| Colombia: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Media | ||
| Indicators | Score | |
| 5 | Are media and free speech protected? | 100 |
| 6 | Are citizens able to form print media entities? | 100 |
| 7 | Are citizens able to form broadcast (radio and TV) media entities? | 63 |
| 8 | Can citizens freely use the Internet? | 100 |
| 9 | Are the media able to report on corruption? | 58 |
| 10 | Are the media credible sources of information? | 60 |
| 11 | Are journalists safe when investigating corruption? | 0 |
Indicator and sub-Indicator Details
| 5 | Are media and free speech protected? | |||||||
| 5a: In law, freedom of the media is guaranteed. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: The Constitution states that the right to inform and receive truthful information and to fund mass media is a basic right. It also guarantees the right of rectification and prohibits censorship (art. 20). It also guarantees protection to the liberty and independence of journalists (art. 73). References: Constitución Política de Colombia 1991. art. 20 and 73.
Peer Review Comments: In Colombia, a legal distinction was introduced by the Colombian Constitution between autonomy and independence (Constitution, V.1 Art. 13). The concept of autonomy is tied with the separation of powers and of constitutional origin, while the concept of independence is more concerned with administrative issues and is rooted in law number 142 from 1994, which specifies the general framework of public services. The media regulator is an autonomous institution.
|
||||||||
| 5b: In law, freedom of speech is guaranteed. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: According to the Constitution, freedom of expression (art. 20 and 74) is guaranteed to every person. The Constitution also guarantees the right to inform and to get impartial and truthful information. References: Constitución Política de Colombia 1991. art. 20 and 74.
|
||||||||
| 6 | Are citizens able to form print media entities? | |||||||
| 6a: In practice, the government does not create barriers to form a print media entity. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: According to the Constitution, the state guarantees the creation of media entities (art. 73) and there is no regulation or legal barriers for the creation of print media, however there are unofficial barriers determined by the existence of monopolies on media ownership and by the alignment of print media owners with the government or other groups, which limits the freedom of journalists to report. Thus, it is more difficult for independent print media to survive. References: Interview with Astrid Cañas, Coordinator of Social Sectors Planeta Paz, June 18, 2007. Bogotá. La iniciativa de la comunicación. Colombia: tendencias en la comunicación y contexto. [ LINK ].
|
||||||||
| 6b: In law, where a print media license is necessary, there is an appeal mechanism if a license is denied or revoked. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: No print media license is necessary. References: Costitución Política de Colombia 1991. Art. 20 and 73.
|
||||||||
| 6c: In practice, where necessary, citizens can obtain a print media license within a reasonable time period. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There are no requirements to obtain print media licenses. References: La iniciativa de comunicación. Colombia: tendencias en la comunicación y contexto. [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 6d: In practice, where necessary, citizens can obtain a print media license at a reasonable cost. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There are no requirements to obtain print media licenses. References: La iniciativa de comunicación. Colombia: tendencias en la comunicación y contexto. [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 7 | Are citizens able to form broadcast (radio and TV) media entities? | |||||||
| 7a: In practice, the government does not create barriers to form a broadcast (radio and TV) media entity. