”We have been watching you. The article you published on us was based on false information”. Along with these threatening calls, she feels as though she is regularly being followed.
The executives of the Udriin sonin (Daily news) helped change her cell phone number and informed the Police Department of the Sukhbaatar district of the capital, Ulaan Baatar. The Police Department provided a police guard to the journalist on the newspaper editors request.
Two days after this, the chairman of the Goverment’s Financial regulatory committee, who had closely examined all issues relating to private savings and credit associations, was murdered in his office on June 15th, 2006. According to the media, the killer was the owner of a private saving and credit association which was in severe financial trouble.
Thus, the Police Department filed a criminal suit against Mr. B. Tamir, who had threatened the journalist to publish a correction on her published article.
The female journalist M.Odgerel of the “Dornod” newspaper, which has a national subscriber network, has been threatened by Mr. D. Sukhbaatar, the former deputy head of the Dornod province branch of the National Emergency Management Agency, after she published an article headed “Slander worth a million: unlawful action by Mr. Sukhbaatar” on December 25th, 2005, in this newspaper. Since its publication, D.Sukhbaatar has been sending threatening messages to her mobile phone and demanding her to publish a correction.
D.Sukhbaatar was informed about the article before its publication and called the editor-in-chief of this newspaper, Mrs. B.Tuya, demanding that it not be published. Other aimag officials repeatedly rang Tuya with the same demand.
A journalist of the northern Huvsgul province and her coworkers have repeatedly received threats from a businessman concerning a critical publication. U. Gereltuya, editor of the Huvsgul-based newspaper Khuvsguliin Erkh Chuluu (Freedom of Khuvsgul), which has approximately 500 subscribers, said “We repeatedly receive threats and are insulted by businessmen.”
For instance, last year Mr. L.Tumurbaatar, director of Khuvsgul Geology Company and owner of Dalai Eej newspaper, threatened U.Gereltuya concerning a publication which claimed that he was lobbying a judge for selecting his newspaper as the “best media of the year”.
In another case last year, unidentified people in a car passed through the fence of one of the journalist’s houses. “We reported it to the police but they didn’t reveal the criminals. We are still receiving threats concerning our publication,” she said.
On October 27, 2006 daily newspaper reporters G.Erdenebat, B.Khajidmaa, photographer Ya.Aranjinbaatar of “Udriin sonin” and photo reporter Sh.Gerelsaikhan of “Ardiin erkh”, who were covering a civil society demonstration, were detained around 2 hours by policemen.
During the mass arrest policemen assaulted the journalists, destroyed a photo camera, confiscated documents, and didn’t give any chance for the journalists to explain their purpose. One of the detainees, Mr. G.Erdenebat of “Udriin sonin”, said, “No policemen asked us to show documents, instead they disregarded them and threw them away. Ms. B.Khajidmaa, a female journalist, was beaten by policemen with batons, and her face and body were severely injured. The photo camera was destroyed while the policemen were trying to confiscate it. Policemen packed us in the car and brought us to the police station.”
Mr. G.Davaakhuu, head of the public relations office of the General Police Department, said, “We dispersed the demonstration according to the law and we didn’t use any force. Yes, we agree that the journalists were detained, but how can we differentiate journalists from the demonstrators?”
Because of this incident “Udriin sonin” organized a press conference demanding authorities to stop violating the rights of journalists and urged journalists to have solidarity against the violation of journalist’s rights.
The Confederation of Mongolian Journalists also issued a media release. It sharply condemned the incident and stated that this was a violation of the journalists’ rights to deliver the truth of events. In other words, these violations are a method to oppress the right to know truth.
On October 26, civil society representatives, who demanded the release of Mrs.G.Baasan, head of the Free Elder’s Union, set up a tent in the central street of Ulaanbaatar and closed the road traffic at 13 a.m. Law-enforcement organizations repeatedly demanded demonstrators to disperse but they didn’t obey the demands and policemen dispersed them with force that night.
On October 24, Mrs. Baasan was detained by Chingiltei district police department, for reason of assaulting the police.
