Category: Uncategorized

We, the undersigned organizations, have no questions to the leadership of Azerbaijan – the country, which holds one of the lowest places in international freedom of expression rankings but is hosting yet another pompous media forum on July 22-23. Similarly, we have no questions to Azerbaijan’s Media Development Agency, the event organizer, which endorses all government initiatives that restrict freedom of speech and regularly targets human rights organizations for their criticism of the massive suppression of journalists’ rights in the country. Unfortunately, there are no additional questions to the reputable media and other professional entities that have delegated their representatives to the Forum, held with the sole purpose of legitimizing Baku’s foreign and domestic policies, which contradict to the fundamental values of the civilized world – such lack of integrity has long become business as usual for many.

Our question is addressed to fellow journalists who are currently enjoying the lavish hospitality of the Aliyev regime while finding themselves just a few kilometers away from the cities and villages of Nagorno-Karabagh, living in isolation from the outside world for more than seven months. Within this setting, thousands of people have been deprived of access to basic food for an extended period, women in childbirth are unable to reach hospital due to the scarcity of petrol, water supply is threatened due to a shortage of electricity: doesn’t your professional duty drive you to demand freedom of movement from the Azerbaijani authorities in order to witness a tragedy with few parallels in the modern world? Isn’t it anymore essential for the media to continue its role in breaking through information blockades, particularly in a situation where news about unfolding events is provided exclusively by biased sources? Will you really allow yourselves to be swayed by credulity, an unusual approach for professionals in our field, and embrace the arguments of the Forum’s hosts that assert their eagerness to assist your journey just a short drive away to Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabagh, attributing any hindrance to your passage to the local Armenian leadership or Russian peacekeepers?

Your determination and perseverance, in fact, could contribute to breaking the current impasse in the region. We firmly believe that this seemingly minor episode in the history of journalism may have significant implications for the future reputation of our shared profession.

YEREVAN PRESS CLUB

MEDIA INITIATIVES CENTER

MEDIA DIVERSITY INSTITUTE-ARMENIA

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER

PUBLIC JOURNALISM CLUB

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

JOURNALISTS’ CLUB “ASPAREZ”

“JOURNALISTS FOR THE FUTURE” NGO

“JOURNALISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS” NGO

GORIS PRESS CLUB

“FEMIDA” NGO

Online anonymity is a guarantee of freedom of expression in the digital age. Without anonymity, people are less likely to express themselves freely, for fear of reprisal. This can have a chilling effect on free speech, especially in countries where freedom of expression is already restricted.

Media Diversity Institute has developed a policy brief entitled — “The Right to Online Anonymity in Armenia,” which examines the legal regulations of online anonymity in Armenia. The report finds that the current regulations are inadequate and do not adequately protect the right to online anonymity. The report makes a number of recommendations for improving the legal framework for online anonymity in Armenia.

The report is intended for a wide range of audiences, including the media, human rights defenders, industry experts, state administration bodies, and legislators. The report is available in PDF format at this link.

January 12, 2023, Yerevan

From December 22, 2022 to January 6, 2023, the draft on making amendments and supplements to the RA Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” was submitted for discussion by the RA Ministry of Justice on e-draft.am, the unified website for publication of legal acts’ drafts. According to the proposed changes, in case of declaration of martial law, points 13-15 of the revised Article 8 of the mentioned law envisage:

• restriction of freedom to express an opinion, as well as temporary confiscation or detention of printing devices, radio broadcasting, sound amplifying equipment, copiers, establishment of a special procedure for accreditation of journalists, and special rules for using communication means;

• restriction of content broadcast on television and disseminated via the Internet, ensuring the showing of movies and TV programs, as well as dissemination of information with exclusively military-patriotic content;

• temporary suspension (blocking) of websites, social networks, Internet applications, as well as partial or complete restriction of Internet access in the territory of the Republic of Armenia.

We, the undersigned organizations, mindful of the need for certain restrictions under martial law, nevertheless, express our conviction that the above-mentioned provisions of the draft law in this form are not based on proper discussions, assessment of apparent risks and analysis of possible highly negative consequences, and therefore should be fully rejected.

From a purely professional standpoint, these provisions are so vulnerable and raise so many questions that we consider it pointless to dwell on them in detail. We also express our deep concern that in a country presenting democracy as a national brand the government has published such a document.

