09.09.2008 - Source: Armenialiberty

Parliament debates government bill that would prolong a de facto ban on the country’s main independent TV station, controversially pulled off the air in 2002, for at least two more years ("Armenian parliament set to prolong ban on independent TV") [ID 25020]

Document(s): Open document

02.07.2008 - Source: Freedom House

Authorities use informal pressure to maintain control over broadcast media ("Freedom in the World 2008") [ID 24546]

"There are limits on press freedom in Armenia. The authorities use informal pressure to maintain control over broadcast media—the chief source of news for most Armenians—including state-run Armenian Public Television (H1) and most private channels, whose owners are loyal to the president. The independent television station A1+ was shuttered by a government licensing decision in 2002, and it has since appealed its case to the European Court of Human Rights.
A July 2006 OSCE report noted that “Armenia has made significant progress in improving media legislation, but media pluralism remains limited to the independent, but financially weak and less influential, print media.” The criminal code still includes libel as a criminal offense."

Document(s): Open document

19.06.2008 - Source: Amnesty International

European Court of Human Rights ruled that Armenia’s repeated denials of a broadcasting license to the independent A1 television station violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("European Court rules in favor of embattled television station") [ID 23874]

Document(s): Open document

28.05.2008 - Source: Amnesty International

Freedom of expression was restricted ("Annual Report 2008") [ID 23534]

"In June Gagik Shamshian, a freelance journalist with two opposition newspapers, received a suspended sentence of two and a half years for fraud, reduced on appeal to one year. He was charged after he reported being attacked by people linked to the mayor of Nubarashen suburb, Yerevan, in July 2006. Proceedings against his alleged attackers were closed in February.
In October, newspaper editors Nikol Pashinian and Shogher Matevosian were arrested after participating in a march in central Yerevan with supporters of the former President Levon Ter-Petrosian, a vocal critic of the government.
On 13 December there was an explosion at the offices of the opposition newspaper Chorrord Ishkhanutyun (Fourth Power). Also in December, the Gyumri-based television channel Gala TV faced harassment from the authorities following its broadcasting of Levon Ter-Petrosian’s campaigning activities, allegedly in spite of official warnings not to do so."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Incidents of violence, intimidation, and self censorship in the press ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23111]

"The constitution provides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but the government generally did not respect these rights in practice. There were incidents of violence, intimidation, and self censorship in the press."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

After airing a speech by presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan critical of the government, independent Gala TV reportedly came under intense scrutiny by various government authorities ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23114]

"After airing on October 14 a September 21 speech by presidential candidate and former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan critical of the government, Gyrumi-based independent Gala TV reportedly came under intense scrutiny by various government authorities in an effort to shut down the station or bring the reporting content of the station in line with the state-controlled media. On October 31, the State Tax Service (STS) began an audit into the company, announcing in advance of the audit in a newspaper interview on October 25 that the company had violated tax regulations. On November 14, the STS accused Gala TV of evading about $86,000 (26 million drams) in taxes over the last two years. Gala's parent company, Chap, rejected the accusation, and said the audit's findings were politically motivated. STS followed up its audit with a request to the Economic Court to freeze Gala's bank accounts and assets. Although the request was initially rejected, it was granted a week later when the Economic Court stated STS had provided additional documents to support its request. In addition, STS accused Gala TV of illegally using a state-owned television tower for its broadcasts. The mayor of Gyumri appealed to the Economic Court to force the removal of Gala's transmitter from the tower. Gala appealed to the court, contesting the STS audit results. All cases against Gala were pending at year's end.
On November 6, during the STS audit of Gala TV, one of the inspectors attacked a cameraman videotaping the audit process, choking him and trying to take the camera away. Following a complaint by the cameraman, the police started an investigation into the case, but decided on November 30 not to open criminal proceedings. Gala TV applied to the prosecutor general's office contesting the police decision on December 24."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Opposition newspaper Chorrord Ishkhanutyun was rocked by an explosion, which its editor in chief linked to its critical coverage of the government ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23117]

"On December 13, the office of the opposition newspaper Chorrord Ishkhanutyun was rocked by an explosion, which its editor in chief linked to its critical coverage of the government. The explosive device was planted at the entrance of the office and went off early in the morning, damaging the door and some office furniture. No one was present at the time of the explosion, which occurred well before working hours. The police launched an investigation into the case, which was ongoing at year's end."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Newspaper circulation was very limited, and most of the population relied on television and radio for news and information ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23119]