Colonel J.Vyachaslav, director of the ordinary security prison 439 of the Mongolian General Court Decisions Executive Department in Bulgan province has threatened journalist Mr. J.Munkh-Ochir of the weekly newspaper Zindaa (Rank) for an article entitled “Lacking control of prisoners”, published on the September issue, 2005.
At a province executive meeting at the governor’s administration office on March 13, 2006, Vyachaslav said to the journalist, ”Why have you spread false information to the public? Do you know that for this you must be taken to court and punished? I’ll resolve this problem through the law.”
One month ago, at another such meeting, the province police office director gave details about two recent car accidents in the province which possibly involved prisoners of the above prison whom Byachaslav had allowed to work as drivers. When journalist Munkh-Ochir heard this, he investigated and met policemen Mr. Ganbat and Mr. Bayarsaikhan, who had been assigned to investigate the accidents. The policemen confirmed that prisoners were involved in both accidents. The journalist then published an article in the newspaper.
“Colonel Vyachaslav was deeply concerned at having his secret and irresponsible behaviour publicly revealed and threatened me,” Munch–Ochir told the Globe International monitor.
3.3 Denial of Information
In its very first session in 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I), which stated, “Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touch¬stone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated”.
Journalists are acting on behalf of the public in order to disseminate information to them. Unfortunately, denial of information by the public officials in Mongolia is very common.
National Taxation Agency Denied in Information
We regret that the National Taxation Agency denied information to our newspaper. In the past, media reported on the privatization of the Savings Bank. Some media were informed of a decrease of taxes paid by the Bank. In order to clarify the objectivity of the information we approached Mr. B.Batgerel, the inspector of information section, and requested information about the tax payment of 2003-2005. Unfortunately, it was denied. He demanded to request the information in written form and that it must be signed by the chairman. We could not get the information, which is not state secret, by following their procedure. Is that strict rule determined by the leader of the National Taxation Agency or bureaucracy of Mr. B.Batgerel?
Source: ‘Onoodor’ daily newspaper. No 008, 11.01.2006
.
On 12 June, 2006, S.Munkhdalai, a reporter for the community radio station Noyon Uul, and Uvurkhangai TV journalist G.Puntsagsuren, were denied information by G.Dashtudev, chief secretary of the Crime Prevention Council of the Mongolian Justice and Domestic Ministry. While S.Munkhdalai was taping a meeting about inspections at the council’s Uvurkhangai aimag (province) branch, the secretary twice turned off the recorder and ordered the journalists to leave the meeting. The journalists were denied information by G.Dashtudev, who was speaking about a Justice Ministry report of an inspection in Uvurkhangai aimag, which he said was classified an organizational secret. He ordered that the journalists leave the meeting unless they stopped voice and video recording. S.Munkhdalai, Globe International NGO’s central region monitor, said, “The information classified secret by G.Dashtudev was that there were herders who could name livestock rustlers who would be liable to legal punishment. He also criticized the Uvurkhangai aimag police staff who didn’t act promptly.”
On July 27, Mr. M.Yadmaa, governor of Omnogovi province, ordered department heads not to give information to "Altangobi" television while the TV cameraman, Mr. M. Shinekhuu, was reporting on a meeting of the heads of the governor’s department offices.
A day before, on July 26, "AltanGobi" television aired a TV program covering the large increase of meat prices and interviewed a meat retailer, Dolgor, who said, “The Governor of the province gave out money from the Governor's Office to his relatives who purchased meat from neighboring provinces, and resold it here."
After the TV program, the Omnogovi province Governor called the salesperson Dolgor to his room and demanded her to make a withdrawal of her interview, and threatened to take her to court if she didn’t agree to. The governor of the province also ordered to call the journalist who developed the program, but the TV journalists refused.
Incidentally, Mr. N.Naranbaatar, the chairman of the Governor’s Office, also expelled journalists from the meeting on introducing inspection results of the Governor’s Office by the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of Mongolia.
The former governor of the province, Ts.Tserenbayar, also repeatedly violated the journalist’s right to access to information. He threatened them, stating “I’m talking about shutting off your TV, you have no right to interview me”, then he demanded the accreditation and twice expelled journalists of ‘Altan Gobi’ television who came to collect information regarding the process of handing over the Governor’s post.