There is no doubt that especially under martial law even greater importance is attached to the fight against fake news, disinformation, hostile propaganda and cyber-attacks. However, the related legal regulations should be reasonable, clearer so that no loopholes are left for arbitrariness. If the authorities are prone to this approach, then they simply must present to the public the problems encountered, the justifications and measures for their urgent solutions, and only after that come up with a legislative initiative.

Considering the above, we demand from the RA government:

• to refrain from officially circulating the draft law and hold public discussions on the topic from scratch, starting with the analysis of the idea;

• to form a working group that will clarify the goals and objectives of the proposed amendments and draft a new bill based on that, keeping it free from formulations that would allow for subjective interpretations and arbitrary actions;

• to submit the new version of the draft law for international examination;

to discuss the possibilities of consulting expert circles when deciding to apply restrictions in the conditions of martial law, as well as to develop mechanisms for exercising public supervision over the execution of these decisions.

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

YEREVAN PRESS CLUB

MEDIA INITIATIVES CENTER

MEDIA DIVERSITY INSTITUTE-ARMENIA

JOURNALISTS’ CLUB “ASPAREZ”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER

PUBLIC JOURNALISM CLUB

“JOURNALISTS FOR THE FUTURE” NGO

“JOURNALISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS” NGO

GORIS PRESS CLUB

“FEMIDA” NGO

Armenia does not have specific regulations for the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, or similar technologies, as well as data processing through them. The main tool is the Law “On Protection of Personal Data”, adopted in 2015[i].

According to Article 5 of that Law (“Principle of Proportionality”):

1. The processing of data must pursue a legitimate purpose, and measures to achieve it must be suitable, necessary, and moderate.

2. The processor of personal data shall be obliged to process the minimum volume of personal data, which is necessary to achieve legitimate purposes.

3. The processing of personal data that are not necessary for the purpose of the processing of data or are incompatible with it shall be prohibited.

4. The processing of personal data shall be prohibited where the purpose of data processing is possible to achieve in a depersonalized manner.

5. Personal data must be stored in such a way as to exclude the identification thereof with the data subject for a period longer than is necessary to achieve their predetermined purposes.

The law or other by-laws do not separate the processing of personal data from the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, large numbers, or other technologies of the kind. It is not taken into consideration that such data processing techniques pose additional risks, both in private and public life.

Thus, in the personal data processing regulations of three mobile operators, which are among the main large-scale processors of personal data, there is absolutely no information on the use of algorithms, and data processing through machine learning[ii].

This topic is not discussed either at the legislative level or during public debates. Meanwhile, regularly there appear programs in Armenia where such processing is either carried out or can be noticed.

Mass processing of personal data and their use in public life

On December 13, 2017, it was reported that Vahan Martirosyan, Minister of Transport, Communication and Information Technologies of Armenia, received the representatives of the Chinese company Huawei Technologies. The meeting participants discussed issues related to the implementation of the “Smart City” project. In the same month, the Ministry and Huawei Technologies signed a memorandum of understanding on the implementation of the Project.

The memorandum was signed by Boris Demirkhanyan, Deputy Minister of Transport, Communications and Information Technologies of Armenia, and Cao Chun, Vice President of Huawei Technologies. The main idea is smart city management (intellectualization), which implies regulating public life in Yerevan through the use of the latest big data processing technologies[iii]. However, after the 2018 change of government in Armenia, the negotiations were suspended. Updates about the program were terminated as well[iv].

Nevertheless, the idea of mass data processing did not cease to exist. Yerevan Deputy Mayor Tigran Avinyan has stated that there are a number of areas where artificial intelligence may be used, and can ensure innovation in those fields. According to Avinyan, artificial intelligence can be used, for example, in education. “There are many areas where artificial intelligence has provided, is providing, and should provide innovation and improvement. We use lots of similar things, such as face recognition or when artificial intelligence tools help improve the lives of city-dwellers.”[v]

In parallel, structures and systems are being formed. In the summer of 2022, the “Police Video and Photo Recording Electronic Systems Management Center” a state non-commercial organization (SNCO) under the Police was established. It is expected to merge with the “Parking City Service” CJSC, which delivers parking services in Yerevan, as well as with the video recording systems of pharmacies, arms sales companies, retail facilities, commercial areas, public catering facilities, domestic service facilities, casinos and gambling halls[vi].

