Five Journalists Beaten by Police in Skopje During Protests

Update: 31 Aug 2017 State replied
Year 19 Apr 2016 Country "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Category Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Source of threat State Partner EFJ/IFJ , Index , RSF Alert level Level 2
19 Apr 2016 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists State EFJ/IFJ , Index , RSF Level 2

A journalist and four photo reporters were seriously injured by security forces on 13 April 2016 in the capital, Skopje, while covering an anti-government rally. The protests were reportedly sparked by President Gjorge Ivanov’s dual announcement of early elections and the decision to drop the investigation into the wiretapping scandal that broke out in February 2015 when it was alleged the government had illegally engaged in wiretapping over 20,000 people, including journalists. Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the capital Skopje, demanding that the President either revoke his decision or resign. During the clashes, journalist Goran Naumovski, working for Plusinfo, and photo reporters Ognen Teofilovski (Vest), Nake Batev (Vecer), Tome Georgiev (Fokus) and Borce Popovski (Sloboden Pecat) were attacked by police officers , who wanted to prevent them from taking pictures of the violent protest. The IFJ and EFJ affiliate in Macedonia, SSNM, reported that all of the reporters were wearing distinctive press bibs and that their cameras were clearly identified, giving every indication that they were journalists covering the event. Other media workers, including Trajce Antonovski and Saska Cvetkovska, from NOVA TV, were injured by stones being thrown by protesters at the police, SSNM added.

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