115th CONGRESS Printed for the use of the 

2nd Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

A Deadly Calling: The Murder

of Investigative Journalists

MAY 9, 2018

Briefing of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Washington: 2018


CSCESeal.EPS
(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)

A Deadly Calling: The Murder

of Investigative Journalists

MAY 9, 2018

Page 

PARTICIPANTS 

Erika B. Schlager, Counsel for International Law, Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe .............................................................................................................................. 1

Paul Massaro, Policy Advisor, Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe .............. 2

Matthew Caruana Galizia, Journalist, son of Daphne Caruana Galizia (via videoconference) ................................................................................................................................... 3

Pavla Holcova, Founder, Czech Center for Investigative Journalism ........................................ 4

Robert Mahoney, Deputy Executive Director, Committee to Protect Journalists ..................... 6

Jason Rezaian, Journalist, The Washington Post; Global Affairs Analyst, CNN ..................... 8

[IV]

(1)

A Deadly Calling: The Murder

of Investigative Journalists 

May 9, 2018

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Washington, DC

The briefing was held at 3:37 p.m. in Room SVC 215, Capitol Visitor Center, Washington, DC, Erika B. Schlager, Counsel for International Law, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe, presiding. 

Panelists present: Erika B. Schlager, Counsel for International Law, Commission for 

Security and Cooperation in Europe; Paul Massaro, Policy Advisor, Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe; Matthew Caruana Galizia, Journalist, son of Daphne 

Caruana Galizia (via videoconference); Pavla Holcova, Founder, Czech Center for Investigative Journalism; Robert Mahoney, Deputy Executive Director, Committee to Protect 

Journalists; and Jason Rezaian, Journalist, The Washington Post; Global Affairs Analyst, 

CNN.

Ms. SCHLAGER. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Erika Schlager, 

and I serve as counsel for international law for the U.S. Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe, informally known as the Helsinki Commission. On behalf of the 

commission, I’d like to welcome everyone here today. 

Before I turn this briefing over to my colleague, Paul Massaro, I’d like to provide 

some context for today’s discussion from the Helsinki Commission perspective. The Helsinki Commission is an independent agency of the Federal Government charged with monitoring implementation of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and advancing U.S. policies 

regarding the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

Media freedom and media expression are core commitments in the Helsinki process, 

agreed by the consensus of all 57 participating States. All 57 participating States have 

also agreed that human rights and democracy are matters of direct and legitimate concern 

to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state 

concerned. 

The targeting of journalists in Afghanistan a week ago, which resulted in the murder 

of 10 professionals trying to do no more than their jobs, was a shocking illustration of 

the extraordinary risks so many journalists take. In the OSCE region, scores of journalists 

are among those who have been swept up in the post-coup attempt in Turkey. 

2

In Russia, investigative journalist Maksim Borodin appears to be the latest victim of 

sudden Kremlin death syndrome, having died by defenestration, and yesterday we learned 

that investigative journalist Olivera Lakic was shot in the leg outside her home. She is 

the second journalist to be attacked in Montenegro ́ this year. 

Today’s briefing will examine the murders of investigative journalists, including 

Daphne Caruana Galizia of Malta and Jan Kuciak of Slovakia. And I understand that this 

past Saturday, May 6th, a Holy Mass and memorial concert was attended by approximately 3,000 people in the eastern Slovak village of Gregorovce. Jan Kuciak was murdered with his fiance ́e Martina Kusnirova, and they would have been married in 

Gregorovce this past weekend. 

I look forward to hearing from our panelists on the challenge of impunity and the 

goal of accountability, on the closing space for investigative journalists and any recommendations they would like to bring to the table. 

I do have a couple of administrative notes. First, this event is streaming live on the 

Helsinki Commission’s Facebook page as well as our website. Second, if you’re tweeting, 

please use the Helsinki Commission handle, which is @HelsinkiComm, C-O-M-M. Third, 

please silence your cell phones or any other electronic devices you may have. And, finally, 

for our panelists, please be sure to speak closely into the microphone, which helps with 

the clarity of our broadcast. 

And I would like to say thank you to all of you who have come here today, including 

my colleagues from the European Union Parliament, the Department of State and the 

Embassy of the Slovak Republic. I really appreciate that you’re here to hear these tremendous panelists. 

With that, I turn the briefing over to policy advisor Paul Massaro, and thank you, 

Paul, for organizing this event. 

Mr. MASSARO. Well, thank you so very much, Erika, for that fantastic introduction. 

We’re very grateful to have four distinguished panelists with us here today. We’ll first 

hear from Matthew Caruana Galizia, who is joining us over SKYPE. Matthew is the son 

of Daphne Caruana Galizia and himself a journalist. He formally worked with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and was an instrumental player 

in major investigations such as the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers. He left ICIJ 

in 2018 to work on the case surrounding the assassination of his mother. 

Following Matthew, we will hear from Pavla Holcova, who is the founder of the Czech 

Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a member center of the Organized Crime 

and Corruption Reporting Project—OCCRP. An accomplished journalist in her own right, 

Pavla collaborated with Jan Kuciak on an investigation in the Italian Mafia’s influence 

in Slovakia. 

We will then hear from Robert Mahoney, deputy executive director of the Committee 

to Protect Journalists—CPJ. CPJ is one of the leading organizations advocating for global 

freedom of the press and the rights of journalists. Rob is very well-positioned to represent 

them as a lifelong journalist himself. He has written on the murders of Caruana Galizia 

and Kuciak. 

Finally, we will hear from Jason Rezaian. Jason is a journalist for The Washington 

Post and a global affairs analyst for CNN who served as the Post’s correspondent in 

Tehran from 2012 to 2016. During that time, he spent 544 days unjustly imprisoned by 

Iranian authorities until his release in January 2016. He knows all too well the threats 

3

faced by journalists and has written extensively on the topic, including the cases of 

Caruana Galizia and Kuciak. 

With that, I would like to hand the floor to our first speaker, Matthew Caruana 

Galizia. Matthew, please. 

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. Thank you, Paul, and thank you to the Helsinki Commission. 

It’s a real honor to join this panel. I assume that people in the audience are more or less 

familiar with the case of my mother. What they’re probably less familiar with is what led 

to everything that happened leading up to her assassination. 