"Most newspapers were privately owned, with the exception of government-sponsored Hayastani Hanrapetutyun and its Russian-language version, Respublika Armenia. The print media pursued stories vigorously and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction, but no media outlet was completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals.
Newspaper circulation was very limited, and most of the population relied on television and radio for news and information. There were 14 radio and 42 television stations, most of them privately operated. Private television stations generally offered news coverage of good technical quality; however, the substantive quality of news reporting on television and radio varied. Most stations were owned by progovernment politicians or well connected businessmen, factors that prompted journalists to engage in self-censorship. Major broadcast media outlets generally expressed progovernment views. All Armenian TV and radio stations avoided editorial commentary or reporting critical of the government."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

A1 Plus, the last politically independent television station to operate in the country, still remained without a frequency ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23120]

"A1 Plus, the last politically independent television station to operate in the country, still remained without a frequency at year's end. A1 Plus went off the air after the government revoked its frequency in 2003, a move many observers at the time viewed as politically motivated. A1 Plus, which has unsuccessfully filed 12 applications for radio or television licenses since 2003, did not file an application during the year."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Strong bias in coverage of two presidential candidates, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsian and former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23121]

"During the 40-day preelection period leading up to the May 12 parliamentary elections, broadcast media outlets were more generous in the coverage they allocated to opposition politicians than in past years. Several were given the opportunity to speak about their programs and positions. Public television adhered to the legal requirement to provide two minutes of free airtime daily to each party registered to contest the election, and these broadcasts aired without editorial restrictions. Nevertheless, based on its media monitoring efforts, the OSCE reported that the enhanced coverage was devoid of critical comment by television media.
From October until mid-December, TEAM Research Center, with the support from the Armenian affiliate of the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation and the Yerevan Press Club, conducted monitoring of broadcast media in anticipation of February 2008 presidential elections. During the year two interim reports were published covering the months of October and November. The report revealed strong bias in coverage of two presidential candidates, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsian and former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan. More specifically, the prime minister, who received abundant coverage in his official capacity, received mostly positive and sometimes neutral coverage, while Ter-Petrosyan received predominantly negative, and on rare occasions, neutral coverage."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

International media outlets generally operated freely ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23123]

"International media outlets generally operated freely. In July public radio informed Radio Free Europe(RFE)/Radio Liberty that it had adopted a new policy regarding foreign broadcasting and would no longer carry foreign programming. Radio Liberty was the only foreign programming on Public Radio, and also the only radio broadcaster known to air viewpoints critical of the government. RFE/Radio Liberty subsequently signed an agreement to expand its programming on a private channel that has less national coverage than Public Radio."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

No government restrictions on access to the Internet ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23128]

"There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups could engage in a peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Internet cafes were widely available in the cities, although local Internet service provider connections were often too slow to be useful."

Document(s): Open document

31.10.2007 - Source: Armenialiberty

Tax officials raided offices of TV station that broadcast former President Levon Ter-Petrosian’s speech in which he subjected the government to harsh criticism ("‘Dissident’ TV Station Raided By Tax Officials") [ID 21514]

Document(s): Open document

22.10.2007 - Source: Armenialiberty

Local TV station reports attempts of intimidation by authorities after it broadcasted a speech by former president Ter-Petrosian ("Local TV ‘Censured For Airing Ter-Petrosian Speech’") [ID 21537]

Document(s): Open document

18.10.2007 - Source: Armenialiberty

Leading TV stations have stopped reporting from daily press conferences with politicians and people of public life; restriction of press freedom ahead of next year's presidential election anticipated ("Armenian TV Channels Cut Back On Political News") [ID 21536]

Document(s): Open document

31.08.2007 - Source: EurasiaNet

Media access restricted at Pan-Armenian Games; detention of 3 activists demanding release of political prisoners; several clashes between players ("Pan-Armenian Games Seek Ethnic Unity Amidst Divisions") [ID 21518]

Document(s): Open document

03.07.2007 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

The Armenian parliament has failed to pass a bill that would have placed severe restrictions on foreign broadcast media ("Armenia: Restrictive Foreign-Media Legislation Falls In Parliament") [ID 20595]

Document(s): Open document

02.07.2007 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Parliament is debating the second and final reading of draft legislation that would severely restrict foreign-broadcast media ("Armenia: Parliament Debates Foreign-Media Legislation") [ID 20596]

Document(s): Open document

29.06.2007 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Armenia's parliament has passed in the first of two readings a draft law that would impose severe restrictions on foreign broadcast media ("Armenia Gives First Backing To Bill Targeting Foreign Media") [ID 20597]

Document(s): Open document

27.06.2007 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

A vote by Armenia's parliament on a bill that would impose severe restrictions on foreign broadcast media has been postponed ("Armenia To Vote On Bill Limiting Foreign Media") [ID 20598]

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

Considerable limits on press freedom; media pluralism remains limited to financially weak and less influential print media ("Freedom in the World 2007") [ID 20474]