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: In practice, the government does not create barriers to create broadcast media entities, however adjudication of licenses, especially for television, can be unfair and not transparent. According to the Constitution, the state guarantees the creation of media entities (art. 73) and fair access to the electromagnetic spectrum (art.75). There is an independent body that oversees the policy and controls the adjuration of concessions to operate TV stations (National Commission on television). The government, through the Ministry of Communications, regulates policy and distribution of concessions for private radio and licenses for community radio and public interest radio (Law 82 1995, Law 79 of 1989). In both cases (radio and TV) adjuration is regulated according to the law 80 of 1993 (Procurement Law). Although broadcast entities can be created, there are informal obstacles. Distribution is not totally fair as big media owners concentrate power, whereas community or independent options face more obstacles. In radio, two main stations dominate around 90 percent of the market nationwide, although there are several local radio stations (1,292 operating in 603 municipalities according to the Ministry of Communications). Those two main radio stations belong to the two biggest economic groups in the country (Santodomingo and Ardila Lulle), which in turn, own the two national private TV stations that represent around 80 percent of the audience (TC 2002). As a consequence, there is unequal distribution of publicity, which usually penalizes independent and local media and deepens its economic problems. In sum, the concentration of media property becomes a big obstacle for the creation of independent or local media. Only in 2007, 76 community radio stations have been closed. In February 2007 there was an important legal advance to protect the creation of community radio stations, a ruling from the Constitutional Court answering to a right of petition from social organizations compelled the Ministry of Communications to open biddings for the distribution of frequencies of community radio stations in capital cities. Such petition had been made for more than 10 years, and the Ministry had denied that there was an over-offering of radio stations in capital cities. The adjuration of concessions in television is criticized because of its lack of transparency, especially in the case of private television, although the process of adjuration is done through open bidding. It is considered that the National Commission on Television is highly politicized, and there have been debates about political influences, unfair distribution of licenses, irregular election of its members, and irregular use of its funds. In sum, the Commission is highly de-legitimized in the public. References: Corporación Transparencia por Colombia. 2002. El sistema nacional de integridad en Colombia: Análisis y resultados del estudio de caso. Cuadernos de Transparencia # 4. Bogotá. Planeta paz. www.planetapaz.org Ministerio de Comunicaciones. www.mincomunicaciones.gov.co La Comisión Nacional de Televisión 1995-2006. [ LINK ] DIARIO OFICIAL. AÑO CXXX . N. 41681. 20, ENERO, 1995. PAG.1 LEY 182 DE 1995 (enero 20) "por la cual se reglamenta el servicio de la televisión y se formulan políticas para su desarrollo, se democratiza el acceso a éste, se conforman la Comisión Nacional de Televisión, se promueven la industria y actividades de televisión , se establecen normas para contratación de los servicios, se reestructuran entidades del sector y se dictan otras disposiciones en materia de telecomunicaciones."
|
||||||||
| 7b: In law, where a broadcast (radio and TV) media license is necessary, there is an appeal mechanism if a license is denied or revoked. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Although there is no specific appeal mechanism for the licensing process, the Constitution contemplates three mechanisms to defend basic human rights, which are often used to appeal public decisions. Those mechanisms are the "Accion de tutela" (resource to protect basic rights or tutelage) (art. 86) to protect individual rights when they have been wounded by action or omission of public authorities. These mechanisms have to be answered in 10 business days. The "Accion de cumplimiento" (art 87) usually used as an appeal mechanism for "tutelas" and "Acciones populares" (art. 88) focused on the protection of collective rights. Additionally, there are mechanisms to appeal any administrative decision, which are reposition and appeal, if these mechanisms are exhausted there are judicial resources such nullity and reparation (jurisdiccion contenciosa administrativa). References: Constitucion Politica de Colombia 1991 art, 86, 87,88. Ley 393 de 1997 (acciones de cumplimiento) (julio 29) Diario Oficial No. 43.096, de 30 de julio de 1997 Por la cual se desarrolla el artículo 87 de la Constitución Política. LEY 472 DE 1998 (agosto 5) Diario Oficial No. 43.357, de 6 de agosto de 1998 "Por la cual se desarrolla el artículo 88 de la Constitución Política de Colombia en relación con el ejercicio de las acciones populares y de grupo y se dictan otras disposiciones."