With the proposed new project, the SNCO will track public transport online. The Police propose to equip bus and minibus aisles with a high-quality video surveillance system, with the possibility of recording in the dark and storing the footage for at least 10 days[vii].

Citizen surveillance during the COVID-19 quarantine

During the quarantine implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Armenian Government declared a state of emergency on March 16, 2020[viii].

A few days later, the National Assembly, in fact, authorized the Government to track all residents of the country using the data collected by mobile operators.

Based on that decision, the Government installed a special software, which, through machine learning and big data, processes the metadata of all phone calls (who called whom, when, how long the conversation lasted), short messages, and geolocation data received from all three mobile operators. On April 7, 2020, the system was already in effect[ix].

In order to find out the circle of contacts of infection carriers, the obtained data were collected and stored on the server of the e-Governance Infrastructure Implementation Agency  (EKENG). The maintenance and security of the special computer program are under the supervision of the National Security Service. The Government did not disclose the developers of the software that runs the surveillance system. In response to the “Hetq” inquiry, on behalf of Commandant Tigran Avinyan, Serge Varag Siseryan, Head of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office, noted that “the computer program [for tracking people through calls] was created by Armenian volunteer programmers.”[x]

The system operated until September 25, 2020, after which the hard drives containing the data were destroyed in the presence of the representatives of the Government, National Assembly and three mobile operators[xi].

Throughout the operation of the system, no public oversight mechanism was ever created, which would allow to make sure that the data were not used by the NSS for other purposes, and that they were not transferred to a third party (given the fact that the Government never disclosed the information on the company that created the system) or that all possible copies of data were destroyed.

 Conclusion

The Armenian legislation does not take into account that massive and algorithmic processing of personal data provides an opportunity to obtain additional data that can be used to impact social developments[xii]. Added to that, there is no consideration of the fact that the incorrect or directed use of algorithms and data processing may become discriminatory[xiii].

The processing and use of personal data by artificial intelligence and algorithms require additional focus and a deeper consideration than there was before the widespread use of new technologies, which process large amounts of data[xiv]. Overall, the problems that may arise in the case of massive machine processing of personal data are outside the public discourse and focus. In fact, no adequate awareness of the problem is provided by the state. No appropriate legal base is formed, and the existing legislation is not updated. The public, in its turn, does not take steps to establish control in the field.

---

[i] Law “On Protection of Personal Data”, https://www.arlis.am/documentview.aspx?docid=117034

[ii] Viva-MTS, Privacy policy https://www.mts.am/en/more/legal-information/privacy-policy;

Ucom, Personal data processing policy https://www.ucom.am/file_manager/poa/20190603_UCOM_privacy%20policy(en)_ENG.pdf;

Team Telecom, Privacy policy https://www.telecomarmenia.am/en/privacy-policy

[iii] Huawei “Smart City” Pilot Project Will be Implemented in Armenia, 16.03.2107, https://huaweiarmenia.am/gb/blog-post/16

[iv] Armenia Freedom On The Net Report, 2019,  https://freedomhouse.org/country/armenia/freedom-net/2019

[v] Tigran Avinyan emphasized the use of artificial intelligence in several fields, 05.10.2022, https://radar.am/en/news/politics-2529933880/ 

[vi] The RA Police Chief Decree on the Approval of the Statute of “Police Video and Photo Recording Electronic Systems Management Center” SNCO, 09.08.2022 https://www.irtek.am/views/act.aspx?aid=117416  

[vii] VIDEO, Cameras to be installed on buses and minibuses: a new draft law, 01.12.2022, https://armlur.am/1228777/   

[viii] Armenia Cabinet approves bill on declaring 30-day state of emergency over coronavirus, 16.03.2020, https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1008787.html

[ix] Commandant’s Office: the system to track the movement and circle of phone calls of citizens already in effect, 07.04.2020, https://www.azatutyun.am/a/30538167.html

[x] Armenia: Security Concerns Raised about the Computer Program Tracking the Movement of Coronavirus Carriers, 07.05.2020, https://hetq.am/en/article/116810

[xi] Protocol, 25.09.2020, https://www.gov.am/u_files/file/Haytararutyunner/Ardzanagrutyun.pdf

