The Armenian press is losing readers because of a lack of trust and a lack of interest. 27.1 % of the people who responded to a recent Institute of Sociology survey on the press don't trust newspapers at all, and 13.8% don't find the subjects covered interesting, and so they don’t read newspapers. This is extremely worrying to journalists, especially since a newspaper is a product that needs a consumer. The survey also shows that readers put a high value on information that is objective and reliable, information obtained from various sources, verified and correlated with the facts. At the same time, readers like their information to be immediate. These are fair and serious demands, but they are not being met, in particular by journalists who cover the judicial system, for objective and subjective reasons.

The subjective reason is that in journalism, like everywhere else, a generational change is taking place, and the beginners are not experienced or informed enough report on the judicial system, and so their coverage can’t be professional.

The objective reason is that information is not accessible. The biggest gain for journalists who deal with the judiciary is unimpeded access to court proceedings, in particular, when reporting on trials with resonance for the public. Reporting on the judiciary mainly is perceived like this – if a journalist or a judge is asked during the survey whether the information in this system is accessible – the answer, as a rule, is “yes, journalists are allowed to report on court proceedings”. In Armenia, compared to other countries, journalists even have privileges in this area – they are allowed to make video and audio recordings, and to take photographs during criminal trials.

The Institute of Sociology survey shows that readers are very interested in reports on the judicial system. But the judicial system is not only courts and trials. It includes the Ministry of Justice, the Council of Justice, the Council of the Chairmen of the Courts, as well as Bar Associations, all of which together form a picture of the judicial system. But our usual understanding of their work is mainly formed by citizens and their complaints.

The Council of Chairmen of the Courts plays an important role in the process of reforming the judiciary, not only in terms of ensuring that the courts work well, but also with respect to signing interstate agreements and treaties, and implementing various projects with the assistance of international organizations. What do we know about all of this? Almost nothing. Indeed, none of the structures mentioned above has thus far met the requirements of Article 11 of the “Law on the Procedure of Addressing Citizens’ Proposals, Appeals, and Complaints”. That is, they have not issued press releases, made statements, or conducted press-conferences to report on their work.

“We are disturbed when uncertain facts are presented; before material is published, its reliability must be verified”, say the judges. We agree with them, but we don’t always succeed in fully verifying information. We are forced to choose the method of seeking information for our daily work by written request and our files are replenished every day with rejections justified by confidentiality of one sort or another, with answers that say nothing, or with utter disregard, the method favored by Judge Marat Katvalian, Chairman of the Civil Court of Appeals. He didn’t respond to our letter in which we asked for information on an already completed civil case. Interesting here is the judge’s admission made in one publication: “Journalists keep us sober and alert. They give a picture of the system.”

Judicial information is inaccessible not only to journalists. Usually our requests to look at court documents are turned down with the explanation that we are not a party to the proceedings and only the parties have this right. However, lawyers for the sides often face similar obstacles. Citizens have sent numerous such complaints to the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor’s office, etc.

The approach of judges toward the mass media is formulated in the Code of Conduct of Judges adopted on December 27, 2001 by the Council of Chairmen of the Courts. “A judge is obliged to treat with understanding the mass media reporting on the activity of the court, not to avoid public scrutiny, if by doing so he or she does not contradict to the interests of justice, does not cast doubt on the impartiality of the court”.

Perhaps Gayane Karakhanyan, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Center and Nork-Marash districts, found her own solution to this “if” when she demanded that a reporter obey her oral instruction that the trial was closed without making any formal ruling to close it. Sona Mashouryan, a reporter from Noyan Tapan Agency, told us that Karakhanyan decided on her own not to allow reporting on the trial of Kurds who had crossed the border illegally. First she forbade video cameras; then she decided that journalists should be asked to leave as well. Mashouryan didn’t want to abide by the judge’s arbitrary decision, and she stated that she would leave the hall if the court issued a decision on convening a closed trial. Mrs. Karakhanyan didn’t find it necessary to formalize her wish, but, reading patriotic sermons, sent the journalist out of the courtroom.

Another branch of the judicial system, the Council of Justice, fixes the classification of information in Article 4 of its statutes: “The council’s sessions are closed. Open sessions can be conducted only by the decision of the council.” Some judges find this clause of the Council of Justice statutes hard to accept. They explain that it would be natural if the opposite were defined- only if necessary could the council decide to hold a closed session. At the same time, judges complain about a lack of job protection. Dismissals from their posts are kept strictly confidential, depriving them of the right to defend themselves in court.

Official information about the work of the Council of Justices is limited to the publication of the names of judges who leave their posts before the end of their term, with nothing said about the real reason for their departure. How could it be that judges resign of their own free will when 99% of the people with legal education strive to become judges?

The bar associations don’t lag far behind the institutions discussed above in terms of limitations on information. People’s dissatisfaction with the way lawyers work is growing. They complain that lawyers perpetrate various deceptions, in violation of their professional ethics. The fate of all the complaints made against the associations is unknown. Moreover, the associations have not thus far published the results of investigations into lawyers’ conduct, trying to keep up with judges and prosecutors in this matter.

In our opinion, the reason for the collisions between journalists and judges that have become unavoidable is the inaccessibility of information. The legal actions that have been brought against journalists are mainly questions of offenses against honor and dignity. When we examine them we see that the reason for journalistic breaches of ethics is not so much journalists’ ignorance as the lack of information. What happens is that journalists have to base their reporting on suppositions and whispered rumors, because we work for our readers, and our readers demand immediacy. If a written request for information gets no response for 15 days, or for a month, what are journalists supposed to do if not to base their articles on upon supposition? And these articles are the grounds for civil actions.

An interesting observation: The NGO Speech and Right had independent experts look into the honor and dignity cases brought against journalists in recent years. To summarize their conclusions, in nearly half of the cases decided in favor of the plaintiff, the court limited the journalists’ freedom of speech and their right to express opinions, especially in light of Article 10 of the International Convention. The European Court doesn’t require that journalists’ facts be reliable, rather that their material be balanced. “The courts cannot decide on behalf of the press by which methods their material should be prepared, that it be the result of scrupulous research, or demonstrate the seriousness of the journalistic work performed, ” state the documents of the European Court.