Things really turned badly around 2016 with the publishing of the Panama Papers. 

But even before that, my mother had—really at the peak of her 30-year career as a journalist, and the threats against her started long ago. Growing up, I thought these things 

were normal. I thought it was normal to get strange phone calls from people screaming 

threats on the phone or to receive letters at home containing feces or handcuffs in the 

letter box. 

We came home from school [audio break, technical difficulties] back in the 1990s 

when my mother was writing about drug trafficking and nothing was really ever done to 

ensure that there was no impunity for these crimes—to ensure that people were brought 

to justice for them. So there was this kind of slow increase in threats, I suppose, over 

the first 25 years of her career. But, as I said, over the past perhaps 2 or 3 years, things 

became really, really bad. 

There was a concerted effort by government figures to bring libel cases against my 

mother. She had 46 pending against her at the time of her death—5 criminal libel cases 

and the rest of—19 of them brought against her by a single political party donor with 

connections to organized crime. 

I think it became so bad around 2016 because that was when my mother was 

bringing really incontrovertible evidence of corruption at the highest levels of government 

to light. It just became impossible for people to deny that this corruption really existed—

that things had become unbearably bad. 

So something had to give. Either my mother had to be eliminated or there had to 

be some kind of judicial action taken against the corrupt politicians and businessmen on 

whom she was reporting. And in the end, because Malta’s institutions were ineffective, 

incapable of taking action, completely captured by corporate interests and the interests 

of the governing party, no action was taken, and we know what gave in the end. 

My mother was killed, and that seems to be what’s happening across Europe today. 

In countries where institutions are weak, where there’s no—where journalists are exposed 

and left fighting corruption alone, they’re really the last institution standing against 

government corruption. Then they’re threatened and they’re eliminated. 

This happened in Slovakia. It looks like it’s happening on the kind of periphery states 

of Europe—obviously, Malta is one of them—as well as accession states like Montenegro ́

and Serbia, that things are becoming increasingly difficult for journalists. In these countries, the threats that journalists live under have become normalized. 

Take Italy as an example. It’s more or less the same situation, where so many 

journalists are living under armed guards that I’ve lost count. With Malta, it’s more or 

less a lost cause in the sense that we depend almost entirely on outside help—on the help 

of the European Commission, on the help of the State Department, and/or the help of 

journalists from countries where they’re able to practice their profession more freely. 

4

This is why I think the Daphne Project has been such a help and such a boost to 

both journalists and investigators in Malta who are trying to do their job under very difficult circumstances, fighting the corrupt leaders of their institutions. It really gives 

backing to these people and it really brings—it really puts pressure on the Maltese 

Government to take action, to allow institutions to do their work, to allow institutions to 

prosecute corruption and to bring charges against people who are engaged in organized 

crime. [Audio break, technical difficulties]—or, rather, this attention on the country has 

really changed everything, both for my family as well as for the journalists there who are 

still alive. And what I hope is that it also changes the game for journalists not just in 

the periphery states of Europe who are also trying to do their job under difficult circumstances, but journalists all over the world, too. I hope it inspires them and makes 

them feel as though the world is looking. 

So thank you, everyone, for this meeting and for being here today. The attention that 

you’re giving to this issue is really part of what, in the end, I think [audio break, technical 

difficulties] this and not just for my mother, but for other journalists who have been killed 

and imprisoned and who are under threat all over the world. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you very much, Matthew, for those comments, and thank you 

so much for your emphasis on the need for attention on these subjects. I hope that this 

event serves that cause and for my part, I’ve personally been deeply inspired by the work 

of the Daphne Project and the way that the leading papers of Slovakia came together in 

the aftermath of Jan Kuciak’s death and published his unfinished work. 

I think that the collaboration among investigative journalists now has been one welcome development from a very dire set of circumstances. So with that thought, I’d like 

to hand the floor over to Pavla. Pavla, please. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Hello. Yes, thank you, Helsinki Commission, for having this important, 

fully important discussion and for inviting me to be part of it. I used to live in a region 

where the media press—media were among the most free in the world. But it doesn’t 

apply anymore. It’s not true anymore because it seems society doesn’t see the democratic 

values as a priority anymore. It feels as if people prefer simple solutions, simple media, 

simple articles than those that are more complicated, more analyzing, more difficult to 

understand. 

We are, in Central Europe as a whole region, facing state capture at a level we could 

never imagine before. For journalists, the winter already came. We have a fear. We are 

facing the fear and the fear is paralyzing. It’s paralyzing us for—from doing in-depth analysis of the situation we are now living. It’s really difficult for us to tell where is the line 

between politicians, powerful political parties, and organized crime—where is the line 

between financial fraudsters and business interests and, once again, political parties. This 

is mostly the case in Czech Republic but in Slovakia as well. This is just the wider context 

of what actually happened with the brutal violent attacks on my colleague, Jan Kuciak, 

and on Daphne in Malta. 

Also, it highlights the importance of our job, importance of doing proper investigative 

journalism. There is one real important thing I’ve learned from this murder of my friend 

and colleague, and that’s the importance of sharing and collaboration. That’s also the reason why I founded Czech Center for Investigative Journalism in 2013 and why we, as the 

Czech Center, joined Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, because they 

are, for me, kind of a—trend setters in the form of the way of doing journalism, because 

5

it’s pretty much based on collaboration and pretty much based on sharing of the information. 

It’s not only to bring groundbreaking global stories on organized crime, on money 

laundering, on state capture, but also it brings protection to journalists, because it’s quite 

easy to silence one journalist or two. It’s much more difficult to silence a network of 

journalists. And as I’m going to repeat again and again, you can kill a journalist, but you 

can’t and you shouldn’t kill a story. 

Once you do it, once you kill a journalist, there are tens more to come to finish those 

stories, as we can see in Daphne Project and in the ‘‘All for Jan’’ project. Yes, but the 

murders are just tip of the iceberg. These days in Slovakia, even though the government 

changed, I still believe the situation is still not stable, because the people who are now 

taking part being exchanged in the government are from the same governmental party. 

