Violent Media

Manana Ashkarelishvili, Giorgi Eradze

On June 28th, at 8:00 pm, in the reportage covered by the Imedi news program “terrible crime” Irina Khizanishvili, reporter of the Qronika stated that “14-year-old girl in Africa settlement became the victim of sexual violence. She was raped by her grandfather.” The reporter named the first and last names of the girl, her exact address and the name of her grandfather.

Afterwards, the author of the reportage Zurab Khvistani tells us: “14-year-old girl, we will not name her, was sexually assaulted by her grandfather. The incident took place in Africa settlement in Tbilisi. Neither the neighbors, nor the friends of the sufferer want to talk about it. Presumably, the suspect and the sufferer live in Africa settlement (the journalist names the address of the street and house number) in this corpus (the journalist names the apartment number). The incident took place in this house according to the locals. However, nobody opened the door (journalist shows the house, the street number, apartment and the door). The sufferer and suspect did not show up. As it was turned out the criminal case has already been filed according to article 137 of the Criminal Code. The suspect is still not found. The medical expertise has been conducted on the sufferer. The expertise concluded that the girl became the victim of sexual crime. The friend of the sufferer talks about the occurred. According to the friend, the grandfather tried to have sexual contact with his grandchild numerous times.”

Friend: “She told me that her grandfather wanted to rape her that he was chasing her and telling her that he loves her. I told her to go and tell her mom about it.”

The respondent’s face is covered but the face of the lady standing next to her (supposedly her parent) is visible.

“Grandfather who is suspected in the perverted act is hiding. In case of arrest he might face 15-20-years imprisonment sentence,” – concluded the journalist Zurab Khvistani his reportage.

Article 8 of the Journalistic Ethics Charter of Georgia states: the journalist is obliged to protect rights of the child: to consider the child’s interest in the first place; not to prepare or publish the articles or reportages which will be harmful for them.”

The reporter of Qronika and the author of this reportage Zurab Khvistani are not the signatories of this Charter. Thus, according to the current provision of the Charter, even in case of official appeal to Ethics Charter the proceedings cannot be started against them. However, the Ethics Council can, in case of complaint, study the case and disseminate information on the violations of ethical standards.

However, Imedi journalists Khizanishvili and Khvistani were obliged to consider the requests established by the Code of Conduct of Broadcasters.

According to article 19 of the code, “the broadcaster is obliged to treat every physical and legal individual with due justice and respect.” This reportage was not just and respectful towards the juvenile girl. 

According to article 34 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, “The broadcasters should not violate the private life while preparing and broadcasting the programs. The broadcaster is obliged to keep balance between the freedom of information and legitimate expectation of inviolability of private life.

Article 35 of the same code establishes: “The broadcaster should not violate the private life of individual (paragraph 1); while preparing and transferring the program, intrusion in the private life is admissible only according to the rules established by Georgian legislation (paragraph II). Information on the place of residence, telephone, post or other private contact information can be revealed only in case of public interest (paragraph 4). Intrusion in the private or legal activity can be justified only if it aims protection of legal interests of society, is a proportionate means for achieving this aim and the protected welfare exceeds the inflicted damage.” (paragraph 6).

According to article 44 of the same code, the broadcaster should ensure the inviolability of private life of juvenile. The juvenile does not lose the right of inviolability of private life because of the events developed in school or with parents. The broadcaster should keep the anonymity of juvenile suspects, defendants, convicts, witnesses and sufferers (especially in case of sexual crimes)

The journalists noted that 14-year-old girl became the victim of sexual violence from their grandfather and the expertise has confirmed it. However, they did not have any evidence to confirm this fact.

It should be noted that often while preparing such video reportages, the journalists are helped by the representatives of investigative bodies. According to the current legislation, the investigation material is not public until the verdict is passed. Even in case of rape, the case materials should not be public until the verdict is passed. Despite this, the representatives of main central TV companies still had access to the investigation material. If not so, they would not have information that expertise has been conducted on “14-year old victim of violence” and it confirmed the fact of rape. Of course, if the expertise really concluded such inference.

This is not the first case when the TV Company Imedi violates the private life of individuals.

On March 20th of 2011, the reportages were covered in Qronika regarding the death of an infant. While covering the fact, following data was covered: the name of the individual; age; information on deterioration of health; location; health data; address; family situation. In one of the programs, the reportage entitled: “Infant buried alife?” was broadcast where the reporter Nodar Meladze and the author of the reportage Sopo Khutsishvili state: “34-year old lady is suspected in the death of her infant. According to one of the version, she (the name is indicated) stopped her pregnancy at 28 week by stimulating early birth and then buried the infant with her partner. The police will find out the motives. She was already interrogated by the law-enforcement officials with the status of suspect. She (her name is again indicated) appeals to right to silence.” “Ivanov St… number (the number is indicated). This is the place where 34-year old woman (her name is again indicated) gave birth in home situation. 7 month pregnant woman stimulated early birth and then with her boyfriend buried the child.” Afterwards the lady who is going through the medical treatment in the hospital is shown. The lady tells the journalist: “Do not shoot, please. Please, leave me alone.” The video shows how the woman tries to cover herself with the blanket so the journalist does not film her. Then, the journalist goes on: “We found out about it after the woman (her name is again indicated) started to bleed. She was transferred to the #5 hospital by the ambulance brigade. At first the woman (her last name is indicated) told doctors that she had a miscarriage at two month pregnancy. The medical examination revealed that the patient had just given birth. Then she (again her name is indicated) confessed that she gave birth at home and buried the child… The woman was accompanied by the man who confessed to the law-enforcement and showed the place where he buried the infant with her. (again he first and last name is indicated).”

The journalists indicated that the woman buried the child by herself. The journalists do not indicate where they found out about this fact. According to the article 13 of the Code of Conduct of Broadcasters, “the broadcaster is obliged to take all reasonable measures to ensure the accuracy of facts and source of information.” In this case, the journalists blame the mother in burying the infant without indicating the source of information.

According to paragraph 9 of article 35 of the Code of Broadcasters in order to prepare reportage in the hospital the consent must be attained from both the person with authority and people who are filmed. The reportages show the internal environment of the hospital and the woman from close sight. It is possible that the journalists asked for the permission to film the hospital from the administration but he had no consent from the woman and public broadcasting without her consent represents grave violation of professional standards and the norms established by the Code of Conduct of Broadcasters.