OAS » IACHR » Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression » Venezuela

Freedom of Expression

Venezuela

            292.     In the following section, the Rapporteurship analyzes some of the main incidents related to freedom of expression that occurred in Venezuela in 2003.  This information should be considered without prejudice to the considerations of the IACHR in its report on the human rights situation in that country, which will be published opportunely.

 

            Threats and attacks

 

            293.     The Commission found that verbal and physical attacks on media workers continued in 2003.  Since late 2001, the IACHR has asked that precautionary measures be adopted to protect several journalists and media.  These include workers and/or directors of the following media: El Nacional, El Universal, RCTV, Globovisión, Así es la Noticia, and La Razón.

 

            294.     In early 2003, the Commission received information on several press workers who had been attacked, especially when covering protests and demonstrations.  Verioska Velasco, Luis Mata (cameraman), and Alfonso Vásquez (assistant) with the channel Promar Televisión and Samuel Sotomayor (cameraman) of RCTV were attacked, in the city of Barquisimeto, state of Lara.  Ángel Colmenares of Últimas Noticias was also attacked in the state of Lara.

 

            295.     In the state of Carabobo, a vehicle belonging to PuertoVisión was stoned; inside was a team of reporters headed up by Humberto Ambrosino.[1] Javier Gutiérrez and Antonio Rodríguez of El Regional were assaulted in the state of Zulia.[2]

 

            296.     In Caracas, information was received concerning attacks on Héctor Castillo, photographer with El Mundo, and Johan Merchán, of Televen.[3]  In April, Junior Pinto, Henry Rodríguez, and driver Oscar Mogollón, of Venezolana de Televisión, were assaulted.  On August 20, Efraín Henríquez, a cameraman with Globovisión, was attacked while covering a march, also in Caracas.[4]

 

            297.     In the city of Anaco, in the state of Anzoátegui, Mauricio Cabal, Rubén Brito (cameraman), and Marcos Martínez (assistant) of the channel Venevisión were threatened at the entry to the plant of the state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, PDVSA, and the vehicle in which they were traveling was damaged.  Also in Anzoátegui, photographer Angel Véliz of the daily Impacto was attacked.[5]

 

            298.     A vehicle with a team of reporters from Correo del Caroní was assaulted by followers of the government in Puerto Ordaz, state of Bolívar.  Journalists Daniel Delgado, of El Nacional, and Félix Moya, of the daily El Caribe were assaulted by the state police of Nueva Esparta.[6]  A press team from Venevisión was attacked by members of the National Guard in the vicinity of the oil facilities in Paraguaná, state of Falcón.

 

            299.     In the state of Aragua, cameraman Carlos Lathosesky and journalist Alfredo Morales were assaulted.[7]  In the city of Puerto La Cruz, journalist Gabriela Díaz and photographer José Ramón Chicho Bello of the daily El Tiempo were stopped by a group of students.

 

            300.     The Rapporteur addressed the Venezuelan State in a letter of January 15, in which he stated his concern over the continuous attacks on media workers and facilities.  In that communication the Rapporteur noted: “without prejudice to the actions of the media who denounce the Government, the attacks on media workers and facilities are inadmissible and unjustified.”

 

            301.     The Rapporteurship profoundly regrets that the pronouncements made by President Hugo Chávez Frías in April 2003, when he issued an appeal “to respect journalists and treat them with dignity, as they deserve,”[8] were not maintained, and, to the contrary, towards the end of the year, he once again made public speeches that could be misinterpreted by his followers to justify the attacks.

 

            302.     In public statements, President Hugo Chávez and several high-level officials of his government have protested over the lack of impartiality and the political motivations behind the coverage of some media.  This perception on the part of the government regarding the work of the Venezuelan press does not justify, in any way, restrictions or attacks on freedom of expression.

 

            303.     On the morning of June 27, 2003, journalist Marta Colomina of Televen was subject to an attack when eight individuals with rifles attempted to set her vehicle on fire using a “Molotov cocktail.”  The journalist did not suffer any physical harm, and was able to reach the television station, where she broadcast her program La entrevista.  The journalist, who works for the radio station Unión Radio and writes a column in El Universal, has openly opposed the government of Hugo Chávez.[9]  The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression condemned the incident in a press release of June 30, 2003.[10]

 

            304.     On the morning of October 11, 2003, five persons destroyed the technical equipment of the community radio station Parroquiana 90.1, situated in the town of San José de Perijá, in the state of Zulia, near the border with Colombia.  Hercilia León, the director, attributed the incident to a member of the local parish board, and an employee of the Machiques city hall, in the wake of reports broadcast by radio directly implicating two of the alledged assailants.[11]

 

            Judicial actions

 

            305.     In Venezuela, several judicial actions were brought against journalists for crimes allegedly involving disrespect for certain public officials.