Omnogobi province is located 600 kilometers from the capital of Mongolia and has a population of 43.5 thousand. It has two television stations and two newspapers as well as multiple radio stations. The only independent television “Altan Gobi” currently has 16 thousand viewers.
T.Bayartsogt, a reporter for the community radio Orkhon, was restricted to access information about the activities of the Tsavchirt local lime processing company in the north Mongolian aimag of Darkhan-Uul. May 24th, 2006, he entered a company production site. The company manager Sh. Munkhtsetseg invited a group of journalists from central and local media outlets, including TV and radio, to get a look at company operations, but she would not allow Bayartsogt to cover the event for his radio station. The Globe’s northern region monitor tried to clarify the reasons for the restriction and why the company manager refused to give information to the Orkhon radio reporter and refused to allow him access to the company building. Munkhtsetseg said,”When I checked the list of names of journalists who had arrived by invitation, I saw the name of the journalist who represents the Orkhon community radio station. Last year this radio aired a radio programme which defamed this company’s reputation.”
On August 19-20, 2005, Orkhon broadcasted a programme entitled “White Smoke Harms the Environment” twice, which included an interview with an environmental expert and local residents who criticized Tsavchirt and other local companies as harming the environment, claiming that they never rehabilitated the areas from which they extracted lime. Following this programme, the Darkhan-Uul Aimag Department for Environmental Protection fined each of the named companies 100,000-150,000 MNT (US$80-120).
3.1 Protection of Sources
In Mongolia, it is normal to demand the journalists to reveal their information sources.
The first question asked by complainants affected by critical materials, advocates, and judges is ‘Who gave you this information?’ In most cases the journalists are threatened with arrest, imprisonment, bringing a case before the court, and calling the police. There are cases in which journalists are pressured to reveal their information sources. Usually the journalists are afraid from reporting or alerting their cases.
The female journalist Sh.Otgonjargal of the daily and nationwide distributed newspaper “Unen” (True), with more than 50000 subscribers, was called by a special agent who called himself Batsaikhan (not his real name) of the General Intelligence Agency of Mongolia regarding her published article about the inspection conducted by the National Audit Department on the construction work of a State residence of ceremony and monument of the Chinggis Khaan. A journalist informed the public about embezzlement from the monument construction budget. A special agent strongly demanded her to reveal her source of information and when the journalist refused to come to the Agency for an interview, he threatened to arrest her. The scared journalist called the Globe lawyer for legal advice and defense. According to Globe’s lawyer, a special agent of the GIA hoped to easily get information about this case by threatening the journalist.
She has published a story and informed the public about financial violations on on-going construction works of the Chinggis Khaan memorial complex. The facts have been exposed by the State Auditing Department and the article was published before the auditing had been finalized. She was demanded by an officer of the Intelligence Service to reveal her information source.
A female journalist from Mongolyn Medee, a daily newspaper, was threatened by the police that they would arrest her for 6 hours, if she did not reveal her information source. She covered a murder, and according to the policeman she described the way the murder was committed.
Freelance journalist D.Ganhuyag was demanded many times to reveal his information sources during a criminal investigation of a libel case brought by Mr. O.Chuluunbaatar, the President of Mongol Bank.
The case study is enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
Considering the importance of the protection of journalist’s sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect demands to reveal one’s source have on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with international standards unless it is justified by overriding benefits to the public interest.
Although suggestions on this topic by the Supreme Court are welcome, we believe legislation providing protection for the right not to reveal confidential sources of information is necessary.
3.2 Safety of Journalists
Journalists receive threats to their personal safety. We are deeply concerned that intolerance towards journalists appears to have increased. The majority of journalists do not want to report or alert their cases because of possible future assaults. Unfortunately, none of the incidents have been investigated by the police.
At Globe International, for example, a male journalist from Erdenet provincial newspaper was beaten by unknown people and his photo camera broken. His kidney and liver were seriously damaged, but he has refused to raise attention to this incident. He reported his case to the police next morning.
