[ad_1]
The Colombian Information Media Association (AMI) ruled on the ruling of the Second Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit that ordered Semana Magazine to withdraw from all platforms the program entitled ‘Exclusive! The Conversations of the Witness Monsalve with his family ‘.
This publication contained the file of former president Álvaro Uribe, including the legal interceptions of some members of the family of witness Juan Guillermo Monsalve. Marta Elena Monsalve, sister of the witness, filed a tutela action against Semana Magazine and journalists Vicky Dávila and Jairo Fidel Lozano for said content.
The AMI, the Foundation for Freedom of the Press (FLIP) and the National Association of Media (Asomedios) rejected the decision and classified it as a censorship.
(Can read: The harsh criticism of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Court in the case of Álvaro Uribe)
Below we reproduce the statements that these organizations issued through a statement:
● It is crucial to emphasize that it is about the publication of information on a process of high public interest and national significance and this is preponderant based on the duty to balance between the investigation of crimes and the guarantee of freedom of the press. The recordings contain information about one of the witnesses against former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez and who appears in the proceedings against the former president for alleged bribery of witnesses and procedural fraud.
● The judge ordered the publication to be eliminated, arguing that although journalists have the right to report, they could not use evidence that is confidential, since “its use is not allowed, except for its disclosure in matters other than criminal proceedings.” . In view of this, we consider that the information that rests in the investigations and judicial processes does not have an exclusive use within the process, since it is also an element of judgment of society and the press that can be debated within the public sphere. It is from this information that a healthy public debate for democracy is generated.
(Further: Judge will decide on Saturday whether to release Álvaro Uribe)
● We support what was stated by the defense of the Semana Magazine that warned that equating the disclosure of reserved information by a State server with the publication of information of general interest by a medium is a dangerous precedent for press freedom . This creates obstacles for the fulfillment of the role of the information media and blurs its nature, in addition, it would limit access to public opinion to information of national interest.
● In the ruling, the judge argued that the journalists expressed their opinion about what they heard “supplying the judicial work assigned solely to the judges, even generating a priori value judgments on the conversations heard.” We reject the censorship by the judge who restricts journalism by reproaching journalists for expressing their opinions in the face of the evidence of the process. The judicial activity in the head of the judges does not exclude the public debate that may be generated with respect to the judicial process and even on the judicial activity.
● The decision to remove content is disproportionate and ignores the fundamental core of freedom of expression. According to the Inter-American Human Rights System and the Constitutional Court, if there is an “abuse” of freedom of expression that causes damage to the rights of others, the least restrictive measures of freedom of expression must be used to repair the damage. In this sense, the protection measure adopted in the guardianship ruling should be aimed solely at editing the fragments that violate the privacy of the plaintiff, instead of completely censoring the report. In other words, the elimination of sections in which the plaintiff is not part of the conversations should not be ordered.
● The decision to order an investigation into how the media had access to the recordings and, with this, determine criminal responsibilities is worrying because it ignores that in the Colombian constitutional system there are NO prohibited sources and it seems to criminalize some. The certification of copies can mean a mechanism to ignore the reserve of the constitutionally protected source. In this regard, we call on the judicial authorities to value and respect the importance of journalists having this guarantee, without which their right to information would be at risk.
● The unedited disclosure of the Monsalve family’s telephone interceptions is protected by the protection of press freedom and the constitutional guarantee of independence that the editorial line includes.
(We suggest you read: Miami street is now called ‘Álvaro Uribe Way’)
The AMI, finally, assured that it accompanies Semana’s decision to abide by the order and withdraw the program in compliance with the ruling. But they made a clarification: “as a whole, we will monitor the development of this protection process because we consider that the decision adopted endangers press freedom.
He also stated that “censoring the press and access to information by citizens constitutes a serious precedent in terms of freedom of expression.”
DRAFTING THE TIME
