115th CONGRESS Printed for the use of the 

1st Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Systematic Attacks on Journalists in 

Russia and Other Post-Soviet States 

OCTOBER 4, 2017 

Joint Briefing of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

and the House Freedom of the Press Caucus 

Washington: 2017 
(2) 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

234 Ford House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

202–225–1901 

csce@mail.house.gov 

http://www.csce.gov 

@HelsinkiComm 

Legislative Branch Commissioners 

HOUSE 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, NEW JERSEY

Co-Chairman 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, FLORIDA

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, ALABAMA

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, TEXAS

STEVE COHEN, TENNESSEE

RICHARD HUDSON, NORTH CAROLINA

RANDY HULTGREN, ILLINOIS

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS

GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN

SENATE 

ROGER WICKER, MISSISSIPPI, 

Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. MARYLAND

JOHN BOOZMAN, ARKANSAS

CORY GARDNER, COLORADO

MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA

JEANNE SHAHEEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE

THOM TILLIS, NORTH CAROLINA

TOM UDALL, NEW MEXICO

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND

Executive Branch Commissioners 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[II]
(3) 

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 

Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in Finland on August 

1, 1975, by the leaders of 33 European countries, the United States and Canada. As of 

January 1, 1995, the Helsinki process was renamed the Organization for Security and 

Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. The membership of the OSCE has expanded to 56 participating States, reflecting the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. 

The OSCE Secretariat is in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings of the participating States’ permanent representatives are held. In addition, specialized seminars and 

meetings are convened in various locations. Periodic consultations are held among Senior 

Officials, Ministers and Heads of State or Government. 

Although the OSCE continues to engage in standard setting in the fields of military 

security, economic and environmental cooperation, and human rights and humanitarian 

concerns, the Organization is primarily focused on initiatives designed to prevent, manage 

and resolve conflict within and among the participating States. The Organization deploys 

numerous missions and field activities located in Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the 

Caucasus, and Central Asia. The website of the OSCE is: <www.osce.org>. 

ABOUT THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki 

Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to monitor and encourage 

compliance by the participating States with their OSCE commitments, with a particular 

emphasis on human rights. 

The Commission consists of nine members from the United States Senate, nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the Departments of 

State, Defense and Commerce. The positions of Chair and Co-Chair rotate between the 

Senate and House every two years, when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff 

assists the Commissioners in their work. 

In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates relevant information to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening hearings, issuing reports that 

reflect the views of Members of the Commission and/or its staff, and providing details 

about the activities of the Helsinki process and developments in OSCE participating 

States. 

The Commission also contributes to the formulation and execution of U.S. policy 

regarding the OSCE, including through Member and staff participation on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings. Members of the Commission have regular contact with 

parliamentarians, government officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and private individuals from participating States. The website of the Commission 

is: <www.csce.gov>. 

[III]
(4) 

Systematic Attacks on Journalists in 

Russia and Other Post-Soviet States 

OCTOBER 4, 2017 

Page 

PARTICIPANTS 

Hon. Steve Chabot, Co-Chair, House Freedom of the Press Caucus .......................................... 1 

Hon. Adam Schiff, Co-Chair, House Freedom of the Press Caucus ............................................ 6 

Jordan Warlick, Staff Associate, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe ........... 2 

Thomas Kent, President and CEO, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ...................................... 3 

Amanda Bennett, Director, Voice of America ............................................................................... 5 

Nina Ognianova, Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator, Committee to Protect 

Journalists ................................................................................................................................... 8 

Karina Orlova, Washington, D.C. Correspondent, Echo of Moscow ........................................... 13 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statement of Nina Ognianova ....................................................................................... 23 

[IV]
(1) 

Systematic Attacks on Journalists in 

Russia and Other Post-Soviet States 

October 4, 2017 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Washington, DC 

The briefing was held at 3:09 p.m. in Room SVC-208, Senate Visitors Center, Washington, DC, Hon. Steve Chabot, Co-Chair, House Freedom of the Press Caucus, moderating. 

Panelists present: Hon. Steve Chabot, Co-Chair, House Freedom of the Press Caucus; 

Hon. Adam Schiff, Co-Chair, House Freedom of the Press Caucus; Jordan Warlick, Staff 

Associate, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Thomas Kent, President 

and CEO, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Amanda Bennett, Director, Voice of America; 

Nina Ognianova, Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator, Committee to Protect 

Journalists; and Karina Orlova, Washington, D.C. Correspondent, Echo of Moscow. 

Mr. CHABOT. Things don’t work as well here on the Senate side, so I couldn’t get the 

mic to work. [Laughter.] But good afternoon. On behalf of the House Freedom of the Press 

Caucus, I want to thank the Helsinki Commission, all of you, for being here. And I want 

to thank Congressman Schiff as well. He and I restarted, as you may know, the caucus 

to draw attention to international press freedom because a free and independent press is 

a key ingredient to any functioning democracy. We must continue to draw attention to 

this vital freedom around the globe. 

Our friends at Voice of America, and at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the 

BBG, know well the importance of a free and independent press in Russia, and throughout Eastern Europe for that matter. This is a timely discussion. Congressman Schiff and 

I strongly agree that a free and independent press in Russia and Eastern Europe is more 

important now than ever. It’s absolutely necessary to counter an increasingly bold 

Vladimir Putin, who is attempting to undermine the fourth estate. 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of the post-Soviet states have embraced 

democracy, and with that, a free press. It’s the job of journalists to speak truth to power 

and hold governments accountable to democratic ideals. As we all know, Mr. Putin is hellbent on destroying the independent press. Why? Because it is a threat to his very rule. 

And there’s no question that Putin is bound and determined to extend his power and 
2 

influence to many now-free countries that were once under the yoke of the former Soviet 

Union. 

Looking further than Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which demonstrate that Putin will 

stop at nothing to reconstitute the former Russian empire, destroying the free press is an 

integral part of his plan. Putin has never really accepted or respected the sovereignty of 

our ally Ukraine. After unilaterally invading Crimea, Putin held a staged referendum to 

claim that Crimea wanted to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Russian propaganda played a significant role in the annexation, and still continues to do so. 

More generally, Putin’s propaganda machine provides cover for other Russian sympathizers throughout Eastern Europe. His continued manipulation of the press only leads 

to increased propaganda that is used to give credibility to his allies throughout the region. 

And in Russia itself, pro-Moscow voices are often the same voices that rely on corruption 

and aim to silence dissent. That’s why a strong, independent and free press is a natural 

obstacle to Putin’s grand strategy. 

We must continue to support efforts by the BBG and VOA, the Voice of America, to 

provide a balanced and comprehensive platform in the region. By representing American 

democracy to the very populations Putin aims to control, we are able to provide tools for 

independent thought. This further cultivates support for independent journalism. I’m 

pleased to see that programs like Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are being given 

renewed attention by American policymakers like myself. They broadcast in 28 languages 

to countries throughout Eastern Europe, Russia and other distant parts of the globe. They 

give independent journalists a voice where it’s needed most. 

These are precisely the kinds of broadcasters Western democracy needs if we are to 

effectively halt Putin’s ambitions. Putin must not be allowed to win the battle of ideas 

in Eastern Europe. And he should not be allowed to quash dissent at home. That’s why 

I, along with my colleagues in the House, continue to voice our support for a free and 

independent press, both in Eastern Europe and in Russia. 

We have an excellent panel here today to help us better understand the situation on 

the ground and the challenges that journalists face in Russia and throughout the former 

Soviet Union. I hope our panelists can shed further light on this situation and provide 

some potential solutions. And as I said, it is certainly a distinguished panel here this 

afternoon. I’m sure that a whole lot will be learned by an awful lot of people. And as I 

said, this is a very critical matter and it couldn’t be more timely. 

So thank you very much, panel, for being here. And thank you all for being here. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARLICK. And thank you, Representative Chabot. 

To those in attendance, welcome and thank you for coming to this joint briefing of 

the Helsinki Commission and the House Freedom of the Press Caucus on ‘‘Attacks 

Against Journalists in Russia and Other Post-Soviet States.’’ My name is Jordan Warlick, 

and I’m responsible for media freedom issues at the Helsinki Commission. As some of you 

may know, the Helsinki Commission was created to monitor compliance with the principles of democracy and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. 

When authoritarian regimes systematically attack and silence the press, they violate 

these commitments. These kinds of attacks take many forms—online and verbal harassment, physical assault, politically motivated imprisonment, and even murder. There have 

been some particularly disturbing cases so far this year. Russian journalist Yulia 
3 

Latynina fled Moscow after several attacks on her home. Well-known Azerbaijani blogger 

Mehman Huseynov was jailed and severely beaten in prison. Dmitry Popkov and Nikolai 

Andrushchenko were tragically murdered for their work as journalists in Russia. However, for the few well-known cases that garner attention, there are many more lesserknown victims. 

A free press is an indispensable part of democracy. It keeps citizens informed and 

holds governments accountable. I look forward to a discussion of the pressures journalists 

experience in the region, why the situation has deteriorated, and what can be done to 

reverse these troubling trends. We are grateful to have such distinguished panelists with 

us here today, and we look forward to your insights on this subject. 

First, we’ll hear from Tom Kent, president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, who 

joins us all the way from RFE/RL’s headquarters in Prague. Before RFE/RL, Tom had an 

impressive 40-year career with the Associated Press, where he served in roles including 

Moscow bureau chief, international editor, world services editor, and standards editor. 

Following Tom, we have Amanda Bennett, director at Voice of America. Amanda is 

a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, with experience at a number of publications, including 

most recently as executive editor of Bloomberg News and editor of the Philadelphia 

Inquirer. As director of VOA and a seasoned journalist herself, Amanda’s very well placed 

to discuss the dangers that confront the media. 

Next we’ll hear from Nina Ognianova, Europe and Central Asia program coordinator 

at the Committee to Protect Journalists [CJP]. Leading advocacy work and fact-finding 

missions at CJP for 15 years, Nina has exceptional regional expertise that will be very 

valuable to our discussion today. 

Finally, Karina Orlova will tell us her story. She is the Washington, D.C. correspondent for Echo of Moscow, a regular contributor to The American Interest, and has 

first-hand experience of the dangers journalists face in the region. 

We will conclude with a question and answer session. In addition to questions from 

the audience, we may also be taking questions from Facebook Live. And if you’re tweeting 

at this event, please also use our handle, #HelsinkiCommission and 

#InternationalPressFreedom. 

