U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–696PDF 2015

THREATS TO PRESS FREEDOM IN THE AMERICAS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 29, 2015

Serial No. 114–83

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Carlos Ponce, Ph.D., director of the Latin America Program, Freedom House .. 5

Mr. Carlos Laurı ́a, senior Americas program coordinator, Committee to Protect Journalists ..................................................................................................... 17

Mr. Claudio Paolillo, chairman, Freedom of the Press and Information Committee, Inter-American Press Association .......................................................... 26

Mr. Nicola ́s Pe ́rez Lapentti, co-director, El Universo in Ecuador ........................ 53

Mr. Alfredo Corchado, Mexico bureau chief, The Dallas Morning News ............ 75

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Carlos Ponce, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .............................................................. 8

Mr. Carlos Laurı ́a: Prepared statement ................................................................ 20

Mr. Claudio Paolillo: Prepared statement ............................................................. 28

Mr. Nicola ́s Pe ́rez Lapentti: Prepared statement ................................................. 55

Mr. Alfredo Corchado: Prepared statement ........................................................... 78

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 98

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 99

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: Material submitted for the record ......................................................... 100

(1)

THREATS TO PRESS FREEDOM IN THE 

AMERICAS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Duncan (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. A quorum being present, the subcommittee will 

come to order. 

I would now like to recognize myself for an opening statement. 

In 1776, the Second Continental Congress of the thirteen United 

States of America declared: We hold these truths be self-evident, 

that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

In 1791, the United States of America adopted the Bill of Rights, 

which among other things, affirmed the American citizens’ freedom 

of speech, the press, and the right of people to peacefully assemble, 

the ability to speak openly without censure or fear of reprisal as 

a hallmark of free peoples everywhere. And the freedom of press 

is critical to sustaining democracy and the rule of law and enabling 

people to remain free from state and in some cases, nonstate control or oppression. 

Journalists provide needed accountability for governments by 

challenging conventional thinking; reporting on different and often 

opposing viewpoints; and offering people information that informs 

their understanding of the issues. Unfortunately, in our hemisphere, a trend of conditioning and even curtailing press freedoms 

in several countries is deeply disturbing. 

From severe government repression and outright targeting of 

journalists by Cuba, Venezuela, and Ecuador to organized crime, 

corruption, and impunity in other countries in Latin America, journalists have very difficult jobs, often risking their very lives and 

their loved ones to bring information and the truth to their fellow 

citizens. 

Although the purpose of this hearing is to highlight some of the 

more concerning trends of threats to press freedoms in the Americas, I do want to note that there are some bright spots in the region with Canada and most of the Caribbean having relatively 

2

open media environments in comparison to other countries in the 

region. 

In recent years, several international press rights monitoring organizations have expressed growing concerns about the deterioration of press freedoms in Latin America. Groups, like Freedom 

House, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Inter-American Press Association, all report on 

threats to freedoms of the press in the Western Hemisphere. And 

we are fortunate to have key experts from some of these groups 

represented here today to testify about their work. 

I also want to commend the efforts of the Organization of American States Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, who has 

done some important work on threats to freedom of the press 

through highlighting progress and problems within specific countries in the Americas through the comprehensive annual reports. 

These reports are excellent tools for providing transparency and accountability to countries in the region. 

In addition, I also want to congratulate the Special Rapporteur 

for his efforts to bring to public awareness the issue of government 

surveillance programs that have threatened journalists’ rights of 

privacy and freedom of expression. 

According to the Reporters Without Borders’ 2015 World Press 

Freedom Index, only three countries in the Western Hemisphere 

managed to score in the top 20 of 180 countries documented: Canada, Jamaica, and Costa Rica. Notoriously, Mexico and Cuba were 

among the worst offenders in the Western Hemisphere listed in 

that report. 

When it comes to violence against the media, Mexico exists as 

one of the most dangerous countries for media, with journalists 

often receiving extortion and kidnapping threats from government 

officials, criminal groups, and other transnational gangs. In fact, 

Mexico accounts for more than a third of all of the killing of media 

workers and journalists in the hemisphere since 2009. 

In addition, Cuba ranks worst in the region, according to Freedom House, and among the 10 most censored countries in the 

world according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Furthermore, Cuba and Venezuela have been singled out frequently and 

consistently for having repressive media environments and for 

often targeting peaceful protesters and political dissidents. 

In these countries, independent journalists and bloggers are 

often subject to government sanction, harassment, and detention. 

Just last year, we saw Venezuelan security forces opening fire on 

journalists during student demonstrations that ultimately turned 

deadly. These conditions have led to more than 400 Venezuelan 

journalists living in exile today. 

In addition to these countries, Ecuador, Honduras, and Peru all 

received their worst press freedom scores in over a decade from 

Freedom House. A controversial 2013 communications law in Ecuador has led to chilling environment, self-censorship, and intimidation for press organizations. Honduras passed a new secrecy law 

and has limited critical reporting of the government. Peru has seen 

an increase in threats against journalists and ongoing impunity 

and a lack of willingness to address past crimes against journalists. 

3

More over, Brazil has seen at least 16 journalists killed in direct 

response for their work since President Rousseff took office in January 2011. In Nicaragua, complete state control of the media has 

occurred through a monopoly, with the single exception of one single independent television channel. Other concerns about general 

deterioration of press freedoms in Latin America include the governmental abuse of libel and defamation laws, a general lack of 

support for the protection of journalists, reporters, and media workers, and in some places an outright attempt to eliminate an independent media altogether. 

So, in conclusion, threats to the press freedoms and the Americas 

are ongoing and increasing. Abraham Lincoln once stated that ‘‘No 

man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s 

consent.’’. Today, in the Western Hemisphere, there are some people who are seeking to do just that: Control populations; prevent 

freedom of thought and expression; and eliminate avenues for questioning; state control by silencing the voice of those who are most 

able to speak truth to power. 

Our witnesses today are uniquely positioned to share their research and personal experiences in various countries of oppression, 

and I look forward to considering how the U.S. can better engage 

in the region to more effectively partner with other countries to 

promote the freedom of press. 

With that, I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Sires, for an 

opening statement he may have. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, and thank you to our witnesses for being here 

today. And especially Alfredo Corchado and Nicola ́s Pe ́rez, who 

traveled a long way to be here. We certainly appreciate you being 

here. 

Freedom of expression is a keystone that holds any democracy together. Being able to speak without censorship is a right that 

should never be stifled. Furthermore, it is the number one mechanism to hold people in government accountable for their actions. In 

recent years, many organizations dedicated to freedom of speech 

and advancing civil societies have been trying to bring attention to 

the deterioration of press freedom in Latin America. 

Cuba has consistently been characterized as having one of the 

most repressive media environments in the world, with the Castro 

regime controlling all aspects of the print and electronic media. 

Venezuela and Ecuador have made deliberate attempts to eliminate their dissenters and inhibit free speech. They have harassed 

and fined the media; shut down their operations; and even physically attacked journalists who are trying to expose the state-sponsored crackdown against peaceful, political dissenters. 

Ecuador’s 2013 law forces media organizations to print government-mandated edits, and corrections have led to the country’s 

wide censorship. This institutionalized tactic to censor the Ecuadorian population is unacceptable. In other countries, such as Mexico and Honduras, an increase in drug-related violence and worsening security situation have created a culture of impunity, allowing the violence against journalists and press institutions to go 

unpunished. 

4

Mexico has unfortunately become one of the most dangerous 

places on Earth for journalists, with journalists regularly targeted 

for reporting organized crime or corrupt government officials. Mexico accounts for more than one-third of the killings of members of 

the media in Latin America in 2009. In Honduras, 8 million members have already lost their lives this year. Even in Colombia, journalists are under constant threat from paramilitary groups. 

