Macedonian Journalist Sashe Ivanovski Physically Assaulted by Deputy Prime Minister

Update: 31 Aug 2017 State replied
Year 16 Jul 2015 Country "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Category Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Source of threat State Partner EFJ/IFJ Alert level Level 2
16 Jul 2015 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists State EFJ/IFJ Level 2

On 15 July 2015, Vladimir Peshevski, Macedonian Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, physically assaulted Sashe Ivanovski, a freelance journalist and editor of Maktel website. The journalist approached Minister Peshevski, while recording with his mobile phone, to ask him about a recent wiretapping scandal in Macedonia. Peshevski turned and physically attacked the journalist, throwing punches and chasing Ivanovski until he was restrained by a third person. Later on, the ruling party VMRO-DPMNE issued a statement justifying the attack on Ivanovski and warning other journalists that “Next time, SDSM (the main opposition party) and its mercenaries such as Politiko (Sashe Ivanovski’s nickname) and those similar to him should be aware of the consequences resulting from any threat to privacy, freedom and rights that every individual and entity has regardless of the position held.”

State replies

31 Aug 2017 : Reply from the Ministry of Interior of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

CONTACT US

Follow us   

Follow-ups to alerts Follow-ups to alerts

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.
Twitter feed Twitter feed
Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Partners Partners

CONTACT US

Follow us