On the night of December 19th, 2005, an unknown individual vandalised the vehicle of television journalist G. Batjav near his home in Ulaanbaatar. All of the windows were broken, both mirrors were torn apart and the interior of the car was destroyed. However, no valuables or car parts were taken. Previously, on November 9th, three individuals assaulted Batjav while he was having lunch in a small restaurant in the Sukhbaatar district of Ulaanbaatar.
More information on this case study is enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
On July 6th, 2006, B.Tsevegmid, the editor of Nomin television station in the northern Mongolian province of Orkhon, was beaten at the entrance of her building and had to be hospitalized for treatment. Before being attacked she had received many threats by telephone concerning an investigative television program, "Forbidden to Watch," which covered the Erdenet mining industry employees' privatization vouchers.
On June 11th, "Forbidden to watch" aired the fate of privatization vouchers for 9,000 employees of the Erdenet mining industry. After the television program, unknown people threatened her over the phone. The director of the Erdenet brokerage company, which held the vouchers, also warned the journalist, "It is a very complicated issue, you could be killed".
More information is in the Case Study enclosed in of this report.
3.3 Media Ownership
There are no laws regulating cross media ownership or media concentration, and general broadcast law.
The 1998 Media Freedom Law prohibits the state-ownership of mass media. The only media which remained state-owned was MONTSAME, the only nation-wide news agency. After the 1998 Media Freedom Law MONTSAME had to be converted into public media.
On December 15th, 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers decided to transfer MONTSAME, which is a government agency, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and present the decision to the Parliament for discussion.
Mr.B.Dorj, Press officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: “The Ministry’s position is to use MONTSAME in strengthening overseas information distribution and to have one united policy for overseas information policy. The General Director has not been appointed since 2002. Even though the acting General Director has been working the information policy is lacking. That is why it leads to this decision”.
No decisions have been taken as of now.
According to a Press Institute study, there are 325 media outlets operating by the end of 2005. Today, there are 9 daily newspapers and 10 television channels.
Information on media ownership is not open to the public. There are various opinions surrounding the ownership of media outlets, particularly of television channels which are allegedly owned by influential politicians and businessmen.
Ts.Nyandorj, Speaker of the Parliament
I do not understand those comrades who put themselves in the hands of the media. I know all the politicians who are behind the new televisions. It is meaningless to determine their personal influence to the society through media. It will be enough to have 3-4 television in Mongolia. In China there are 5-6 television channels.
Source: Interview published ‘Onoodor” daily newspaper, No 228(2882), 29/09.2006
The only person who openly stated his ownership is H.Enkhbayar, the President of Mongolia.
Interview with the President of Mongolia
Reporter: - I would like to ask about TV9. There are complaints that you have paid 60 million togrogs to Bishop Choichamts and obtained the television studio, which was given to Gandan (Buddhist Center) and MPRP (Mongolian People’ Revolutionary Party).
H.Enkhbayar: It is not nice talking about this, but I have to explain the truth. I have believed in Buddha since my childhood and I have had a teacher since 1982. Bishop Choijamts and I have been discussing about creating a Buddhist television station since the establishment of Christian Eagle TV broadcasting. The Japanese religious organization Agun Shu gave us a television studio when they invited us to a Buddhist religious ceremony. They said it was given to private individuals named Enkhbayar and Choijamts, so we came to Mongolia with equipment costing 110,000 USD. It does not belong to Gandan, and does not belong to MPRP. It was difficult to directly establish a new television station because there was no channel. The studio equipment was kept in the Betub monastery at first and was later kept in the building of MPRP. Friends of the Party asked for a camera during the Election campaign and it was not given. I had made a promise to my Japanese friends, which is why I would not use the camera. One day Munkh-Orgil (MP) said: ‘I have a channel. You have a studio’. That is how TV9 was established.
We handed 60 million togrogs to Bishop Choijamts over ceremonially. Before that I was joking and said to the Bishop: ‘Our studio costs 100, 000USD. Right?’ He said: ‘No. 110, 000 USD’. He has very good memory. That is why he is good in his studies. The Bishop said he will spend the money to build a monastery.