"There are considerable limits on press freedom in Armenia. The authorities maintain extensive control over broadcast media—which is the chief source of news for most Armenians— including state-run Armenian Public Television (H1) and most private channels, whose owners are loyal to the president and therefore not apt to offer critical comment. A report issued in July 2006 by the OSCE’s Representative on Freedom of the Media, Miklos Haraszti, observed that Armenian “broadcast media can be described as predominantly pro-government, despite the transformation of state TV into a public broadcaster, and the existence of a number of private channels.” In this same report, Haraszti noted that “Armenia has made significant progress in improving media legislation, but media pluralism remains limited to the independent, but financially weak and less influential, print media.” The criminal code still includes libel as a criminal offense."

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

Independent TV-station A1+, which had reputation for balanced reporting, lost its license in 2002 ("Freedom in the World 2007") [ID 20475]

"In 2002, the independent television station A1+ lost its license after the national television and radio broadcasting commission granted a tender for its broadcasting frequency to another channel. Journalists and opposition politicians criticized the closure of A1+, which had a reputation for balanced reporting, as a politically motivated decision to control media coverage in the run-up to the 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections. Following the decision, thousands of people demonstrated in a series of weekly protests over the station’s closure and to demand Kocharian’s resignation. Since losing its license in 2002, A1+ has brought numerous cases before the courts and filed multiple applications to obtain TV frequencies. All applications have been denied. As a last resort, A1+ has lodged two applications with the European Court of Human Rights. The first, which challenged results of an April 2002 tender on licensing, was submitted to the Court in January 2003. The second, challenging the seven subsequent tenders, was filed in September 2004. Both are under consideration by the Court."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Incidents of violence, intimidation, and self censorship in the press ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20205]

"The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government partially limited freedom of speech. There were incidents of violence, intimidation, and self‑censorship in the press."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

No media outlet was completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20206]

"Most newspapers were privately owned with the exception of government‑sponsored Hayastani Hanrapetutyun and its Russian‑language version, Respublika Armenii. The print media pursued stories vigorously and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction, but no media outlet was completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals.
Newspaper circulation was very limited, and most of the population relied on television and radio for news and information. There were more than 20 radio and 45 television stations, most of them privately operated. In Yerevan and regional cities, private television stations generally offered news coverage of good technical quality; however, the substantive quality of news reporting on television and radio varied. Most stations were owned by progovernment politicians or well-connected businessmen, factors that led journalists to engage in self‑censorship. Major broadcast media outlets generally expressed progovernment views. Public Television of Armenia (H1) generally avoided editorial commentary or reporting critical of the government."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Lawmakers rejected government-sponsored legislation that would have curtailed media freedom ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20207]

"In September, in an action unusual in a National Assembly where the ruling coalition has a comfortable majority, lawmakers rejected government-sponsored legislation that would have altered regulation of the media. The legislation would have further restricted media freedom, reduced or eliminated television coverage of National Assembly sessions, and altered the composition of the NCTVR. Under the government proposal, the National Assembly would appoint half of the members of the NCTVR and the president the other half, but none would be selected by other elements of society as recommended by the OSCE report."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

No government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 20210]

"There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chatrooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by electronic mail. Internet cafes were widely available in the cities, although local ISP connections were often too slow to be useful."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Media operate in more hostile environment than NGOs; authorities continue to maintain tight control ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 17791]

"The Armenian media operate in a more hostile environment than the NGOs, with the authorities continuing to maintain tight control over the state-owned Armenian Public Television and virtually all private channels, which are owned by businesspeople loyal to Kocharian and rarely air reports critical of his administration. Their reporters are believed to operate under editorial censorship. The only TV station critical of the authorities, A1+, was controversially pulled off the air in 2002. Its repeated attempts to resume broadcasting have been thwarted by the Kocharian-controlled National Commission on Television and Radio. The regulatory body likewise rejected an A1+ bid to obtain an FM radio frequency in February 2005. The Armenian newspapers (virtually all of them privately owned) are far more diverse and free, but their low circulation seriously limits their ability to inform the public."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

From 2003 to 2005 no libel suits filed against media ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 17792]

"From 2003 to 2005, virtually no libel suits were filed against the media. Nor did the authorities use a controversial clause in the Armenian criminal code that allows them to prosecute journalists for defamation of character."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

No government restrictions known regarding internet writers, musicians and other artists ("Countries at the Crossroads 2006") [ID 17794]

"Internet users as well as writers, musicians, and other artists are not known to have faced any government restrictions. Economic problems and poor enforcement of copyright laws are far more serious obstacles to free cultural expression."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

No newspaper completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15742]