Still people protest. Still there are thousands of people in the streets requesting the real 

change in Slovak society, requesting the real change in the politics, not other members 

of the very same political party. Also, I believe there’s not much will to properly investigate the murder of my colleague, Jan Kuciak. 

In Czech Republic, the situation is slightly different but not better. We have a president who actually poses in front of the press with a toy gun with inscription, ‘‘To journalists.’’ Also, when he entered the room with Vladimir Putin, who is known for taking the 

press as an enemy, he joked with him—what is actually recorded—that there are too 

many journalists and we should eliminate them. 

At the same time, our prime minister, Andrej Babis, he’s owner of the biggest media 

house. At the same time, he is the leader of the most powerful political party and at the 

same time he’s one of the most rich businessmen and one of the most rich person in the 

Czech Republic. He is actually a walking, living conflict of interest. 

The situation is not better in Hungary, another country for the Central Europe. The 

prime minister, Viktor Orba ́n, created some kind of a blacklist of journalists who are 

enemies of, let’s say, his state. What’s going to happen now with the blacklist is not clear. 

In Poland, those media who are not reporting well for the government are being 

eliminated by financial means. They are being investigated for how they pay taxes. There 

are audits, and many, many more. They don’t get enough advertisements to survive 

because they don’t get the advertisement from the state companies. Yes, and we can probably continue to other countries as well. 

Anyway, just slightly a little bit more on the personal note, because of my job as an 

investigative reporter, my family is forced to live under police protection. Still, we, as a 

journalist, not only in Czech Republic but also in the whole region of Central Europe, we 

are called enemies. We are called foreign agents. We are called mercenaries. It’s really 

difficult to persuade the society that they actually need us. 

Yes. Maybe journalism must undergo such a kind of a crisis that we actually experience today so that the people, that a society, would understand better how they actually 

need our work, how they should actually value the information, unbiased, in-depth, wellresearched information that, in some cases, can cost lives of the reporters. 

Today, I have brought my daughter here—she’s sitting there—just to show her that 

there are still people and the groups of people who do value the job we are doing. 

Thank you. 

6

Mr. MASSARO. Well, thank you very much, Pavla, and we most certainly do value the 

job that you are doing and I really appreciate you highlighting this, what seems to be 

a vanishing line between organized crime and mainstream politics, and I think that it’s 

really alarming. It’s something that I pay attention to at the commission quite a lot. I 

work on a lot of anti-corruption issues and that’s my connection here. It’s what Erika and 

I have worked on together. 

But there really is not an obvious solution. I think part of the solution is to be this 

collaboration that you highlight between investigative journalists. It’s an extremely powerful deterrent to know that you can kill the journalist but you cannot kill the story, and 

it’s just not going to do anything for you except bring even greater attention on it. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Yes. I meant, there’s also other tools, because sometimes in the countries where we work we are not able to publish the stories, because once—we will start 

to be prosecuted for the story. The legal system is so embedded with the government that 

actually it’s clear—in, like, you can say 100 percent that you can’t win the court case as 

a journalist. So it’s important to publish somewhere else where actually the government, 

they don’t have the tools how to manipulate the legal process. 

Mr. MASSARO. Absolutely, and that issue of state capture—I’ve written down right 

here—that’s something I wanted to talk about. So thank you, again, for highlighting that. 

It is a confounding issue. 

So with that, I’d like to hand the floor to Rob. Please. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you, and thank you to the commission for organizing this. And 

I’m glad that you mentioned that there were people from the European Union here, 

because I think that this is a message that we need their support in getting out. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the context of global threats to journalists 

and to press freedom and try to situate what’s happening in Europe into that because, 

to us, this is quite unprecedented and quite alarming. You know, being a reporter in much 

of the world is dangerous work, but being an investigative reporter can be deadly, and 

the assassinations of Daphne in Malta in October and of Jan in February underscore the 

dangers facing reporters who dig painstakingly through thousands of documents and track 

down reluctant sources to expose wrongdoing and to hold the powerful to account. 

Of the 1,303 journalists killed since the Committee to Protect Journalists began 

keeping statistics in 1992, more than half—that’s 838—were murdered. Covering politics, 

crime, and corruption is more dangerous as an assignment for most reporters than covering wars. Some 256 journalists have been murdered over that period, and they were covering corruption, while another 189 were covering crime, according to our research. 

According to our research, the killers and those ordering the murder of journalists 

are rarely brought to justice. In fact, in 86 percent of murder cases, the killers and those 

who hire them get away scot free. We, at the Committee to Protect Journalists, along with 

our colleagues around the world, are working hard to ensure that this is not the case for 

Daphne and Jan. We want their killers and the masterminds who employed them 

unmasked, prosecuted, and brought to justice. These murders were particularly shocking 

because they took place in the European Union, where we expect the rule of law to prevail. 

Over the years, fortunately, relatively few reporters have paid the ultimate price for 

their work in Western Europe. That makes these two brutal slayings of investigative 

reporters, which were only 4 months apart, unprecedented. The intimidation of reporters 

7

following the tentacles of organized crime is a great concern. Unchecked, assaults and 

threats will lead to that cancer that eats away at independent journalism in many 

violence-plagued societies—self-censorship. 

Smuggling, money laundering, human trafficking, embezzlement of EU funds and 

subsidies are all topics that European journalists, whether individually or in collectives, 

have taken on, and this leaves them exposed. Failure to achieve full justice in the cases 

of Daphne and Jan could leave journalists in Malta and Slovakia in even greater danger. 

It would also send a message throughout the rest of the continent that reporters’ lives 

don’t matter. That would be catastrophic for press freedom across Europe, especially given 

the growing authoritarianism we are witnessing in Russia and in several of its former 

Soviet-era allies. 

As mentioned, Poland and Hungary are deeply troubling examples of a decline of 

press freedom in the European Union. Brussels looks on fecklessly as media diversity and 

freedom of expression fray on its eastern edges. In Poland, the government has taken control of public media, cut off official access to critical reporters and threatened others with 

legal action. Lucrative state advertising is used to wield influence over news outlets. Critical outlets are deprived of that ad revenue. 

And Hungary has gone even further down that road. Prime Minister Viktor Orba ́n, 

now starting his third term in office, has most broadcast and print media in his camp. 