|
||||||||
| 7c: In practice, where necessary, citizens can obtain a broadcast (radio and TV) media license within a reasonable time period. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: The support to community radio and TV stations has made easier for citizens to access media licenses. However, it is important to note that the coverage and objective audience of community media cannot be compared to mass media, where costs are prohibitive. Social organizations report considerable delays in the adjucation of licenses for community radio stations which hinder the development of the sector. Currently, there are 469 radio stations operating legally and 200 operating without license. The operation of these radio stations without license can be the result of different problems, among them the delays and difficulties in obtaining a license. In what refers to communitarian television stations, it is estimated that the majority of them operate illegally without a license, in part because the process is slow. References: Iniciativa de la comunicación. Colombia: tendencias en la comunicación y contexto. [ LINK ] Monitor Políticas TIC y Derechos en Internet en América Latina y el Caribe. 2005. Informe anual sobre las radios comunitarias en Colombia 2004-2005. [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 7d: In practice, where necessary, citizens can obtain a broadcast (radio and TV) media license at a reasonable cost. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There are three types of television in Colombia: private, public and community. The costs to obtain a private television license are calculated by the National Television Commission according to market standards, and they are very high. For example, the costs of the license for the two main private national television stations in Colombia was about US$90 million, and operators consider that this cost was too high, even though they have the access to publicity and they cover about 80 percent of the total audience. Thus, the costs for private concessions are prohibitive as they have to be sustained with publicity, which given the concentration of media ownership, is difficult to access. In what refers to radio licenses, the costs and regulations are relatively easy to access, thus radio has very big audiences. In Colombia there 1,292 radio stations that operate in 603 municipalities. However, there are 500 municipalities with no radio stations, as these are the less populated and poorer municipalities. In what refers to community radio stations, there are currently 469 operating legally and 200 operating without license. The operation of these radio stations without license can be the result of different problems, among them the difficulties in obtaining a license. References: Interview with Paulo Laserna, Director Caracol Televisión. By Nathalie Jaspar. In TV Latina March 29 2003. [ LINK ] Tellez Garzon, Maria Patricia. 2003. La Televisión Comunitaria en Colombia. O de cómo la perseverancia trae ventura... Ponencia escrita para la Cuarta Conferencia Internacional de Comuniación Social: Perspectivas de la Comuniación para el Cambio Social y el Tercer Encuentro Our Media/Nuestros Medios. Universidad del Norte. Barranquilla, 19-21 de mayo de 2003. OEI. Informe Nacional del Sistema de Cultura Colombia. [ LINK ] Ministerio de Comunicaciones. 2004. Políticas para la Radiodifusión en Colombia Documento de política sectorial # 3.
|
||||||||
| 8 | Can citizens freely use the Internet? | |||||||
| 8a: In practice, the government does not prevent citizens from accessing content published online. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: In general, there are no restrictions for users to access contents online and the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the media guarantee citizens the access to information. The regulation of internet is in the hands of the Ministry of Communications, which will soon become the Ministry of Telecommunications and information technologies. The law 679 of 2001 (to prevent pornography, exploitation, sexual tourism with child) forbids users of global networks of publishing images, texts, documents, or videos related to sexual activities with child. The law also states that the government, through the Ministry of Communications, should encourage practices of self regulation. References: Tunjo, Efrain and Casasbuenas, Julian. 2001. PROYECTO MONITOR POLITICAS DE INTERNET EN AMERICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE PAIS: COLOMBIA INFORME INICIAL SOBRE POLITICAS EN INTERNET Para ser Presentado en el taller Garantizando la Participación Ciudadana en la Era Digital: Políticas Públicas y Derechos en Internet en América Latina y el Caribe [ LINK ] LEY 679 DE 2001 Por medio de la cual se expide un estatuto para prevenir y contrarrestar la explotación, la pornografía y el turismo sexual con menores, en desarrollo del artículo 44 de la Constitución. Freedom House. 2007. Freedom of the Press Report 2007. www.freedomhouse.org
|
||||||||
| 8b: In practice, the government does not censor citizens creating content online. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There are no major constraints on publishing information online. The law 679 of 2001 (to prevent pornography, exploitation, sexual tourism with child) forbids providers or servers, managers, and users of global networks of publishing images, texts, documents, or videos related to sexual activities with child. The Decree 1957 of 1996 created the Governmental Commission for Publishing Information and Services on the Internet, but such commission has not been created in practice. References: Tunjo, Efrain and Casasbuenas, Julian. 2001. PROYECTO MONITOR POLITICAS DE INTERNET EN AMERICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE PAIS: COLOMBIA INFORME INICIAL SOBRE POLITICAS EN INTERNET Para ser Presentado en el taller Garantizando la Participación Ciudadana en la Era Digital: Políticas Públicas y Derechos en Internet en América Latina y el Caribe Freedom House. 2007. Freedom of the Press Report 2007. www.freedomhouse.org
|
||||||||
| 9 | Are the media able to report on corruption? | |||||||
