Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards

45 human rights organisations have launched a joint appeal to drop criminal charges against the journalist Ali Anouzla in Morocco. He appeared in court on February 18th, but his trial was postponed again to May 20th. Anouzla, journalist and editor of the Arabic edition of the news website Lakome, was arrested on 17 September 2013 in connection with a 13 September news article published on the Arabic edition of Lakome, which included a link to a video posted on the website of the leading Spanish daily El País. The video, embedded from YouTube, allegedly sharply criticized King Mohammed VI of Morocco, accusing him of despotism and corruption, and called on Moroccan youth to engage in “Jihad”. YouTube has since removed the video. Anouzla was released on bail on 25 October. Ali Anouzla was indicted for “glorifying terrorism” under Article 218-2 of the Moroccan Penal Code and “materially assisting” under Article 218-6.

With respect to the case the NGO statement recalls that:

Firstly, …that the media plays a crucial role in informing the public about acts of terrorism and its capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. In this regard, journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.

Second, the article did not endanger national security. The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, which are frequently cited by the UN human rights bodies and domestic courts, set out that an expression can be criminalised as a threat to national security only if three conditions are met: 1. the expression must is intended to incite imminent violence; 2. It is likely to incite such violence; and 3. there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence. Vague notions such as the provision of assisting communications in terrorism or extremism, the ’glorification’ or the ’promotion’ of terrorism or extremism, and the mere repetition of statements made by terrorists do not themselves constitute incitation and must not be penalised. The facts in this case do not support the accusation of a terrorism crime. Ali Anouzla did not intent to incite immediate violence. Neither were his statements likely to incite violence.

Third, the journalist was reporting about the video which raised issues of public concerns. International law recognises that the media should be able to report on issues of public concern even when the underlying issues about which they are reporting relate to threats to national security. The Johannesburg Principles referred above set out that “Expression may not be prevented or punished merely because it transmits information issued by or about an organization that a government has declared threatens national security or a related interest.” Ali Anouzla was reporting about the video. He did not endorse the statements in it. Rather he was critical to it.

The 45 organisations declare that the indictment of Ali Anouzla is unsupported by the evidence and unfounded under international law. It amounts to a violation of the journalist’s freedom of expression and his right to inform the public. Therefore they call for charges against Anouzla to be dropped, the end of judicial harassment against Anouzla and the ban on both Arabic and French-language versions of Lakome, blocked in Morocco since 17 October, to be lifted immediately.

The list of NGOs can be found at: Morocco – Human rights organizations call for charges against journalist Ali Anouzla to be dropped.