Accuracy of information and right of correction or reply to defamatory or incorrect statements

The case studies examination found that the media are able put pressure on authorities to disclose information prematurely at a very early stage of the investigation when no sufficient evidence is gathered and to present assumptions. In turn, the investigation can be jeopardised. In the Spas from Kocherinovo fraud case the first information about the fraud scheme and the related false profiles appeared in discussions between users on Facebook which was later reported by several media channels. The media speculated about the fraudster’s identity and a particular name circulated in social and traditional media months before the official indictment. As the case had attracted the public attention since its very beginning, the media requested information from the police and the prosecution days prior to the arrest. At that point, the authorities correctly refused to comment because the investigation was underway, and did not confirm whether they suspected the same person as the media. However, immediately after a suspect was apprehended, the police and the prosecution held a joint press conference where information was disclosed, such as a list of previous investigations against the suspect and the fact that he had been declared wanted twice. In a later media appearance, the Director of the Directorate General for Combating Organised Crime (DGCOC) said that if it were not the intense media pressure, information would have not been disclosed at such an early stage. Moreover, he admitted that at the time of the press conference, the police had not gathered sufficient evidence to claim that the suspect stood behind the false profile; thereby, the premature disclosure of information was likely to affect the investigation. The criminal proceedings were further complicated by inaccuracies in the information provided by the authorities in subsequent messages to the press. Particularly, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior issued inconsistent press releases on the day the indictment was announced, stating mismatching offences and details of the case. The media highly criticised the authorities for the improper coordination which resulted in misleading the public that a new crime was committed.

The police and judicial authorities need to be cautious while disclosing information at the pre-trial stage especially when assumptions are presented. As in the case outlined above, the fact that claims are not based on sufficient evidence should be clearly stated. The accuracy of the provided information regarding criminal proceedings is crucial for maintaining a high level of credibility and public trust in law enforcement and judicial institutions. Furthermore, disclosure of information should be preceded by an assessment of the permissible amount and type of information depending on the specifics of the case. Above all, law enforcement and judicial practitioners, being government officials and public servants, are obliged to protect individuals against human rights abuses, including the offenders’ right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The Spas from Kocherinovo fraud case demonstrated  that the premature disclosure and the miscommunication of information may disturb the investigation and contribute to the formation of a ”guilty” image of the suspect or accused through the media. Ultimately, such malpractices lead to disinformation and blur the line between objective facts and subjective assumptions.

In extreme cases, false statements such as untrue allegations or assertions damaging one’s reputation may amount to defamation. Defamation is criminalised in most countries as a measure to protect citizens’ reputation and dignity. No example of defamatory statements by national authorities was identified within the examination of the twelve case studies. Nonetheless, it should be noted that suspects and accused persons are extremely vulnerable to reputation damages. Usually, the very fact that charges have been pressed against a person may hurt his/her repute among their peers. That effect is amplified in extensively publicised criminal cases where the identity of the suspect or accused becomes publicly known. In this respect, in order to protect one’s dignity and good name during the proceedings, public authorities must use balanced language when communicating information to the press. In the event of public statements and press releases by judicial or police authorities containing erroneous information or defamatory statements regarding a suspect or accused, they must take the steps necessary to rectify it and ensure that the right of correction is available to the subject of defamation.

Standard 4

The Council of Europe Recommendation calls to Member States to ensure that justice authorities and police services provide the media only with verified information or information which is based on reasonable assumptions. In case of presenting assumptions and not objective facts, this should be clearly noted. Ideally, the public should have access to correct and objective information and the media should be facilitating the exercise of its right to information. In order to ensure the presumption of innocence is safeguarded, the police and judicial authorities are supposed to report facts supported by evidence and to clearly indicate that a statement is based on suspicion or assumptions.