| 9a: In law, it is legal to report accurate news even if it damages the reputation of a public figure. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: According to the Law 190 of 1995 known as the anti-corruption law, it is stated that investigations conducted by journalists on public authorities are a manifestation of the social role of media and of freedom of expression and information. As such, they should be protected and supported by all public functionaries. The Constitution guarantees the right to express and diffuse information and to report truthful and impartial information without censorship. In case information is not accurate, there are penal, civil, and administrative responsibilities, and slander is prohibited. References: LEY 190 DE 1995. (junio 6). por la cual se dictan normas tendientes a preservar la moralidad en la Administración Pública y se fijan disposiciones con el objeto de erradicar la corrupción administrativa. Constitución Política de Colombia 1991. art. 20
|
||||||||
| 9b: In practice, the government or media owners/distribution groups do not encourage self-censorship of corruption-related stories. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Self censorship is common and the current government has accused in some occasions of lack of patriotism opposing journalists or those who report on corruption, violence and human rights. Even though the government does not impose censorship, journalists have to self-censor when they are threatened by armed groups or local politicians, and it works to limit published stories. According to the most recent report of Freedom House in 2007, "Colombia's status improved from Not Free to Partly Free due to the increased willingness of journalists to report critically on political issues including high-level corruption scandals, as well as a gradually improving security situation." However, the increasing role of national media in covering high level corruption is not coupled with similar coverage at the local level. Many times, even if local journalists want to unveil corruption scandals, they are not able to do so because they face in a direct way pressures and threats. In practice, the majority of corruption scandals have appeared after media reports and journalistic investigation are published (TC 2002), but free coverage of corruption-related stories is heavily limited by the influence and threats of armed groups, drug traffickers and local mafias, which lead journalists to self censorship. The concentration of media ownership favors biased coverage towards the government as private mass media are owned by big economic groups, which in turn, are pro-government. Usually, governmental sources prevail when reporting. However, some printed mass media have played an important role in unveiling the details of the most recent and big corruption scandals that link politicians at all levels with paramilitary forces. The weekly magazine Semana won the prize for Best Investigative Journalism Report on Corruption 2006 for these reports. An example of governmental restrictions for journalists to report freely occurred in January 2007, in Barranquilla, a northern city. After the newspaper El Heraldo and the civil organization Pro Transparencia (for transparency) published a report on supposed links between an enterprise contracting with the local government and paramilitary groups, the enterprise presented an "accion de tutela" (resource for the protection of basic rights) considering violated its right to honor and good name. While the case was solved, the judge ordered the newspaper not to publish information on the case. A big controversy appeared, and the court finally denied the "tutela." The Fundacion para la Libertad de Prensa reported an obstruction to journalistic work when on Oct. 18 2006, in the Departments of Cordoba and Sucre at the north of the country, the broadcast of a congressional session on the links between paramilitaries and politicians was suddenly interrupted. Two weeks before, close to 80 percent of the newspaper "El Meridiano" covering the same issue was picked up by unknown people. References: Transparencia por Colombia. 2002. El Sistema Nacional de Integridad en Colombia: Análisis y resultados del estudio de caso.Cuadernos de Transparencia # 4. Bogota. Transparency International. Transparency Watch July 2007. [ LINK ] Freedom House. 2007. Freedom of the Press Report. www.freedomhouse.org INFORME SOBRE LA LIBERTAD DE PRENSA EN COLOMBIA. Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa. 2007. [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 9c: In practice, there is no prior government restraint (pre-publication censoring) on publishing corruption-related stories. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is an expressed constitutional prohibition of censorship, however, there are many de facto filters on publications, such as threats coming from armed groups, the fear that impunity will prevent effective investigation of corruption cases, or the fear that there will be a rejection from the government when information does not favor it. The attacks on journalists usually occur once information had been published, showing that official censorship is not as strong as other obstacles for the journalists' work, such as self- censorship. At the local level, it is common to find that politicians accuse local media of being their enemies. A recent example of the indirect pressures that restrict media coverage appeared in May 14, 2007, when the Minister of Defense acknowledged that since two years ago the national police was illegally intercepting phone calls of government functionaries, opposition members and journalists. The acknowledgement came after Semana, the weekly magazine, unveiled some of the intercepted communications, but up to this date, there has not been further clarification about who ordered the interception beyond the imprisonment of some police members. Some journalists denounce that there is censorship by police and military forces when they impede the access to areas where there have been guerrilla or paramilitary attacks or public order problems. References: Transparencia por Colombia. 2002. El Sistema Nacional de Integridad en Colombia: Análisis y resultados del estudio de caso.Cuadrenos de Transparencia # 4. Bogota. Freedom House. 2007. "Report Freedom of the Press 2007" . www.freedomhouse.org INFORME SOBRE LA LIBERTAD DE PRENSA EN COLOMBIA. Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa. 2007. [ LINK ] Medios para la paz. 2006. Diagnóstico sobre la libertad de prensa en Colombia julio-septiembre de 2006. [ LINK ] Ayala Osorio, German. 2006. El periodismo en Colombia: una historia de compromisos con poderes tradicionales. En: Universita Volumen 1, Numero 3, julio 2006
Peer Review Comments: I agree that Colombian journalists face threats; however, they are not (at least not directly) threatened by the government.
