A former war correspondent goes before the international war crimes tribunal here on Thursday to fight for the right to remain silent — and has the backing of leading media organisations. Jonathan Randal (69) a veteran war reporter for the Washington Post, was summoned by the tribunal earlier this year but refused to testify on a point of principle.
Randal argues that a journalist relies on trust for gathering information in difficult circumstances, like war, and that trust would be threatened if a reporter can be subpoenaed by an international court.
Randal has refused to give evidence in the trial against former Bosnian Serb deputy prime minister Radoslav Brdjanin and army chief Momir Talic, accused of the persecution and expulsion of more than 100 000 non-Serbs from northwestern Bosnia during the 1992-95 war.
In an interview with Randal in 1993 published in the Washington Post, Brdjanin had advocated the expulsion of non-Serbs.
Randal’s lawyers will argue that Randal’s presence in the courtroom is unnecessary, as all he knows or saw or heard has been transcribed in the story.
They also believe the tribunal must set strict guidelines for journalists, along the lines of rules established for Red Cross officials, state officials, interpreters and defence lawyers, who cannot be forced to betray confidentiality.
Leading US lawyer Floyd Abrams will represent Randal at Thursday’s hearing and present arguments on his behalf from major media groups including the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, the BBC and news organisations from the former Yugoslavia.
The hearing on Randal is a one-day affair, but a ruling will not necessarily be handed down on Thursday.
If the court rejects the arguments, Randal could face contempt of court after a lengthy judicial process and possible imprisonment for up to seven years or a fine of up to 100 000 euros (dollars).
Among the groups backing Randal is international media watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders), whose head, Robert Menard said recently: ”If people start thinking that behind every reporter stands an international judge, that will be the end of our profession.”
The ruling is likely to be seen as a legal precedent, which could have ramifications for the new International Criminal Court also based in The Hague.
Several reporters have testified before the tribunal, though, among them Jacky Rowland and Jeremy Bowen of the BBC and Ed Vuillamy of The Observer.
”I believe that journalists are essentially witnesses to the events they report on,” Rowland said in August.
”I believe that our ability to record pictures and transmit them almost instantaneously presents a more immediate and tangible threat to war criminals than the possibility that somewhere down the line we could testify against them.
”It is our work as journalists that puts us in the most danger.” – Sapa-AFP