(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – On 22 December 1998 the Belarus Supreme Economic Court cancelled a formal warning by the State Committee on the Press to the independent Belarusian-language newspaper “Nasha Niva”. **Updates IFEX alert of 5 August 1998. For further background to harassment of “Nasha Niva”, see IFEX alerts of 27 June 1997 and 18 November […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – On 22 December 1998 the Belarus Supreme Economic Court
cancelled a formal warning by the State Committee on the Press to the
independent
Belarusian-language newspaper “Nasha Niva”.
**Updates IFEX alert of 5 August 1998. For further background to harassment
of “Nasha Niva”, see IFEX alerts of 27 June 1997 and 18 November 1996**
The warning which the State Committee on the Press had issued to “Nasha
Niva” on 29 May stated that the newspaper had breached the provision in
Article 6 of the Law on Press and Other Mass Media, which states that “it is
forbidden [for the mass media] to deviate from the generally accepted form
of the language used.” This provision is one of several restrictive
amendments to the Law on Press which came into effect in January 1998.
According to the warning, “Nasha Niva” had breached this provision by using
the traditional Belarusian spelling (“tarashkevitsa”) which was current in
the 1920s, but which was cancelled by the spelling reform of 1933.
As authority for its warning, the State Committee on the Press referred to
the findings of an Academician from the Institute of Linguistics who
analysed one edition of the newspaper. This analysis included reference to
the “unacceptable moral and ethical” connotations of this form of the
language, alluding to its use by fascist sympathizers during the German
Occupation from 1941 to 1944. The analysis also made unfavourable comments
about the apparent “political outlook” of the edition of the newspaper which
was examined (For further details and background to this matter, see IFEX
alert of 5 August 1998).
ARTICLE 19 wrote to the Belarus authorities stating that this restriction on
the use of language constitutes a breach of international human rights stand
ards on freedom of expression, and, in particular, breaches Belarus’s treaty
obligations under Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR). While in a number of countries, for practical
purposes, governments have specified an official form of the
language for use by state or official bodies, any such restriction on
non-state bodies or private individuals is a clear violation of the
internationally protected right to freedom of expression. The UN Human
Rights Committee, the body established to monitor states’ compliance with
their obligations under the ICCPR, has specifically stated that the right to
freedom of expression set out in Article 19(2) includes the freedom to
express oneself in the language of one’s choice.
“Nasha Niva” applied to the Supreme Economic Court, requesting the court to
rule invalid the warning by the State Committee on the Press. At the hearing
in August the judge ordered the establishment of an expert committee to
consider the grounds on which the warning was based. The committee comprised
experts from the Institute of Linguistics of the Belarusian Academy of
Sciences, and individuals nominated by “Nasha Niva”. The committee’s opinion
(which was not binding on the court), delivered some weeks later, was that
the notion “generally accepted form of the language”, set out in the Law on
Press, is not a clear linguistic concept.
In December the court resumed its consideration of the case. A
representative of ARTICLE 19, Russian lawyer Olga Osipova, attended part of
the proceedings as an international observer. On 22 December the court ruled
that the “tarashkevitsa” spelling is classical, and is not a deviation from
the generally approved form of the language.
In its August 1998 letter to the government, ARTICLE 19 called on the State
Committee on the Press to withdraw its warning to “Nasha Niva”. It also
urged the authorities not to take any other steps with a view to compelling
“Nasha Niva” to adopt any particular form of the language, or to penalize it
for using a form of the language which is not officially approved. Thirdly,
it called for Article 6 of the Law on Press, as well as a number of its
other provisions, to be revised to bring that law into line with Belarus’s
international human rights obligations.
Recommended Action
Send appeals to authorities:
the
Press issued in May 1998 to Nasha Niva, the court’s 22 December ruling, in
favour of the newspaper’s application contesting the validity of the
warning, is a welcome development
authority of
the executive and legislative bodies rather than of the courts, continuing
to call on the authorities to ensure that no measures are taken in the
future to obstruct “Nasha Niva” — or indeed any other media or
individuals — from exercising their right to freedom of expression in the
language, and the form of language, of their choice
numerous other provisions of that law — should be revised so as to bring
the Law on Press into line with Belarus’s international human rights
obligations
Appeals To
President Alexander Lukashenka
220010 g. Minsk, pl. Nezavisimosti, Republic of Belarus
Fax: +375 172 23 58 25 / 26 06 10
Fax: +375 172 22 38 72 / 22 32 84Mr. Mikhail Padgainy
Chairman, State Committee on the Press
Pr. Masherova 11,
220617 Minsk, Republic of Belarus
Fax: +375 172 23 34 35Mr. Ural Latypov
Minister of Foreign Affairs
220030 g. Minsk, Ul. Lenina, 19
Republic of Belarus
Fax: +375 172 27 45 21In addition, send a copy of such letters to the Belarus embassy or other
Belarusian diplomatic representation in your country.In Canada, send letters to:
His Excellency Mikhail Khvostov
Ambassador
Embassy of the Republic of Belarus
130 Albert Street, Suite 600
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4
Fax: +1 613 233 8500