As a child in Cuba, I witnessed the deterioration of democracy 

as the Castro regime took over the islands and systemically destroyed all aspects of freedom of speech and expression. There is 

strong connection between countries’ Democratic values and freedoms afforded to the press. Working to preserve freedom of speech 

and pushing back against those who seek to quiet their dissenters 

should be a top priority when engaging with our neighbors in the 

region. 

I look forward to hearing from our panelists to hear their assessment of the hemisphere’s state of affairs when it comes to the freedom of speech. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the ranking member. 

And before we get started, I just want to enter into the record 

an article from the New York Times. I know we are talking about 

freedom of the press, but it is an example of government really restricting things. 

Peru’s Government on Monday ordered that telecommunications 

companies grant police warrantless access to cell phone users, locations, and other call data in realtime and store that data for 3 

years. This is really alarming to me because the metadata will 

cover where you are making a call, the time, and who you are talking to. There has been a lot of discussion in Congress about this 

sort of thing with NSA, but I want to enter this into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

So any other members that may have an opening statement? 

Mr. DeSantis, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. DESANTIS. No, thanks. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. 

Ms. KELLY. I want to thank the chair and ranking member and 

our witnesses for holding this important hearing on press freedom 

in Latin America. 

We are truly fortunate to live in and be Representatives of a Nation that recognizes and respects free press. The basis of our Government is to be for and by the people. And in that spirit, the opinion of the people matters. In many ways, the press are guardians 

of the people’s opinion here in America. 

That is why I am concerned by reports that our neighbors in 

Mexico, Venezuela, Honduras, and Ecuador have experienced a deterioration of press freedom. Whether it be politically motivated or 

the result of criminal activity, this erosion of press freedom in 

these areas that are valued and respected by our Nation cannot 

continue. 

I look forward to our thoughtful discussion here today about free 

speech and that threat in our hemisphere. It is critical to the 

progress and prosperity of our Nation. I want to thank you again. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. 

5

And so the bios are in the information provided. I won’t read 

those today. We will go ahead and get started. 

There will be a lighting system in front of you. Five minutes is 

what you will be recognized for. When it gets to 1 minute left, it 

will go to yellow, and at the expiration, it will turn red. If you could 

try to wrap up around that time. I won’t be hard on that, but I will 

start tapping the gavel when we get a little close. 

So the first witness is Dr. Carlos Ponce, and you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CARLOS PONCE, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF THE 

LATIN AMERICA PROGRAM, FREEDOM HOUSE 

Mr. PONCE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Sires, DeSantis, Kelly, distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to testify before you on the state of the press freedom in Latin America. I ask 

that my full testimony be submitted to the record. 

I will briefly summarize the work of Freedom House; the current 

landscape for press freedom in Latin America, which today faces a 

more severe and diverse set of challenges than at any point in the 

previous years. They rank—the intimidation, the downward trajectory in the region is terrible at this time, and we can summarize 

what is going on in the region with a simple word, ‘‘impunity.’’

The work of Freedom House has been extended in the whole region. Since mid-1941, Freedom House has been working for fundamental freedoms in the world and has been working the previous 

years in several countries in the region: Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras. And in an annual Freedom of the 

Press Report, the situation in the region is more than sad. Only 43 

percent of the region is free. The rest is not free or partially free. 

Freedom House has been training also journalists in Mexico in 

digital security: 1,300 journalists trained in Mexico. We have been 

helping also the Mexican Government with the Federal Protection 

Mechanism for Journalists. 

In Venezuela and in Ecuador, we have been helping several organizations that works with journalists or support journalists or train 

journalists. 

We have assisted 120 requests for protection from at-risk journalists in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, and Haiti. This is a huge challenge right now in the 

region: Extortion, persecution, the use of the judicial system 

against the journalists. One of three countries in Latin America, 15 

percent, are rated free only. The rest, just 2 percent of the population live in free media environment. 

We see the same situation from Mexico to Argentina, each one 

of the countries. If we record each one of the countries, we see the 

situation in Mexico, in Honduras, in Guatemala. The situation is 

getting worse. And the problem is the allocation of resources to go 

against the journalists. We see lack of access to information; lack 

of resources for the independent journalists and the investigative 

journalists; persecution directly against journalists; impunity 

against the attacks against the journalists; lack of protection; the 

monopoly of the media ownership, and the use of the power of the 

6

state to buy directly or indirectly the media outlets in each one of 

the countries. Abuse for each one of the countries in the region. 

In Argentina, since 2008, journalists and media owners have 

been demonized, persecuted, and threatened. And the relationship 

between the government and the critical press, it is really critical 

against all the media outlets. Total control of the use of the power 

of the state to buy media or to buy publicity in each one of the 

media and to persecute directly journalists. 

Juan Pablo Suarez, editor of the online daily Ultima Hora, was 

charged with inciting collective violence and terrorizing the population. So it is the use of the judiciary ones and over to persecute 

each one of the journalists. 

We can say that is the same situation in Colombia, a weak police 

justice system that doesn’t work to protect the journalists so the 

journalists keep facing the same impunity and persecution. 

In Cuba, the situation is getting worse. With the normalizations, 

the diplomatic situations have been improving in Cuba. But every 

Sunday, we can see the Ladies in White. Every Sunday, we see the 

persecution against the civil society. We see the persecution not 

only in Cuba. When the Cubans are trying to leave the country, 

they also have problems in Panama, El Salvador. They have persecution also by the regime in trying to infuse the long arm of the 

regime. 

We see the persecution in every independent journalist in Cuba. 

All the organizations that try to bring information outside Cuba 

have been persecuted. Even bloggers have been persecuted in 

Cuba. Cubanet has been playing definitely a good role in Cuba, but 

it has been persecuted all the time. 

In the case of the Ecuador, not only is it about journalists, it is 

about cartoonists, like Bonilla, persecuted by the government directly. The government simply persecuted also organizations for 

civil society like Fundamedios. Ecuador experienced the second 

largest decline in the world, the freedom of the press from 2008 to 

2013. It is going downward in the last year; 180 cases of persecution in Ecuador, and recently, the hacking team against all the organizations in Ecuador. 

Honduras is the most deadliest country for journalists. 

Guatemala, 72 organizations reported 177 during this administration of—the current administration in Guatemala. The aggression against journalists, the persecution, killing against the journalists. 

Mexico. Mexico has been going downward in terms of the protection of the journalists, and it is not free since 2011, according to 

Freedom House. 

In Venezuela, 1,773 aggressions against journalists documented 

so far in just 10 years, from 2005 to 2015. And the government control of all the media in Venezuela and now persecution even the 

Web pages that operate in Venezuela. Seven journalists killed since 

2005. There is no independent media in Venezuela. 

It is the same situation in Mexico. 

Nicaragua, government ownership of all the media in Nicaragua 

and the persecution of anyone who wants to simply express the 

right to go and ask independent election in Nicaragua, persecuted 

7

by the police, persecuted by the regime now. And we can see that 

this is a pattern around the region. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Dr. Ponce, if you can start wrapping up. 

Mr. PONCE. Yeah. Yeah. 

Now, just a recommendation. We need to publicly express concerns about the situation of the attacks of the journalists, bloggers, 

citizen reporters, and activists. And we need to also support the 

independent and alternative media programs in the region; support 

establishment and strengthen and well fund an efficient program 

to support mechanisms, protection mechanisms in each one of the 

countries. 