"Most newspapers were privately owned with the exception of government-sponsored Hayastani Hanrapetutyun and its Russian‑language version Respublika Armenii. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction, but no newspaper was completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals. Because of low newspaper circulation, most people relied on television and radio for news and information. Nationwide, there were fewer than 20 radio stations and more than 45 television broadcasters, most privately operated. In the capital and regional cities, private television stations offered generally independent news coverage of good technical quality; however, the substantive quality of news reporting on television and radio varied due to self-censorship by journalists and the stations' dependence on patronage. Major broadcast media outlets generally kept to progovernment lines. Economic pressure on broadcast media was more common than outright political pressure, including authorities requesting bribes, and advertising revenues used to influence programming. Senior officials within President Robert Kocharian's office continued to provide policy guidance to Public Television of Armenia (H1). While its coverage was mostly factual, H1 avoided editorial commentary or criticism of the government."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Freedom of speech and press theoretically guaranteed but practically limited ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15743]

"While the law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the government partially limited freedom of speech. There were incidents of violence, intimidation, and self-censorship in the press."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

RFE/RL broadcasts were blocked during constitutional referendum ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15744]

"[...] RFE/RL broadcasts were periodically inaudible for three days beginning on the day of the constitutional referendum. State-run Armenian Public Radio claimed in a statement that the disruptions were due to technical problems, but some observers alleged the disruptions were politically motivated. RFE/RL did not lodge an official complaint."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Intimidation and self-censorship of journalists ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46111],  [ID 15746]

"There was no official censorship; however, there were continued reports of intimidation of journalists, and some print journalists continued to practice self-censorship to avoid problems with the government and because of pressure from official sources."

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Government continued to restrict full media freedom; independent TV channels deprived of their frequencies ("World Report 2006") [#42310],  [ID 17662]

"Although Armenia has significant independent and opposition print media, the government continued to restrict full media freedom in the country. Television channels A1+, Noyan Tapan, and Russian NTV, which had aired independent news coverage about Armenia, remained unable to broadcast because the government had taken away their broadcasting frequencies. The proposed constitutional amendments would increase the independence of the National Commission on Television and Radio, the body that issues and revokes broadcasting licenses, by giving parliament the power to appoint half of the members and the president the power to appoint the other half (currently, the president appoints all the members of the commission). Nevertheless, media associations, nongovernmental organizations, and the ombudsperson have criticized the Council of Europe for endorsing the proposed constitutional amendments, which they argue fails to guarantee the independence of the electronic media. They further criticize the authorities’ failure to institute changes to increase the independenceof the commission overseeing state-run Armenian Public Television and Radio, set up in 2005 to provide independent public television, one of Armenia’s obligations to the Council of Europe."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Limits on press freedom; independent television and radio news effectively nonexistent, private newspapers are dependent on economic and political interest groups ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41286],  [ID 3218]

"There are limits on press freedom, and in 2004 the Armenian media continued to exist on a landscape where independent television and radio news content was effectively nonexistent. There are a number of private television stations, and most radio stations are privately owned. While most newspapers are in private hands, the majority operate with limited resources and have small circulations and consequently are dependent on economic and political interest groups for their survival. Newspapers in impoverished Armenia are often out of the economic reach of many Armenians. A media law adopted in 2003 abolishes the requirement that media organizations register with the Ministry of Justice, but the criminal code still includes libel as a criminal offense. A high level of political intimidation also leads to considerable self-censorship by journalists."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Independent TV-station A1+, which had reputation for balanced reporting, lost its license in 2002; access to internet not restricted ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41286],  [ID 3243]

"In 2002, the independent television station A1+ lost its license after the national television and radio broadcasting commission granted a tender for its broadcasting frequency to another channel. Journalists and opposition politicians criticized the closure of A1+, which had a reputation for balanced reporting, as a politically motivated decision to control media coverage in the run-up to the 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections. Following the decision, thousands of people demonstrated in a series of weekly protests over the station's closure and to demand Kocharian's resignation. In 2003, additional bids by A1+ for a broadcast frequency were rejected. In 2004, A1+ won the right to take its case to the European Court of Human Rights. According to the U.S. Department of State 2004 human rights report, Armenia did not restrict access to the Internet."

Document(s): Open document

06.04.2005 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

President and other authorities controll entire national TV broadcasting ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2005 (Events 2004)") [#30950],  [ID 3219]

"Freedom of expression is guaranteed under article 24 of the Constitution of Armenia. The constitutional provisions are regulated by the Law “On Television and the Radio” (2000), the Law “On Freedom of Information” (2003), and the Law “On Mass Media” (2003). In reality, however, the president of Armenia and other authorities controlled the entire national TV broadcasting. Only a few opposition newspapers were free from the authorities’ control: the Haykakan Jamanak (daily), Chorrord Ishkhanutyun (bi-weekly), and AiB-Fe (weekly, together with its daily news web site)."

