UN 법정이 전쟁리포터들에게 특별보호를 보장한다

자료출처 : NEW YORK TIMES

U.N. Court Grants Special Legal Protection to War Reporters

UPDATED DECEMBER 12, 2002
By MARLISE SIMONS




HE HAGUE, Dec. 11 ?The United Nations war crimes tribunal granted special legal protection today to reporters working in areas of conflict, saying they would be required to testify before the court only under exceptional circumstances.

In handing down their ruling, the judges also annulled an earlier court order for an American reporter to appear as a witness against his will.

Lawyers for The Washington Post and the reporter ?a former Post correspondent, Jonathan Randal ?immediately hailed the decision.

"This will go down in the line of other important decisions dealing with press freedom," said Geoffrey Robertson, The Post's lead counsel.

It was the first time that limited legal protection for reporters was defined and upheld in a modern war crimes court, lawyers at the tribunal said. They said the ruling would almost certainly set the standard in other ad hoc tribunals, and, most important, it was likely to define relations between war correspondents and the new International Criminal Court.

Numerous news organizations have argued that requiring testimony from reporters who work in conflict zones could hamper their work and endanger their lives.

Today, the five judges, from France, Guyana, Turkey, Sri Lanka and the United States, agreed. In a unanimous decision they said that to subpoena a war correspondent the evidence sought must be "of direct and important value in determining a core issue in the case" and "cannot reasonably obtained elsewhere."

The decision came after Mr. Randal's refusal to testify about a 1993 interview with a former Bosnian Serb political leader, Radoslav Brdjanin, now being tried on genocide charges. Mr. Randal had given a statement to the prosecutor about his interview, but he said the article should speak for itself, and he did not want to be questioned about its accuracy in court.

When Mr. Randal was ordered to testify earlier this year, he and The Post challenged the subpoena, but it was upheld. They appealed and were supported by 34 news organizations and professional groups, including The New York Times, as "friends of the court."

Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer from New York who represented the news organizations at a hearing in October, said journalists could not "have access to people if those people believe the journalists will testify against them."

In their decision today, the judges invoked some of the arguments made by Mr. Abrams as well as decisions by the European Court of Human Rights recognizing that journalists play "a vital public watchdog role" essential to democratic societies, which must not be hampered. But the judges did not adopt all the recommendations made during the appeal. While the appellants had asked for limited protection for "journalists in general," the judges said their decision only concerned "a smaller group, namely war correspondents," whom they defined as "individuals who, for any period of time, report (or investigate for the purposes of reporting" from a conflict zone on issues relation to the conflict."

Mr. Randal, who has retired and now writes books, was not in court. Reached by telephone at his home in Paris, he said: "I'm relieved for myself and delighted for my fellow war correspondents, present and future. This was a question of principle, and I'm glad we won it."