I’d like to turn now to our first panelist, Tom Kent, who will provide us with an overview of the situation for journalists in Russia and the region, and the particular threats 

that RFE/RL journalists face. 

Tom, when you’re ready. 

Mr. KENT. Thank you, Jordan. Good afternoon, everyone. Certainly, we welcome the 

reestablishment of the House Freedom of the Press Caucus and the willingness of Representative Schiff and Chabot to serve as co-chairs. And we thank the Helsinki Commission for its participation in today’s events. 

Fair and representative societies simply cannot exist without independent fact-based 

journalism. We do our best in difficult circumstances. I am President and CEO of Radio 

Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a private news corporation funded by Congress. We do local 

news and investigative reporting in 23 countries. We’re based in Prague, right up against 

the time zones and the nations we serve—the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, and Iran, 

Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We work in 25 languages, on television, radio, the web, and 

social networks. 
4 

The law requires RFE/RL to provide professional, independent news reporting. At the 

same time, we promote freedom of expression, clean government, and tolerance. These are 

universal values. Even dictatorships acknowledge them, if only on paper. When societies 

are open and just, when journalism is honest, the world benefits from more understanding 

and less conflict. It follows that the rights and work of journalists reporting the news 

must be respected, yet this is far from the case. Perhaps because our reporters focus so 

much on human rights and the scourges of corruption and extremism, RFE/RL’s staff is 

under pressure every day. 

Our staff faces physical attack, threats to themselves and their relatives, detention 

and imprisonment, and unrelenting assault from government and extremist media. Yet 

we continue to provide something our audience obviously wants. In the first half of this 

year, visits to our websites were up 13 percent from the year before. People watched our 

videos 380 million times on YouTube alone, almost twice as many as in 2016. Much of 

our work is in the Russian-speaking world. Our audiences there want news beyond what 

comes from Kremlin-controlled media. 

We look for viewers who favor clean government, economic freedom, and better relations with the West. To this audience, we offered a dozen different Russian-language news 

brands. They include the new Current Time television and digital network, an RFE/RL 

project produced in cooperation with VOA, 24/7 all in Russian. RFE/RL offers separate 

news services for countries and regions throughout the post-Soviet space not only in Russian, but with the authenticity of local languages like Armenian, Georgian, Tajik and 

Kyrgyz, to name a few. 

Inside Russia, we face severe limitations in TV and radio distribution. This, despite 

the fact that Russian media distribute freely in the United States. Still, millions of Russians follow our content. Apparently, the authorities recognize our impact. We face 

growing obstacles to our work. Our correspondents inside Russia have been beaten and 

harassed. In Russian-controlled Crimea, our contributor Mykola Semena was convicted 

just last week of treason-like charges and banned from public activity for three years. In 

the Donbas region of Ukraine, pro-Russian separatists are holding our contributor 

Stanislav Aseyev, accusing him of espionage. 

Moscow Television on some days accuses us of being master spies and propagandists, 

on others of being boring and incompetent. Here’s one blast at us from Russian political 

commentator Dmitry Kiselyov. 

[Video clip in Russian.] 

Mr. KENT. And yet, despite the pressures, we continue to operate with a bureau in 

Moscow and correspondents across the country. We have been through hard times before. 

We trust we will endure even through the latest trough in U.S.-Russian relations. It’s 

important to note that attacks on our work in post-Soviet nations are hardly limited to 

Russia. In Ukraine, our investigative TV program, called ‘‘Schemes,’’ regularly reports on 

corruption. Last month, security agents attacked ‘‘Schemes’’ reporters covering a lavish 

wedding celebration, a private event that appeared to make use of government resources. 

In a clip we’ll show you, you can hear our reporter, Mykhailo Tkach, the man with the 

cellphone, shouting ‘‘shcho ty robysh’’—‘‘what are you doing’’—as one of the agents forces 

our cameraman, Borys Trotsenko, to the ground. 

[A video clip in Ukrainian is shown.] 

Mr. KENT. Trotsenko got a concussion in that. 
5 

Also, in post-Soviet countries our contributor, Saparmamed Nepeskuliev, is in his 

third year of imprisonment in Turkmenistan for his reporting. RFE/RL is suing Azerbaijan in the European Court of Human Rights in a case stemming from the forcible closure of our bureau there in 2014. There are many other abuses of our bureaus and our 

people. 

Despite the many problems we face, we accomplish a lot. In every country across our 

geographies, our local staff and contributors take substantial risks, covering the news for 

their fellow citizens through us. They believe in press and personal freedom. They know 

their work has impact. I thank you for your support. 

Ms. WARLICK. Thank you very much, Tom, for your presentation and those powerful 

videos. We very much admire the work that RFE/RL does in that part of the world. 

Amanda. 

Ms. BENNETT. Thank you, Jordan, and thank you to Representatives Schiff and 

Chabot and the Freedom of the Press Caucus for convening this briefing along with the 

Helsinki Commission. 

I’d like to begin by sharing the experience of VOA journalist Fatima Tlisova, who in 

2007 was compelled to leave Russia. She had faced harassment, intimidation and imprisonment while covering terrorist attacks, hostage situations, corruption and abuse of power 

by the military and police in Chechnya and the Caucasus region. 

FATIMA TLISOVA. [From video.] I see my job as a mission. The Russian security attack 

physically. One of the instances, at 2 a.m. I woke up. I was swelling. I was bigger than 

my father. And I thought, it’s probably poison. I was afraid to go to the local hospital. 

I woke up my kids and asked the taxi driver to take me to my parent’s village. My mom 

was a doctor. And I knew that if I got to her alive I’m going to survive. So as you see, 

I’m alive. 

Ms. BENNETT. So why am I showing you a 10-year-old experience? Because it’s happening again. As Jordan mentioned, Fatima’s story sounds eerily familiar to the story of 

Russian journalist Yulia Latynina, who recently wrote in The Moscow Times that she was 

forced to flee Russia because the Kremlin is losing control over the violence. In July, a 

strange gas was released into her home. The police watched her. Her car was set on fire. 

And this came a year after an unknown assailant threw feces on her, another common 

tactic against independent journalists. We are also seeing the Russian Government 

tighten access to reliable information and crack down on internet freedoms. In August, 

Putin banned online messaging, as well as the VPNs commonly used to circumvent censorship. 

It is in this environment that we—the Voice of America—operate. Our mandate from 

Congress is to bring America’s story to the world, to explain U.S. policies, and to foster 

responsible discussion with accurate, objective, and comprehensive journalism. Like RFE, 

we are 100 percent funded by Congress and 100 percent independent. Along with RFE/ 

RL and the three other networks, we comprise international media under the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Ours is a mission to promote freedom and democracy. VOA 

is the largest network for BBG, and it broadcasts in 47 languages around the world, 

reaching an estimated 234 million people on a weekly basis. In Russia and the post-Soviet 

space, we broadcast in 11 languages, including Russian and English. This past year, we 

had the biggest audience increase in our history in radio, TV, web, digital media. 

So VOA’s Russian Service has been in operation since 1947. 
6 

Ms. WARLICK. Excuse me, Amanda. Apologies for interrupting. I’d like to take a 

moment to welcome Representative Schiff to the briefing and give him the floor to make 

some remarks. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity to join you today. And 

I want to say thank you to the Helsinki Commission for partnering with the Press 

Freedom Caucus to host this important event on threats to press freedom in Russia and 

post-Soviet states. I’ll be very brief, so that we can get back to hearing from our distinguished panel. But I’d just like to say a few words on why I think this topic is so timely 

and important. 

Every day journalists risk their lives to bring news and information to people around 

the world. They’re often the first to report at the frontlines of conflict zones, the first to 

uncover corruption, and the first to suffer the backlash when powerful forces would rather 

keep something hidden. They often take great risk to do their jobs, facing imprisonment, 

intimidation, or worse from regimes and other powerful forces that do not want their 

stories told. 

When I founded the International Press Freedom Caucus, along with my colleague 

Mike Pence, in 2006, one of our first actions was writing to Vladimir Putin in response 

to the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist who reported on the war in 

Chechnya at great personal risk, and who was ultimately murdered in her apartment 

building. At the time, we noted that she was only the latest Russian journalist to meet 

a violent end, and to ask that the Russian Government investigate her murder and punish 

those responsible. 

It will come as no surprise to any of you that few observers believe her case was truly 

investigated and those who ordered or acceded her assassination were held to account. 

And as only one of six journalists working for the independent Russian newspaper Novaya 

Gazeta murdered in recent years. This is the same newspaper which earlier this year 

broke the story of Chechnya’s anti-gay campaign, in which gay men were detained and 

tortured to death. As our panelists have described, the environment for free media in 

Russia has only degraded since Mr. Pence and I formed this caucus. 

Television consists largely of state-run propaganda outlets, while independent media 

and investigative reporting is systematically suppressed. For instance, when RBC Media 

Group published articles based on the Panama Papers leaks, which detailed aspects of the 

finances of powerful figures close to Putin, top editors were dismissed and replaced by 

individuals from state-run outlets. This is the norm in Putin’s Russia, and, regrettably, 

the same approach to press freedom is common in many other post-Soviet states. 

I have repeatedly highlighted the case of Saparmamed Nepeskuliev, a journalist in 

Turkmenistan, who remains imprisoned because of his courage reporting from that 

country, one of the worst in the world for press freedom. I’m proud that the Press 

Freedom Caucus continues its bipartisan work with Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio 

serving with me as co-chair. Unfortunately, there remain far too many nations in which 

press freedom and the safety and well-being of journalists is under daily threat. Too many 

journalists are jailed for reporting the truth or telling stories that the powerful or violent 

would rather keep in the shadows. 

And I want to thank, again, you all for being here, and the wonderful panel that’s 

been assembled to share their important work and research. And I thank you. [Applause.] 
7 

Ms. WARLICK. Thank you, Representative Schiff for your remarks, and for your work 

in reviving the House Freedom of the Press Caucus. 

Amanda, please go ahead and continue. 

Ms. BENNETT. Thank you, Congressman Schiff. 

VOA’s Russian Service has been in operation since 1947. So threats and intimidation 

are nothing new for us. But in recent years we have seen increased harassment by Russian authorities, unexplained bureaucratic delays, and increasingly negative public rhetoric about VOA’s journalism. For example, in January, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov 

publicly berated a VOA stringer in Moscow, accusing him of lying about Russia’s reaction 

to a U.S. intelligence report. Watch Mr. Lavrov here accuse our VOA stringer of promoting lies and junk. 