Document(s): Open document

14.03.2005 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Situation of media and journalists ("Attacks on the press in 2004") [#30137],  [ID 3220]

"The Armenian government failed to protect journalists during violent demonstrations in April against President Robert Kocharian. In some cases, authorities were directly involved in attacks on the press. [...]

Television coverage of the spring opposition rallies and other politically sensitive issues favored Kocharian, who ensured that TV stations remained in the hands of government supporters or those who would not criticize his policies. For the second year in a row, politicized media regulators kept A1+, an independent and influential TV station that has sharply criticized government policies, off the air. The National Council on Television and Radio—a government body that regulates broadcasting frequencies and is stacked with Kocharian supporters—shuttered A1+ in April 2002 and has since rejected eight applications from the station for a broadcasting license.

Broadcasting authorities also kept local television channels that were moderately independent—such as Yerevan station Noyan Tapan, which was also shuttered in April 2002—off the air. No new frequency tenders are planned until 2009.

Unlike television, the print media enjoy greater autonomy from government control, but most publications are controlled by political parties and wealthy businessmen, compromising their editorial independence and professional standards. According to the U.S.-based media training organization IREX ProMedia, low salaries encourage widespread corruption among reporters.

Journalists also faced declining legal protection, with the government continuing to ignore calls from press freedom organizations, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to repeal criminal defamation and insult laws added to the Criminal Code in April 2003. The statutes threaten journalists with up to three years in prison and have increased self-censorship, according to IREX."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Continued reports of intimidation of journalists ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3221]

"There was no official censorship; however, there were continued reports of intimidation of journalists, and some print journalists continued to practice self-censorship to avoid problems with the Government and because of pressure from official sources."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Domestic media outlets generally pro-government, international media outlets operate freely ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3222]

"Major media outlets in the country were generally pro-government. For example, during the 2003 presidential election campaign, the majority of the media, including Public TV of Armenia, most private television stations, and the major state-funded newspaper, all provided heavily biased news coverage that favored incumbent President Kocharian.

International media outlets operated freely in the country. Local stations rebroadcast several Russian television stations and CNN, and authorities did not censor the few international newspapers and magazines that were available in the country."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

State television influenced by officials ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3223]

"Senior officials within President Kocharian's office continued to significantly influence state television news coverage by providing policy guidance to Public TV of Armenia. While the news reporting on Public TV was mostly factual, it avoided editorial commentary or criticism of the Government. For example, it provided little coverage of the April 12 and 13 political demonstrations in the capital."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Most newspapers privately owned, no newspaper completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3224]

"Most newspapers were privately owned with the exception of Hayastani Hanrapetutyun and its Russian-language version Respublika Armenia. The state printing house and distribution agency, which published many of the country's newspapers, functioned as commercial enterprise with no apparent government intervention. No newspaper was completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals. According to the Yerevan Press Club, total newspaper circulation in the country was 60,000, an increase of 20,000 from the previous year. There were 27 newspapers available in the capital, 6 of which were published daily and the remainder less frequently."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

In March 2003 new national television channel Kentron TV was awarded frequency of one of last independent stations A-One Plus; in October, Kentron ended collaboration with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29491],  [ID 3246]

"In March 2003, Kentron TV, a new, national television channel affiliated with a widely distributed newspaper with ties to the opposition, was awarded a broadcast frequency that belonged to A-One Plus, one of the country's last independent television stations. Some critics of the decision, made by the National Commission on Radio and Television, said A-One Plus lost its broadcast license in 2002 because of sharp critical coverage of President Kocharian's administration.

In October, Kentron television chose to discontinue program collaboration with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Kentron’s director stated that agents of the Government had not contacted his station about the program but that it felt pressure to replace the program. In the past, Kentron TV replaced on-air personalities for lacking objectivity and being too political."

