Case- Partnership for Human Rights VS Gia Jajanidze and Maia Stephnadze

Chairperson of the Council: Nino Zuriashvili

Members of the Council: Irakli Absandze, Maia Metskhvarishvili, Givi Mgeladze, Tazo Kupreishvili, Lasha Zarginava

Applicant: Partnership for Human Rights

Respondent: Gia Jajanidze, Maia Stephnadze

Descriptive part

Legal entity of public law Partnership for Human Rights applied to the Charter of Journalistic Ethics, claiming Imedi TV program "Different Perspective with Gia Jajanidze" violated Principles 7,8, and 10 of the Charter in 2015. As per the statement, the principles were violated in the part of the program concerned with a possible sexual abuse of a 5 year old girl. The child’s mother, invited as a guest to the program, was accusing her neighbor, Z.S., of the alleged sexual violence. It should be noted that investigation on the fact had been launched, and the person specified by the child’s parent, not only hadn’t had his blame proven, but hadn’t even been detained as a presumable offender. The case consideration was attended by the applicant’s representative, Ana Abashidze, while the defendants were absent and hadn’t submitted their response.

Motivational part:

According to Principle 7 of the Charter: Journalists must understand the dangers of encouraging discrimination on the part of the media; therefore, he/she must exert every effort to avoid discrimination of any person on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political and other opinion, national or social origin, or any other grounds. The program places special emphasis on the status of Z. underscoring a few times the person’s criminal past. Such assessment was used to reinforce the opinion of Z being the offender. Similar approach and evaluation makes for the consolidation of stereotype that a person’s criminal record implies high probability of inclination to crime commitment, suggesting a former convict can’t be socially safe, and that dissociation from such a person is required. As stressed by the Council a number of times, stigmatization/enhancement of stigma are defined as a form of discrimination in the provisions of journalistic ethics, therefore the specific story/author’s approach contain elements of person’s discrimination.

As per Principle 8 of the Charter: Journalists are liable to protect children’s rights; in his/her professional activity, given the highest priority to children’s interests, neither can journalists prepare nor publish articles or reports regarding children that may be harmful to them. Journalist must not interview, as well as photograph, a youth under the age of 16 on issues related to the welfare of the given or any other youth without the consent of the parents or the guardian. The Council’s clarification suggests the inadmissibility of minor’s identification during any form of violence, despite the child’s being in the capacity of offender, victim, or witness. The information used in the program made it possible to identify the minor, whose name, residence, and mother’s identity were disclosed. The journalists responsible didn’t consider the likely negative results following the child’s identification. The Council agrees with the applicant’s position that the identification might add to "her unacceptability in the society", that "the knowing of violence implying information about her would create tangible danger of bullying and stigmatization". In this respect, chances are high of her becoming a victim of deeply engrained gender stereotype in the society, accompanying her throughout life, making her endure an unimaginably heavy burden of sexually abused victim until coming of age. Such circumstances would significantly impair the child’s quality of life". The Council therein adds that parental consent to disclosing of minor’s identity and relevant details doesn’t exempt a journalist from positive liabilities. Journalist, in performing his/her professional duties, is liable for giving priority to child’s rights", and should him/herself evaluate the possible negative consequences ensuing from the child’s identification.

According to Principle 10 of the Charter: Journalists must pay respect to privacy, and not intrude into the private lives of people unless there is special public interest. The private details of the person considered as the perpetrator by the victim’s parent is disclosed in the program, which includes: residence, name, marital status, information about the past. The existence of public interest in this case has to be evaluated as well. As has already been stated, there hasn’t been a proper confirmation of Z’s commitment of the crime, but only a guess by the parent. Accordingly, not only there was no public interest involved, but quite the contrary, i.e. the danger of Z’s becoming a victim of violence following his identification, due to being perceived as offender, despite that the fact hasn’t been confirmed.

Operative part:

Based on the above the Council ruled:

1. Gia Jajanidze (as program presenter) and Maia Stephnadze(as program producer) have violated Principle 7,8, and 10 of the Charter.