For example, the news website Atlatszo estimates that more than 500 titles are now in 

the hands of oligarchs and businessmen linked to the government, all of them heavily 

benefiting from state advertising. Of those 500, just 3 years ago there were only 31 that 

were aligned to the government. That shows how much damage has been done in Hungary 

through media ownership to the independent press. 

And in Bulgaria, another EU member state, three investigative journalists have been 

attacked in the past 6 years. One, a prominent television reporter, Genka Shikerova, has 

had her car set on fire twice since 2013. She’s famous for asking politicians tough questions on air. Someone, apparently, did not appreciate her frankness. No one, of course, 

has been prosecuted for any of the assaults or the arson. 

And so it’s hardly surprising that in the countries lining up to join the European 

Union press freedom violations also go unpunished. Look at Montenegro ́. Just last night, 

as mentioned, journalist Olivera Lakic ́ was shot and wounded outside her home in the 

capital of Podgorica. She covers crime and corruption for the newspaper Vijesti. It’s the 

second time she’s been assaulted for her work, and this latest shooting is worrying 

because it comes just 5 weeks after a car bomb exploded outside the home of investigative 

reporter Sead Sadikovic ́ in the northern town of Bijelo Polje. No one was injured. 

Sadikovic ́, who also reports on corruption and organized crime, had been threatened in 

February over a report he aired in December. He reported the threat to the police, but 

they took no action. 

Outside of the EU, Ukraine has seen the murder of two journalists in the past 4 

years including Pavel Sheremet, who, like Daphne, was blown up in his car. And, finally, 

to Russia, which is the murder capital of Europe for the press, some 38 journalists have 

been killed there since 1992. Some have been high-profile assassinations such as those 

of Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, or Novaya Gazeta, Anna Politkovskaya. 

Some deaths barely make a ripple in the international media because it’s hard to 

prove the link to journalism. One such is the death last month of investigative reporter 

8

Maksim Borodin, who mysteriously fell from the balcony of his fifth-floor apartment in 

Yekaterinburg. Borodin had gained national attention in Russia for his reporting on the 

deaths in Syria of Russian private military contractors fighting on the side of President 

Bashar al-Assad. 

This is a dark time for European journalism and the killings of Daphne and Jan are 

an outrage. But that’s not the end of the story. It can’t be. Journalists are fighting back 

with the best weapon they have—journalism. Last month, an international collective of 

journalists representing 18 media outlets from 15 countries was launched—the Daphne 

Project. Its mission is to continue working on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s unfinished stories 

as well as to investigate the truth about her murder. 

The project yielded almost immediate tangible results because on November 23, a 

member of the European Parliament, Pieter Omtzigt, was appointed special rapporteur 

of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He will monitor the ongoing 

murder investigation in Malta, examine the broader circumstances surrounding the journalist staff, and make calls for impunity to be addressed. 

In Slovakia, as we’ve heard, protests have brought the resignations of the prime minister and the interior minister, and journalists around the world, as well as those who 

were working on the news website Aktuality with Jan, have vowed to pursue the stories 

that Jan was working on at the time of his death and to monitor the investigation into 

his killing. 

It’s essential that we, as journalists, continue the investigations of our murdered colleagues to send the message that you cannot censor reporters and shut down their work 

through media. This we are doing. We will not remain silent. Briefings like this one play 

an important part in keeping the plight of the press in the public eye. It is essential that 

we keep up the publicity and the pressure so that law enforcement and the judiciary bring 

justice to all those involved in the assassinations. Failure to do so will send the message 

to those with the means and the motive that murder is an effective way of silencing criticism. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you very much, Rob, and I wish the overview weren’t so grim, 

but here we are. Thank you also for highlighting the cancer of self-censorship. In fact, 

the worst thing that could possibly happen now is for people to be silent—is for people 

to stop doing their work. That’s exactly the purpose of these murders, right, is to cause 

that reaction. So if they learn that the only reaction they’ll get is louder voices, then perhaps these murders will cease. Then that would be the hope, right? 

Mr. MAHONEY. Absolutely, and, you know, there are these consortiums of journalists, 

some of whom are represented here, that are doing great work in keeping these alive. And 

so congratulations to them and I wish them well in their pursuit. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thanks again, Rob. 

Jason, you have the floor. 

Mr. REZIAN. Thanks for having me this afternoon. I want to make a confession that 

I’m sort of an accidental advocate of press freedom. You know, I’ve spent many years 

working in Iran, which is a pretty hostile environment to journalists, and as many of us 

who work in that part of the world or working in countries where we face a lot of threat, 

we don’t think a lot about the challenges our colleagues face in other places. 

9

But I had the opportunity for a year and a half to think about that a great deal, and 

I had the unenviable experience of being somebody who had a great platform with The 

Washington Post to have that taken away from me, to be silenced for a year and a half 

and not really have the ability to defend myself in the face of simply ridiculous claims. 

So there wasn’t any moment when I sat there in prison and thought to myself, OK, I’m 

going to come out and be a defender of press freedoms. 

But when I came out I saw just how much work had been done on my behalf and 

realized that this is something that I needed to become more involved with, A, because 

it was the right thing to do, but B, because I had an opportunity and a platform, and 

it seemed like a unique one and a responsibility, really, whether I wanted it or not, and 

I decided I wanted it. 

And after about 2 years of recovery—it’s been since January since I returned to work 

at the Post—and I decided that I would write about these issues as much as the Post 

gave me the opportunity to do that. And they’ve given me a lot of room to write about 

press freedom issues, attacks on the free press—and the unfortunate reality is it’s not confined to places like Iran and Russia and Mexico and, you know, what I’m seeing in my 

work, and I know that folks at CPJ, Reporters sans Frontie`res (RSF), the Press Club, 

other organizations know very well and have known for a long time, that this is a problem 

that reaches all over the world. 

And one of the first stories that I wrote when I came back was about Jan, and it 

was something that affected me very deeply, and this through line, this sort of connecting 

thread of impunity, is one that I understand in a unique way and feel as though I have 

an opportunity to strike back at. 