One of the positive things is Honduras has a mechanism. Mexico 

has a mechanism. Colombia has a mechanism. But they need economic support. Provide support to the Inter-American Commission 

of Human Rights and the Offices of the Special Rapporteur for 

Freedom of Expression. And pass the Global Magnitsky Human 

Rights Accountability Act right now. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ponce follows:]

8


95696a-1.eps
9


95696a-2.eps
10


95696a-3.eps
11


95696a-4.eps
12


95696a-5.eps
13


95696a-6.eps
14


95696a-7.eps
15


95696a-8.eps
16


95696a-9.eps
17

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Carlos Laurı ́a, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CARLOS LAURI ́A, SENIOR AMERICAS PROGRAM COORDINATOR, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS 

Mr. LAURI ́A. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to commend Chairman Duncan and members of the 

House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere for holding this 

important hearing and for providing the Committee to Protect 

Journalists the opportunity to testify before you. CPJ is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to promote freedom of 

press worldwide and defend the rights of journalists. It is an honor 

to speak to you today. 

What I have experienced in more than a decade at CPJ is that 

while Latin American media are certainly freer and more vibrant 

now than during previous decades, journalists in the region continue to face serious challenges on different fronts. The regional 

press continues to hold governments accountable, exposing corruption and human rights abuses in the face of ongoing threats by organized crime and officials in their attempt to thwart freedom of 

expression. 

Despite the strong tradition of independent, investigative, and 

critical media in many countries of the region, journalists are increasingly vulnerable to both violence and government harassment. 

More than 30 years of democratization in the region, transnational 

criminal networks have extended their sway and spread a wave of 

unprecedented violence across Latin America. Scores of journalists 

have been killed and disappeared. Media outlets have been bombed 

and forced into silence. The consequences are devastating: Many 

regional democracies have deteriorated due to political instability 

and weakened institutions. 

Violence tied to drug trafficking has made Mexico one of the dangerous countries in the world for the press, according to CPJ research. More than 50 journalists have been killed or disappeared 

since 2007. Compounding the problem of violence is a climate of 

pervasive impunity. Crimes against the press are never solved, not 

only as a result of negligence and incompetence but also because 

of widespread corruption among law enforcement officials, particularly at the state level. 

Breaking the cycle of impunities surrounding crimes against the 

press is Mexico’s greatest challenge. Legal changes, although necessary, will be clearly insufficient without strong political will for 

President Enrique Pena Nieto’s administration. 

Amid the violence and volatility caused by organized crime and 

corruption in Central America, Honduras and Guatemala have also 

experienced an alarming increase in the numbers of attacks 

against the press. Nearly complete impunity for these crimes 

means the cases go mostly unresolved and the motives unexplained, a CPJ report published in September found. 

Despite Brazil’s image as an international political and economic 

leader and its position as the host of next year’s summer Olympics, 

the country has become one of the most dangerous in the world for 

the press. According to CPJ research, at least 16 journalists have 

18

been killed in direct reprisal for their work since January 2011, 

while six others were murdered in unclear circumstances. 

In the lead up to the 2016 summer Olympics, President Dilma 

Rousseff will have to grapple with many problems, including a 

sluggish economy, the unfolding corruption scandal within the 

state oil company, and the prospect of renewed protests, like those 

that erupted around the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Precisely at those 

times, Brazil needs a vibrant, independent press that can freely report on these matters and carry out its work without fear of reprisal. 

In the next year, the world’s fourth largest democracy will receive a flood of tourists and find itself under the spotlight for international media attention. Before that occurs, the Brazilian Government needs to go beyond rhetoric and make good on the promise 

to protect the press and combat impunity. 

While security in Colombia has improved in recent years and the 

number of killed journalists have dramatically decreased in the last 

decade, impunity is entrenched and threats and violence against 

journalists continue. Problems, such as overloaded prosecutors and 

mishandling of evidence, have delayed criminal investigations for 

years. 

Besides the issue of violence, the second most persistent problem 

facing the Latin American press is the series of judicial, legislative, 

and regulatory restrictions placed on the press by democratically 

elected governments that seek to control the flow of information 

and stifle the dissent. Showing disdain for the institutions of democracy, several governments are seeking to suppress dissent, 

limit critical voices, and censor the news that undermines their 

public positions. Describing critical journalists as the unelected opposition, these governments have become increasingly intolerant to 

media criticism. 

Venezuela provides the most blatant example of intolerance toward views and different opinions. The Government of Venezuela, 

Nicola ́s Maduro, has employed an array of tactics to weaken the 

press, and few remaining critical media still standing in Venezuela, 

according to CPJ research. 

Nearly all of Venezuela’s strategies and tactics to rein in and isolate critical journalists have been emulated by sympathetic governments across the region, from Nicaragua to Ecuador. But nobody 

has a been better apprentice than Ecuadorian President Rafael 

Correa, whose policies have transformed the country into one of the 

hemisphere’s most restrictive nations for the press. 

Lastly, as I testify before Congress today, I must also mention 

the climate for press freedom in the United States has deteriorated 

in recent years. Decisions by the Department of Justice in seizing 

journalists’ phone records and emails, the aggressive prosecutions 

of whistleblowers who leak classified information to the press, and 

the massive surveillance of communications send an unequivocal 

chilling message to journalists and their sources, particularly on 

issues of national security that are of vital information to the public. 

At the same time, just as troubling, these actions in the United 

States set a terrible example for the rest of the world, especially 

19

where governments routinely justify the intervention in the media 

by citing national security. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laurı ́a follows:]

20


95696b-1.eps
21


95696b-2.eps
22


95696b-3.eps
23


95696b-4.eps
24


95696b-5.eps
25


95696b-6.eps
26

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Paolillo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CLAUDIO PAOLILLO, CHAIRMAN, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND INFORMATION COMMITTEE, 

INTER–AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PAOLILLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Claudio Paolillo. I am the chairman of the Freedom 

of the Press and Information Committee, Inter-American Press Association. On behalf of the Inter-American Press Association, I 

want to thank this subcommittee for this invitation to participate 

in this important hearing. We have already submitted to the subcommittee a written and detailed report with some recommendations. 

Freedom of the press and of expression in the hemisphere underwent a marked deterioration in recent months due to a significant 

increase in direct and indirect censorship and physical attacks on 

journalists. Violence carried out by organized crime, drug traffic hit 

men, and police-style groups on the orders of several governments 

in the region left on balance, more than 20 journalists murdered 

during the past 12 months in Honduras, Paraguay, Mexico, El Salvador, Colombia, and Peru. 

But while the murders of journalists is terrible news for press 

freedom in the region, let me focus on two types of censorship 

which are of main concern to IAPA. Firstly, censorship in the 

Cuban dictatorship. The Governments of the United States and 

Cuba began a new relationship on July 20. Of course, it is too early 

to make definitive evaluations, but the reopening of Embassies in 

Washington and Havana did not produce any improvement in the 

practice of journalism or people’s access to free information. 

Nobody in Cuba is authorized to establish an independent media 

external to the government, and the ones that exist are those belonging to the regime. Internet access is virtually impossible for ordinary citizens. 

Now, recently, 15 independent journalists, bloggers, and activists 

for freedom were arrested. After the resumption of relations with 

the United States, practices of meetings, arrests, intimidations, 

harassment, and vandalism against openness and independent 

journalists persisted; three of them are in jail now. 

The government of Raul Castro has asserted repression, using 

paramilitaries trying to avoid the traces of the regime to be recorded. In 2014, there were 9,000 arrests for short periods, which 

is the new repressive tactic of the Castro brothers. Since IAPA’s 

point of view, the resumption of relations between the U.S. and 

Cuba will not be good news per se unless there is good news for 

the return of freedom to the Caribbean island. 

