The Republic of Uzbekistan is obliged to comply with domestic as well as international law to protect freedom of expression and freedom of the media. As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Uzbekistan is obliged to uphold article 19, which stipulates the right to hold and express opinions and to have access to information, and the conditions under which these rights may be restricted.
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. 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.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
a. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
b. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Uzbekistan's constitution guarantees freedom of expression. Article 67, which deals specifically with the media, states unequivocally: "Censorship is not permitted," words that are repeated in all related legislation. A law on the protection of journalists' rights passed by the Uzbekistan parliament in April 1997 goes further: "Censorship is not permitted in the Republic of Uzbekistan. No one has the right to demand of a journalist that he agree with reports or material in advance or to demand that material or reports be removed from the press (or airwaves)."8
In managing media affairs, the Uzbekistan authorities are bound by the country's constitution (passed in 1992 under President Karimov's administration) and laws on the media and publishing (passed in June 1991 and August 1996, respectively). These contain some welcome provisions, such as the explicit banning of censorship and the affirmation of free speech, but also leave room for prosecuting any journalist who breaches vaguely-defined prohibitions on the dissemination of "secrets" and "information that does not correspond to reality."9 The effect of these latter clauses is to bolster censorship and stifle free expression in the stages before publication, rather than after information has entered the public domain.
The constitution and domestic legislation also set limits on free speech for the media. Article 67 of the constitution states: "The mass media are free, and operate in accordance with the law. They shall be accountable for the reliability of information according to established procedures." The stipulation of media "accountability" leaves open the possibility of arbitrary suspension of general free speech rights, in an environment in which coverage of even basic economic indicators has led to intimidation of journalists by state officials. The Law on the Mass Media expands on the issue of accountability in article 28: "The bases for accountability [for breaching media legislation] are abuse of freedom of speech and the dissemination of information which does not correspond to reality or which defames the honor and dignity of a citizen or organization" (emphasis added) The law does not expand on how such "untrue" information is identified, or who has the right to designate it as such (except to say that reports based on official sources, verbatim statements in parliament, and live broadcasts are exempt). Violation of this provision can be either a criminal or civil offence, according to circumstance.
Article 29 of the constitution imposes further limitations on freedom of expression that it fails to define: "Everyone shall have the right to seek, obtain and disseminate any information except that which is directed against the existing constitutional system and in some other instances specified by law." (This is reiterated in a new draft law entitled "Guarantees and freedom of access to information" published in Narodnoye Slovo on February 12, 1997.) Article 29 continues: "Freedom of opinion and its expression may be restricted by law if any state or other secret is involved." The area covered by "state or other secrets" is problematic; Human Rights Watch/Helsinki is not aware of any published document stating what information (other than that relating to military and national security matters) it encompasses. The Law on the Mass Media goes only part of the way toward defining what may or may not be published legally. Article 4 of the law says: "It is not permitted to use the mass media to disseminate a state secret or any other secret specifically protected by law; to call for the violent overthrow or change of the existing state and social system, [to engage in] propaganda for war, violence, cruelty, or racial, ethnic or religious exclusivity, to disseminate pornography, or with the aim of committing any criminal action."
The problem of free speech and free media in Uzbekistan is, however, less one of law than of enforcement. Many of the cases detailed in this report reveal how little the existing legislation is implemented. For example, theconstitution and laws explicitly forbid censorship, yet it continues to be practised in a blatant manner. This discrepancy between law and reality seems to be accepted by all participants in the editorial process as a fact of life; in any case, there is no precedent for a journalist seeking redress in the courts or by other means when faced with restrictions on free speech.
8 Article 4 of the draft Law on the Professional Activity of the Journalist, published in Narodnoye Slovo, February 13, 1997, p. 2 (translation by Human Rights Watch).
9 Articles 4 and 28 of the Law on the Mass Media, passed June 14, 1991 and amended May 6, 1995 (translation by Human Rights Watch).