But I can’t do it alone, and none of these organizations can do it without the help 

of one another, and I’m happy to see the collaborative nature of the work that you all 

do. As you guys know better than most, these are not stories that attract the same kind 

of attention that Presidential scandals or volcanoes or other sorts of one-off news events 

do. 

But it affects us all very deeply and I had the opportunity—about a month ago, I 

met Matthew up in New York and we shared a few minutes together and, you know, the 

thing that came home to me was just how much these crimes against journalists destroy 

lives, disrupt families, scatter people all over the world, and it’s not something that I’m 

going to sit quietly about. 

But, again, the key is to figure out ways to raise awareness on these cases. Fortunately, for me, awareness was raised on mine, because without that, I wouldn’t be here 

today. I mean, we look at the case of President Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear 

deal yesterday. There’s five American prisoners that are being held there right now and 

you didn’t hear much about them except from me and a handful of other journalists who 

knew that you had to write about this lest they be forgotten. 

And so these are issues that don’t have a lot of parallels but we have to use the tools 

and platforms available to us and work together to find some common answers to the 

problems that up until recently we may have thought were unique to different geographic 

locations. But as it turns out, there’s a problem everywhere and we’ve got to figure out 

the answer collectively. So I’m happy to be a part of trying to find a solution for that. 

Mr. MASSARO. Well, thanks so much, Jason. Thank you so much for being here today. 

I think I and many, many people, if not all in this room, see you as the living breathing 

10

example of how journalists should and, hopefully, will react in the face of the kind of 

intimidation and attacks that many are facing today—that is, get louder, get deeper in 

it and really start to speak out. So thank you so much for the work you’re doing. 

We’ll now enter a Q&A phase, and we hope the audience will participate. I will start 

off with just one remark and I welcome anyone that would like to say something on this, 

and that is, I’d like to ask a question about the nature of these two killings in particular 

and the nature of the killings we’re seeing in the region. 

No effort was made here to make these look like accidental killings. These were very 

clearly planned, in both cases, by hired guns—hit men. So I’d just like to get your 

thoughts on—and if we could start with Matthew and Pavla and anyone else who would 

like to speak—on why this is the case and perhaps why this is the case here versus the 

type of murder we see in Russia of journalists where somebody falls out a window, right, 

and is gone. 

Matthew, would you like to say something, or——

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. Thank you. That’s the first thing that I thought of. I mean, 

on the scene that day when I ran out to the car and everything was on fire, the first thing 

I thought was that this is a declaration of war. It isn’t just a way of getting rid of someone. It’s a show of force and a show of impunity. We can do this in broad daylight and 

we can get away with it. 

And I think it’s also—I think the fact that my mother was a woman also played a 

part. If you look at this in the kind of culture and dynamics of organized crime in 

southern Europe and it’s dominated by men, and it would have been extremely damaging 

to the egos of both the corrupt politicians that my mother was reporting on, who are 

almost universally men, and their allies in organized crime or their facilitators. 

And for them to be openly—to be exposed and mocked by a journalist who’s a woman 

would have been so humiliating, something that they would have never been able to 

recover from, and I just can’t escape this feeling that that somehow played a part in my 

mother’s murder. To someone or to gangster politicians like the prime minister’s chief of 

staff, for example, to have my mother, a woman, reporting on his activities and revealing 

what he was doing, it would have been just so humiliating he’d need to retaliate in a way 

like this, and I think that might explain the choice of method. 

But, of course, like you said, it’s force. It’s a show of impunity—that they simply were 

not concerned, and not concerned with making it look like a suicide or anything like that. 

They were just so confident of their ability to get away with it. And it seems that they’re 

right, really, because we’re 6 months down the line and we still have no idea who’s behind 

this. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you, Matthew. 

Pavla, do you have something you want to say to that? 

Ms. HOLCOVA. In case of Slovakia, it’s not only a question of the murder of Jan but 

his fiance ́e Martina Kusnirova, was murdered as well. It brings even—I don’t know, I 

have no explanation. I have no theory why. It was to show off the power or the possibility 

that yes, we can kill a journalist. I have no explanation for it because it had to be clear 

that it would bring much bigger storm than if it would look innocent. And still, I really—

it is one of the questions I would really like to hear any kind of explanation why they 

did it this way. It was probably to send some message. But what kind of a message? It’s 

not clear to me. 

11

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you. I’m going to ask a second question. Then we’ll open it up. 

Erika, would you like to ask a question? No? Okay. 

And that question is, you mentioned during—both Matthew and Pavla—that there 

are a lot of journalists under police protection—Pavla, yourself, you’re forced to live under 

police protection. I was wondering who provides this police protection and are these elements of the state that are not captured. You know, are these police acting as protection 

or are they acting as keeping tabs on you, making sure that——

Ms. HOLCOVA. Yes. Actually, I am, and my family, we are under police protection of 

different state——

Mr. MASSARO. Oh. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. ——that actually where it happened. So I am pretty much confident 

that the guys who are taking care of us are real professionals and they do their best job 

to really keep us safe. I wouldn’t be so sure about my situation if I would be under police 

protection provided by Slovak State. 

Mr. MASSARO. Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have questions from the audience? 

Jordan, please. Jordan Warlick, office director at the Helsinki Commission. And, Jordan, 

thank you so much for your help in putting this event together. 

QUESTIONER. Yes. Absolutely, and thank you so much to all of you for being here and 

for sharing your powerful stories with us. 

Rob, you referred to Russia as the murder capital of journalists in Europe. Would you 

say that these increasing threats in the EU—the murders within the EU—does that 

embolden Russia in any way, give them more of a free pass to commit more murders 

against their own people? 

Mr. MAHONEY. I don’t think they need any encouragement to be bold in suppressing 

the media. I think that it’s unfortunate that it’s probably spread westward from Russia 

rather than going back the other way. There was a spate of murders of journalists in the 

mid–2000s. There were a few years when there were none and now it’s started again. 

Basically, much of the free and independent media in Russia has been silenced. There 

are very, very few, and you could look at it that apart from those few brave journalists 

that do do this, either there’s been state capture of the media, particularly of broadcast 

media, or the message that was sent by these high-profile assassinations has been 

received and journalists are either censoring themselves or pulling back. So Russia does 

not need any encouragement from bad actors in the European Union. It’s sad to think 

that it’s actually spread now. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thanks very much. Do we have any questions from the audience? 