[A video clip in Russian is shown.] 

Ms. BENNETT. In this clip, which went out nationally, he accused our stringer of 

lying. The problem was, Mr. Lavrov was wrong. He was reading the wrong story. And the 

error was so egregious that later the foreign ministry spokeswoman posted on the 

stringer’s Facebook page an acknowledgement that they had misrepresented the facts. 

And it’s the first sort-of apology that any of us can remember. 

There’s also financial intimidation. In August this year, two VOA stringers in Azerbaijan were summoned to the tax ministry, and both were interrogated for about two 

hours. One of the journalists told VOA that she felt threatened by the tone of two investigators when the interrogation veered off into questions about her ties to VOA, her 

salary, and her bank account. Her legal representative was not allowed into the meeting, 

and she said she was afraid for herself and her family, and asked VOA not to leave her 

alone against the Azeri authorities. If history is any guide, once officials start making 

public accusations against journalists, then threats and intimidation and sometimes physical violence follow. 

Public pressure is also placed on the stations that carry our content. Take a look at 

this investigative story that ran on Russia’s Channel One that pieces together public 

information—including the BBG annual report and an inspector general report—to come 

to the conclusion that VOA had made secret payments to one of our affiliate stations. 

[A video clip in Russian is shown.] 

Ms. BENNETT. The truth is, the station couldn’t find a record of payments because 

there was none. We make our content freely available around the world, yet pressure like 

this caused this station to drop VOA. 

This type of intimidation and pressure isn’t limited to Russia and the Russian 

periphery. I’ve just returned from a trip from the Balkans, where I heard local journalists 

speak of their widespread fear about pressure from media or business interests aligned 

with the Kremlin. Russian capital has undoubtedly penetrated Serbia’s media market. In 

addition to Russian international media such as Sputnik, Russian money is funding socalled patriotic orthodox Christian religious web portals and other information sites. Russian money is apparently in the TV market as well, with TV Nova, a national cable network, rumored to have connections with Konstantin Malofeev, a supporter of Putin. 

Although the Russian Government may deny directing harassment and intimidation 

of journalists, it is complicit. Independent Russian journalists say the government is, in 

effect, winking at the instigators and empowering local actors. Increasing pressure by 

governments, whether overt or subtle, is closing the space for independent journalism, 
8 

honest dialogue, and the free flow of information. VOA journalists are incredibly committed to what they do, which is to tell America’s story and explain U.S. policy. But we’re 

always mindful of our obligation for their safety. Anytime a journalist is attacked, threatened, or abused it has a dampening effect on the freedom of the press. 

Voice of America provides a much-needed alternative fact-based narrative in areas 

such as the Russian periphery where these networks are trying to gain influence, as well 

as in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America. But it is a mistake to think 

that if we are shut down that the result is only silence. There are others waiting behind 

us to fill the gap. News directors from VOA partners with some of the biggest independent 

television stations across Latin America, including in Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico and 

Peru, pleaded with VOA not to abandon them. They told us that if we left, RT—as well 

as the Iranian state broadcaster and China’s global television, which are all funded anywhere from twice to many times the VOA’s $234 million annual budget—would move in 

immediately and pay good money to take our place. 

Our presence can protect other journalists, fostering independent voices. And this is 

a critical byproduct of our activities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

Ms. WARLICK. And thank you, Amanda, for your presentation. VOA does such great 

work and we hope that they’re able to operate without challenge in the region. 

Nina. 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. Thank you, Jordan. And thank you to the Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe and the House Freedom of the Press Caucus, and Co-Chairs 

of the Caucus, Representative Adam Schiff and Representative Steve Chabot for holding 

this briefing and bringing the attention to attacks on the press in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet bloc. I ask that my full written testimony here be admitted into 

the record. 

My name is Nina Ognianova. And I’m the Europe and Central Asia program coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ]. We are an independent, nonprofit 

organization dedicated to defending press freedom and the rights of journalists worldwide. 

It’s an honor to speak to you today, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the 

Commission and the caucus on behalf of CPJ. 

In this talk, I will first address Russia’s press freedom record, focusing on some of 

the recent attacks we have documented on journalists and press outlets. All of these 

attacks have gone unpunished. And I will then talk about attacks on the press in Ukraine, 

where impunity in the murder of prominent journalist Pavel Sheremet has chilled media 

coverage. Finally, I will mention the records of Azerbaijan and of Kyrgyzstan, which are 

two of the countries where press freedom has continued to worsen this year. And in all 

of these cases, I will reference CPJ’s own research over the past nine months using specific cases to illustrate regional threats. 

As we heard here, the freedom of the media in the region is receding, but it’s not 

just receding in this region. Deteriorating freedom of the press in established European 

democracy and in the United States as well has emboldened authoritarian governments 

in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to crack down even further on 

independent media and opposition voices by using a variety of methods to silence their 

critics. In Russia there is an entrenched culture of impunity, and journalists are regularly 

intimidated, attacked, or killed for their work, and their assailants go unpunished. In 
9 

Azerbaijan, which is one of the most censored countries of the world, an autocratic government has continued to go after the press with retaliatory charges and, disturbingly, has 

started to expand its censorship efforts abroad. 

In Kyrgyzstan, a country where once there was liberty for press freedom—or, a 

degree of liberty for press freedom of the countries of Central Asia—the president has now 

lashed out against individual journalists and has brought insult and defamation charges 

against the press in the lead up to this year’s elections. And even in Ukraine, a country 

where the events of Euromaidan brought new hopes for improvement in press freedom, 

CPJ has documented a concerning tendency to equate positive media coverage with 

patriotism and critical coverage with subversion. 

In Russia, according to our most recent impunity index—which is a list published 

each year which calculates the number of unsolved journalists’ murders as a percentage 

of the country’s population—Russia ranks 10th worldwide. Nine journalists have been 

killed in the past decade. And the perpetrators have gone free. This number represents 

only deliberate work-related murders. Cases where journalists have been killed on dangerous assignments or in combat were not included in this index. 

This impunity sends a signal to adversaries of the press in Russia that they can continue to censor journalists by intimidating, attacking, or killing them for reporting or for 

publishing opinions. CPJ has documented at least 13 separate cases over the past nine 

months in which journalists have been threatened, physically attacked, or killed in 

retaliation for their work. We already heard the story of journalist and commentator Yulia 

Latynina, who writes a column for Novaya Gazeta and hosts a weekly radio show on Ekho 

Moskvy, and how she was compelled to flee Russia after a series of attacks against her 

and her family. 

But this is in no way the only case that we have registered. Last month—actually, 

in September—Latynina spoke very eloquently in a Moscow Times opinion editorial, 

where she said it’s not that Putin or the Kremlin are directly instigating these kinds of 

attacks. They are winking at those who want to organize them. They are empowering 

local talent. And those people are given a free pass to retaliate. Similarly to Yulia 

Latynina, Elena Milashina, who is one of our former correspondents—in fact, a Moscow 

correspondent for CPJ—temporarily left Russia after receiving death threats related to a 

story she broke about the detention, torture, and killing of gay men in Chechnya. Two 

days after Novaya Gazeta published Milashina’s story, Shahidov, an advisor to Chechen 

President Ramzan Kadyrov, called the paper an enemy of our faith and the motherland, 

and promised to exact vengeance, during a gathering of thousands of Chechen men at a 

large mosque in the regional capital. 

After this, Novaya Gazeta issued a statement saying it feared for the safety of its 

journalists, and that Shahidov’s remarks would encourage religious fanatics to retaliate 

against our journalists. On April 19, sure enough, the paper received an envelope containing an unidentified white powder. The only return address was stated simply as 

‘‘Grozny’’—Chechnya’s capital. Police officers and a team from Russia’s emergency situation ministry investigated the incident, but the powder has yet to be identified. Chechen 

lawmakers and religious officials have also threatened journalists from other outlets, who 

have reported critically on the North Caucasus republic. And these local public figures 

have faced no real consequences from Moscow. 

For instance, in January the speaker of Chechnya’s parliament threatened Grigory 

Shvedov, an editor of the independent news website Kavkazsky Uzel, one of the handful 
10 

of publications in Russia that independently covers the North Caucasus, including 

Chechnya. The speaker posted a photograph of a dog with its tongue tied in a knot to 

the social media website Instagram, and used crude language to compare Shvedov to a 

dog in need of discipline. I’m quoting, ‘‘It is past time to call a veterinarian,’’ the post said, 

‘‘to pull out Shvedov’s wisdom teeth and to cut his tongue to size. Then, behold, he might 

even tell us something good and informative.’’ Shvedov filed a claim against the official 

with Russia Investigative Committee, but to this day it remains unclear whether the Russian authorities even have investigated the threat. 

Separately, CPJ has documented two new journalism-related murders in Russia this 

year. Nikolai Andrushchenko, a veteran journalist who reported on corruption and police 

brutality, died on April 19th of injuries sustained when unknown assailants severely beat 

him. He was known for his investigative journalism that covered alleged human rights 

abuses and corruption. And he suffered previous physical attacks, including one in 

November the previous year, when several assailants attacked him at his doorstep. 

In a separate case, Dmitry Popkov, who as a chief editor of the independent local 

newspaper Ton-M in Siberia, was murdered on May 24th. The journalist’s body was found 

with five bullet wounds in his backyard in the city of Minusinsk. He was known for his 

investigative journalism alleging abuse of power and corruption, as well as his criticism 

of officials of the ruling United Russian party. Authorities launched an investigation into 

the killing in May, but have yet to report any progress. 

In a separate case, authorities continue to hold ethnic Uzbek journalist Khudoberdi 

Nurmatov, who is a contributor to Novaya Gazeta, better known by his pen name Ali 

Feruz. Nurmatov faces deportation to Uzbekistan, which he fled in 2008 after local security services tried to recruit him as an informant. If he returns to Uzbekistan, he is at 

risk of imprisonment and torture. Since 2016, Nurmatov has reported on sensitive subjects such as the plight of Central Asian migrant workers in Russia, and the December 

2016 presidential election in Uzbekistan for Novaya Gazeta. 