The least we can expect after more than a half a century is a 

kind of give and take, something like a barter with the Cuban regime. The isolation policy applied during 15 years can be discussed, 

but the price of defending freedom was valid during this 15 years, 

and it is valid now. 

Secondly, censorship in legal dictatorships. With varying degrees, 

there are now legal dictatorships in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, 

and Ecuador. Argentina has followed similar paths, but in that 

27

country, there still remains some liberties that make it a unique 

case. This description of legal dictatorships may sound a bit strong, 

but we would try to explain it using the example of Ecuador. 

Since January 2007, in Ecuador, President Rafael Correa imposes a system which keeps in his fist the control of the three 

branches. He has decided to perpetrate endlessly in office to silence 

the independent and critical press, Correa displaced an ongoing 

campaign against the media, journalists, and citizens who have different opinions from his. 

But unlike Cuba, where there is in place a dictatorship that everyone recognizes as such, in Ecuador and the other countries mentioned, there are constitutions and laws based on which the freedoms of speech and press are attacked legally. In Ecuador is in 

force since June 2013 the communications act, the most perfect and 

effective gag law created in recent times in Latin America. This 

law is imposed against any critical comment by a team of 300 officials who are under the order of a censor appointed and directed 

by President Correa. 

To give you an idea, the gag law already enabled the government 

to impose 37 types of sanctions against nongovernment media outlets: Five verbal warnings, seven fines, four orders of rectifications, 

four answers imposed by the government, four orders to apologize, 

seven written warnings, two suspensions of radio frequencies, and 

three forced answers in specific radio programs. 

In Ecuador and the other countries mentioned, one can say that 

there are elected governments but not necessarily democratic governments and much less republican governments. Yes, there are 

elections, but there is no separation of powers. There is no independent judiciary. There is no respect for individual rights, and 

freedom of the press is constantly under attack. Therefore, we 

speak about legal dictatorships. 

Paradoxically, as they are elected, it is more difficult to denounce 

them than the very Cuban dictatorship. Without a free press, as 

our Declaration of Chapultepec says, democracy doesn’t exist, let 

alone free and legitimate elections. You cannot say that people 

choose when they do not know what are they going to choose. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paolillo follows:]

28


95696c-1.eps
29


95696c-2.eps
30


95696c-3.eps
31


95696c-4.eps
32


95696c-5.eps
33


95696c-6.eps
34


95696c-7.eps
35


95696c-8.eps
36


95696c-9.eps
37


95696c-10.eps
38


95696c-11.eps
39


95696c-12.eps
40


95696c-13.eps
41


95696c-14.eps
42


95696c-15.eps
43


95696c-16.eps
44


95696c-17.eps
45


95696c-18.eps
46


95696c-19.eps
47


95696c-20.eps
48


95696c-21.eps
49


95696c-22.eps
50


95696c-23.eps
51


95696c-24.eps
52


95696c-25.eps
53

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Pe ́rez, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. NICOLA ́ S PE ́ REZ LAPENTTI, CO–

DIRECTOR, EL UNIVERSO IN ECUADOR 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, free 

speech and the free press are under attack in Ecuador. President 

Rafael Correa declared the independent press as his number one 

enemy within his first year in office. In the last 8 years, journalists, opinion leaders, and media owners, have been denigrated, harassed, and singled out by President Correa and public officials on 

government-controlled media and on the streets. 

In 2012, El Universo, its opinion editor, and its three directors, 

myself included, were sentenced to pay $40 million in reparations 

to President Correa personally and to serve 3 years in prison for 

publishing an unflattering op-ed column about the President. This 

situation forced the publisher to seek asylum and the rest of us 

into exile. The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights 

issued a precautionary measure urging Ecuador’s highest court to 

suspend the sentence on the case. 

The international community’s reaction and support were overwhelming. Leading media outlets, human rights organizations, academics, professional organizations, and international political figures, including President Jimmy Carter, expressed their outrage 

about the grotesque nature of this case. 

In the end, President Correa granted us his personal pardon, and 

this newspaper was spared from shutting down. Until this day, the 

judicial precedent is still alive, and its chilling effect on the Ecuadorian society is palpable. Now we will look for justice beyond our 

borders. Our case against the state of Ecuador is pending at the 

Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. 

Today, the Ecuadorian media faces a subtle yet more threatening 

scenario. Censorship of free speech and the free press has been 

sanctioned into law. President Correa’s majority in Congress 

passed the communications law 2 years ago. In the eyes of this law, 

information is a public service and the media is a public utility, no 

different than your local power and light company. Therefore, it all 

has to be intensely regulated by the government. 

A special agency was created to uphold the lost mandate that all 

information be verified, contrasted, timely, and contextualized. And 

to enforce this law, a superintendent was selected from a short list 

of three candidates nominated by President Correa himself. 

Since then, this agency has obliged media outlets to rectify and 

apologize for publishing information inconvenient for the government. Furthermore, imposing confiscatory fines that start at 10 

percent of revenues averaged in the last 3 months, these fines double each time the infraction recurs in a 6-month period. As an example, the first fine El Universo faces is approximately $350,000; 

the second fine would be $700,000; the third, $1.4 million; and so 

on. 

This new law enables the government to silence the press by imposing progressive fines that could bankrupt any media outlet. This 

outrageous situation is unique in the region. No other country has 

54

a law that enables censorship of the printed press by the highest 

levels of government. 

For 94 years, through four generations, El Universo has endured 

through all forms of hostile political power, yet we are certain that 

this is the free press’ darkest hour in Ecuador. Freedom of expression in all its forms is a fundamental right essential to democracy. 

These United States and Ecuador have a long history of shared 

democratic values included on several human rights treaties which 

our nations are signatories of. 

This is why we respectfully urge this House not to remain a silent witness to these attacks on the cherished, fundamental rights. 

Therefore, we recommend, first, that you state your concern about 

the current state of freedom of expression in Ecuador and condemn 

the policies and practices that seek to silence the free press; second, to initiate a direct dialogue on these crucial issues of freedom 

of expression with Ecuador’s legislative branch; third, stand by the 

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights through this challenging time when it has been the target of attacks by the Ecuadorian Government; fourth, support and strengthen the Commission’s Office of the Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression, 

which is the last line of defense for dissenting voices in the region; 

and, finally, place freedom of expression as a top priority on the 

United States’ foreign policy agenda toward Ecuador and other 

countries facing the same challenges. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pe ́rez follows:]

55


95696d-1.eps
56


95696d-2.eps
57


95696d-3.eps
58


95696d-4.eps
59


95696d-5.eps
60


95696d-6.eps
61


95696d-7.eps
62


95696d-8.eps
63


95696d-9.eps
64


95696d-10.eps
65


95696d-11.eps
66


95696d-12.eps
67


95696d-13.eps
68


95696d-14.eps
69


95696d-15.eps
70


95696d-16.eps
71


95696d-17.eps
72


95696d-18.eps
73


95696d-19.eps
74


95696d-20.eps
75

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Corchado, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALFREDO CORCHADO, MEXICO BUREAU 

CHIEF, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS 

Mr. CORCHADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Alfredo Corchado, and I am the Mexico bureau chief 

for the Dallas Morning News, based in Mexico City. On behalf of 

my colleagues in Mexico, I thank you for the opportunity to talk 

about such a critical issue, freedom of expression. 

I would also like to commend Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Sires, and members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for 

this important hearing. 

I live in, work in, call home a country where in recent months 

every 26 hours a reporter is attacked, most of them by either the 

government or criminal gangs. Too many journalists in my homeland of Mexico have paid the ultimate price. This afternoon, I hope 

to honor their memory. 

