Two Reporters Injured During Storming of Parliament

Update: 31 Aug 2017 State replied
Year 05 May 2017 Country "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Category Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Source of threat Unknown Partner EFJ/IFJ , CPJ , Index , INSI , IPI , RSF Alert level Level 1
05 May 2017 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Unknown EFJ/IFJ , CPJ , Index , INSI , IPI , RSF Level 1

Two Macedonian journalists, Dimitar Tanurov, a reporter for the online Meta news agency, and Nikola Ordevski, a cameraperson with the Makfax news agency, were physically assaulted during the 27 April 2017 protest in Skopje, which later resulted in the storming of the Parliament building by nationalist demonstrators. A total of 21 journalists were threatened and/or barred from reporting at the scene, reported the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM-ZNM). Tanurov wrote on Facebook that protesters attacked him when they saw his press card: “They took my phone, and continued to beat and kick me while I was lying on the floor". Tanurov sustained multiple injuries to his face and head, but was not hospitalised. Nikola Ordevski was hospitalised with a concussion. During a press conference on 28 April in Skopje, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) called on the Macedonian authorities to investigate the attacks against the 21 journalists and media workers attacked or threatened during the storming of the parliament building.

State replies

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

Relevant CoE instruments Disclaimer

01 Aug 2017 : Relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

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