After Nurmatov’s arrest on immigration charges in Moscow on August 1st, Novaya 

Gazeta reported that bailiffs beat, insulted, and shocked him while bringing him to a 

detention center for foreign nationals in a Moscow suburb. Novaya Gazeta’s Editor-inChief Dmitry Muratov, who visited Nurmatov in the detention center several days after 

this incident, reported that the journalist had bruises on his back, was unable to eat for 

several days, and suffered from hypertension. CPJ, along with other rights defense 

organizations, has called on Russian authorities to release Nurmatov and to grant him 

legal residency status in the country. And separately, there is a case before the European 

Court of Human Rights to have Nurmatov released and, again, to gain him legal residency 

in Russia. But he’s still in detention. 

Now I’m going to talk about Ukraine, which, of course, has grabbed many headlines 

because of the conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists in 

Ukraine’s east. However, I would like to draw attention to the deteriorating press freedom 

situation in Ukraine. 

The high-profile murder of prominent Belarus-born journalist and CPJ International 

Press Freedom Award recipient Pavel Sheremet in downtown Kiev last year brought into 

sharp relief a number of press freedom issues, including the concerning tendency, which 

is encouraged by the government, to label journalists and media organizations as unpatriotic when they report critically on the government. CPJ covered this and other press 

freedom issues in our recent report, ‘‘Justice Denied: Ukraine comes up empty in probe 
11 

of Pavel Sheremet’s murder,’’ which found that Sheremet’s murder had taken place amid 

a divisive time in Ukraine. 

The year he was killed, CPJ documented an uptick in attacks and hostility against 

journalists who covered the government critically or who questioned its handling of the 

conflict in the east. Nationalist groups verbally assaulted or threatened journalists 

reporting from the conflict region. In some instances, government and security officials, 

including Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, not only stood by, but cheered on the attackers. 

When a CPJ delegation visited Kiev this past July, we met with all three branches of law 

enforcement responsible for solving Sheremet’s murder—the General Prosecutor’s Office, 

the National Police, and the country’s Security Service, the SBU. We also met with President Poroshenko. 

Despite stated assurances that Ukraine is committed to solving this terrible murder 

as a matter of honor, authorities have reported no progress, no arrests, no prosecutions, 

and no leading motive for the killing. Sheremet’s colleagues at the independent news 

website Ukrainska Pravda told us that the continued impunity in his murder has made 

them more cautious in their reporting. ‘‘I fear for the safety of my colleagues ever since 

Sheremet’s death,’’ Ukrainska Pravda editor-in-chief Sevgil Musayeva told CPJ. ‘‘After 

this murder, you want to be more careful. And I don’t know how long this feeling will 

last.’’ 

Separately, Ukrainian authorities have cracked down on journalists and media outlets who, they have said, threaten Ukraine’s national interests. In a September 18th 

public letter to President Poroshenko, CPJ expressed our deep concern at the SBU’s 

recent actions that have infringed on press freedom in the country. CPJ has documented 

at least seven separate incidents over the previous two months in which the security 

forces targeted newsrooms and journalists based on accusations that appeared politically 

motivated, and in retaliation for their critical reporting. 

In our letter, we mentioned the SBU’s September 14th visit to Ukrainska Pravda 

during which a representative of the SBU delivered a letter demanding the outlet take 

down an article critical of the Ukrainian defense capabilities. We also detailed three separate cases from August in which SBU agents expelled international journalists, and 

barred them from Ukraine for three years. And in another case, also flagged in the letter, 

the SBU has detained since August 1st a freelance journalist who reported critically on 

Ukrainian politics, and now faces 15 years in prison on anti-state charges. 

We also detailed the July 14th raid of the Kiev offices of Media Holding Vesti, which 

includes a radio station, a news website, and a newspaper. A military prosecutor along 

with 80 masked and armed security officers searched the Vesti offices, allegedly seeking 

evidence in a fraud investigation. We called on President Poroshenko to denounce the 

SBU’s recent actions, and to reaffirm his commitment to ensuring journalists’ safety, to 

demonstrate his commitment to defending democratic institutions. And he has yet to do 

so. 

In Azerbaijan, which is a well-known autocratic country, President Ilham Aliyev has 

enjoyed wide-ranging powers that he inherited, practically, when he got the post from his 

father in 2003. During his time in office, Aliyev has cracked down on independent and 

pro-opposition outlets, non-governmental institutions and opposition activists. His harsh 

measures have pushed many into exile, while authorities have imprisoned some of Aliyev’s 

most vocal critics. This year alone, Azerbaijan imprisoned six journalists in addition to 
12 

the five it was already holding since the year before. Disturbingly, Azerbaijan is now 

extending its justice code abroad. 

Belarussian authorities in February 2016 extradited Russian-Israeli blogger 

Aleksandr Lapshin to Azerbaijan for trial at the request of Baku. Azeri authorities then 

charged the journalist of traveling to, and reporting from, the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh 

region, and for criticizing Azeri Government policies. In July of this year, an Azeri court 

convicted Lapshin to three years in jail for illegally crossing the state border. And though 

he was eventually pardoned and released following an international outcry, this is one of 

several cases in which Azeri authorities have attempted to quiet their critics abroad. 

In the most recent case, a French court held a hearing on September 5th in a 

criminal defamation lawsuit against two French broadcast journalists over an investigative report they did two years ago. The report, which aired on a major French broadcaster, 

referred to Azerbaijan as a dictatorship. In response, Azerbaijan filed charges against the 

report’s authors, Elise Lucet and Laurent Richard. And, disconcertingly, the French justice ministry has complied, and has gone ahead with the prosecution. The next hearing 

in the case is scheduled for November 7th in France. 

Most disturbing is the case of Afgan Mukhtarli, who is a freelance journalist who 

contributed to the Berlin-based independent news outlet, Meydan TV, and the Londonbased Institute of War and Peace Reporting. Mukhtarli fled to Georgia from Azerbaijan 

in 2014 after he received threats over his investigative reporting on corruption in Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry. On May 29th of this year, Mukhtarli’s wife reported him 

missing. The journalist’s lawyer in Baku told CPJ that Mukhtarli had been abducted from 

Tbilisi and forcefully brought back to Azerbaijan. 

Before he disappeared, he had been investigating the assets of Azerbaijan’s first 

family in Georgia. And Azeri authorities, after he somehow ended up across the border, 

charged Mukhtarli with illegally crossing the border and bringing in contraband, 

according to his lawyer, who said Mukhtarli told him the police had planted Ö10,000 in 

his pocket while he was knocked unconscious. Georgia’s Interior Ministry said in May that 

it was investigating the incident, but has yet to make any public announcement as to any 

progress in the case. 

In Kyrgyzstan, on October 15th, voters will go to the polls to elect their next president. But the incumbent, Almazbek Atambayev, has created a legacy of restriction and 

intolerance for criticism from the press. This March alone, on at least three separate occasions, President Atambayev singled out several independent journalists for public rebuke, 

accused the media of pouring dirt on him, and accused the Kyrgyz Service of the U.S. 

broadcaster RFE/RL of spreading gossip about him in order to keep its U.S. Government 

funders happy. 

These public statements by Kyrgyzstan’s top leader were followed by legal actions 

against some of the journalists and outlets Atambayev chastised. For instance, hours following the president’s March 6 speech, during which he criticized RFE/RL, the prosecutor 

general’s office charged the broadcaster’s Kyrgyz Service, known locally as Azattyk, with 

insulting the president. On March 13th, prosecutors filed another lawsuit against Azattyk 

and a separate lawsuit against Naryn Idinov, a co-founder of the independent online news 

agency Zanoza, whom Atambayev had attacked in a different public speech. Idinov and 

his outlet, Zanoza, were also sued for insulting the president. 
13 

Despite a years-long campaign by international media rights groups, including CPJ, 

to release an ethnic Uzbek journalist from Kyrgyzstan, who was sentenced to life in prison 

in September of 2010 on charges widely recognized as politically motivated, Kyrgyzstan 

has continued to defy its international commitments and has continued to hold the journalist in prison. On April 21st, 2016, in a milestone decision, the U.N. Human Rights 

Committee called on Kyrgyzstan to immediately release the journalist, Azimjon Askarov, 

and quash his conviction after they reviewed a complaint filed by Askarov’s lawyers and 

team of experts from the New York-based Open Society Justice Initiative. Under its international obligations, Kyrgyzstan is obligated to respect the U.N.’s findings. And yet, on 

24th of January this year, a Bishkek court upheld the life sentence against Askarov, and 

he continues to languish in jail. 

The international community, including leaders in the United States, cannot afford 

to be indifferent to attacks on the press in Russia and the former Soviet bloc. The already 

embattled press corps in these countries continue to look up to Washington for solidarity 

and support. The United States must not abandon them, and must not forgo its role as 

a moral authority and bastion of freedom of the press. When independent journalists are 

threatened, attacked, and silenced in the ways that we have all talked about here today, 

the rest of the world is left underinformed about sensitive issues of international interest 

such as corruption, human rights abuses, and ongoing conflicts. 

CPJ urges the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the House Freedom of the Press 

Caucus to make press freedom a priority, and to take a firm stand against censorship as 

it is displayed in Russia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and elsewhere in the former 

Soviet bloc. 

Thank you for providing CPJ with the opportunity to address this pressing matter. 

Ms. WARLICK. And thank you very much, Nina, for that great summary of the situations in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan. 

Karina. 

Ms. ORLOVA. Good afternoon. My name is Karina Orlova, and I’m a correspondent 

for Radio Echo of Moscow. I’ve been in the United States since April of 2015. That is when 

I had to flee Russia because of persecution of state-backed Chechen radicals, which you’ve 

heard about. 

It all started right after the terror attack at the Charlie Hebdo Magazine office in 

Paris in January of 2015, after the magazine had published caricatures of Mohammad. 

The attack led to a million-people march in Paris of those who support freedom of press 

and condemn terrorism. In Russia, though, the only million-people march took place in 

Chechnya’s capital, Grozny. And those people condemned the murdered journalists and 

caricatures of Mohammad. On Echo, all the radio hosts—and I was one of them—wore 

T-shirts with the Charlie Hebdo logo the day after the attack in support for the murdered 

journalists and the magazine. 

Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechnya dictator who is now well known for persecuting and 

torturing gay people in Chechnya, took a stance too. On his Instagram account, where he 

is very active, Kadyrov threatened a former Russian oil tycoon and prisoner Mikhail 

Khodorkovsky, who at that time lived in Switzerland, after Khodorkovsky called for 

reprinting caricatures in support of freedom of press. My guest speaker at the talk show 

I hosted was a member of the presidential council for human rights. And of course, I made 

him speak about Kadyrov’s public threats. And I insisted questioning the speaker on 
14 

whether he should have immediately delivered the issue to the council and whether 

Kadyrov should have been stopped by law enforcement. 

Of course, no one stopped Ramzan Kadyrov, and two days later he publicly threatened all the journalists at Echo and personally its chief editor Alexey Venediktov. Right 

after the show, I started receiving death threats from people who called me the enemy 

of Islam and Kadyrov and who identified themselves as Chechens. They were not hiding 

their personalities. I received those threats continuously. And after Boris Nemtsov had 

been murdered in the center of Moscow in February of 2015, and I was still receiving 

threats, I made a decision to leave the country. I realized that if they could murder Boris 

Nemtsov, such a big, prominent public figure, then no one and nothing could protect me. 

Ramzan Kadyrov is a real danger to people. But as shocking as it may sound, in 

Russia we all kind of got used to it. There is nothing that can be done about Kadyrov, 

because he is Putin’s guarantee of peace in Chechnya. And Putin would pay for this peace 

with lives of others, like human rights activist Natalya Estemirova and journalist Anna 

Politkovskaya, both murdered by Kadyrov’s people. And yet, I’m not talking about ordinary Chechens who suffer from Kadyrov on a daily basis. Citizens of other regions of 

Russia are now suffering from Kadyrov too. 

But a much worse thing here I discovered was that the federal police are not in 

charge when it comes to Kadyrov or his people. I filed a report on the threat to Moscow 

police and they didn’t do anything about it, literally. For a week they weren’t even 

opening a case. And only after Echo’s chief editor made a call to Russia’s interior minister 

office the police did open the criminal case. But this was a total—[inaudible]. The investigator who questioned me told me openly that my problem could have been easily solved 

if I had stopped doing my job, and that my job was the problem that caused the threats. 

To cut a long story short, the police never did anything and closed the case without investigating it four months later. 

So independent journalists in Russia are seen as the enemy of the state and the 

government. And law enforcement does not protect them at all. In small Russian cities 

and towns, the situation is even worse because when a journalist from a well known 

media outlet is persecuted, it draws attention of other big media outlets. But when it happens in a small city, journalists are often left one-on-one with local bureaucracy and 

authorities. And I’d say that governors are the worst threat—the biggest threat to journalists in Russian regions, physical threat. 

The most well-known example is the town of Pskov governor who ordered an assault 

on Oleg Kashin, a prominent Russian journalist. Kashin was severely beaten with a metal 

reinforcement and survived by a miracle, literally. The actors of the assault, they were 

caught and they testified against the governor of town, Andrei Turchak, but he was never 

charged with anything, and he still is a governor. Or, another famous story, when the 

investigative committee head, Alexander Bastrykin, took a Novaya Gazeta journalist to 

the woods and threatened him there. Bastrykin is still in the office. He’s fine. 

Among other means of containing journalists in Russia is, of course, censorship. For 

instance, it’s a really simple example: Calling annexation of Crimea an annexation will 

lead to either criminal charges for calling for separatism, or a warning from the federal 

media watchdog. Two warnings within a year lead to media license suspension. So I’d say 

it is 100 percent safe to call things what they are only being out of Russian jurisdiction. 
15 

I have no idea what to do about physical threat to journalists. But as to censorship, 

well, one can suspend license from media outlets, but it cannot be done with social media. 

Social media is a weapon Russians used against democracy in the U.S. in 2016. But this 

same weapon, I think, may and should be successfully used against Putin’s regime. 

Also, I would—unfortunately Congressman Schiff has left us, but I would call for 

American intelligence services or—I don’t know—authorities to leak as much as possible 

on Putin, because for sure they know they have information on Putin’s money and Putin 

and his cronies’ money. And it should be out there. It should be leaked to the press, so 

that we have more cases like the Panama Papers story. It was good. 

If we want to protect journalists from physical assault, we should destroy Putin’s 

regime. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARLICK. Well, thank you, Karina, for sharing your personal story and experiences with us here today. And thank you to all of you for your remarks. 

Before opening up to audience Q&A, I’d like to ask a few questions of my own. 

The subjects that journalists are typically targeted for reporting on include corruption, human-rights abuses, criticism of authoritarian regimes and other sensitive subjects. 

It’s also incredibly important that journalists continue to bring attention to these issues. 

Are you concerned that if risks become more severe in the region that journalists will 

self censor rather than risk political backlash? And how do we negate that? 

Tom or Amanda, maybe you could speak to this first since journalists at RFE and 

VOA really tackle these tough subjects. 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, you know, I certainly hope we don’t have that issue at RFE or 

VOA. But certainly, when I came through the Balkans, the journalists were openly complaining about the need to self-censor, because the owners of their papers were putting 

pressure on them as well. So this was an open topic of conversation that they wished they 

could do something different. And in some ways they saw us as a protection for times 

when they were able to do things. 

Ms. WARLICK. Anything to add to that, Tom? 

Mr. KENT. Self censorship is always a problem. But with the kind of regimes we 

sometimes deal with, anything you report can be considered outrageous. So you don’t have 

to hold back very much. You almost always will manage to get some kind of material out 

that will show some dimension of the regime which is not widely known and will bring 

you some blowback, for sure. 

Ms. WARLICK. Nina or Karina, do you have anything to add? 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. It’s not that I fear that journalists will risk self censorship. They 

already are doing it. In many of the countries that we cover, we have seen that independent pro-opposition outlets have either had to leave the countries where they’ve operated and have been forced into exile—which, of course, creates all kinds of difficulty, to 

have a network of journalists and correspondents in the countries that they cover. And 

those individual journalists left on the ground are left even more vulnerable without the 

protection of a newsroom and an organization behind them. So, of course, they have to 

think about which topics they go into and which they don’t. And they do so at incredible 

peril. 
16 

I mean, just look at Khadija Ismayilova in Azerbaijan, who really is one of the 

bravest reporters out there, who has tackled corruption like very few others and has made 

it her personal mission to continue to fight this regime. She has taken this as her mission 

in life to continue doing this job. But journalists have to be faced with this dilemma in 

many countries of the former Soviet bloc—they are faced with this dilemma. And they 

have two choices—either to remain and make some compromises with their coverage and 

tone down, or to leave their countries in order to get into safety and to get their families 

into safety. It’s really an impossible choice. 

Ms. ORLOVA. Well, yes, I agree with Nina. Journalists are doing it, are applying self 

censorship. I’ve never done this, so maybe that is why I’m here now. But in defense to 

my colleagues—they avoid saying annexation. It’s so simple, but they really do avoid it. 

And they prefer saying—in Russia they call it ‘‘joining Crimea’’ or ‘‘returning Crimea.’’ 

And they always say, like, ‘‘ha, ha, ha, joining Crimea, ha, ha, ha.’’ 

Well, this ha, ha, ha means, like, we all know it was illegal. It was annexation. But 

we will pretend. Again, I think that they also protect the media outlets they work for, 

because no one wants to be shut down. 

Ms. WARLICK. Yes. Thank you all. 

In terms of who is responsible for many of these attacks on journalists, Karina, you 

spoke a little bit about that. But we’ve seen cases where there are pretty direct ties to 

even the highest echelons of the government. In Russia and other countries that we’re 

discussing today, how much of the threat comes from the top versus on more of a local 

level? And to expand on that, how do we know when these attacks are instigated by 

criminal organizations or terrorists or ultranationalists versus orchestrated from government officials? 

Maybe, Nina, you could kick us off due to your experience monitoring so many of 

these cases so closely at CPJ. 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. Well, it’s very difficult to determine who’s responsible when there 

is no or there is little independent thorough investigation into those cases. One can suspect who the actors are and who the responsible commissioners are. But some of this 

killing and some of these attacks are very professionally done. Unless there is a concerted 

effort from local law enforcement with positive pressure of the international community 

to do those investigations and do them right, there is really no way of saying who’s 

responsible. We can speculate, but we cannot say. 

In most of the high-profile murders, of course, there is an element of suspicion that 

a crime has been either commissioned or approved by the high ups. But, again, we’re not 

prosecutors. We’re not investigators. We cannot say that for sure. It’s for the responsible 

authorities to do their job. And it’s our responsibility to push those responsible authorities 

to do their job and do it well. 

In many cases where there is—you know, CPJ has a long record of tracking these 

cases. And we have the Impunity Index, where—for example, Russia has always been one 

of the leading, most infamous countries on this list. And in 90 percent of these cases the 

perpetrators are not even identified, let alone prosecuted and punished for their actions. 

So it’s very difficult to pinpoint. But what we can say for sure is that these governments, where the attacks on the press happen with impunity, are responsible for creating 

the climate and the atmosphere in which these crimes are being committed. They are 

responsible for allowing this atmosphere of impunity, to say the least. And, again, as 
17 

Yulia Latynina very eloquently put it, they have either lost control of the violence or have 

voluntarily relinquished this control. We don’t know which one. But the truth of the 

matter is that journalists are being attacked with disconcerting frequency in Russia and 

other countries of the Soviet bloc. And the perpetrators are almost never brought to justice. 

Ms. WARLICK. Anyone else like to respond to this? 

Mr. KENT. I think that’s just the point, that it all depends on the tone set at the 

top. In many cases you’ll have no idea who really gave the order for something or whether 

some local official or policeman just felt, well, hey, it seems like open season on journalists, so I’m going to do my part. 

It all depends on what tone comes from the leadership. And that’s where I think that 

governments can be expected to show some respect for international human rights and 

also for their own constitutions. 

Ms. WARLICK. OK. Well, we are running a little bit low on time, so I would like to 

open it up to the audience. If you could, please volunteer and introduce yourself when you 

pose a question. 

QUESTIONER. Albert from Congressman Schiff’s office. 

I was wondering if you could speak to the impact of new media in empowering the 

voices of dissenters—Alexei Navalny, I think he has a YouTube channel where he posts 

videos. I don’t know if others have taken that route? It seems to me that censorship is 

harder on that end. 

Ms. WARLICK. New media. 

Ms. ORLOVA. I’m not a big expert on new media, but I appreciate Radio Free Europe 

job, and especially a program on Current Time called Unknown Russia. It’s a fantastic 

job; my favorite one. 