Mexico, as many have mentioned, is one of the most dangerous 

places to be a journalist. Every day, I walk in the shadow of more 

than 120,000 people killed or disappeared in just over 8 years, 

among them dozens of Mexican journalists, colleagues who were 

more vulnerable and face a more dangerous and precarious situation than I do. 

Drug traffickers and corrupt government officials bully reporters, 

harassing them if they are lucky or silencing them for good if they 

are not. Today, I speak to you in the memory of more than 50, or 

as many as 120, journalists who have either been killed or disappeared since Mexico’s political transition began in 2000. 

Today, there are regions in Mexico where reporters have elected 

to sensor themselves. In other words, see nothing, say nothing. 

These are known as regions of silence. And who can question the 

logic of my Mexican colleagues? The vast majority of those cases remain unsolved. Mexico’s rule of law remains so, so weak. Institutions are virtually nonexistent. Crimes go unpunished. 

As my Mexican colleague Javier Garza, who collaborates on a 

project called ‘‘Journalists at Risk’’ that documents attacks against 

the press, says, ‘‘The most worrying aspect of this growing trend 

of violence is that Mexico is going backwards.’’ This is a sad irony 

because, even with the advances in elections, government transparency, and media competition in the last 15 years, press freedom 

in Mexico is smaller, not bigger. 

Mexico’s inability to protect its journalists and defenders of freedom of expression against criminals is beyond shameful. It is both 

shocking and offensive to those who believe that journalism is a 

powerful tool to shine the light and to hold the powerful accountable. 

Just as outrageous, my Mexican colleagues say, in Mexico they 

still kill you twice—once with the bullet, a blow to the head, or in 

a barrel of acid, and then they kill you again through character assassination, by spreading rumors about you, or even pressing criminal charges, as we have repeatedly seen with other journalists, especially those working in rural communities across Mexico, whether Veracruz, Oaxaca, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas, Michoacan, and so on. 

76

Even in Mexico City, where we thought journalists like Carmen 

Aristegui were untouchable, it appears now that we were wrong. 

One of the most influential journalists in Mexico, Aristegui and her 

team uncovered, among other big stories, that the President and 

his wife had purchased a $7.1 million home from a government 

contractor—clearly a conflict of interest. 

Aristegui and other journalists organized a Web site for whistleblowers. In any democratic country, such acts of courage in journalism would be awarded. In Mexico, Aristegui and her team were 

fired. Whatever, whoever is behind the firing, one thing is certain: 

Freedom of expression in Mexico is threatened even further. 

I was born in Mexico and grew up in the United States, earning 

along the way a blue U.S. passport. Today, I am a binational citizen, holding both U.S. and Mexican citizenship. Yet I believe that 

being an American is the reason I report on stories that many of 

my colleagues don’t live long enough to tell. Those are stories about 

the very same people who now hold pockets of the country hostage. 

In July 2007, I got a call from a U.S. trusted source asking me, 

where are you? In Mexico City, in my neighborhood of La Condesa, 

I replied; why? We have information that the Zetas, a criminal 

paramilitary group, plan to kill an American journalist within 24 

hours, and I think it’s you. Get out. 

I felt the ground under me collapse, my legs weaken, the life in 

me sucked away. I felt betrayed. I had wanted to believe that I was 

a son of Mexico, and now someone wanted to kill me. I was a mess. 

I had once asked the same source about the likelihood that an 

American journalist would be targeted by a cartel. He said, I have 

good news and bad news. The good news: A Mexican cartel does 

not want to harm an American journalist. It would bring too much 

attention to their estimated $30 billion, $40 billion industry. The 

consequences could be too messy for them. The bad news: You don’t 

look American, bro. 

See, I tell you this story because I want to make something very 

clear. I am by no means more courageous or braver than any of my 

Mexican colleagues. I just want to believe that, if something happens to me, someone, somewhere, someone in this room, will seek 

justice. I won’t be just another number, I won’t be a faceless victim. 

Because, as bad as my situation may sound, the danger I face pales 

in comparison to what my Mexican colleagues confront. Simply put, 

I have more protection. 

In conclusion, in Mexico, Latin America, and across the world, 

journalists will only be safe when the aggressors, whether criminal 

groups or public authorities, are brought to justice, when criminals 

pay a price. 

Today in Mexico, attacks against journalists are rarely, if ever, 

solved. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission reported last 

year that nearly 90 percent of the attacks, murders, and disappearance of journalists remain unpunished. As we say in Mexico, ‘‘La 

vida no vale nada.’’

The Mexican Government has a method in place to protect journalists, one that the U.S. Government supports. The government 

also has a special prosecutor. But both the mechanism and the 

prosecutor have been largely ineffective. 

77

The U.S. Government needs to do more to continue pressuring 

Mexico by raising concerns about attacks against freedom of expression. Otherwise, as the Washington Office on Latin America recently stated, freedom of expression will continue to be limited in 

Mexico unless Mexican authorities conduct full investigations and 

prosecutions of these crimes and implement effective mechanisms 

to protect human rights defenders and journalists at risk. We could 

not agree more. 

Again, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corchado follows:]

78


95696e-1.eps
79


95696e-2.eps
80


95696e-3.eps
81


95696e-4.eps
82


95696e-5.eps
83


95696e-6.eps
84


95696e-7.eps
85

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank you. 

I want to thank the witnesses, many of which have traveled a 

long way to be here with us today, from Ecuador, from Uruguay 

and Mexico. And I know all of you traveled a good bit, so thank 

you very much. 

And, Senor Paolillo, Montevideo is one of my favorite places. I 

have traveled there personally and love it. The Rio de la Plata is 

just beautiful. So I love your country. 

I will say this. A question to you. You mentioned Argentina. Was 

Argentina restricting freedom of the press prior to President 

Kirchner, or are we seeing it trend that way and landing on these 

lists during her tenure? 

Mr. PAOLILLO. Well, as I already said, Argentina is not the same 

as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. There remain a 

number of liberties that are under attack by the Kirchners’ government mainly. We have to take in account that the Kirchners are 

now 12 years in office, first Nestor Kirchner, then his wife. 

But there are a score of denounces of journalist, freedom-of-thepress organizations against Argentina. Because, for example, the 

President used the national chain for channels and radios to insult 

journalists, to expose the private lives of journalists. And on media 

also, there is suppression, absolutely illegitimate. 

And there is managing money with discretionary political differences. Millions of dollars of official advertisement that goes for 

the media that is in favor of the government, that doesn’t go to the 

media that is critical or independent. 

So, yes, in Argentina, it seems the Kirchner family took power, 

the freedom of the press has lowered. But, in Argentina, as we 

don’t have in Ecuador or Venezuela and Nicaragua and Bolivia, 

there still remain TV programs, for example, or newspapers that 

can fight against this authoritarian regime but not a totalitarian 

regime yet. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I take a particular interest in Argentina just because of Sen ̃ or Alberto Nisman and the Iranian issue and 

Hezbollah, tri-border region, and the attacks on the AMIA Cultural 

Centers and whatnot back in the 1990s and the investigation. So 

I wondered whether the Argentine people are getting their right 

and the truth on that issue with Iran or whether Mr. Nisman was 

telling the truth, and his unfortunate death. So I am following that 

very closely. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Ponce, is there a direct correlation between 

the deterioration of press freedom and weak judicial systems? And 

the reason I ask is we hear a lot about rule of law, talked even 

today about rule of law in Latin America. And so the judicial systems are very important. So is there a direct correlation between 

deterioration of freedom of press or press freedom and the judicial 

system? 

