Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

Esteemed members of the joint committee and fellow participants, thank you for the invitation to contribute to the public hearing today. In my brief intervention, I wish to sketch how the Council of Europe's regulatory and policy frameworks seek to guarantee the safety and freedom of journalists and the media, including in the context of conflict situations. I hope this will bring a useful legal and policy dimension to the broader discussion that we are having today. As I progress, members will quickly notice that their framing of today's session, explicitly linking security and freedom, is consistent with the Council of Europe's approach. Freedom and security are indissociable dimensions of the topic of safe and accurate reporting on and from conflict situations.

It is often quipped that the first casualty of war is the truth, but regrettably, I think we have to acknowledge that the first casualties of war are truth and the purveyors of truth. We know all too well that parties to conflicts tend to do their utmost to prevent the truth getting out. All too often, their efforts involve insidious methods to prevent purveyors of truth, including public watchdogs such as journalists and the media, and increasingly other actors, such as bloggers, whistleblowers, NGOs, from investigating and reporting about conflicts in an accurate, reliable, independent and unbiased manner.

The European Court of Human Rights has developed strong principles to enable journalists and other media actors to carry out their vital role as public watchdogs and informing the public about matters of general interest to society. Journalists and the media cannot fulfil their public watchdog role if they fear for their safety; do not have effective protection; or are deprived of their liberty or freedom of movement. These baseline protections and freedoms must be secured as a precondition for securing their right to freedom of expression and freedom to report. That is why the European Court of Human Rights has stated firmly and repeatedly that states have a positive obligation to ensure a safe and favourable environment for everyone to contribute to public debate without fear, even when their opinions go against those of governments. This is a far-reaching and important principle. It means that it is not enough for states not to interfere with the right to life, liberty or freedom of expression, but that states are legally obliged to proactively take effective measures to secure the safety and freedom of expression of public watchdogs.

Examples of how this could work in practice include by putting security measures in place for journalists or media organisations once they are threatened or attacked. Another example is to conduct independent, effective investigations into crimes against journalists to ensure that all the perpetrators of violence or murders are brought to justice, not just those who are actually responsible for the act, but also the masterminds who bankroll and plan the whole operation.

The principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights are not enough on their own. Even strong principles have to be implemented. This is where the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe steps in. This is the decision-making body of the Council. It adopts political recommendations directed at the 46 member states, helping them to implement these principles in a practical way that works on the ground in national situations. I would like to focus on two recommendations today. One from 2016 focuses on protection and safety of journalists and other media actors and an older one from 1996 which focuses specifically on the protection of journalists in conflict situations.