But I think that Americans should be one step ahead. And new media is one step 

ahead, or maybe not even ahead, but, you know, in the line. With traditional media, it’s 

always one step behind. And censorship—what can you do about social media? Like, we 

have a Russian Facebook. Well, they have Facebook, actual Facebook, and they have Russian version of Facebook, VKontakte, with 60 million users, I guess on VKontakte. It’s 

a great place to spread news from American media outlets. 

Mr. KENT. Yes, I think that social media is the key. It’s opened up an entirely new 

opportunity for people to make comments on their own. And I think that governments in 

many cases just don’t know how to deal with it. In China, you hear there are enormous 

numbers of people who spend all their time censoring the internet. And whether other 

countries can make that kind of commitment, who knows? It’s very, very difficult. It’s sort 

of the magic bullet for people to be able to speak out about their own countries. 

Just ourselves, we’re in the post-Soviet space. In August we had 13 million people 

or 13 million engagements on our Facebook pages, people who shared something or made 

a comment. And we’re not special. I mean, many, many popular figures, news organizations and so forth, get that kind of engagement. So it’s something that I think the regimes 

are going to have a lot of trouble in controlling. 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. Absolutely, social media is the new frontier. It’s the platform that 

a lot of journalists go to in the contraction of the space in traditional outlets. And Russians have produced successfully their social media networks. But, of course, the govern-
18 

ments are following what’s happening, and they are also trying to crack down and to regulate some of these developments. 

In Russia, for example, now there is a law that requires bloggers with 10,000 or more 

followers to register as media outlets. And that makes those blogs and those bloggers 

susceptible to the restrictions of the media laws in Russia, which already have a set of 

tools that can regulate and restrict freedom of expression. 

Bloggers—we have been documenting more and more cases where bloggers have been 

attacked for their opinion and their journalistic activity through their personal blogs. If 

you go on our website, www.CPJ.org, we have statistics on imprisoned journalists. And 

a big percentage of those are online journalists, including bloggers and social media users, 

who have crossed into the definition of journalistic activity. We have a pretty broad definition of who we consider a journalist, and that includes personal bloggers. And you will 

see that the tendency to crack down on those kinds of activities has gone up in recent 

years. 

Ms. WARLICK. OK. All right. Right here. 

QUESTIONER. Thank you very much. My name is Alex and I’m from Azerbaijan. I 

thank you all for a very compelling presentation, particularly on Azerbaijan. 

When Russia attacked Azerbaijan in the 1990s, our country found itself in a very 

interesting situation. There was no second source to get information about what exactly 

was going on—until a few journalists got together and they decided to change that reality, 

and they established a news agency, which actually happened to be the first news agency, 

independent news agency, in the post-Soviet region. 

And now, as we see a different station, the government is going after international 

media outlets. They decided to bring their own independent media also [in their needs 

?], and then you have different reality. You have Russian media being—like Sputnik and 

others that are being able to operate in Azerbaijan. 

So what does it tell us, from maybe U.S. and also those countries’ national security 

perspective? What kind of possible outcomes can you provide us when you have that 

reality, that Western and independent media organizations cannot operate but you have 

Russian media being operated in those countries? 

Ms. WARLICK. Does anyone want to tackle that? 

Ms. BENNETT. I’m afraid that’s beyond our capabilities. 

Mr. KENT. I don’t think we can make political prognostications about that. 

Ms. WARLICK. Would you like to rephrase your question at all for the panel, maybe? 

QUESTIONER. Is there any way to make a national security case from this attack 

against press freedom, particularly not only local media and international, independent 

and Western media organizations in those countries? On one hand you have Russia media 

organizations are greenlighted, and then you don’t have any other media outlets. What 

does it tell us from a national security perspective? 

Ms. WARLICK. [Laughs.] Our panel looks stumped. [Laughs.] 

Ms. BENNETT. I don’t think any of us are really national security experts. I think we 

could make a national security case for the value of a free press around the world, but 

beyond that, I’m not sure—— 

Ms. ORLOVA. Yes, I agree. 
19 

Ms. WARLICK. That’s actually one of the questions I was a hoping to ask was, at the 

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, we had the opportunity to 

meet with the Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir. And he mentioned 

that one of his priorities is reconciling national security and press freedom. But we know 

that journalists are targeted often on the basis of national security concerns, sometimes 

even framed as an internal enemy. 

Is there a way, or what is the best way, to convince countries, both government officials and the public, that a free press is in their national interest? 

Ms. BENNETT. W I think that we all operate under the assumption, and the historical 

assumption that a free press is the basis, one of the fundamental bases, for a free and 

democratic society. If you’re hoping to operate a free and democratic society, then you 

obviously need a free press to do that. These two things go together in our mind. 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. I agree. I think that what we can say is that it is in the national 

security of any government to allow an independent press to operate freely, because those 

governments too need free and independent and truthful information. And if all information is controlled and filtered, then the government itself loses its connection with reality 

and what’s going on, not only inside the country but the rest of the world, if the country 

continues to contract the free space and therefore isolate itself from the rest of the international community. 

Ms. WARLICK. All right, next question. 

QUESTIONER. Hi. I’m Jordan from Congressman Josh Gottheimer’s office. 

I was wondering if you think that tools of international diplomacy—for example, economic sanctions—might be an effective way of pressuring the Putin regime into alleviating restrictions on the press, or if you think we might have perhaps more success 

working with local governments to change the culture from the bottom up. 

Thanks. 

Ms. ORLOVA. Oh, yes. Actually, sanctions do work, especially financial sanctions. 

Although the Russian Government pretends they do not, it’s not true, because we know, 

for instance, in 2015 the head of VTB Bank, Andrey Kostin, was here running around 

Capitol Hill begging for financing for his banks, saying, well, I don’t have anything to do 

with the Kremlin agenda, we’re independent. And for the sake of Ukraine, because we 

operate in Ukraine, just give us some money—something like that. 

So sanctions do work, financial sanctions. I’m not so sure about whether—well, I’m 

against RT and Sputnik, but it’s not so simple, because if RT is prohibited here in the 

States, then all other media, like American media outlets, will be prohibited, I guess, in 

Russia. So I’m not sure if it’s worth it, because, despite the fact that RT has a huge 

budget, it’s totally corrupted as anything in Russia. So a big part of this budget goes to 

Margarita Simonyan—she lives large. 

They really don’t spend that much, because they’re not ideological. They don’t care 

about—they’re not Soviets, you know. At least Soviets have their agenda, real ideology, 

as crooked as it was. But they did. Those guys, no, their only ideology is money. So I’m 

not sure. But financial sanctions, yes. Putin—I think that the United States should keep 

pressing Kremlin with financial sanctions as much as possible. 

Ms. WARLICK. This will be the final question, for the sake of time. 

MASSARO: I’m Paul Massaro and I’m the anticorruption advisor at the Helsinki 

Commission. Really excited to have you all here. 
20 

I’m very interested in this nexus between corruption and press freedom. I was hoping 

you could make some comments on to what extent are these attacks largely caused by 

investigations into corrupt dealings among politicians and others? And to what extent is 

press freedom a necessary or useful aspect to combat corruption in these countries? 

Mr. KENT. I think corruption is always the hot-button issue. In many of the countries 

that we deal with, it is possible to write a story in a newspaper website saying even that 

the president’s foreign policy is misguided and so forth. This passes as acceptable speech 

sometimes. But, boy, you get into certain financial stuff and mentioning certain people 

and certain banks and so forth, it’s a really different story. So I think you’re right that 

it opens the way to lots of problems, the way some other reporting doesn’t. 

Ms. BENNETT. I would completely agree with that. And also, ironically—maybe not 

ironically—it’s also the subject you find that their reporters, the journalists themselves, 

are most drawn to wanting to do. I think it’s partly because it’s so present. It’s so present. 

And it seems so wrong to them that they want to do investigative work on it. 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. Corruption is also probably the most dangerous assignment for 

journalists. If you look at the statistics of killed journalists across most of the Eurasia 

region, the majority covered corruption. And most of them were attacked or threatened 

before the violence against them escalated, because they did some hard-hitting piece on 

corruption. 

It is absolutely amazing that those journalists continue to do the kind of work that 

they do, because the danger to them is immense. And every year we document the Global 

Impunity Index. We come up with the documentation to show that it is those journalists 

who, like lone warriors, go into this environment and tackle this subject. It’s mostly 

corruption and human rights abuses that have them targeted. 

Ms. WARLICK. OK. Well, to wrap up, I’d like to give you the opportunity to say any 

final words that you’d like, and maybe provide us with some concrete recommendations 

for U.S. Government, U.S. Congress, the OSCE, and whatever final words you’d like to 

leave us with. 

Ms. ORLOVA. I would recommend looking as much as possible on Putin and his 

money, because there is no way Putin can be friends with the United States again. And 

what else? Supporting journalism, like true journalism and spreading it on social media 

is a good way to reach out to Russian people. 

Ms. OGNIANOVA. I would like to see more of this kind of briefing. Again, thank you 

to the Commission and to the Freedom of the Press Caucus for convening this, because 

I think that even though the advocacy opportunities with some of those governments that 

we talked about may be very limited at the moment, it remains very important for the 

public, and leadership in the U.S. to be informed about press freedom issues in the region 

and to continue its support for the embattled press corps. They do look to Washington 

for both moral support and tangible support. They continue to do that. And Washington 

and the U.S. should not forgo that role. 

Ms. BENNETT. I would like to say that it appears to me that we are in a moment 

that is as dangerous and as threatening for a free press around the world as any we’ve 

ever been in our lifetimes, certainly. I would not underestimate by any measure the 

impact that U.S. international media, the BBG, has around the world in a number of different ways. 
21 

There’s the material that we put out there that provides an alternative narrative. 

There is the fact that not just the immediate media but all the surrounding media is also 

corrupt and held down. And so it provides, like a wire service, to put actual other material 

out into the local press. It gives them some alternative thing to put in there. 

We also provide protection for local journalists to do the kind of work that they want 

to do by partnering with them, giving them an outlet. And, in fact, I was amazed to discover the number of media people who said simply by having us appear on their programs 

would have a protective effect for them for a long time. 

So we have a huge impact in these regions. And I think that for us to continue to 

do our work in as robust a way as possible is certainly one way of combating this, because 

I don’t think any of us here should underestimate what’s going on in the world. 