Please, right over there. If you could state your name and your affiliation that would be 

great. 

QUESTIONER. Viola Gienger. I’m a freelance journalist. 

Thank you all very much for taking the time to tell your stories here. I think it is 

really important. For those of you with experience in Europe recently, when these cases 

have come about of attacks on journalists there, what is the most effective, if any, 

response that you have seen from the European Union or government officials that should 

occur more often? 

Mr. MASSARO. Is there anyone in particular you’d like to direct the question to? 

QUESTIONER. No. 

12

Mr. MASSARO. Okay. Anyone like to take that? Pavla? Matthew? Rob? Jason? 

Mr. MAHONEY. Well, I thought maybe the European-based journalists would want to 

go first. 

Mr. MASSARO. Yes. 

Mr. MAHONEY. For us—the Committee to Protect Journalists—the most effective 

response is to keep the case in the public eye and to keep the pressure on various institutions. Don’t forget that the administration of justice in the European Union is a national 

thing. So you’ve got to work with the national governments of EU member states first. 

But we bring these cases to the European Parliament, to the European Council. 

All these organizations, they don’t really have much power. That’s why it’s important 

that we have briefings like this to keep the pressure on the Maltese and the Slovak 

authorities. Otherwise, they’ll just slink away into the darkness and these cases will not 

get proper justice because impunity is the big problem here, and it’s the same in Europe 

as it is in anywhere else. 

So I would encourage you, if you are a journalist, to write about these cases and to 

follow it through. Like Jason was saying, he’s started following it. That’s the only way 

that you’ll get some justice. It’s to make there be a political cost to killing journalists or 

suppressing freedom. If there is no political cost, there will be no justice. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Yes, I agree. Thank you for it. For us as journalists, the most important answer to such a killing is to finish those stories, not to let them be unfinished, and 

even if you are not able to finish those stories, you should publish them even if they are 

not 100 percent ready. We should publish them just to show what was going on behind, 

not to silence the voice that was actually digging into those stories, exposing those people 

who didn’t want to be exposed, and expose those people. 

Mr. MASSARO. So I’d like to follow up on that question real quick—and, Matthew, just 

feel free to jump in whenever here in the Q&A session, Okay—and that is to ask, are 

there any thoughts on the panel of—you know, you’re very right to state, Rob, that the 

administration of justice remains at the national level in the European Union and that’s 

a really major piece of this. Are there actions that concerned Eurocrats in Brussels can 

take? 

Mr. MAHONEY. Absolutely, there’s a lot of things they can do. We have seen the 

appointment of a special rapporteur for the Council of Europe. That’s not the same, obviously, as the European Union but it is an important institution. It’s older than the European Union, and we need to make sure that all those structures that do exist, including 

the European Parliament and the Commission, are aware of this and are able to prevail 

upon individual member states. There are moral and other pressures that can be brought 

on the administration of justice in these states and we certainly want to make sure that 

those institutions are active for those countries that are lining up to join the European 

Union like Montenegro ́, which we’ve mentioned, which has——

Mr. MASSARO. Accession criteria. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Yes. So we’ve seen what happened with Turkey when the pressure 

was taken off. The place has gone backward very fast, from a press freedom point of view, 

from the days when it too was actively seeking to join the European Union. So, no, Brussels has a very important part to play and, again, you know, that’s—we have an office 

there for that very reason—that we are trying to make sure that pressure is brought and 

influence wielded on those institutions. 

13

Mr. MASSARO. And while we are sort of at the—in this policy responses discussion, 

we’ve focused a lot on, and rightfully so, on the way that investigative journalists have 

responded to this with more collaboration in a deterring capacity—you know, continuing 

to push this line of, you can kill the journalist but you can’t kill the story, and that the 

murder of a journalist will only bring more attention to the story you were trying to kill. 

Is there a role for Congress, outside of holding events like these? 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Actually, I think yes. 

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. Can I say something? But go ahead. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Okay, I will be quick. Yes. Actually, what U.S. policymakers can do 

is to ask their European counterparts to keep or to bring the issue of protection not only 

of the journalists but also of the whistleblowers and to discuss it more and actually to 

implement it better in international laws, because in Europe the protection of whistleblowers it’s not as embedded in society and in the system as in the U.S. At least, I hope 

so that it still is embedded in U.S. society—protection of the whistleblowers. 

Mr. MASSARO. It is. 

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. I think the statistics that Rob was mentioning give an indication of what the root cause is and what the policy solutions could be because if you have 

a high number of journalists who are being killed because they’re reporting on corruption 

then the obvious solution, well, is to work on eliminating corruption and the European 

Union has been very weak on that, especially when you compare it to the U.S. 

It has no effective cross-border judicial cooperation and no effective cross-border 

police cooperation, no effective diplomatic pressure on member states when it comes to 

corruption. Look at what Malta has gotten away with for so many years and they’re still 

getting away with. It really took the murder of a journalist for the EU’s justice commissioner to finally arrange a visit to Malta. It really shouldn’t get that far. You shouldn’t 

need that. 

I really believe that that’s the way forward. You can throw as much funding as you 

want at investigative journalism, but really what we need is to not be standing alone. We 

need an immediate response. When we bring stories to attention, there needs to be some 

kind of—[audio break, technical difficulties]. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you very much, Matthew, and I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Right. Yes. I just wanted to say real quick that yes, if you want to stop investigative 

journalists from being murdered, then fight corruption and end corruption. [Laughter.] I 

mean, I’m with you. 

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. We didn’t want to be—we don’t want armed guards. We don’t 

want to put security cameras on our houses. This isn’t a way to live. 

Mr. MASSARO. Right. 

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. We just need the root cause to be—the root cause of the 

problem to be solved. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you very much, Matthew. 

Bob Hand, policy advisor with the Helsinki Commission. 

QUESTIONER. Yes, thank you. I want to thank all the panelists for your presentations. 

At the commission, I follow the countries of the Balkans and so, of course, what just happened in Montenegro ́ but also what happens in Serbia and so many of the other countries 

with investigative journalism, and its link to revealing corruption is a deep concern to me. 