Mr. PONCE. Yes. Thank you very much for your question. 

Yes, it is a direct correlation. In all the countries where we see 

the deterioration of the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, 

we see that the institutions are not working or that there is no 

independence. 

The worst case is Cuba. Of course, you don’t have any judiciary 

in Cuba. Then you have Venezuela, in which the person of the ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:52 Sep 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_WH\072915\95696 SHIRL
86

gress or the Assembly directly control the judiciary and ask for 

some people to take some people to jail. Or you have the same situation in Mexico, in which you have impunity; or in Honduras, in 

which the judiciary is weak; or Ecuador, in which the government 

controls the judiciary. 

As soon as the government begins to control the judiciary, there 

is no independence, and there is actually impunity for the crimes 

against——

Mr. DUNCAN. So the threats and the physical attacks and other 

things on the media, on the journalists themselves, go unpunished. 

Mr. PONCE. Unpunished. And, in some cases, like in Venezuela 

or in Cuba, you have the government directly attacking the journalists. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We saw that in Panama, not necessarily with journalists but with demonstrators. 

Mr. PONCE. It is not only in Panama. In El Salvador directly, the 

Government of Cuba—well, allegedly, the Government of Cuba and 

the Ministry of Security of El Salvador tried to deport 11 Cubans 

just because they want to go to participate in an international 

event in El Salvador. So it is not only in their countries; they are 

trying to impose also their regimes outside the country. 

It is the same case with Venezuela, persecuting human rights activists anytime that they travel to go to an Inter-American Commission, to go to the U.N., they are persecuted by the regime anytime they travel. 

So it is not only the impunity for the case against the journalists; 

it is the government directly persecuting journalists in each one of 

these countries. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Wow. So it would be your opinion that journalists 

are being specifically targeted as a result of their reporting? 

Mr. PONCE. Oh, yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. They are not just victims of a broader deterioration 

of the security conditions in the country. They are actually being 

targeted because they are journalists and their type of reporting. 

Mr. PONCE. You can establish the link between the death of the 

journalists in Guatemala or the death of the journalists in Mexico 

with their investigative reporting. They have been investigating a 

precise case of corruption or precise case of abuses, and they got 

killed in each own country. 

Right now, for example, in the case of Guatemala, you see some 

journalists, they have been reporting about the campaign and 

about the abuses in the campaign. And this one candidate, 

Baldizon, threatened directly the journalists. 

So the journalists has been under attack not only by the government, not only by the people behind the power, also for the people 

who wants to take control of the country. It is a sad situation in 

the region. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Not supposed to happen in democratic 

governments, right? 

My time is up. I will turn to the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, one of my disappointments is, every time we have 

somebody from the State Department here, they tell us how in the 

Western Hemisphere they are becoming more democratic and they 

87

are having more elections, and I tell them that I disagree with that 

assessment. Anytime you have these governments which stifle freedom of speech, I don’t think that is a democratic pathway. 

And I believe that there is almost like a domino theory. You get 

one country that starts stifling the press. The other country sees 

that this country is getting away with it. He starts doing it. The 

other country sees that these two countries have it, and they start 

doing it. I think that is what is happening in the Western Hemisphere. It started with Cuba, Venezuela. Then you have Ecuador, 

Bolivia, you know, Guatemala, Honduras. 

Is there anyplace in the Western Hemisphere where the press is 

strongest? Anybody. 

Mr. Laurı ́a? 

Mr. LAURI ́A. I mean, I would say it is not all black and white. 

There are examples of great investigative work in the Americas, all 

around Latin America. I mean, in Brazil, for example, you have 

great work by investigating journalists, revealing, exposing corruption. And you can see the country being hit by probably the most 

largest corruption scandal in decades of a state-owned company 

and the press revealing some of those corruption scandals. 

Even in countries like Mexico, for example, where areas are outside the control of the government and are virtually taken by organized crime, you have great examples of courageous journalists 

doing work, investigative work, on drug trafficking, on corruption, 

on the collusion between authorities and organized crime. 

I will cite two examples in Mexico. The magazine Zeta, in the 

city of Tijuana, that suffered the murder of two of its editors in the 

past and continues to do great work investigating the Arellano 

Felix cartels and drug trafficking and corruption there. And another magazine in the state of Sinaloa, where the famous druglord 

Chapo Guzman was born, Riodoce, in a context of violence, they are 

still doing great, great work. 

And I can cite examples on different countries where journalists, 

despite the threat of violence, the threat of persecution, the threat 

of jail, are doing very courageous work, even in Venezuela and in 

Cuba. You have a prominent blogger, Yoani Sanchez, launching a 

magazine, 14ymedio, doing remarkable work. 

So I am encouraged, greatly encouraged, by those examples of 

great work despite these challenges. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PAOLILLO. Yes, I would like to say that, first, 14ymedio is a 

great job of Yoani Sanchez, as you said. It’s okay. But no Cuban 

can read 14ymedio. We can read 14ymedio from abroad but not 

from Cuba. 

But I would like to underline, as to your question, that there are 

some countries where freedom of the press is more or less respected, or mainly respected. And that includes Costa Rica. That 

includes my country, Uruguay, which is a leftist government, but, 

nevertheless, there is respect for freedom of the press. 

Brazil, as Carlos said, is another example. Without the freedom 

of the press in Brazil, the big cases of corruption wouldn’t have 

been known by the people and by the judiciary after that. 

Panama, who had—the press of Panama, who had a bad time 

during the Martinelli period, they printed denounces about the corVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:52 Sep 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_WH\072915\95696 SHIRL
88

ruption of that government. And they had the freedom to do it, and 

they did it. And now the former officers of the Martinelli government are going to jail in Panama because of the work and the job 

of the press. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Corchado? 

Mr. CORCHADO. I would just echo what Carlos said. I mean, there 

are many journalists in Mexico, who, in spite of the dangers, in 

spite of the risks, continue to do great investigative work. 

But, as I said in my testimony, I mean, the consequences are 

great. You have someone like Carmen Aristegui, who does an incredible investigation, and the price she is paying. You have other 

journalists, many who have sought political asylum in the United 

States, paying a big price. 

Yet, in spite of the dangers, there are many people who still believe in journalism holding the powerful accountable. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will recognize the former chairman of the committee 

and the chairwoman of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman 

Duncan and Ranking Member Sires, for convening this important 

hearing on a topic that receives very little attention here in the 

U.S. You have excellent panelists. I congratulate you for selecting 

them. 

Press freedom in Latin America is indeed under threat from regimes that seek to squash any dissenting voices. The Inter American Press Association noted at its 70th general assembly in October that press freedoms and freedom of expression have suffered a 

noticeable decline last year, in 2014. 

Venezuela’s law of 2004, la Ley de Responsabilidad Social en 

Radio y Television, is designed to muzzle broadcast media into submission, leaving journalists and editors with no choice but to selfcensor their own content. The Venezuela model has been copied 

successfully, lamentably, in Argentina’s 2009 law, Ley de Servicios 

de Comunicacion, and Ecuador’s Ley Organica de Comunicacion. 

And, as we speak, the Bolivian Government threatens to enact a 

similar law. 

In Ecuador, we also see journalists being attacked and sued by 

Correa, as all of you have pointed out, or media outlets fined for 

running articles that are deemed to be in opposition to the current 

regime in power. 

In Nicaragua, Ortega continues to restrict press freedom by 

harassing and seeking to censor media outlets or making it difficult 

for them to operate in a free and open environment. Equally concerning are the physical attacks that journalists have suffered at 

the hands of police forces and armed thugs on the orders of officials 

seeking to curtail coverage of events that portray a negative image 

of their decadent regimes. 