Mr. KENT. I certainly endorse everything Amanda says. And let me just add one 

thing, on sort of an optimistic note, a little more big picture, and that is that information 

gets out. The truth gets out. Reporters go through horrible experiences—sometimes 

they’re attacked, beaten and so forth; self censorship; huge propaganda operations arrayed 

against the truth—yet I don’t think we have any doubt about the nature of the regimes 

in the world. I don’t think ultimately the citizens of those regimes have any doubt about 

what goes on in those countries. 

The truth is very, very hard to suppress, even more so now with social networks and 

the abilities of people to communicate with each other. This is a terribly difficult job we 

do. We’re under terrible pressures. We try to defend our people as best we can. But we 

know that ultimately information wants to get out. It wants to be free. And it always ultimately wins. 

Ms. WARLICK. Thank you very much, and to all of you for your remarks today and 

for being here. 

Thanks too to the House Freedom of the Press Caucus for working with the Helsinki 

Commission on this event. 

And thank you all for being here today. [Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the briefing ended.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NINA OGNIANOVA

Systematic Attacks on Journalists in Russia and Other Post-Soviet States 

Thank you to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the House 

Freedom of the Press Caucus, and Co-Chairs of the Caucus, Representative Adam Schiff 

and Representative Steve Chabot, for holding this briefing to bring attention to attacks 

on the press in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet bloc. I ask that my full 

written testimony be admitted into the record. My name is Nina Ognianova and I am the 

Europe and Central Asia program coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists. 

CPJ is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending press freedom and 

the rights of journalists worldwide. It is an honor to speak to you today and I appreciate 

the opportunity to address the Commission and the Caucus on behalf of CPJ. 

In my testimony, I will first address Russia’s press freedom record, focusing on recent 

cases of attacks on journalists and press freedom outlets, which have largely gone 

unpunished. 

I will then talk about attacks on the press in Ukraine, where impunity in the murder 

of prominent journalist Pavel Sheremet has chilled media coverage. 

Finally, I will mention the records of Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan, two countries where 

press freedom has continued to worsen. 

In all these cases I will reference CPJ’s research over the past nine months, using 

specific cases to illustrate regional threats. 

Introduction 

Receding media freedom both in established European democracies and in the United 

States has emboldened authoritarian governments in Russia and other countries of the 

former Soviet Union to crack down on independent media and opposition voices using a 

variety of methods to silence their critics. 

In Russia, there is an entrenched culture of impunity: journalists are regularly 

intimidated, attacked or killed for their work, and their assailants go unpunished. 

In Azerbaijan, one of the most censored countries in the world, an autocratic government has continued to go after the press with retaliatory charges, and, disturbingly, has 

been expanding its censorship abroad. 

In Kyrgyzstan, a country once considered a leader of press freedom in Central Asia, 

the president has lashed out against individual journalists, and brought insult and 

defamation charges against the press in the lead up to this year’s election. 

Even in Ukraine, a country where the events of Euromaidan brought new hopes for 

improvement in press freedom, CPJ has documented a concerning tendency, supported by 

the government, to equate positive media coverage with patriotism and critical coverage 

with subversion. 
24 

Russia 

According to CPJ’s most recent Impunity Index - a list published each year by CPJ, 

which calculates the number of unsolved journalist murders as a percentage of a country’s 

population - Russia ranks 10th worldwide. Nine journalists have been killed in the past 

decade, and nearly all perpetrators have gone free. This number represents only deliberate, work-related murders; cases of journalists killed on dangerous assignments or in 

combat were not included. 

In spite of a few convictions in recent years in a couple of high-profile murders that 

date back to the early 2000s, such as the sentencing and imprisonment of several men 

for the murder of Novaya Gazeta journalists Anna Politkovskaya and Igor Domnikov, 

none of the crimes’ commissioners have been brought to justice. 

This impunity sends a signal to adversaries of press freedom in Russia that they can 

continue to censor journalists by intimidating, attacking or killing them for their reporting 

or published opinions. 

CPJ has documented at least 13 separate cases over the past eight months, in which 

journalists have been threatened, physically attacked or killed in retaliation for their 

work. Last month, the well-known journalist and commentator Yulia Latynina, who writes 

a column for the independent Novaya Gazeta newspaper, and hosts a weekly radio show 

on Ekho Moskvy radio, was compelled to flee Russia after a series of attacks against her 

and her family. 

In the latest incident on September 3, attackers set fire to Latynina’s car parked near 

the wooden house she shares with her parents in the Moscow suburbs. This occurred two 

months after unknown assailants sprayed a foul-smelling substance through the window 

of Latynina’s home, causing several of the residents, including two children, to get sick. 

Though Russian authorities launched investigations into both incidents, they have yet to 

hold those responsible to account. 

Last month during her radio show, Latynina, spoke from an undisclosed location, and 

told listeners she did not intend to return to Russia any time soon. 

In a September 22 op-ed for The Moscow Times, Latynina said she left the country 

because she felt the Kremlin had renounced control over those who perpetrate violence 

against its opponents. ‘‘It’s not that Putin or the Kremlin are directly instigating these 

kinds of attacks,’’ she said. ‘‘They are winking at those who want to organize them. 

They’re empowering ‘local talent,’ and those people are given a free pass.’’ 

Similarly, in April, Novaya Gazeta’s prominent investigative journalist Elena 

Milashina temporarily left Russia after receiving death threats related to a story she 

broke about the detention, torture, and killing of gay men in Chechnya, a Russian 

republic. 

Two days after Novaya Gazeta published Milashina’s story, Adam Shahidov, an 

advisor to Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, called the paper an enemy ‘‘of our faith 

and motherland,’’ and promised to exact ‘‘vengeance’’ during a gathering of thousands of 

Chechen men at a large mosque in the regional capital. 

After this, Novaya Gazeta issued a statement saying it feared for the safety of its 

reporters, and that Shahidov’s remarks would ‘‘encourage religious fanatics to retaliate 

against our journalists.’’ 

On April 19, the paper received an envelope containing an unidentified white powder. 

The only return address was stated simply as ‘‘Grozny’’-Chechnya’s capital. Police officers 
25 

and a team from Russia’s emergency situations ministry investigated the incident, but the 

powder has yet to be identified, Novaya Gazeta journalists told CPJ. 

Chechen lawmakers and religious officials have also threatened journalists from 

other newsrooms who have reported critically on the North Caucasus republic, and these 

local public figures have faced no real consequences from Moscow. 

A Chechen lawmaker and religious officials threatened Aleksei Venediktov, editor of 

the radio station Ekho Moskovy, after Venediktov expressed solidarity with Novaya 

Gazeta’s staff in an April 14 blog post. 

The speaker of Chechnya’s parliament, Magomed Daudov, threatened Grigory 

Shvedov, the editor of the independent news website Kavkazsky Uzel (Caucasian Knot), 

one of a handful of publications in Russia that independently covers the North Caucasus 

region, including Chechnya. 

On January 4, Daudov posted a photograph of a dog with its tongue tied in a knot 

to the social media website Instagram, and used crude language to compare Shvedov to 

a dog in need of discipline. ‘‘It is past time to call a veterinarian,’’ the post said, ‘‘to pull 

out [Shvedov’s] wisdom teeth and to cut his tongue to standard size. Then, behold, he 

might even tell us something good and informative.’’ 

Shvedov filed a claim against Daudov with Russia’s Investigative Committee, but to 

this day it remains unclear if Russian authorities investigated the threat. 

Separately, CPJ has documented two new journalism-related murders in Russia this 

year. 

Nikolai Andrushchenko, a veteran journalist who reported on corruption and police 

brutality, died on April 19, of injuries sustained when unknown assailants severely beat 

the 73-year-old. 

A sharp critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin known for his investigative 

reporting that alleged human rights abuses and corruption, Andrushchenko had suffered 

previous physical attacks, including one in November 2016 when several assailants 

attacked him at his doorstep. 

The journalist’s colleagues told CPJ Russian authorities have not brought any of 

Andrushchenko’s attackers to justice. 

In a separate case, Dmitry Popkov, chief editor of the independent local newspaper 

Ton-M in Siberia, was murdered on May 24 in Siberia. The journalist’s body was found 

with five bullet wounds in his backyard in the city of Minusinsk, in the Siberian region 

of Krasnoyarsk Krai. 

The 42-year-old had helped found Ton-M in 2014, and was known for his investigative reports alleging abuse of power and corruption, as well as his criticism of officials 

of the ruling United Russia party. 

In an August 2016 editorial, Popkov wrote that Ton-M was ‘‘accustomed to being a 

pain in the neck for many officials who are trying to [silence us] in every possible way,’’ 

through ‘‘phone threats, intimidating searches, and interrogations.’’ He added that the 

authorities were concerned about the ‘‘corruption incidents that we reveal.’’ 

A colleague of Popkov’s, Sergei Shishov from the Minusinsk independent news 

website Sreda24, said he believed Popkov was killed for his journalism, particularly for 

his latest reports about a federal parliamentary audit that revealed corruption in the local 

administration. 
26 

Authorities launched an investigation into the killing in May, but have yet to report 

progress. 

CPJ has documented a case in which Russian security forces conducted a politically 

motivated raid on a journalist’s home in Moscow. In the city of Svetogorsk, located near 

the Finnish border, security services detained three journalists who were trying to report. 

At least two other journalists are currently imprisoned in Russia for their reporting. 

In a separate case, Russian authorities continue to hold ethnic Uzbek journalist 

Khudoberdi Nurmatov, a regular contributor to Novaya Gazeta, better known by his pen 

name Ali Feruz. 

Nurmatov faces deportation to Uzbekistan, a country he fled in 2008 after local security services tried to recruit him as an informant. If he returns, he is at risk of imprisonment and torture. Since 2016, Nurmatov has reported on sensitive subjects such as the 

plight of Central Asian migrant workers in Russia, and the December 2016 presidential 

election in Uzbekistan for Novaya Gazeta. 

After Nurmatov’s arrest on immigration charges in Moscow on August 1, Novaya 

Gazeta reported that bailiffs beat, insulted, and shocked Nurmatov while bringing him to 

a detention center for foreign nationals in a Moscow suburb. Novaya Gazeta Editor-inChief Dmitry Muratov, who visited Nurmatov in the detention center on August 5, 

reported that the journalist had bruises on his back, was unable to eat for three days, 

and suffered from hypertension. CPJ, along with other rights defense organizations, has 

called on Russian authorities to release Nurmatov, and grant him legal residency status 

in the county. 

