Editor’s note: Irada Guseinova, from the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, discusses the use of legal means to intimidate the press in Tajikistan Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. This follows Alpharabius’ report on the recent closing of three newspapers in Tajikistan. Check out his continuing coverage here. (Translation of (RUS).)

Tajikistan

The country’s officials have recently been swamping newspapers with all sorts of lawsuits. Industry watchdogs already warned that the number of cases against the media was on the rise. The National Association of Independent Mass-Media in Tajikistan (NAIMT) sounded the alarm after the president issued a decree ordering officials of all ranks to respond to criticism in the media. NAIMT claimed it was easier for officials to sue journalists than to merit them with a response and improve their work. Given the current judicial system (independent courts are virtually absent in post-Soviet countries), punishing journalists seems easy. Moreover, by punishing journalists officials demonstrate to the president that they were working properly and were slandered by the press.

Officials and politicians have been particularly energetic lately, which analysts say is motivated by upcoming parliamentary elections. They offer the same reason for why the independent television channel SMT was shut down. Of course, official reports blame technical problems. As it turns out, SMT and Russia’s Channel 1 had been broadcasting on the same frequency and interfering with one another. Yet one thing is unclear: who was at fault? Tolib Khollov, the chief investigator from the Committee for Radio and Television, stated that Channel 1 was being broadcast illegally. SMT director Zinatullo Ismoilov says that his channel was assigned the disputed frequency, but when their transmitter was set up, it turned out Channel 1 was already using it without permission. Channel 1’s leadership insists it has documents proving the transmission was legal. Statements from both parties have ceased while the Committee investigates, except the Committee in no rush. SMT recently hosted a discussion with representatives from all ten of the country’s political parties, which expects say was an unwelcome move ahead of the elections. Experts warn that the recent judicial activity means officials are unwilling to discuss relevant issues in the press, and if the bureaucratic problem isn’t resolved in the nearest future, it will quickly turn into a political one.

Uzbekistan

There are practically no independent journalists left in this country. Uzbekistan is becoming increasingly like its neighbor Turkmenistan, the most totalitarian regime in Central Asia.

It is nearly impossible to register an independent publication with the Press and Information Agency. Exceptions are made for advertising newspapers. According to the Statue on Governmental Registration of Mass Media, the registration body must rule on cases no later than thirty days after they are submitted. Yet the founders of “MINBAR-TRIBUNA” have been unsuccessfully seeking accreditation since 2006, and are now taking the Press and Information Agency to court. This is the first time such action is being taken, with predictably frustrating results: the date of the hearing has already been shifted multiple times.

Several journalists are currently serving prison sentences in Uzbekistan. Cases against most of them are falsified, with defendants typically accused of bribery or hooliganism. Dilmurod Said, an independent journalist and a member of the human rights group Ezgulik (“Clemency”), was sentenced to 12 years in jail for “extortion,” even though his accusers withdrew their own testimony in court, confessing to having been pressured by the investigation. In October 2008, Salidzhon Abdurakhmanov, an independent Uzbek journalist, was sentenced to 10 years. Muhammad Bekzhanov, the editor of the Uzbek opposition newspaper Erk, is currently serving a 14-year sentence. Other prisoners include journalist Yusuf Ruzimurodov, on a 15-year sentence, and freelancer Gairat Meliboev. Their colleague, Dzhamshid Karimov, was placed in an insane asylum after penning a number of critical articles. He remains there to this day, while neither his family nor human rights activists are able to obtain the medical report based on which he was institutionalized. No visitors have been admitted to see him.

I doubt one will find many journalists today who would want to share this fate.

Kazakhstan

On 8 December Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbaev signed into effect a new law titled “On amendments and addenda to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan regarding the protection of citizens’ right to privacy.” In its draft stages, the law was severely criticized by journalist organizations and opposition parties. Criticism stemmed from the clause punishing the publication of illegally obtained information in mass media by up to 5 years in prison and the deprivation of property. The problem is that Kazakh law does not define the terms “private life,” “public figure” and “official public figure.” Under these conditions, the law can significantly curb freedom of speech and become a hindrance in the fight against corruption.

For example, on 1 February, the Almaty Municipal Court prohibited the media from publishing any information that tarnished the reputation of Timur Kulibaev, the deputy chairman of the board of The National Welfare Fund “Samruk-Kazyna” who also happens to be Nazarbaev’s son-in-law. Additionally, the court ordered to “seize all media output, electronic and paper-based, which contains information tarnishing T. Kulibaev’s honor and business reputation” and to halt the distribution of already-printed materials. The newspapers involved were Respublika, Golos Respubliki, Vzgliad and Kursiv, which accused Timur Kulibev and opposition member Mukhtar Abliazov of corruption.

Previous political targets included Internet sites and media outlets that published interviews with Rakhat Aliev and excerpts from his book Godfather-in-Law. Aliev, who was formerly married to Nazarbaev’s daughter, lives in Austria.

Experts motivate this attack on the media by the fact that the aging Nazarbaev has no viable successors. Instead, the country is torn by inter-clan power struggles. In this environment, critical publications and articles dealing with corruption in the highest echelons of government only fan the flames, which is unlikely to advance freedom of speech.