Court of Human Rights condemns Switzerland
With the conviction of journalists Martin Stoll and Viktor Dammann, Switzerland has violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is the finding of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
With the conviction of journalists Martin Stoll and Viktor Dammann, Switzerland has violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is the finding of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. According to the Court of Human Rights, the freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 10 of the ECHR has been violated, reports the news agency SDA. Martin Stoll had been fined 800 francs for publishing official secret negotiations. In January 1997, Stoll had published excerpts from a document classified as confidential by the then Swiss ambassador to the USA, Carlo Jagmetti, in the Sonntagszeitung. The document detailed strategies for resolving the dispute over the dormant Jewish assets. Jagmetti came under pressure as a result of the aggressive vocabulary contained in the document and resigned. The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs subsequently filed charges against Stoll.
Viktor Damman was fined 500 francs for inciting a breach of official secrecy. The Blick reporter had received details of suspects' criminal records from an employee of the Zurich public prosecutor's office in connection with the Fraumünster post office robbery in 1997, but did not publish the information.
The Federal Supreme Court had confirmed the two judgments of the Zurich judiciary. The Court of Human Rights has responded to complaints from the two journalists. The victims will not receive any compensation.
Those affected as well as the President of the Press Council Peter Studer, the journalists' organization Impressum and the publishing house Tamedia were satisfied with the rulings of the Court of Human Rights. Blick reporter Viktor Dammann commented: "I am glad that the Court of Human Rights agrees with me that a mere question can never be incitement. And questions belong to journalism like flour belongs to bread." The Press Council sees its stance in the Martin Stoll case confirmed. It had judged the publication itself to be justified. In this case, the public interest outweighed the protection of confidentiality. Tamedia had also asserted an overriding public interest in this specific case.
According to Studer, the ruling from Strasbourg could put further pressure on Article 293 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the publication of secret official documents. The article has already attracted a lot of criticism, including from the journalists' organization Impressum: It could not be acceptable that journalists have to break the law in order to do their job.
Viktor Damman was fined 500 francs for inciting a breach of official secrecy. The Blick reporter had received details of suspects' criminal records from an employee of the Zurich public prosecutor's office in connection with the Fraumünster post office robbery in 1997, but did not publish the information.
The Federal Supreme Court had confirmed the two judgments of the Zurich judiciary. The Court of Human Rights has responded to complaints from the two journalists. The victims will not receive any compensation.
Those affected as well as the President of the Press Council Peter Studer, the journalists' organization Impressum and the publishing house Tamedia were satisfied with the rulings of the Court of Human Rights. Blick reporter Viktor Dammann commented: "I am glad that the Court of Human Rights agrees with me that a mere question can never be incitement. And questions belong to journalism like flour belongs to bread." The Press Council sees its stance in the Martin Stoll case confirmed. It had judged the publication itself to be justified. In this case, the public interest outweighed the protection of confidentiality. Tamedia had also asserted an overriding public interest in this specific case.
According to Studer, the ruling from Strasbourg could put further pressure on Article 293 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the publication of secret official documents. The article has already attracted a lot of criticism, including from the journalists' organization Impressum: It could not be acceptable that journalists have to break the law in order to do their job.