[xii] The man that killed Cambridge Analytica: ‘We made mistakes, but they aren’t what you think’, 28.08.2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20201008164958/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/08/07/man-killed-cambridge-analytica-made-mistakes-arent-think/

[xiii] The Toronto Declaration: Protecting the right to equality and non-discrimination in machine learning systems,   https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2018/08/The-Toronto-Declaration_ENG_08-2018.pdf

[xiv] #BigData: Discrimination in data-supported decision making, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-focus-big-data_en.pdf

On October 5, 2021 the RA Constitutional Court made a decision, according to which the Law “On Amendments to the RA Civil Code” adopted by the parliament on March 24, 2021 was recognized in line with the Constitution. Thus, the upper threshold of damages award envisaged for insult will increase from previous 1 million to 3 million drams, and in case of defamation, it will become 6 million drams instead of 2 million.

Let us recall that the law was authored by the current NA Speaker Alen Simonyan when he was still the NA Deputy Speaker. During its circulation as a draft, it was rightly criticized not only by the undersigned organizations, but also by the wider journalistic community and international organizations (Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, etc.). In particular, we have made a number of statements on the matter, and in the last one issued on the day the law was adopted, we urged the RA President not to sign the law and to forward it to the Constitutional Court to verify its compliance with the Constitution. And so he did.

However, the decision of the Constitutional Court causes not only disappointment and bewilderment, but also resentment. It does not take into consideration the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the requirements of a number of precedent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, this document adopted by the Constitutional Court clearly contradicts several provisions and the general spirit of the November 15, 2011 Decision No. 997 of the same court. Thus, 10 years ago, claiming that the financial situation of the media should be taken into account when awarding compensation for insult and slander in publications so that the liability does not lead to their bankruptcy, today the very court (although in a different composition), in fact, approves a law that stipulates a threefold increase in the upper threshold of damages award for insult and defamation. It is clear that this could become a signal for the courts to confiscate more money in such cases than is common practice today.

We, the undersigned organizations, reaffirm that we absolutely do not aim to defend offenders and slanderers, however, we insist that the use of disproportionately strict approaches is more likely to do harm to freedom of speech than to serve the fight against flaws. Especially as we consider that politicians, officials and representatives of various segments of the society often perceive criticism against themselves as defamation or insult and go to court. This may create serious obstacles to the free operation of media, encourage and increase the flow of lawsuits against journalists and media.

The adoption of this law is particularly alarming in the context of the disproportionate tightening of media regulations and the new restrictions applied. The criminalization of the so-called “grave insults” and the increased protection of public and state actors, as well as several other groups through that measure, as well as the initiatives on a ban on citing unidentifiable information sources, not publishing data on officials’ business trips and related expenses, purchases from a single vendor, etc. are part of that regressive process.

Recognizing that the entire state system was in fact unable to protect the media from unfounded and disproportionate restrictions and legal pressures, we demand:

– the National Assembly to review the entire legislative framework related to the activities of the media, to repeal the recently adopted laws contradicting the international norms and to refuse the adoption of similar bills in circulation, and after that to initiate open professional discussions to develop a concept of legal regulations in the media field;

– the RA President, the Constitutional Court, all political forces to contribute to the process of creating an enabling legal framework for the activities of the media and to actively oppose regressive legislative initiatives;

– the international organizations to discuss the issue of the adoption of media related laws by the RA Parliament in neglect of the international norms in that process, as well as to take measures to rectify the situation.

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
YEREVAN PRESS CLUB
MEDIA INITIATIVES CENTER
JOURNALISTS’ CLUB “ASPAREZ”
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER
MEDIA DIVERSITY INSTITUTE-ARMENIA
PUBLIC JOURNALISM CLUB
“JOURNALISTS FOR THE FUTURE” NGO
“JOURNALISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS” NGO
GORIS PRESS CLUB
“FEMIDA” NGO

We, the undersigned journalistic organisations, hereby express our deep concern about and disappointment with the unacceptable situation and processes taking place at the National Assembly in the recent two days, including the facts of unlawful obstructions or discontinuance of the activities of journalists and cameramen covering them.