Ukraine 

Many headlines have been devoted to the conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine’s east. However, I would like to draw your attention 

to the deteriorating press freedom situation in Ukraine. 

The high-profile murder of prominent Belarus-born journalist and CPJ International 

Press Freedom Award recipient Pavel Sheremet in downtown Kiev last year brought into 

relief a number of press freedom problems including the concerning tendency, encouraged 

by the government, to label media organizations as unpatriotic when they report critically 

on the government. 

CPJ covered this and other press freedom issues in our recent report, ‘‘Justice 

Denied: Ukraine comes up empty in probe of Pavel Sheremet’s murder,’’ which found that 

the journalist’s murder had taken place amid a divisive time in Ukraine. 

The year Sheremet was killed, CPJ documented an uptick in attacks and hostility 

against journalists who covered the government critically or questioned its handling of the 

conflict in the east. Nationalist groups verbally assaulted or threatened journalists 

reporting from the conflict region. In some instances, government and security officials, 

including Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, not only stood by, but cheered on the attackers. 

When a CPJ delegation visited Kiev this past July, we met with members of all three 

branches of government responsible for solving Sheremet’s murder: The General Prosecutor’s Office, the National Police, and the country’s Security Service (SBU). We also met 

with President Petro Poroshenko. 
27 

Despite stated assurances that Ukraine is committed to solving Sheremet’s murder 

as a matter of honor, authorities reported no progress, no arrests, no prosecutions, and 

no leading motive for the killing. 

Sheremet’s colleagues at the independent news website Ukrainska Pravda told us 

that the continued impunity in his murder has made they more cautious in their 

reporting. ‘‘I fear for the safety of my colleagues ever since [Sheremet’s death],’’ Ukrainska 

Pravda editor-in-chief Sevgil Musayeva told CPJ. ‘‘After this murder, you want to be careful. I don’t know how long this feeling will last.’’ 

Separately, Ukrainian authorities have cracked down on journalists and media outlets who, they have said, threaten Ukraine’s national interests. 

In a September 18 public letter to President Poroshenko, CPJ expressed our deep 

concern at the SBU’s recent actions that have infringed on press freedom in the country. 

CPJ documented at least seven separate incidents over the previous two months in which 

the SBU targeted newsrooms, and journalists based on accusations that appeared politically motivated, and in retaliation for critical reporting. 

In our letter, we mentioned the SBU’s September 14 visit to Ukrainska Pravda 

during which they delivered a letter demanding the outlet take down an article critical 

of Ukrainian government policies. We also detailed three separate cases from August in 

which SBU agents expelled international journalists, and barred them from Ukraine for 

three years. In another case, also flagged in the letter, the SBU has detained a freelance 

journalist since August 1 who reported critically on Ukrainian politics, and now faces 15 

years in prison on anti-state charges. 

In the letter we also mention the SBU’s August 8 raid on a pro-Russia news website. 

The security service then searched the homes of two of the site’s journalists, and opened 

an investigation into its editor for alleged disclosure of state secrets. 

Lastly, we detailed the July 14 raid of the Kiev offices of Media Holding Vesti, which 

includes a radio station, a news website, and a newspaper. A military prosecutor and 80 

masked and armed security officers searched the Vesti offices allegedly in search of evidence in a fraud investigation. 

We called on President Poroshenko to denounce the SBU’s recent actions, and to 

reaffirm his commitment to ensuring journalists’ safety to demonstrate his commitment 

to defending democratic institutions. He has yet to do so. 

Azerbaijan 

In Azerbaijan, the autocratic President Ilham Aliyev has enjoyed wide-ranging 

powers since he inherited the post from his father in 2003. 

During his time in office, Aliyev has consolidated power, and cracked down on independent and pro-opposition media outlets, non-governmental organizations, and opposition 

activists. His harsh measures have pushed many into exile, while authorities have imprisoned some of Aliyev’s most vocal critics. 

This year alone, Azerbaijan imprisoned six journalists in addition to the five it was 

already holding the year before. 

Disturbingly, Azerbaijan is now extending its justice code abroad. 

Belarussian authorities in February 2016 extradited Russian-Israeli blogger 

Aleksandr Lapshin to Azerbaijan for trial at the request of Baku. Azeri authorities then 

charged the journalist of traveling to, and reporting from the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh 
28 

region, and for criticizing Azeri government policies. In July of this year, an Azeri court 

convicted Lapshin to three years in jail for illegally crossing the state border. 

Though he was eventually pardoned and released, following an international outcry, 

this is one of several cases in which Azeri authorities have attempted to quiet their critics 

abroad. 

In the most recent case, a French court held a hearing on September 5 in a criminal 

defamation lawsuit against two French broadcast journalists over an investigative report 

they did two years ago. 

The report, which aired on a major French broadcaster, France-2, referred to Azerbaijan as a ‘‘dictatorship.’’ 

In response, Azerbaijan filed charges against the reports’ authors, Elise Lucet and 

Laurent Richard. Disconcertingly, the French justice ministry has complied, and went 

ahead with the prosecution. The next hearing in the journalists’ case is scheduled for 

November 7. 

Most disturbing is the case of Afgan Mukhtarli, a freelance journalist who contributed to the Berlin-based, independent news outlet, Meydan TV, and the London-based 

Institute of War and Peace Reporting. Mukhtarli fled to Georgia from Azerbaijan in 2014 

after receiving threats over his investigative reporting on corruption in Azerbaijan’s 

Defense Ministry. 

On May 29 this year, Mukhtarli’s wife reported him as missing. The journalist’s 

lawyer Elchin Sadygov in Baku told CPJ that Mukhtarli had been abducted from Tbilisi 

and forcefully brought to Azerbaijan, CPJ documented at the time. 

Before he disappeared, Mukhtarli had been investigating the assets of Azerbaijan’s 

first family in Georgia, the journalist’s colleague Khadija Ismayilova told CPJ. 

Azeri authorities charged Mukhtarli with illegally crossing the border, and bringing 

in contraband, according to Sadygov, who said Mukhtarli told him the police planted 

?10,000 ($11,200) in his pocket while he was unconscious. 

Georgia’s Interior Ministry said in May that it was investigating the incident, 

according to media reports, but has made no further announcements. 

On September 22, Georgia’s prosecutor’s office offered a personal guard to 

Mustafayeva, after she said she was being followed in Tbilisi, the regional news website 

Kavkazsky Uzel reported. 

Kyrgyzstan 

On October 15, Kyrgyzstan’s voters go to the polls to elect their next president. But 

the incumbent, Almazbek Atambayev, has created a legacy of restriction and intolerance 

to criticism from the press. 

While Kyrgyzstan was once considered Central Asia’s most liberal country, the 

Kyrgyz authorities have in recent years cracked down on independent journalists, 

including foreign media, and prosecuted individual reporters and media outlets on retaliatory charges. Despite a UN decision that ordered his release, Kyrgyz authorities have 

continued to hold a prominent journalist and human rights defender in prison. 

This past March alone, on at least three separate occasions, President Atambayev 

singled out several independent journalists for public rebuke, accused the media of 

‘‘pouring dirt on him,’’ and accused the Kyrgyz service of the US broadcaster Radio Free 
29 

Europe/Radio Liberty of spreading gossip about him in order to ‘‘keep its U.S. government 

funders happy.’’ 

These public statements by Kyrgyzstan’s top leader were followed by legal action 

against some of the journalists and outlets Atambayev chastised. For instance, hours following the president’s March 6 speech, during which he criticized RFE/RL, the prosecutor 

general’s office charged the broadcaster’s Kyrgyz Service, known locally as Azattyk, with 

‘‘insulting the president.’’ On March 13, prosecutors filed another suit against Azattyk and 

a separate lawsuit against Naryn Idinov, co-founder of the independent online news 

agency Zanoza, whom Atambayev had attacked in a public speech. Idinov and his outlet, 

Zanoza, were also sued for insulting the president. 

Despite a years-long campaign by international media rights and human rights 

defense organizations, including CPJ, to release an ethnic Uzbek journalist from 

Kyrgyzstan, who was sentenced to life in prison in September 2010 on charges widely recognized as politically motivated, Kyrgyzstan has continued to hold him in prison. 

On April 21, 2016, in a milestone decision, the U.N. Human Rights Committee called 

on Kyrgyzstan to immediately release the journalist, Azimjon Askarov, and quash his 

conviction after they reviewed a complaint filed in November 2012 by Askarov’s lawyer 

and a team of experts from the New York-based Open Society Justice Initiative. 

Under its international obligations, particularly Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Kyrgyzstan is obligated to make full reparation to the 

individual whose rights have been violated, and must take immediate steps to release the 

individual, and overturn the conviction. Kyrgyzstan is also obligated under its constitution 

to respect the U.N.’s findings. Yet, instead, on January 24, 2017, the Chui Regional Court 

in Bishkek upheld the life sentence against Askarov on patently political charges of complicity in murder and inciting hatred. Askarov continues to sit in prison. 

Conclusion 

The international community, including leaders in the United States, cannot afford 

to be indifferent to attacks on the press in Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries. 

The already embattled press corps in these states continue to look to Washington for solidarity and support. The United States must not abandon them, and must not forgo its 

role as a moral authority and bastion of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. 

When independent journalists are threatened, attacked, and silenced in the ways I outlined today, the rest of the world is left under-informed about sensitive issues of international interest such as corruption, human rights abuses, and ongoing conflicts. 

CPJ urges the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the House Freedom of the Press 

Caucus to make press freedom a priority, and take a firm stand against censorship as 

it is displayed in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and other nations of the 

former Soviet bloc. 

Thank you for providing CPJ with the opportunity to address this pressing matter. 

Æ 
This is an official publication of the Commission on 

Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

★ ★ ★ 

This publication is intended to document 

developments and trends in participating 

States of the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 

★ ★ ★ 

All Commission publications may be freely reproduced, 

in any form, with appropriate credit. The Commission 

encourages the widest possible dissemination of its 

publications. 

★ ★ ★ 

http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm 

The Commission’s Web site provides access 

to the latest press releases and reports, 

as well as hearings and briefings. Using the 

Commission’s electronic subscription service, readers are 

able to receive press releases, articles, and other 

materials by topic or countries of particular interest. 

Please subscribe today.