|
||||||||
| 10 | Are the media credible sources of information? | |||||||
| 10a: In law, print media companies are required to disclose their ownership. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is no specific requirement for print media to disclose their ownership, and as there is no licensing requirement as that existent for broadcast media, there is no mechanism to publicize print media ownership. References: Constitución Política de Colombia 1991.
|
||||||||
| 10b: In law, broadcast (radio and TV) media companies are required to disclose their ownership. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Although there are no specific regulations requiring broadcast media to disclose their ownership, the selection process for acquiring licenses requires them to disclose ownership. According the Procurement Law, radio and TV licenses are selected through a transparent and public process. The law also states that all procurement processes are public, and if there is a request, there can be a public audience for adjudication (art. 273 Constitution). If not, the decisions should be communicated to all bidders, published in two printed media with wide circulation and communicated to the Chambers of Commerce. Thus, when communicating the decisions on the adjudication of licenses, the ownership of broadcast media becomes public. References: Ley 80 de 1993 (octubre 28). Por la cual se expide el Estatuto General de Contratación de la Administración Pública. Art. 35
|
||||||||
| 10c: In practice, journalists and editors adhere to strict, professional practices in their reporting. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: On different occasions, journalists from different media have signed agreements about codes of conduct, however in practice, there are many obstacles to abide to those codes. According to Freedom House, there is a widespread perception that journalists accept bribes in exchange for biased coverage. As local journalists discussed in a forum about media coverage before the 2006 Congressional elections, bribes are acccepted in many cases to avoid physical harm, to avoid economic losses (in terms of publicity) or to directly get an economic gain. In other cases, media owners or directors prevent the journalists from covering the news in a proper way. References: Freedom House. 2007. "Freddom of the Press 2007" www.freedomhouse.org www.flip.org.co Crítico panorama para el trabajo informativo durante las elecciones en 2006. Primera sesión del Seminario Los medios de información en Colombia y el proceso electoral 2006. Responsabilidades y retos para la protección de la información y los periodistas. Diciembre 9 de 2005. .
|
||||||||
| 10d: In practice, during the most recent election, political parties or independent candidates received fair media coverage. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: The most recent election was the presidential election held in May 2006, in which for the first time in Colombia, re-election was permitted. The electoral legislation (Law 130 of 1994) guarantees TV space to all political parties. After re-election was approved, the congress issued another law known as the Electoral Gurantees Law (Law 996 of 2005), which stated that the private operators and concessionaries of private radio and TV must guarantee pluralism, fair coverage, and truthful information about presidential campaigns. This law was criticized that it was not clear what fear coverage meant, and some considered it unfair to give the same coverage to all candidates, despite their electoral power and popularity. During the May 2006 presidential election, the then president and candidate for re-election Alvaro Uribe had an advantage over his adversaries. The broadcast of Comunal Councils (a space in which he along with his cabinet meets with community representatives to discuss and suggest solutions to local problems) on the institutional channel, as well as his condition as president, favored him in media coverage. The Media Observatory of the Sabana University analyzed the coverage for candidates during the campaign in two TV news programs on the two main private TV stations as well as the main national newspaper and one regional newspaper. The analysis concluded that the media ignored background information on the candidates in 78.8 percent of news about them. Additionally, they didn't give information on pros or cons of campaign proposals in 72.6 percent and 87.2 percent of times respectively. The IPC, a think tank in Medellin, counted the times that each candidate appeared in three different newspaper finding that candidate-president Uribe got the majority of the reports. References: Votebien. Com. [ LINK ] "Muy mal librados."