In my native homeland of Cuba, Freedom House ranks Cuba 193 

out of 199 in their press freedom ratings. And despite the Obama 

administration’s best efforts to present to us a change in Cuba, as 

the panelists have pointed out, the Castro regime still considers 

89

clandestine printing as a crime against the public order. And many 

of the digital media, as you have pointed out, are available for outside of Cuba, but normal, everyday Cubans have no access to it. 

And, furthermore, any press outlet that tries to portray an independent analysis of the reality of what occurs in Cuba, such as the 

human rights violations and the continued attacks against Las 

Damas de Blanco, the Ladies in White, they are expelled from the 

country. 

Yet, despite a decline in press freedom, nowhere does the battle 

for freedom rage stronger than in the confines of cyberspace. Latin 

America and all of its regimes are increasingly challenged by digital vehicles such as social media blogs, Internet news aggregators. 

It has become impossible to hide its atrocities from being documented in graphic, painstaking detail by social media, even if it is 

not available in those countries, angering their perpetrators, who 

have tried, in varying degrees of success, to ban these digital vehicles. 

So this is a key moment for the future of a free press in Latin 

America. The United States must remain vigilant of proposals to 

regulate or sensor the Internet in our hemisphere. A free Internet 

is the key to fighting against the atrocities in Latin America and 

the last bastion of freedom against the scornful tyrannical regimes 

that plague our hemisphere today. 

I want to ask Dr. Ponce about Venezuela. 

December 6 is elections. Is it plausible for an election to be considered fair if opposition candidates can only spread their messages 

almost exclusively through the Internet? 

One of the main concerns in Venezuela is the imposing size of 

state-owned media. Critical outlets like El Universal and 

Globovision, among many others, have been swallowed by the hegemonic state apparatus. And now we have the elections coming up; 

they no longer count on a vehicle to deliver their messages to the 

general public. 

How do you analyze the upcoming elections and the viability of 

candidates without access to the state-owned media? 

Mr. PONCE. As simple as ‘‘no.’’ No, the truth of Venezuela is everything is manipulated in the election. From the selection of their 

party to the electoral authorities, they violate their own constitution to select the current members of the electoral authorities. They 

have violated the law, established new rules, changing the rules of 

the game. They did that before, and they continue doing that. 

Instead of electoral service, they are going to have a scored service with UNASUR or whatever is there. They are not going to allow 

the European Union, they are not going to allow the OAS. Or, if 

they allow them, it is going to be at the last minute. 

This is the time for the European Union, the OAS, or any serious 

institutions to begin monitoring the investment in the campaign, 

the control in the media, the capacity of the opposition to fight 

back. They have been criminalizing some candidates, banning them 

for participating in the election. They have been also persecuting 

bloggers, Web pages, LaPatilla. Some of the owners of the media 

have been persecuted by the regime. 

There is actually an activity directly by the president of the Parliament persecuting all the NGOs that work directly monitoring 

90

the institutions, some of them monitoring the media. There is no 

separation of power. 

Even the international media, they have been kicking out the 

international media, like NTN24. They have been also restricting 

the access of CNN to Venezuela. 

So it is impossible with just some blogs and Web page to control 

what is going on in Venezuela, to monitor the situation in Venezuela. It is going to be an uphill battle for a weak opposition to 

win a battle against a criminal authoritarian regime. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

And just one last note, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sires. As we 

know, in Cuba, the Castro regime expects all press, works of literature, films, everything to meet an inflexible ideological standard 

set by the Communist Party before its content is disseminated to 

the masses. So we have a monopoly of the Communist Party hindering the free flow of information. And this impacts the work of 

pro-democracy activists and journalists and entrepreneurs, and 

they really have very few tools to get around this obstacle. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sires. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you so much. And I think the best answer 

of the day was ‘‘Cuba is Cuba.’’ That is exactly right. It kind of 

sums up your comments. 

I am going to turn to the ranking member for a second round of 

questions. 

Mr. SIRES. I was just wondering, Mr. Corchado, Mr. Pe ́rez, are 

you concerned that these thugs have a long reach when you are in 

this country? Are you concerned for your safety here? When you do 

an article on corruption or when you do an article exposing the government’s abuses and you are here, do you have concerns that 

these people have that long of a reach? 

Mr. CORCHADO. I mean, as I said in the testimony, whatever 

danger I face really pales in comparison to my colleagues in Mexico. I mean, I want to believe that once I cross into the U.S. I am 

safe. 

I constantly feel like I have to remind people, especially if I am 

on the Mexican side of the border, that I am an American citizen. 

I carry my passport around with me. Every year, I come to Congress here and I get my congressional ID as a form of protection. 

I don’t put it past criminal groups—I mean, they are definitely 

here in the United States. They are in many cities. But I want to 

believe that there is a price to pay and that they won’t touch an 

American journalist. I mean, it is an economic war. It is not a religious, it is not a political—it is an economic battle. So I want to 

believe that the consequences of the price will be too high. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Pe ́rez? 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. Well, I do—I certainly feel safe on American soil. 

But, in my case, I still have my family and my enterprise back in 

Ecuador. So, to answer your question, yes, maybe I personally feel 

safer here, but anything that I might say here might be taken, you 

know, back home and be taken in retaliation to, you know, my family and my enterprise. 

Mr. SIRES. Anybody else? 

Mr. PAOLILLO. Yes. About the reach of these——

Mr. SIRES. Different groups. 

91

Mr. PAOLILLO. Yes. This information we have already gave to you 

here. I would like to talk about the U.S. and the U.S. Government 

and U.S. Congress. Thank you for organizing this panel and this 

hearing. 

But it is my point of view, the United States Government is not 

so involved in these problems as we would like the U.S. Government to be. Of course, we are not asking for any intervention, military intervention, nothing like that. But as a suggestion, I have 

this one. The Congress of the United States should persuade the 

executive branch to have a stronger voice in body where America 

and Latin America interact; that is the Organization of American 

States. 

There is no news about legal dictatorships, as I call them, in 

Latin America. In the past, Mr. Anastasio Somoza, who was the 

dictator of Nicaragua for 40 years, used to say—used to hold elections, and he said, don’t worry, you can vote freely, but the one who 

is going to count the vote is me, so don’t worry about that. And he 

remained in power for 40 years as a dictator. 

So this is happening now in our countries, in some of our countries. In the countries I mentioned, there are legal dictatorships. 

And there is in place and was approved precisely in September 

11, 2001, a document in the Organization of American States that 

is called the Inter-American Democratic Charter that was approved 

by all the governments of the region and is still in force. 

I think, just as we ask to other governments of Latin America, 

we ask the Government of the United States to urge each members 

of governments of the inter-American community to put in practice 

the principles that are in that charter that is in place now, is in 

force now. That is the only thing. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Do you want to add something? 

Mr. LAURI ́A. Yeah. I mean, I would like to just reflect on what 

the real problem for the public and democratic system of censorship 

due to violence and censorship due to government repression is creating. And I think that, you know, because of violence, because of 

government repression, many journalists, many media outlets 

across the hemisphere are not able to report the news. 

I think that this is leaving many people in many countries unable to make informed decisions, and this is because of the difficulties the press faces in its daily work. And I think that an uninformed society is a less transparent and a less democratic one. 

So this is, I think, one of the biggest challenges these threats 

against the press are creating in the hemisphere. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank you. 

Mr. Corchado, I just have a quick question. And this isn’t in the 

prepared questions I had; something came to mind. 