 

            306.     The former minister of the Secretariat of the Presidency, Rafael Vargas, filed a judicial complaint against journalist Miguel Salazar, a columnist with the weekly Quinto Día.  Salazar has made a series of reports on corruption in the Social Security Institute, one of whose alternate directors is Vargas.[12]

 

            307.     The Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled against a recurso de amparo brought against the private television stations Radio Caracas Televisión, Venevisión, Televen, Globovisión, CMT, Meridiano, and Puma TV, for allegedly interfering with the signal during the mandatory nationwide radio and television broadcast of a message by President Hugo Chávez.  The amparo was based on the fact that on April 11, 2002, the television stations had split their screens during the presidential message in order to broadcast, simultaneously, live images of the disturbances that took place that day around the presidential palace of Miraflores.[13]

 

            308.     On July 15, the Constitutional Chamber issued judgment 1942, which found inadmissible a motion to void certain articles of the Criminal Code that punish the free criticism of public officials and official agencies.  Attorney Rafael Chavero Gadzik filed the action in March 2001, alleging that Articles 141, 148 to 152, 223 to 227, 444 to 447, and 450, which contain provisions that criminalize desacato, defamation, and injurias, violate the Venezuelan Constitution and the international obligations accepted by Venezuela under Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights.[14]  In particular, they argued that the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission are not binding.[15]  On July 16, the Rapporteur issued a press release expressing regret over the decision, as it validated the desacato laws.

 

            309.     In April 2003, Tulio Capriles Hernández, president of the daily El Siglo, located in the state of Aragua, was called to trial for defamation.  Capriles was accused by the governor of the state of publishing reports on cases of official negligence and corruption.  According to the information received, the newspaper has also been the object of harassment, including attacks on the workers and material damage.[16]

 

            310.     The Public Ministry of the state of Miranda ordered that the state intelligence authorities undertake an investigation against the editor-director of the daily newspapers La Voz and La Región, José Matarán Tulene.  The investigation is based on the publication, on March 11, of an ad by the opposition Coordinadora Democrática.[17]

 

            Legislation

 

            311.     During the year, the Rapporteurship received information on the discussion of the proposed Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television (known as the Contents Law).  According to its provisions, the law is aimed at establishing a series of responsibilities for those who provide radio and television services, independent producers, and others.[18]  The bill establishes some regulations related to the content of radio and television programs.

 

            312.     On February 13, 2003, the National Assembly approved, in the first debate, a version of this law that was revised by its Committee on Science, Technology, and Communication Media.  The Committee approved a new version of the bill on May 16 and forwarded it directly to the plenary of the National Assembly for the second debate.

 

            313.     In response to the adoption of the new version of the bill, the Rapporteur sent a missive to the Minister of Foreign Relations of Venezuela on May 27, 2003.  In that communication, the Rapporteur highlighted some advances in the new version, such as eliminating the provision that granted a privilege to public officials that made it possible to impose grave sanctions on those who disseminate contents that promote “disrespect” for institutions and authorities, including via live broadcasts.  Nonetheless, the Rapporteur noted that the bill maintained limitations on the contents of those radio and television programs which, together with the vague terms used in several provisions, could lead to self-censorship of the media.  The Rapporteur further stated his concern over the conditions of truthfulness and timeliness of information.  These conditions are at odds with Article 13 of the Convention in light of Principle 7 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression.  The Rapporteur urged the legislators to take into account international standards on freedom of expression and requested the State to provide him with information on the bill and its status.  The State did not answer this communication.

 

            314.     The Rapporteur’s concerns were reiterated by the IACHR in a letter sent to the State on June 4.  In its communication, the Commission stated its concern in relation to the possibility, in the context of that bill, that those who provide radio and television services might be sanctioned with suspension due to violation of the concepts of truthfulness, impartiality, and timeliness of information.  The Executive Secretary asked the State to inform the National Assembly of the Commission’s concern.

 

            315.     As of this writing, the proposed Law on Social Responsibility of Radio and Television had not yet been introduced for a second debate.

 

            Other

 

            316.     The IACHR learned that administrative proceedings had begun against various television channels in Venezuela at the initiative of the Ministry of Infrastructure (MINFRA).