Document(s): Open document

18.10.2004 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

According to a 15 October RFE/RL press release the Armenian television station Kentron suspended the broadcasting of a 30-minute weekly program of news and analysis prepared by RFE/RL's Armenian Service ("Broadcasting of RFE/RL Armenian tv program suspended (Newsline Volume 8 Number 197)") [#26485],  [ID 3225]

Document(s): Open document

06.05.2004 - Source: Prima News

Yerevan: About 100 people demonstrate in defence of television company A1+ that was closed down on 2 April 2002 ("Street protests in Yerevan") [#22007],  [ID 3226]

Document(s): Open document

31.07.2003 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Report on freedom of the media ("Regular Report to the Permanent Council") [#14892],  [ID 3227]

Document(s): Open document

25.07.2003 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

OSCE concerned about the recent decision of the National Commission on Television and Radio in Armenia not to award broadcasting licences to two independent television stations, "A1+" and "Noyan Tapan" ("OSCE Chairmanship concerned about media situation in Armenia") [#14666],  [ID 3228]

Document(s): Open document

08.05.2003 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

In practice, censorship existed unofficially both in oppositional and pro-governmental or state-run media ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Armenia") [#12599],  [ID 3229]

"Censorship was prohibited by the Constitution and the Media Law. However, the term “abuse of speech” in article 6 of the Media Law suggested some form of censorship. In practice, censorship existed unofficially both in oppositional and pro-governmental or state-run media. For example, not on one occasion did public television grant air time to the political opposition, nor did the progovernmental media report on human rights violations – in contrast, they labeled human rights activists as western spies. The Criminal Code provided for up to six years imprisonment for libel under article 131 and up to one year for insult under article 132. These provisions as well as “espionage” or “treason” charges were used to restrict freedom of expression and media freedom. Other forms of media harassment included ill-treatment of journalists."

Document(s): Open document

08.05.2003 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

In general, censorship is prohibited by the constitution and the media law ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Armenia") [#12599],  [ID 3230]

"Censorship was prohibited by the Constitution and the Media Law. However, the term “abuse of speech” in article 6 of the Media Law suggested some form of censorship. In practice, censorship existed unofficially both in oppositional and pro-governmental or state-run media. For example, not on one occasion did public television grant air time to the political opposition, nor did the progovernmental media report on human rights violations – in contrast, they labeled human rights activists as western spies. The Criminal Code provided for up to six years imprisonment for libel under article 131 and up to one year for insult under article 132. These provisions as well as “espionage” or “treason” charges were used to restrict freedom of expression and media freedom. Other forms of media harassment included ill-treatment of journalists."

Document(s): Open document

08.05.2003 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Armenia has two basic laws regulating the media ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Armenia") [#12599],  [ID 3231]

"The two basic laws regulating the media in Armenia were the Law on the Press and the Mass Media (hereinafter the Media Law) and the Law on Television and Radio, both in force since 2001. There was no law on access to information. Despite the fact that the Media Law and the Armenian Constitution provided for the right to receive information, the absence of a specific law hampered the receipt of information particularly from public authorities. The Media Law did not meet international legal standards, which moved the Council of Europe to urge Armenia to adopt a new law within one year of its accession. The law was amended in 2002, but it was still not in line with European regulations. At the same time the new, elaborated draft law, which had not been adopted by the end of 2002, was considered by experts to be very restrictive in terms of media freedom and access to information. For the broadcasting media (with the exception of cable network), operation was permitted on the basis of a license obtained in a government-organized tender in which the National Commission on Television and Radio (NCTR) used it discretion. However, under European standards, the licensing authority must be an independent body – not a body nominated largely by the president, as it was in Armenia.7 PACE strongly criticized the spring tender, which had given rise to wide protests, urging the authorities to amend the Media Law without delay.8 The NCTR had the power to deprive television and radio stations of their license under article 55 of the Media Law, among other reasons, if a media outlet violated license regulations and ignored three warning given within a year; if its technology did not meet the given standards; if it constituted a threat to human health; if it hampered the work of other television or radio stations; if the standards of its programs did not correspond to the set standards and the media outlet ignored warnings; or if the outlet failed to start operation within six months after the issuance of the license. [...] On April 10, several television stations, newspapers and news agencies signed a statement reading "...the freedom of speech in Armenia is not threatened and there is no obstacle for the work of Media." Later they apologized and said they had been manipulated into signing it. It also turned out that, among others, Shant TV company has signed the statement after having received a warning to keep in mind that its license needed to be renewed in April. [...] Numerous other regulations curbed media freedom. For example, authorities could close printers for three to six months under articles 11 and 12 of the Media Law, for inter alia publishing state secrets, which contain issues on war, violence, incitement to national or religious, or advocation to prostitution, drug addiction or other penal actions, as well as private information on individual citizens without their consent – all topics subject to wide interpretation. Moreover, several media outlets were controlled and unofficially regulated by political figures, political parties and business people. The minister of defense unofficially controlled the newspapers Golos Armenii (in Russian) and Hayots Ashkhar, as well as the Prometevs and Armenia TV companies. In light of this situation, it was easy to dismiss a journalist for various reasons, a fact which led to self-censorship."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

In practice, there were some limits on freedom of the press, and journalists continued to practice self-censorship during 2002 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11840],  [ID 3232]