I was told that the Bishop appears on TV9 when he wants. I cannot watch. Ts.Enkhbat, the director, manages well. Some politicians call me saying: ‘You are killing MPRP’. I cannot participate in activities of television.
Source: ‘Onoodor’ daily newspaper. No 104(2758), 05.05.2006
The only foreign invested media is EBC (Eagle Broadcasting Company). EBC is a television news channel, which returned to Mongolia in 2004 after being shutdown for over 2 years, by the Speaker of Parliament Ts. Nyamdorj. It is active in covering citizen’s movements and broadcasting citizens’ opinions in live.
“Can there be media with foreign investment that is airing advertisements to break up the Mongolian State? ….There should certainly be a boundary to everything,” Ts.Nyamdorj stated on the floor of Parliament.
However, Ts.Nyamdorj’s statements were followed by the release of The Press Institute of Mongolia’s research report on TV viewers for June, 2006. Eagle TV was the most watched station Monday through Friday and was the overall most watched station, scoring almost double of the closest competitor.
Overseas experiences suggest that diversity of opinions, comments and news sources only results from diversity of ownership. Therefore, we are aware that the government goal should be to protect and promote diversity.
More information on Eagle TV is available at http://terrycom.net
3.6 Use of Defamation Laws
Mongolian public officials efficiently use the criminal and civil defamatory legislation to censor the media.
The latest study of the use of the defamation laws by Globe International covered the period between 2001 and 2005. The Courts reviewed 187 defamation cases in total. Of the 178 civil cases and 9 criminal defamation cases, 151 cases were against media and journalists. 146 of those were civil and 5 were criminal cases.
In comparison, a previous study by the Mongolian Foundation for Open Society (1999- 2001) found an average of 31.5 civil and 1.6 criminal cases that were brought forth as defamation cases per year. The results of our study show an average of 29.2 civil and one criminal case that were brought for defamation per year. The number of defamation cases has slightly decreased at 0.9%.
The media won 9.6% of the cases and in 59.6% of the cases they lost. In 31.5 % of the cases the plaintiffs and media reconciled.
According to the study 92 or 63% of the cases occurred because elected bodies, public officials or public institutions sued (4).
Civil cases:
Information containing public interest and public concern 45
Information accusing the politicians, high officials and public
officials in wrong-doings, corruption and bribery 32
Information affecting personal lives 10
Criminal defamation
From 5 criminal cases, MPs were plaintiffs for 4 cases and one case was brought forth by a doctor working in the state-owned hospital. As a result of the courts decisions, two female journalists were arrested and detained from 23 days to 6 months, one case was dismissed and one case which involved 4 journalists resulted in a sentence of a fine. Another case was still ongoing at the end of 2005.
In its second issue of 2006, the weekly Uls Turiin Sonin published an article headed “President, the Millionaire,” in which the writer argued that President Enkhbayar might own a substantial share of the TDB.
The article said that the privatization of the TDB occurred under extraordinary circumstances when President Enkhbayar was prime minister, and that the new TDB owners were allowed to pay the cost of sale later than was stipulated in the sale contract.
The weekly further claimed that the president’s substantial interest might be behind the soon-to-be-built Shangri La office tower, construction of which is licensed to the MCS Company. The Shangri La is in the centre of Ulaanbaatar, and the building site was cleared by destroying a large section of a beautiful public park, prompting such public outrage that a group of demonstrators damaged property in the site a few months ago.
On February 23rd, 2006, the Chingeltei District Court of Ulaanbaatar accepted the demands of the TDB, with some modifications. Mrs. Uyanga was ordered to pay 10 million tugrigs (approximately US$9,700) to the TDB and to publish a correction in the newspaper.
Also, the Court, accepting documents provided by the TDB, found that President Enkhbayar was not among the named shareholders of the bank.
Mr. G. Dashrentsen, who was accused of criminal defamation in a suit that has been pending in the Mongolian Police Enquiry Department since January 28th, 2006, is now accused of publishing defamatory articles about President Nambariin Enkhbayar.