14

The one thing I take a little bit of heart in in what happened in Montenegro ́ with 

the shooting of Ms. Lakic is that people go out into the street and say the denial of her 

right to report is a denial of our right to know, and maybe it’s because Montenegro ́ wasn’t 

as developed a democracy that they feel that linkage and that threat much more closely. 

But it begs the question, and I haven’t heard it at least so much here in the case 

of Malta or Slovakia, putting aside what the European Union does or its officials or what 

the United States says, how do the—what was the public reaction to the fact that in 

what’s supposed to be a democratic country something like this can take place, and is 

there a sufficient strength in the democratic institutions and the system that there are 

people within Parliament who are insisting on a thorough investigation and prosecution? 

Is there a public out there saying this should not be happening in our country and 

trying to encourage efforts to change things or is it, as you, Pavla, had said, is the public, 

the way I interpreted it, more passive—they just want simple information and they just 

view this as a way—as just a further confirmation that maybe that’s the way to go and 

there’s just less of a commitment to preserving a democracy? 

So the short question is, what was the public reaction in Malta as well as in Slovakia 

to these incidents in terms of expressing outrage or seeking some concrete action to try 

to keep it from happening again? 

Mr. MASSARO. Pavla, since your name was mentioned I guess you get to speak first 

and then, Matthew, I imagine you’ll want to say something to this. Then we can——

Ms. HOLCOVA. Yes. Actually, the public response in Slovakia was huge. It’s something 

like 5 million citizens country and there were something like a hundred thousand 

protestors in streets, what is not typical for a region. Those were the biggest protests 

since—in the modern history of Slovakia. It was huge and it was the only reason why 

any changes were made in the government. 

Actually, the impact of the protests looked good. You know, the prime minister was 

forced to resign, the minister of interior was forced to resign, the head of anti-corruption 

unit resigned, and the police president is due to resign by the end of May. 

Still, the public doesn’t see it as real change to the government because those people 

were replaced by the people from the very same political party but didn’t really bring the 

change in the trust in the institutions, in the free courts, in independent judiciary, in the 

police. The trust in the police is probably the lowest in last 20 years. So there are more 

demands and the recent demand of the people who are in the streets is actually the new 

elections that would come or won’t come. But the public outcry was huge. 

Mr. MASSARO. Matthew. 

Mr. CARUANA GALIZIA. It is good that you mentioned Montenegro ́—[audio break, technical difficulties]—the European Union’s complete inability to deal with corruption even 

in pre-accession states, and over the past couple of years the European Union has thrown, 

I think it’s almost half a billion euros in pre-accession funding at Montenegro ́, and over 

the past decade Montenegro ́’s ranking as a democracy by the economists and intelligence 

unit has actually fallen from flawed democracy to hybrid regime, which is one step above 

an authoritarian regime and this just—it, obviously, corresponds to the state of journalism 

in the country itself. 

And regarding the—I mean, civil society reaction is—[audio break, technical difficulties]—Malta. Malta has had a very different experience to Balkan or Eastern European 

States. There’s no—there’s very little culture of public protest or civil disobedience or anyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:43 Jun 21, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 3194 Sfmt 3194 X:\_HS\WORK\DEADLY~1.TXT NINA
15

thing like that. We’re really only just the beginning. I think this is the first time in probably about 20, 30 years that we’re seeing anything resembling civil society pro-democracy 

movements. They’re really just the beginning. 

Mr. MASSARO. Thank you very much, Matthew. 

Jason. 

Mr. REZIAN. Yes. I just wanted to say that, from a sort of a media news point of view, 

I mean, the Post sent our Berlin bureau chief to Bratislava to cover the protests and he 

did several live reports from there, which I was really happy about it. We wrote quite 

a few stories about the murder and we’ll continue to write about them. But, you know, 

I don’t know what impact that that had there. 

Mr. MASSARO. Jason, in your statement you mentioned that public outcry and public 

advocacy was really key in getting you out of the unjust imprisonment that you found 

yourself in in Iran. Could you speak at all to sort of how that went and how effective 

advocacy looks? 

Mr. REZIAN. Well, look, I mean, I was on the other side of the wall——

Mr. MASSARO. Right. Right. 

Mr. REZIAN. ——so I, you know—speak to the folks here——

Mr. MASSARO. Kind of like forensics. [Laughter.] 

Mr. REZIAN. Yes. I mean, Rob and our friends from RSF who are here were 

intimately involved in that throughout. But it has to be a concerted effort, you know, that 

takes place between advocacy groups, the organizations, families, receptive governments, 

and if you don’t have all of those pieces working in concert, you’re fighting an uphill battle 

that you’re not likely to win. I think—does that jive with your experience, Rob? 

Mr. MAHONEY. Yes, absolutely. You need a coalition of people pushing in different 

directions and all the time. There’s no one-size-fits-all way of getting people like Jason 

out of prison. Iran is its own case. It’s very different. But the one thing that comes 

through, as we’ve seen with the journalism, with the advocacy, is the need for cooperation 

and concerted effort. 

Mr. MASSARO. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. REZIAN. And kind of a singularity of the message, whether it’s, you know, this 

is an outrage that you’ve——

Mr. MASSARO. Yes. 

Mr. REZIAN. ——imprisoned, murdered or otherwise silenced a journalist and it’s—

I think one thing that undercuts a lot of these cases, especially in authoritarian countries 

when there’s imprisonments involved—I mean, these days there’s so often these charges 

of against national security and terrorism and espionage——

Mr. MASSARO. Oh, yes. 

Mr. REZIAN. ——and, you know, these are patently false, across the board. You know, 

you haven’t found one yet that was accurate and I think we need to do a better job of 

calling that out from the get-go. 

Mr. MASSARO. Absolutely. 

Yes, please. If you could say your name and affiliation. 

QUESTIONER. This is Alex Tarascio with the International Republican Institute. 

16

And I found myself in Bratislava on March 15th and sort of looked outside to see 

65,000 or 100,000 people protesting outside. I’m wondering—I guess, two questions. First, 

what is it about Jan Kuciak’s murder that was so different that it seemed—that so 

quickly mobilized a huge number of people to go out into the streets and protest in a way 

that doesn’t seem to happen very often for similar crimes? And second, is that an effective 

model? Is Slovakia safer for journalists now as a result? Is this something that we should 

seek in other countries to replicate? 