"The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and the press; however, while the Government generally respected freedom of speech, there were some limits on freedom of the press, and journalists continued to practice self-censorship. There was no official censorship, publications presented a variety of views, and the opposition press regularly criticized government policies and leaders, including the President, on sensitive issues such as the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and privatization. To avoid repetition of the retribution experienced in the past from powerful officials and other individuals, most journalists continued to practice self-censorship, particularly when reporting on major cases of corruption or national security issues.
On December 28, an unknown assailant shot to death the Chairman of the National Public Television Board, Tigran Naghhdalyan. An investigation began and continued at year's end.
Newspapers were privately owned with the exception of "Hayastani Hanrapetutyun," its Russian-language version "Respublika Armenia" (joint venture between Parliament and the newspapers' staffs) and Respublica Armenia. The state printing house and distribution agency functioned as commercial enterprises, with no visible government intervention. A private printing house was also set up with foreign aid and was utilized by some newspapers during the year. Newspapers operated with extremely limited resources, and none were completely independent of patronage from economic or political interest groups or individuals. Because of prevailing economic conditions, total newspaper circulation was small (40,000 copies, by the Yerevan Press Club's estimates, or approximately one copy per 85 persons). The few international newspapers and imported magazines were not censored."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

The President's office continued to influence state television news coverage significantly ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11840],  [ID 3233]

"Because many people cannot afford newspapers, television was the most widely accessible medium. The President's office continued to influence state television news coverage significantly. The most widely available of the two state-owned television channels, Public TV of Armenia, took policy guidance from the Government. It presented mostly factual reporting but avoided editorial commentary or criticism of official actions. In Yerevan and major regional media markets, private television stations offered independent news coverage of good technical quality. Most of the more than 20 radio stations were private and independent. The quality of reporting on private radio and television stations varied, and they were not inhibited from expressing editorial opinions except by self-censorship. There were no restrictions on reception of satellite television and other foreign media, and they were not censored. There was foreign language programming, although the 2000 Law on Broadcast Media limited the percentage of a station's output that can be in a foreign language."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

Journalists remained cautious in their reporting, particularly about proceedings in the courtroom ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11840],  [ID 3234]

"Journalists remained cautious in their reporting, particularly about proceedings in the courtroom, and the range of subjects the Government considered sensitive for national security reasons was large. Some members of the press have been granted access to army facilities and places of detention. However, even in cases where they had such access, permission for media visits was a prolonged and cumbersome bureaucratic process. [...] Internet access was not restricted."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

Opposition parties and politicians generally received adequate news coverage and access to broadcast media ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11840],  [ID 3235]

"Opposition parties and politicians generally received adequate news coverage and access to broadcast media. In the run-up to the 2003 presidential and legislative elections, they have continued to have free access to media coverage. During the 1999 parliamentary elections, the coverage of political parties on state television and other media generally was balanced and largely neutral. Candidates for single-mandate seats were not entitled to free programming, but there were no restrictions on paid time."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Public defamation of authorities and officials prohibited under Armenian law ("Analysen und Hintergründe ") [#10328],  [ID 3238]

"Art. 208 StGB verbietet die öffentliche Beleidigung von Behörden und Amtsträgern, obwohl der Europäische Menschenrechtsgerichtshof in fortgesetzter Rechtssprechung befindet, dass Staatsbeamte ein höheres Mass öffentlicher Kritik hinnehmen müssen als Privatpersonen. Die von der Regierung entworfene Novelle des armenischen Presse- und Massenmediengesetzes verbietet mit einer willkürlich und breit auslegbaren Formulierung Journalisten ebenfalls die Veröffentlichung von Informationen, die "der Integrität oder dem Geschäft einer Person schaden könnten"."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Overview on the Armenian media landscape ("Analysen und Hintergründe ") [#10328],  [ID 3239]