“After checking through all my published articles in newspapers since May 2005, the president lodged a complaint with the Bayanzurkh district court of Ulaanbaatar through his attorney, Mr. D.Batsukh, on 21 March 2006” he told Globe International.
Dashrentsen said, “The claim to the court stated that as a journalist, I violated article 16 of the Mongolian Law on the President, which states ‘the President’s…name shall be inviolable”. Dashrentsen added: “Anyone who criticized the President before had to deal in court with someone to whom President Enkhbayar has showed special consideration. This is the first time the president himself has appealed to the civil court with his own complaint.”
The Mongolian media, including Dashrentsen’s colleagues at Udriin Sonin (Daily news), have been covering the issue intensively and have called on other journalists to defend him.
The above 2 cases are civil ones and 2 journalists lost at the Courts.
In the civil defamation case, the Bayanzurkh District Court decided to fine the journalist G. Dashrentsen 300,000 MNT (app.260USD) and ordered him to publish a correction on his publication about Mr. Adisha, a customs officer. Soon afterwards Mr. Adisha was arrested after a police investigation into a customs corruption case.
Mr. G. Dashrentsen also had been under criminal investigation, and has been accused of libel since January 28th, 2006, after a complaint made by the Buddhist lama Purevbat.
More information is in the Case Study enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
In another case, President U.Chuluunbat of the state-owned Mongol Bank filed a criminal defamation suit against Mr. D.Ganhyag, a political researcher, for an article published in the newspaper Mongol Times, in March 2005, headed “Big debt, U.Tsolmon (first lady of Mongolia) and US$8 million.“
More information in the Case Study is enclosed in the Appendix of this report.
4. Conclusion
Mongolia has some positive laws which protect media freedom. However, in reality, rights of media and journalists are often violated. Because of such violations, journalists cannot tell the truth and are thus detrimental to the public interest.
Censorship is banned by law in Mongolia. However, direct and indirect censorship still exist. Demand on journalists to serve the government should not be tolerated, and government control over media does conform to the nature, standards and principles of democracy.
It is common for elected politicians, authorities and public officials to use criminal defamatory legislation as censorship. The public’s legitimate right to be informed does not take precedence over defamation cases in Mongolian courts, so it is difficult to get fair trials in Mongolia.
Authorities use their power to prevent media criticism and neutralize true information. They do this in order to hide their wrong doings and thus deny the public interest their right to know about their activities.
The Mongolian public as well as journalists do not have the right to access information and official documents, which detracts from the democratic principle of transparency and openness. This shows how difficult it is for investigative reporters to find and prove information sources and facts that are hidden.
When media ownership is not transparent, it does not promote pluralism in the society. Instead, it confuses the public and allows for the dissemination of one-sided information and makes the public unable to confront the opinions of unknown media owners. The Mongolian public is becoming unaware of who is telling the truth and is starting to lose their trust in journalists, which is not conducive to social justice.
Being pressured to reveal information sources harms not only informators, but the entire responsibility of the media before the public. Without whistle-blowers, journalists are unable to control the powers. If journalists lose the values of investigative journalism, society will never be healthy.
Any types of attacks, assaults or threats which result because of attempts to tell the truth are serious crimes against journalists. It is regrettable that the Mongolian police and courts do not fulfill their duties to protect Freedom of Media.
5. What should be done in the Future?
Media freedom does not come easily. We have to fight to obtain it.
First, it is important to reveal all rights violations against media and journalists, document it and inform it to the public. Only in close cooperation with civil society, the public and the media, can we overcome these attacks.
Second, journalists should be aware of when their rights are being violated. By hiding violations they make the situation worse. Journalists should understand that they will be able to decrease the chance of future abuses by disclosing the facts of violations and raising awareness to them.
Third, solidarity is important in our fight. It will play a key role in the creation of more favorable political, economical and legal environments, improve working conditions, and help defend against government attacks. Media freedom should be the main concern of the journalists’ and publishers’ organizations working in Mongolia.
Fourth, dissemination and distribution of information to the world are important. Media freedom can be a reality in Mongolia with the support of our colleagues around the world, donors, inter-governmental organizations and international human rights organizations.