A draft from the Ministry of Justice to expand in the criminal code the existing convictions against defamation with higher fees and special protection to politicians and other high officials has sparked a backlash in the public opinion. While the Ministry has confirmed the presence of the draft as being for the moment just a work-in-progress, if the changes will come to place, experts suggest that will have long-lasting effects on self-censure and the freedom of speech. The new proposed Article, expands from just two points, into 7 points.
The existing Article 120 of the Criminal Code, states in its first point that “the intentional dissemination of statements, as well as any other information, knowing that they are false, that violate the honour and dignity of the person, constitutes a criminal offence and is punishable by a
fine which goes from fifty thousand to one million five hundred thousand LEK.” The first point of the new article introduces important changes: “1. The intentional dissemination of statements about a specific false fact, which is offensive to the person, and/ or any other false information,
which violates the honour and reputation of the person, constitutes a criminal offence, and is punishable by a fine which goes from fifty thousand to one million five hundred thousand LEK and additional punishment of the denial and public pardon of the victim.” In this new version, statements and information are equalized with false fact, and the specification knowing that they are false is eliminated entirely. It introduces also the punishment of the denial and public pardon of the victim.
The second point of the existing article, says that: “The same offence, when committed worldwide, to the detriment of several persons or more than once, constitutes a criminal contravention and is punishable by a fine of fifty thousand to three million LEK.” The new proposed article specifies what worldwide means, and it eliminates the passage more than once:
“If the criminal offence is committed through the press or any other means of communication, media, electronic, through social networks on the Internet, or through a public act, the punishment is increased to double the amount provided in the first paragraph.”
The new article introduces then 5 other points. What is regarded as quite alarming is especially the third point, where special protection is provided to politicians and high-ranking officials: “3. If the offence is directed against a political, administrative or judicial body, or a person in the capacity of a representative of one of these bodies, or a composite authority operating in the college, the penalties provided for in paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be increased by ½.”
Other important remarks are provided in the point 4, where it is suggested that if the action of defamation is made in a state of anger, it has no criminal responsibility when “this state and these actions are caused as a result of an unjust fact of others against him and immediately after it.” Finally, the last segment which has caused concerns is point 6 of the new proposed article, which suggests among others: “6. When the criminal offence of defamation is committed through the press, the responsibility extends to the managing director or, as the case may be, the deputy director, the publisher, and the printer in cases of their knowledge about the criminal fact.” Finally, the seventh and final point, suggests that “7. Criminal proceedings do not prevent the victim from going to the civil court.”
The anti-defamation package case
The government Rama has tried multiple times to introduce laws against defamation which have been criticized not only by the media and civil society but also by multiple international organizations. The most controversial case has been the so-called anti-defamation package with its two bills, which was voted in December 2019 in the Albanian Parliament. Following the block of the package from the President Ilir Meta in January 2020, and after the request made by the Council of Europe to the Venice Commission for its opinion, the package remained in stand-
by. The Venice Commission expressed its opinion on 5 th of June, suggesting that the law package is characterized by ambiguity, and can produce self-censorship and censorship in the media, under the fear of heavy fines. In September of this year the package was reintroduced to the parliament discussion, without taking into account the recommendations of the Venice
Commission. In October, the European Commission, expressed also its concern regarding the anti-defamation package, considering the unchanged version as a possible setback on the freedom of expression. The Commission suggested that the self-regulation in the online-media needs to be assured. In the same period, during a meeting with the Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Linde, Rama said that the opinion of the Venice Commission will be taken into consideration in the final version of the package.