Do you think the Mexican people and the world got the full story 

or have gotten the full story over the missing college students, the 

43 students? And was there any intimidation or anything by the 

Mexican Government over that incident? 

Mr. CORCHADO. I don’t think anyone on either side of the border 

really has the full story on that. I mean, a human rights report just 

92

came out that talked about a lot of the inconsistencies, a lot of the 

problems, a lot of the challenges. So it remains in large part still 

a mystery, what happened to the 43. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yeah. Well, my heart and prayers go out to the 

families and Mexico in general. And maybe one day the whole story 

will come out. 

Mr. Pe ́rez, how would you assess Ecuador’s implementation of 

the 2013 communications law? 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. In our case, specifically, we have a long history, as 

I detail in my written report, that it has affected us, you know, personally, and the newspaper, our enterprise. 

Now, in a general sense, just coming after our lawsuit, it has 

definitely cemented this chilling effect that is centered on the Ecuadorian society right after El Universo’s sentencing. And what it did 

is actually, you know, sanction into law everything that—all of the 

precedents that came from the El Universo case. 

So the chilling effect that first came upon the Ecuadorian society 

from El Universo’s sentencing was sanctioned into law, and today 

we do see self-censorship everywhere. 

Now, in Mr. Laurı ́a’s intervention, he says—and I do commend 

also, there are few journalists taking big risks personally, because 

most of them are not belonging to media outlets anymore. These 

people are by themselves blogging, and they are taking big risks 

by freely opining about what is going on in Ecuador. But there are 

a diminishing number. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are they having to blog anonymously, or are they 

open with it? 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. They are open with it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Wow. 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. They are open with it. But there is still an ever-fewer 

number of them. So we have a fewer number of independent media 

outlets running in the country. One of them shut down for financial 

and pressure reasons. El Comercio from Quito has been bought out 

from an international investor. And so what is left are, you know, 

the two newspapers in Guayaquil and a TV broadcast station from 

Guayaquil. 

So we do see an ever-diminishing number and a few journalists 

taking risks, but most of them actually being censored or silenced. 

You know, self-censorship is a reality in our country. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this. How active is social 

media in Ecuador? 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. It is very active, and it is——

Mr. DUNCAN. So does that act as a check and balance on the government to actually support journalists or to keep them honest? 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. Yes and no. Social media has become more and more 

used in Ecuador. It is even more popular than ever. But——

Mr. DUNCAN. Who does the public lean on more? Are they trusting social media more than they are the traditional journalist, or 

vice versa? 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. Well, when I say social media is being used more, I 

mean not so much as, I guess, a reporting tool, more of a, really, 

a popular expression tool. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But not dissemination of information. 

93

Mr. PE ́ REZ. Well, it is used for that, too. But I guess, as I said, 

there is a diminishing number of independent media outlets and 

independent journalists using them. There is an ever-greater number of just citizens actually concerned about, you know, and discussing using social media. But as that number of citizens grows, 

the presence of the government on social media grows even faster. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Wow. 

Mr. PE ́ REZ. So, you know, it has been documented, the troll centers that the government runs and the number of trolls that, you 

know, use social media to harass and poke at people that are opining independently. And the same in just the present, you know, 

harassing, you know, social media users. The famous case of Crudo 

Ecuador, who was singled out in a weekly address and, you know, 

harassed until he shut down his Web page. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Mr. Paolillo, in Uruguay, social media, is that very active? Is it 

a check and balance on the—and what is your take on social media 

throughout the region? I am curious about this now. 

Mr. PAOLILLO. About Uruguay, I can say that the press is the 

main thing to the check and balances in that country, because 

there is freedom of the press in the country. So social media is very 

active, but the press is very active also. So that is a very—the very 

best environment for freedom of expression, one of the best environments in Latin America, I think. 

The rest of the region, I can see that citizens, regular citizens, 

using more and more social media to protest against authoritarian 

regimes. But the government still points out to the traditional 

media to silence the information and the reports or whatever. So, 

despite that social media is growing, the activities of regular citizens in social media is growing, the traditional media still has a 

lot of force in Latin America. 

And regular people are not doing investigative reporting, checking facts or whatever. They are just denouncing situations. But you 

cannot compare that with the traditional media. There is no mistake of Mr. Correa and his colleagues targeting the traditional 

media, because this is the one that has the journalists paid for 

doing investigations, deep investigations. 

So I think, again, social media is very active throughout the region, but the traditional media is also very important. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I mean, that is interesting, it is reactive. We saw 

that in Ferguson, Missouri, where social media propagated a false 

narrative on what the events were, and the traditional media 

picked up on that, and that became the narrative, but it was later 

proven not to be the correct sequence of events and what actually 

happened. 

And so, you know, traditional media has to try to find a sweet 

spot with social media’s reactiveness, as you say, and traditional 

reporting, which is investigative, it is background, it is digging a 

little more. So I think everyone in journalism is probably struggling with that to some degree. 

Mr. Laurı ́a, if you would like to chime in? 

Mr. LAURI ́A. Yes. 

Social media in Mexico, we have found at CPJ, has become a way 

for citizens to be informed, especially in areas where organized 

94

crime are controlling territory and the media cannot do any kind 

of reporting, not even massive shootouts in broad daylight. Those 

reports are off-limits for journalists working in print, in broadcast. 

And, you know, there are areas in Mexico where citizens can only 

get information in social media networks. 

So, in that case, social media is filling a vacuum. There is an information vacuum in many places in Mexico. People are completely 

uninformed of what is going on in their communities because the 

press has not fulfilled its role. It is completely muzzled. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you this. Are bloggers invited to press 

events by the government? 

Mr. LAURI ́A. If they are invited? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are they invited? Are they able to cover it? You 

know——

Mr. LAURI ́A. In some areas. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Mr. LAURI ́A. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Here in America, I know, and in my State, for a 

while bloggers were not treated as traditional journalists and 

weren’t invited. And I just wondered because——

Mr. LAURI ́A. Yeah. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So, Dr. Ponce, do you want to chime in? I think 

this might be the last question of the day. 

Mr. PONCE. Yes. The problem with social media only is that social media is also open for the regimes. They have established 

blogs. They have established their own Twitter accounts. They persecute some of the people that tweet. For example, a reporter who 

denounced the crime, the Nisman crime, he had to flee the country. 

So they persecute the users of Twitter. They persecute the users 

of social media. But they also create their own media. They create 

their own blogs, they create their own information. They try to manipulate information. And, in some cases, there are bloggers in 

every country who are producing information, and it is impossible 

to substitute investigative journalists. 

One of the things that is missing in the social media, in the blogs 

and all the series of media that we have around, is the investigative journalist and the access from this media to the majority of the 

population. 

In Cuba, it is through El Paquete that the people is learning 

about what is going on outside, reading the newspaper from Miami 

with El Paquete. It is not through the social media. In Venezuela, 

it is not through the social media. They learn from CNN, and they 

learn from some Twitters and some other forms. 

But it is really hard for these platforms to get to the majority 

of the people or to pay for the investigative journalists. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. You know, think about the game-changer 

that social media and access to the Internet would be in Cuba. I 

think about that often. 

Well, listen, I want to thank you all for being here and taking 

time. I know we monkeyed with the time today to start the hearing 

a little earlier, and then it became later due to votes, but I want 

to thank you. And I look forward to following up on this at a later 

date. 

95

So, pursuant to Committee Rule 7, members of the subcommittee 

are permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

official record. And, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 days to allow statements, questions, extraneous 

materials for the record and subject to the limitation rules. 

With that, we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(97)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

98

f


95696n.eps
99

f


95696m.eps
100

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


95696f-1.eps
101

Æ


95696f-2.eps