|
||||||||
| 10e: In practice, political parties and candidates have equitable access to state-owned media outlets. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: According to Law 130/1994 all candidates have free access to state-owned media during the 30 days previous to the election. For the most recent election held in 2006, it was noted that the double condition of Alvaro Uribe as president and candidate for re-election gave him an advantage over his adversaries while using institutional propaganda to his advantage. It is important to note, however, that for this election, the congress issued a new law known as "Law of Electoral Guarantees" in which "Equal coverage" in presidential campaigns was guaranteed. This norm went beyond regulating institutional spaces that the government provides to candidates and referred to fair coverage in general. In practice, although all parties do have access to media, coverage is unequal. At the regional level, sometimes majors and governors can exert stronger pressures than at the national level through institutional propaganda. The opinions of opposition and independent candidates do appear in public media, sometimes even more than in private media, given that there are more opinion and analysis spaces in public media, although the ratings are lower for public TV stations. References: Votebien. Com. [ LINK ] "Muy mal librados." Corporación Transparencia por Colombia. 2002. El sistema nacional de integridad en Colombia: Análisis y resultados del Estudio de caso. Cuadernos de Transparencia # 4. Bogotá.
|
||||||||
| 11 | Are journalists safe when investigating corruption? | |||||||
| 11a: In practice, in the past year, no journalists investigating corruption have been imprisoned. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There has been a slight improvement in terms of security for journalists as there have been less attacks on journalists in Colombia (Colombia is no longer the first place in the number of journalists murdered in Latin America). However, in 2006 Colombia was the second country with the highest number of attacks to journalists. On Nov. 19, 2006 the journalist Freddy Muñoz from the TV station TELESUR was detained. Rubiel Lis Velasco and Griseldino Yafue Guetoto from the indigenous radio station Uxwal were detained by the police in the municipality of Caldono, Cauca department. They were accused for collaboration with guerrilla groups and rebellion and were finally released after nine days. References: Freedom House. 2007. Freedom of the Press Report 2007. www.freedomhouse.org INFORME SOBRE LA LIBERTAD DE PRENSA EN COLOMBIA. Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa. 2007. [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 11b: In practice, in the past year, no journalists investigating corruption have been physically harmed. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: On Aug. 16 2006 Jorge Enrique Rojas and the photographer Mauricio Pinzón from the regional newspaper El Pais were kidnapped by the FARC and released two days later. Germán Hernández Vera, judicial journalist and director of the regional newspaper Diario del Huila published an article on Feb. 15, 2007 about deviation of public resources in the public hospital of the city of Neiva. On Feb. 27 the journalist received a phone threat. In March 2007, Dario Arizmendi, director of Caracol Radio, one of two most important private radio stations, went into exile after he received threats from an unknown group. Another nine journalists have gone into exile in similar conditions. It is the case of Herbín Hoyos, presenter of a program called "Voices of Kidnapped" threatened by a mysterous group called Frente de Acción y Justicia por la Libertad y la Democracia that also threatened Hollman Morris and presented him as a FARC (the biggest guerrilla group in the country) collaborator. Between May 14 and June 6, Afranio Franco, an independent journalist, received death threats attributed to the FARC. On May 20, Rodrigo Callejas from a local radio station in the town of Fresno also received death treats from the FARC. On May 10 in Tulua (southwest) some members of the military forces expelled, using shots to the air, a group of 12 journalists that had arrived to cover the death of a group of militaries in a FARC attack. Two days later, a group of police hit four journalists in Barranquilla (north) and one of them from a local radio station in the town of Marialabaja resulted injured. References: Reporteros sin Fronteras [ LINK ]. Diagnóstico de la libertad de presa en Colombia.Julio - septiembre de 2006. Medios para la paz. [ LINK ] Protection online. www.protectiononline.org
|
||||||||
| 11c: In practice, in the past year, no journalists investigating corruption have been killed. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: On Aug. 10, 2006 Milton Fabián Sánchez, who conducted community programs in a local radio station in the town of Yumbo (north), was shot dead. It is suspected that the murder was related with his denounces on networks for local distribution of drugs. On Aug. 22 Atilano Perez, director of a program in a local radio station in Marialabaja (north), was shot dead. He had reported on a probable infiltration of paramilitaries in state agencies. Gustavo Rojas Gabalo from a local radio station in Montería, Córdoba, died on March 20 after an attempted murder on Feb. 4. References: Reporteros sin Fronteras [ LINK ]. Diagnóstico de la libertad de presa en Colombia.Julio - septiembre de 2006. Medios para la paz. [ LINK ] Protection online. www.protectiononline.org
|
||||||||
Global Integrity uses a