 

            317.     On January 20, 2003, Globovisión and Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) were given notice that administrative proceedings had been initiated against them to determine whether they had breached the law on radio and television broadcasts.[19]  On February 5, 2003 officials from MINFRA went to the offices of Venevisión[20] and Televen to give notice that an administrative investigation was being initiated.  In addition, a similar proceeding was initiated against the Televisora Regional de Táchira.[21]

 

            318.     These proceedings were related to alleged violations of Article 171 of the Telecommunications Law and Article 53 of the Partial Regulation of Television Broadcasts by these stations during the civic strike organized by the opposition from December 2, 2002 to February 6, 2003.  The first of those articles warns of a possible revocation of the administrative authorization or concession for one who uses or allows the use of telecommunications services as means for helping to commit a crime.  The regulation prohibits broadcasting speeches that incite rebellion and disrespect for the institutions and their authorities; the dissemination of propaganda aimed at subverting the social public order; and false, deceitful, or tendentious signals and news.

 

            319.     In a press release, the Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression indicated that it was worrisome that procedures would be initiated invoking legislation contrary to the international standards on freedom of expression.

 

            320.     The television stations filed a request for nullity on grounds of “unconstitutionality” and a constitutional amparo against several of the articles of the Organic Law on Telecommunications.  In addition, they sought precautionary measures to order the Minister of Infrastructure, Diosdado Cabello, to refrain from enforcing the Organic Law on Telecommunications and the Partial Regulation on Television Broadcasts while the lawsuit was pending.  In addition, they requested a precautionary measure to have the administrative proceedings brought against television stations by the Minister of Infrastructure sent to the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL).[22]  On June 2, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the precautionary measures requested by the television stations Globovisión, Televen, and RCTV.

 

            321.     The Rapporteurship has repeatedly stated that the right to information encompasses all information, including that which, in opposition to “truthful,” may be “erroneous,” “untimely,” or “incomplete,” given that it is precisely the open debate and exchange of ideas that are the appropriate method for searching for the truth.  If prior conditions are imposed on expression, requiring that information must be "truthful", in many cases a highly subjective determination, the debate needed to try to arrive at that truth is limited.

 

            322.     The community television station CATIA TV was closed by officials of the office of the Mayor of Caracas on Thursday, July 10, 2003, when representatives of the Health Secretariat of the city government showed up at the studios and evicted the station from the facilities without presenting any judicial order, but alleging legal and technical reasons for the shutdown.  The station broadcasts from the sector of Catia, a low income neighborhood of Caracas.[23]  The Rapporteur asked the State for information on this case to evaluate the situation, and at the same time reiterated his interest in community media, as they facilitate the free circulation of information, encouraging freedom of expression and dialogue within communities to foster their participation.  The information requested was never provided by the State.  One week later, it was reported that the director of health for the city, Pedro Artistimuño, had ceased implementing the measure and had apologized to the directors of the station.[24]

 

 

 

 

            323.     On February 4, 2003, in a joint operation of the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) and the Bureau of Intelligence and Protective Services (DISIP), the radio station Amiga 105.7 in the town of El Hatillo, state of Miranda, was shut down.  It had been on the air for three months.  On two occasions it had been inspected, and no irregularity was found.  Representatives of the media added that the government’s intervention came as they were preparing to interview Ley Benshimol, president of the Colegio Nacional de Periodistas (CNP), and constitutional law expert attorney Enrique Meir, on the proposed Law on Social Responsibility, in radio and television or "Contents Law".  Information was posted on the web site of CONATEL, according to which the radio was shut down due to fiscal irregularities, which was denied by the radio.[25]

 

 

            324.     On October 3, 2003, staff of the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) showed up at two facilities of the television channel Globovisión to give notice of an investigation related to the alleged use of unauthorized frequencies.  The CONATEL officials seized part of the microwave equipment.  Globovisión stated that this measure could endanger its live broadcasts.  That same day, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression issued a press release warning of the possible consequences of this action for the channel’s informational activity and requested that the procedure ensure respect for the right to defense.  The Commission issued a precautionary measure on behalf of Globovisión and ordered the State to return the seized equipment.[26]  In addition, the Commission called both parties on October 21, during its 118th session, to separate hearings, at the request of the State.  The State’s representatives argued that they had acted in keeping with the legal provisions that regulate the radio spectrum.  The representatives of Globovisión stated that the measure was causing them irreparable harm, as they were unable to go before an impartial and independent court to settle the dispute.  The Commission reviewed the precautionary measures and demanded that the State guarantee simple and prompt recourse before competent and impartial judges or courts.

            325.     On December 9, 2003, CONATEL upheld the seizure of seven pieces of equipment and a fine of 583 million Bolívars (US$363,000).  On December 11, Globovisión presented a petition to nullify the decision.

 

1889 F St. N.W. Washington, DC, U.S.A. 20006 / E-mail: [email protected] / Phone: (202) 370-9000 / Fax: (202) 458-3650