"Anfang 1998 waren 770 Massenmedien beim Justizministerium registriert, die meisten davon Printmedien. Über die Hälfte von ihnen konnte aber aus finanziellen Schwierigkeiten nicht erscheinen. Die Auflage ist selbst bei führenden Periodika sehr niedrig: Das Regierungsorgan "Hajastani Hanrapetutjun" ("Republik Armenien") erscheint nur in 6.500 Exemplaren, "Irawunk" ("Recht"), das Parteiorgan der "Wissenschaftlich-industriellen Zivilunion" und eine der führenden Wochenzeitungen, nur in einer Auflage von 18.000. Die ebenfalls angesehene, seriöse Tageszeitung "Asg" ("Nation"), die es Ende 1993 noch auf 39.000 Exemplare täglich brachte, erscheint seit 1997 mit einer geringen Auflage von 4.000. Die durchschnittliche Auflagenhöhe liegt bei 3 bis 5.000. Etwa ein Fünftel der gedruckten Auflage geht als Remittenden an den Verleger zurück. Im Jahr 2001 lag nach Schätzung des Jerewaner Presseklubs die Gesamtzahl täglich gedruckter Zeitungsexemplare bei 25.000 Stück, während es im Jahr 1993 allein die Auflage der Tageszeitung "Jerkir" ("Land") auf eine Auflage von 45.000 brachte. Der Anteil der Boulevardpresse bzw. rein kommerziellen Blätter an den Printmedien ist gross. Auflagenstärkstes Periodikum ist heute die wöchentlich erscheinende Programmzeitschrift "Jeter". In Wahlkampfzeiten oder anderen Phasen gesteigerten öffentlichen Interesses steigen jedoch die Auflagenhöhen vorübergehend beträchtlich. Die meisten Printmedien sind in Privatbesitz, wobei die Verleger infolge fehlender Finanzmittel von verschiedenen Interessengruppen abhängig werden. Nur etwa 15 Prozent der erwachsenen Einwohner Armeniens informieren sich aus Printmedien. Die Medien Armeniens gelten als relativ frei, aber nicht unabhängig, denn sie sind sämtlich von bestimmten politischen Parteien oder Bewegungen abhängig bzw. befinden sich in Klientelverhältnissen zu einzelnen Klanen oder Finanzgruppen. Der westlichen Vorstellung von unabhängigen oder gar oppositionellen Medien kommen die armenischsprachigen Zeitungen "Tschorord Ischchanutjun" ("Die vierte Gewalt"), "Orran" ("Wiege"), "Arawot" ("Morgen"), "Hajkakan shamanak" ("Armenische Zeit"), die russischsprachige "Golos Armenii" ("Stimme Armeniens") sowie die privaten Fernsehsender "A1 plus" und "Das fünfte Mikrofon" der Nachrichtenagentur "Nojan Tapan" ("Noahs Arche") am nächsten. Obwohl sich ein Grossteil der Bevölkerung keinen Fernsehapparat leisten kann, hat die Zahl privater bzw. unabhängiger Fernsehstationen seit 1995 stark zugenommen und betrug im Jahr 2000 57, wobei allerdings noch keine Sender mit landesweiter Ausstrahlung vorhanden sind. 23 der Sender sind in Jerewan ansässig, darunter die erfolgreichsten des Landes ("AR", "A1 plus" and "Armenien TV"). Im Jahr 2001 sendeten 20 private bzw. unabhängige, ausschliesslich der Unterhaltung dienende Langwellen-Radiostationen; ihre Zielgruppe ist die Jugend."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

1991 Law on Media seems to be outdated ("Analysen und Hintergründe ") [#10328],  [ID 3240]

"Das Mediengesetz von 1991 ist hoffnungslos überholt und entspricht nicht mehr der veränderten Wirklichkeit. Eine von Journalisten entworfene Novelle ist aber bisher noch nicht von der Nationalversammlung verabschiedet worden. Im Februar 2002 wurde ein vom Justizministerium verfasster Gegenentwurf der Nationalversammlung vorgelegt, der offiziell internationalen Standards genügen soll, jedoch von Medienvertretern abgelehnt wird. Sie kritisieren vor allem, dass statt der bisher vorgeschriebenen einmaligen Registrierung beim Justizministerium eine jährliche Zulassungsüberprüfung stattfinden soll. Ferner wird befürchtet, dass mit der geplanten Schaffung einer Regierungsbehörde die nach Ende der Sowjetzeit abgeschaffte staatliche Medienzensur wieder aufleben soll. Ein im Oktober 2000 verabschiedetes Rundfunk- und Fernsehgesetz wird von Medienfachleuten und Menschenrechtlern kritisiert, weil es dem Staat zu starke Rechte gegenüber staatlichen wie privaten Rundfunk- und Fernsehanstalten einräumt. Insbesondere wird die Einführung eines komplizierten Lizenzsystems für Privatsender gerügt. Als Folge der gesetzgeberischen Lücken besteht keine Verantwortung der Herausgeber bzw. Verleger für die Publikationen, und die Informationspflicht von Regierungs- oder Verwaltungsbeamten hängt von deren Gutdünken und Willkür ab. Journalisten unabhängiger Medien beklagen, dass sie häufig nicht von Regierungssprechern, Pressebeamten usw. informiert werden. Auf Druck von Medien und nichtstaatlichen Organisationen wurde das umstrittene Rundfunk- und Fernsehgesetz im September 2001 novelliert: Die Lizenzverfahren sind nun vereinfacht und die Dauer einer Lizenz beträgt sieben, statt fünf Jahre.""

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: Sakharov Armenian