Mr. MASSARO. Please. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Well, I didn’t—I mean, the murder was probably just the last drop. 

The frustration in the society in Slovakia was already huge before the murder, and when 

we worked with Jan on the story, we discussed a lot what would be the impact of the 

story and we agreed, like, okay, we are actually proving the links between ’Ndrangheta, 

what is the most powerful Italian mafia, to the prime minister of Slovakia. 

And this—I mean, like we need to keep it dry, not to make it, like, bombastic because 

we want to expose the dry facts, and we were actually saying, okay, but still nothing 

much is going to happen because, you know, the Direction–Social Democracy (SMER) 

Party is very strong. And then it—I mean, it was, like, maybe 10 days before publishing 

of the story when he was murdered and the—it just didn’t happen any time before in the 

whole Central European region that they would kill a journalist for his work and that 

it would be so evident, and also he was very young. So you can’t really put him in the 

context of any political games. He was 27. 

So I think his profile as a journalist who was properly doing his job being murdered 

for the—possibly for the story of linking Mafia and the leading political party and the 

government actually just sparked the huge protests in the streets because, you know, 

people were already quite nervous, quite upset about a government that is in power for 

many, many years already. So it was just the last drop, I believe. It was shocking, and 

it was shocking for everyone. 

What was the second question? Sorry. 

QUESTIONER. Is that an effective model? 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Well, like, killing a journalist off effective model? 

QUESTIONER. Protests. Popular anger. 

Ms. HOLCOVA. Yes. It’s not—probably it’s not so important for the government that 

is just—you know, that could just follow the protests, see what’s happening and then act 

on it. But it’s very important for the journalists that they can see that someone cares—

they are not alone. And if we really do our job properly or if we will lose our lives doing 

our job properly we can still bring the change, because people really do care about what 

we are doing. So, yes, it sends a strong message to everyone who is interested in actually 

living in a better society. 

Mr. MASSARO. Jason, please. 

Mr. REZIAN. Yes. As I mentioned, we sent a reporter there to cover those protests 

and I think that that’s an indication that it is successful, right. I mean, in a democratic 

society where you’re allowed to protest the government for their action or inaction, I think 

that it’s generally the best course of action, and you bring people onto the streets to say 

damn it, we’re not going to stand for this, and there needs to be some accountability. 

Now, you know, I’m not Slovakian and, from what Pavla said, the government 

response is not sufficient, because the people that are replacing the leaders and officials 

17

who have resigned are from the same party. But, you know, the opposite—if people were 

just silent about it I think sends the worst message possible, and I’m glad to see that 

there was some solidarity there and I hope that it continues. 

Mr. MASSARO. Yes, please. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Yes, I think that what we saw there was something which took place 

in the glare of publicity in the capital city and a lot of the killings of journalists around 

the world are not in capital cities. There are Brazilian journalists who are covering 

environmental issues in the Amazon, or Mexican journalists who are not in Mexico City. 

Their deaths don’t get this kind of publicity and protests because the national spotlight 

isn’t on them, and that’s the unfortunate part of this story, that if you are in a country 

which has a functioning or quasi-functioning democracy and a strong national media then 

the killing will get attention. If you don’t, the murder can go with very little attention. 

Mr. MASSARO. Yes, and I think that ideally you create a culture where any murder 

of any journalist in your country sparks a massive protest. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Exactly. That’s what we’re trying to do. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MASSARO. Yes, please. 

QUESTIONER. Hello. Weston [sp] over in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Has there been an example of countries who have been able to successfully reverse 

the trend of murder of journalists in their country, and if they have, what was it that 

they did that made it so successful? 

Mr. MASSARO. Any takers? Rob, maybe? 

Mr. MAHONEY. Sure. There have been some examples. I think you could look at the 

numbers of journalists that have been killed in a country like Colombia, for example, 

where there were mechanisms. You had an active civil society. You had a government that 

wanted to do it and you had law enforcement that could provide effective protection for 

journalists, and the killings of journalists declined in that case. 

But what we’re dealing with in the cases here represented on the panel and in other 

countries like Russia is individual targeted assassinations, and it’s very difficult to prevent. You know, you can’t wrap a journalist in bubble wrap and give them bodyguards. 

They’re on the street. They’re talking to people. They’re vulnerable. Where you have a 

conflict or a war situation you can sometimes bring about mechanisms for protection. But 

we’ve seen it tried and not be particularly successful in Mexico. It was more successful 

in Colombia, as I mentioned. 

But as I said in my remarks, more than half the journalists that are killed are murdered, and we see that as something that’s very worrying because you can’t really take 

a great deal of precautions. These journalists who are targeted, who are threatened, they 

can change their behaviors. They can try to protect themselves. But the reversing of the 

trend is very difficult. 

Mr. MASSARO. Did you want to add something at all, Erika? A question, anything 

with that? 

Ms. SCHLAGER. Thank you, Paul. 

Mr. MASSARO. Certainly. 

Ms. SCHLAGER. Before we wrap up—and I know we only have a couple minutes left—

I did just want to make one observation about these issues versus some things that are 

not being addressed here right now. I think from the Helsinki Commission perspective, 

18

there are a lot of different ways that, unfortunately, freedom of the media and freedom 

of expression can be restricted and the one we’re—the method we are discussing today 

is the most serious and that’s why we’re here. When journalists are murdered or physically attacked, it demands our attention and we must respond. 

Outside of many of the countries we’ve discussed here today, there is a singular 

situation in Turkey, and I do just want to acknowledge that before we leave the room and 

note that the Helsinki Commission has addressed many of those issues in separate 

hearings relating to the state of emergency. The situation for journalists in Turkey was 

not good even before the state of emergency and it has gotten much, much worse since 

then. So just to give a fuller picture of some of the work that we do. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MASSARO. Fantastic. Well, any more comments from the panel before we close? 

Any questions from the audience? 

We thank you all so very much for coming today and we will close the briefing. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m., the briefing ended.] 

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.

★★★

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.