DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

The new GJKKO regulation, SafeJournalists: It must be reviewed, it limits the work of journalists!

2026-09-01 13:31:24Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX

The new GJKKO regulation, SafeJournalists: It must be reviewed, it limits the

The SafeJournalists Network has reacted to the new regulation of the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime which deprives journalists and media in the courtroom.

Through an official response, the organization asks the GJKKO to review the regulation and suspend the provisions affecting the media.

According to them, the ban on phones and electronic devices by the media prevents and censors journalists from doing their work.

“We are concerned about Article 76 and Article 93(16), which prohibit journalists permitted only to attend a hearing from carrying or using mobile phones, laptops and other electronic devices. Preventing unauthorized recording or broadcasting is legitimate. However, a blanket ban also prevents the silent keeping of notes, written reporting, communication with editors, verification of legal information and the use of devices for accessibility needs. Less restrictive and enforceable measures should be considered, such as use in silent mode, special places for the media, restrictions on camera functions and tailored instructions for specific cases by the chair of the hearing,” the response states, among other things.

Full statement from the SafeJournalists Network:

The SafeJournalists Network expresses concern about some of the media-related provisions in the new Internal Regulations adopted by the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime with Decision No. 49, dated July 17, 2026, published on July 31, 2026 and scheduled to enter into force on September 1, 2026.

The Network recognizes the responsibility of the Special Court to ensure security, to protect all participants in the process, to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure the proper administration of justice. It also appreciates the guarantees provided in the regulations to promote transparency, equal treatment and reasoned decision-making.

At the same time, the combined effect of several provisions risks limiting the ability of journalists to directly follow court proceedings, to keep accurate records, to communicate with their editorial offices, and to report in a timely manner on matters of exceptional public interest.

We note that Article 90 establishes annual and individual accreditation, while Article 93(1) regulates access for accredited media representatives. The Regulation does not clearly define whether a journalist without permanent accreditation from the Special Court may attend a hearing that is otherwise public as a member of the public. Schedule 7 also requires independent journalists to demonstrate professional activity during the previous 12 months. This approach risks placing freelance, independent, early-career or newly appointed journalists at a disadvantage. Accreditation can facilitate identification and equal access, but should not become an unnecessary filter or condition for attending public proceedings.

The access procedure may also create an unnecessary administrative burden for journalists, particularly those working in small newsrooms or as freelance journalists. When the special procedure under Article 93(2) is activated, Article 93(3) requires, as a rule, that journalists submit a request at least 24 hours before the hearing. They may then be required to confirm their attendance, to respect the general rule of one representative per media outlet and, if audiovisual coverage is required, to submit a specific request under Article 95. These procedures may assist the organisation where there is a specific need due to room capacity or security reasons, but should not become a routine condition for attending public hearings. Urgent hearings, late notices and the replacement of journalists require a simple and rapid procedure.

We are concerned about Article 76 and Article 93(16), which prohibit journalists permitted only to attend a hearing from carrying or using mobile phones, laptops and other electronic devices. Preventing unauthorized recording or broadcasting is legitimate. However, a blanket ban also prevents the silent taking of notes, written reporting, communication with editors, verification of legal information and the use of devices for accessibility purposes. Less restrictive and enforceable measures should be considered, such as use in silent mode, special media areas, restrictions on camera functions and tailored instructions from the presiding judge.

We also note that Article 95 specifically regulates audiovisual coverage of court hearings, including filming, photography, audio recording and broadcasting. Prior judicial authorisation and restrictions on such coverage may be legitimate where necessary for the protection of witnesses, minors, privacy, evidence, order in the courtroom or the proper administration of justice. However, any restrictions must be based on the specific circumstances of the hearing, be justified and proportionate and, before an outright refusal, consider less restrictive alternatives. Court-produced materials or those provided through a “media pool” system may support access where security or technical constraints exist, but should supplement and not routinely replace the independent presence of journalists in the courtroom.

Furthermore, Article 96(3)(e)–(g) deals with manipulation through artificial intelligence, material deemed to be misleading and the publication of images of identifiable persons where identification is deemed unnecessary. Protection against false manipulation and unlawful publication is legitimate. However, editorial or post-publication conduct extending beyond the premises of the Court should not be regulated through the accreditation system. Such matters should be addressed through applicable legislation, remedies, redress mechanisms and professional ethics.

Article 98 provides for warnings, suspension of accreditation for up to six months and withdrawal. The Regulation contains important guarantees for more serious measures, including the requirement for concrete evidence, a reasoned order and the opportunity for the journalist or media to be heard. However, it does not clearly provide for a rapid review mechanism that could resolve a refusal of access or a measure against accreditation before the journalistic value of the relevant hearing is lost.

The SafeJournalists Network calls on the Special Court to suspend the implementation of the contested media-related provisions and to undertake a focused review through meaningful consultation with journalists, media organizations, legal experts, and civil society. The revised framework should ensure that restrictions affecting media access and reporting are based on law, necessary, proportionate, clearly defined, and uniformly applied; that journalists can work under practical and reasonable conditions; and that refusals, exceptions, or measures against them are justified and subject to prompt and effective review.

The SafeJournalists Network will inform relevant national and international stakeholders about this issue and will continue to monitor the implementation of the regulation.

Pristina – Skopje – Sarajevo – Zagreb – Belgrade – Podgorica – Tirana, August 7, 2026

Kosovo Journalists Association

Macedonian Journalists Association

Journalists' Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Croatian Journalists Association

Independent Journalists Association of Serbia

Media Union of Montenegro.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×