Court – a Territory Forbidden for Journalists

I have to admit I haven’t been to Tbilisi City Court for a long time.  Thus, it is not surprising I could hardly recognize the place.  You don’t see half-ruined building, dirty walls and windows anymore!! 

The changes, as they say, can be clearly seen.  Along with the façade the interior has also been repaired, and with its metal detectors at the entrance, shining floors and lines at information monitors looks more like an airport hall than a court.  Façade of the building is also quite impressive:  stone lions protect the kingdom of Themis at the outside.  As we all know lion is the symbol of power, authority and noblessness, although thanks to the court reform the Goddess of Justice is not protected just by the stone lions.  The Court building and surrounding territory is reliably secured by the well trained and adequately equipped group of bailiffs.  They will never miss any illegal action be it in court hall, endless corridors of the building, or the enormous courtyard.  Anyway, everything is great except of one thing:  there is no place for journalists in this heaven! Of course there is no official sign saying that but you feel it as soon as you get into the court territory and as time goes you will get more and more assured that it would have been better to stay at the office, or at home! 

Well, of course nobody will shut the Court door in front of your nose if you say you are a journalist, but be sure that as soon as you take out a microphone, turn on a voice recorder, or take a photo a group of bailiffs will instantly appear (even if you stand at the furthest point of the enormous courtyard) and according to the law will interfere with your journalistic activity and strictly remind you that: 

“It is prohibited to take photos, record videos, or broadcast from the Court building, Court sessions, except of the cases when the action is conducted by a Court representative, or a Court authorized person.  Court has the right to publicize its photo, video materials from a Court session if it is not against the existing legislation.  Stenographing and audio-recording of Court sessions is allowed as set by Court (Judge).  The given right may be limited by a motivated decision of the Court (Judge),” this is what the Clause 4 of the Article 14 of the organic Law on Courts says, which is to celebrate its fifth anniversary soon and which has in fact abolished Court Journalism as a genre in Georgia. 

For five years the audience has not seen a judge reading out a verdict, has not seen an executive attorney evidencing accusations, has not seen an accused pleading guilty, or not guilty… No emotions and primary sources, just a doubtful story by a journalist using no technical means (camera, voice recorder, and photo-camera).  For five years the court has become a black hole in the information area.  Just periodically we see bureaucratic statements and monotonous voice of speaker-judge! For five years Georgian government has turned the publicity of court sessions into a useless formality.  Five years ago the Criminal Code of Practice allowed justice officials and other persons (if they did not interfere with a court hearing) to stenograph, record audio and video.  Furthermore, photo, video recording and audio recording and radio and TV broadcasting of a trial could be prohibited only by a motivated decision from a Court! 

As we mentioned everything changed radically five years ago which was explained by the government like this:  TV-cameras working at court trials promoted not objective coverage and organization of intentional provocations by parties.  The government of course did not mention anything about qualification of judges, or their biasedness and did not consider any other ways of stopping the provocateurs except of exiling cameras (voice-recorders and other recording equipment) from the Court.  As result we have an unprecedented diminishing of court journalism:  reports are either not done, or are unqualified and inaccurate, although the judicial authorities claim the changes have brought results and they have achieved increase of trust to courts in the country.  Chairman of the Supreme Court proudly quoted the results of the May 2011 survey among Georgian court customers:  it appears that 75% of the surveyed court customers stated that they trust the court and 16% partially trust the court. 

This means eight from every ten citizens trust the court.  Still President Saakashvili, who was at the roots of judicial reform and who just loves talking about achievements does not very much appreciate the juridical reform results.  Georgian President is proud of Police, healthcare reform, army, successful fight against corruption and justice houses, but never says a word about judicial reform.  Of course this does not mean that judges take bribes, or the court infrastructure is not in order.  It mostly means that there is nothing to boast about in judges being unbiased, and so probably that is why the court has become a forbidden territory for journalists!  Nobody remembers now that ten years ago when the judicial reform was starting journalists were standing at the frontline and plaid significant role in the modernization of the judicial system.  Introduction of the Court Reporting Guidelines published by the judicial education association ALPE and International Center for Journalists ICFJ in 2002 reads: 

“Society needs such a judicial system that would be not only respected and acceptable by it, but also transparent and fair.  Journalists can promote formation of exactly such system by systematic reporting on legislative issues.  How judicial system works, when it does it work and when it does not – these are the topics by reporting on which journalists will help the society to understand the system.” 

As we already mentioned the given text was written ten years ago; a lot has changed since then.  Modern history of Georgia is full of tragic dates and events, which directly or indirectly are related to the loss of territories.  Naturally the July 2007 decision made by Georgian Parliament (which “initiated” prohibition of journalistic activity at court territories) is not in the list of such tragic events, but because of it the society has lost important territory.  Return of separatist regions is hampered by many outside factors, but the question is why is it so hard to develop a more flexible regulatory system, to allow journalistic activities in courts and return of courts to the society?  Why is it necessary to put the eye-cover intended for the Themis on the eyes of the media?