On 24 August, when heated polemic between the members of the NA developed into a brawl, the security officers forcibly removed the representatives of the media from the box foreseen for the press, thereby preventing them from continuing filming the incidents. The work of journalists and cameramen was obstructed also at the entrance to the plenary session hall. The said obstacles included threats by security officers directed at Hayk Tonoyan, cameraman of the online website www.news.am of depriving him of his NA accreditation if he continued shooting the incident, then the footages were allegedly deleted.

The same situation was repeated on 25 August. To prevent the parliamentary brawls from being filmed, the media representatives were again removed from the box, including by using violence. Their professional activities were again obstructed at the entrance to the plenary session hall.

We insist that these acts in respect of the journalists and cameramen accredited with the National Assembly violate the law and are directed against freedom of speech and the right of the public to receive information.  They are also contrary to the substance and essence of the discussions held during the 23 August meeting between the leaders of the three journalistic organisations – Committee to Protect Freedom of Exspression, Center for Media Initiatives and Journalists’ Club Asparez – and the NA Speaker Alen Simonyan.

It goes without saying that all RA citizens have a right to be informed of the manner of work and conduct of each and every MP. Moreover, any information in respect of the parliament, which does not contain state or other secrets, must become public property. This can happen first and foremost through uninhibited journalistic work.

In the light of the aforesaid, we demand that:

• The NA leadership discontinues without a delay the practice of violence, pressure and unlawful restrictions in respect of the journalists and cameramen accredited with the parliament, regardless of the events they cover whilst performing their professional duties;
• The Speaker of the NA participates by all means in the discussion foreseen on 30 August by the Standing Committee on Human Rights Protection and Public Affairs, which will be dedicated to the above problems and to maximally meet the reasonable expectations of journalists;
• The officers of the security service stop exceeding their powers by applying ungrounded restrictions on journalists and cameramen working in the parliament and putting forward ungrounded demands, as well as stop obstructing their professional activity.

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
YEREVAN PRESS CLUB
MEDIA INITIATIVES CENTER
JOURNALISTS’ CLUB ‘ASPAREZ’
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER
MEDIA DIVERSITY INSTITUTE – ARMENIA
PUBLIC JOURNALISM CLUB
JOURNALISTS FOR FUTURE
JOURNALISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
GORIS PRESS CLUB
‘FEMIDA’ NGO

11 August, 2021, Yerevan

On 11 August, following a heated exchange between the MPs from the ruling faction and the opposition, Alen Simonyan, Speaker of the National Assembly ordered to discontinue live broadcast. In addition to this, the security officers prohibited the journalists and cameramen accredited with the parliament to shoot the incident from the box allocated to them.

We, the undersigned journalistic organisations note that the Speaker of the National Assembly clearly exceeded his powers: the RA Constitutional Law on the Rules of the National Assembly Procedures does not foresee such a power. RA citizens have a right to and must be informed of anything happening in the parliament, including the conduct of each and every single MP, regardless of whether this conduct is assessed positively or negatively.

We harshly condemn the prohibition imposed on the media representatives by the security officers whereby they were not able to shoot the conflicting situation in the plenary session hall.

Utterly shocked at yet another incident of restricting without any good reason the activities of the journalists accredited in the parliament, yet another infringement on the right to be informed of the RA citizens, we hereby reiterate the assessment as reflected in our August 5 statement, and we demand that the NA leadership:

• Publicly provide explanations on the legal basis of the interrupted live broadcast of the NA sitting and where there is no such basis, issue a public apology and guarantee that no such incidents will be repeated in the future;,
• Prevent any incident of obstruction of professional journalistic activity in the NA and any attempt at applying ungrounded restrictions;,
• Take measures to ensure that the security officers do not exceed their powers and in no way interfere with the work of the media representatives, except for cases provided by the rules of procedure, of which journalists are informed in advance;
• Annul all the restrictions applied to our colleagues since 2 August until a new rules of procedure for the work of media representatives in the parliament is drafted with the participation of accredited journalists and stakeholder organisations.

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
YEREVAN PRESS CLUB
MEDIA INITIATIVES CENTER
JOURNALISTS’ CLUB ‘ASPAREZ’
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CENTER
MEDIA DIVERSITY INSTITUTE – ARMENIA
PUBLIC JOURNALISM CLUB
JOURNALISTS FOR FUTURE
JOURNALISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
GORIS PRESS CLUB
FEMIDA NGO