Judicial System of the Russian Federation

Digitization has also posed a threat in terms of data security and individual privacy. In almost a fifth of the countries, digitization has made the theft of information and the illegal interception (перехоплення) of conversations easier. Countries experiencing this include largely Eurasian countries such as Russia, China, and India, and those African countries where there is greater connectivity, such as Kenya and Morocco. In the United States, potential leaks of information pose a bigger threat to good journalism than plagiarism. The United States report cited the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks and observed that “it is clear that the possibilities of involuntary institutional transparency are considerable, and this has forced the journalism profession in the United States to examine how to engage with sources that hold massive caches of data.”

The working conditions for journalists have generally worsened as a result of digitization. As news production has become faster with higher information volumes being generated (сформовані), journalists are increasingly expected to work longer hours and possess diverse digital skills. Journalists in the digital age not only write articles but also shoot and edit images and videos, and manage social media, all of which increases their workload (об’єм робіт). In the context of tightening financial resources and increasing competition, journalists’ working conditions have been deteriorating (погіршитися) as they are required to work extra hours and assume new roles to accommodate demands (відповідати запитам) that derive from digital news delivery.

The expansion of online news has not substantially enlarged the volume of valuable information, as most content is still based on the same sources as before digitization: press agencies, press conferences, or internal sources of information. It is rather a system of dissemination of the news (the hypermedia system) that has changed, as similar content is now delivered on the main websites, commented on by blogs, and promoted on Twitter and Facebook.

Digitization has become a watershed (межа) for good and average journalism. One journalist, Bernard Poulet, said that “digitization has the same effects on journalism that globalization has on the middle class,” comparing digitization with the death of the middle class of journalists. Mr Poulet projected that the profession of journalism will split into two distinct groups: a majority of “blue-collar” underpaid journalists, performing routine tasks and “feeding the machine,” and a few high-ranking journalists with great expertise and a unique personal style, whose names might even become brands.

Digital media are likely to trigger (розпочати) changes in media structure in countries where news remains heavily censored. In China, in the last few years many media have been transformed from tools for party propaganda into semi-autonomous, market-oriented media. During this change, the party line has weakened while market influences have been strengthened, solemn (офіційний) news reporting has decreased while human interest stories, entertainment news, and tabloid journalism have abruptly (різко) increased. These changes have profoundly influenced the public’s news demands, the media’s news offer, and the role of journalists.

Watchdog Journalism

Woman in Kenya using Kiwanja handset (Creative Commons photo c/o Ken Banks)

Digital media have created unprecedented opportunities for investigative journalists, with new publishing platforms and distribution channels. More than 60 percent of the countries have seen a surge (нарощування. в контексті статті: збільшили активність, розосередили сили) in new publishing platforms such as blogs, independent websites, and email groups for investigative journalism. The encouraging trends span the spectrum of countries from emerging economies such as China, India, Kenya, Egypt, Morocco, and Brazil to developed economies such as the United States and France.

However, less than one-third of the countries noted that digital media have helped to expand the social impact of investigative reports. In Asian countries such as China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Thailand, digitization facilitated the production and dissemination of investigative reports and helped them enlarge their social impact. In some European countries, such as Russia and Germany, the impact of investigative journalism in the digital age has been increasing due to digital platforms. In contrast, in several Latin American and Western European countries, the impact of investigative reports on the digital side was limited. These countries include the Netherlands and Spain, and Mexico, Peru, and Argentina.

For investigative journalism, the biggest, most unequivocal gain (безперечний здобуток) from digitization by far has been the extended access to sources, information, and data. This has happened in approximately 80 percent of the countries in the project.

In India, there are several digital media platforms that publish investigative reports, such as Indiareport.com, Youthcurry.blogspot.com, and Churumuri.wordpress.com. The impact of the investigative reports published on these platforms is amplified (посилюватися) by television news channels and social media networks and has resulted in the resignation (відставка) or arrest of senior government officials (найвища офіційна влада) and high-profile politicians (видатні політики) and corporate executives (член правління, голова корпорації або просто посадова особа).

In Pakistan, the proliferation (швидке розповсюдження) of media outlets (медійних каналів) has helped to increase the audiences and reach of investigative stories. Thanks also to cross-media ownership, media groups have been able to promote their investigative work across platforms. At the same time, the internet has become the main publication alternative for content that is not published or broadcast by mainstream media outlets owing to pressure from the state, advertisers, and political parties. The reach of these stories is further amplified by social media such as Twitter and Facebook that are widely used by media groups to promote news content. Other online platforms such as YouTube give journalistic content a longer shelf life (термін придатності). Investigative journalism has had a social impact in Pakistan, even though there is a blurring line (нечітка, розпливчаста межа) between leaks, whistle blowing (викриття, навіть доноси), and real investigative reporting:

Anonymous contributions featuring violent incidents or documenting abuses of power via internet have led to judicial inquiries and prosecutions (притягнення до відповідальності). In particular, the blog of Malala has drawn the world’s attention to the threat posed by militancy (войовничість) to girls’ education. The attack she survived from Taliban militants led to national and international condemnation and has sparked a global activist movement on behalf of girls’ education.

In Jordan, there has been a “big response by society and the government to investigative journalists’ video evidence.” An investigative piece by the Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ)1 was picked up by local news websites and subsequently (згодом) tweeted, re-tweeted, and posted on Facebook. This triggered a flood of intense commentary and helped spark (запалити, стимулювати) a public debate, which in the end inspired competitors to run their own investigations. For example, the investigation of abuses at private centers for the handicapped spurred public outrage (обурення), prompting the king himself to visit the centers and demand punishment for those responsible.

Similar trends are found in Japan where the “internet is a useful information source and study tool for investigative journalists.” In Armenia, as well, where investigative reporting has traditionally been rare, digitization has multiplied the readers of investigative reports. In Argentina, mobile phones have played a remarkable role in disseminating investigative reports: “Digitization, including mobile phones, cameras and the internet, has saved the cost of journalist enquiry (інформаційний запит).” The positive impact on investigative journalism is also noted in Brazil where “digitization improved the dissemination and effectiveness of investigative reports.”

Even in China, where the government imposes tight control on news media and journalists, investigative reporting is being revamped (модернізований) in the age of the internet.

Social media have become a vanguard (передовий загін) for breaking censorship and creating space for traditional media to report stories they could not years ago. More importantly, they are making investigative reporting into a process rather than a product. Twitter-like microblogging as well as conventional (традиційне) blogging have added further possibilities that allow journalists not only to publish what has been investigated, but to turn the investigation into a public conversation and ask for tips (практичні рекомендації, корисні поради).

A particular phenomenon in China is microblogging and its massive impact on journalism: “It breaks the boundaries of news organizations, and investigative reporters, even if they are competitors, tend to form a temporary community on microblogs for information-gathering to meet their various needs ... The image of the investigative reporter as a lone wolf (вовк одинак, одноосібник) is no longer correct.”

Digitization has made possible big data and data journalism, which is another approach to promoting government transparency and accountability. In almost all the MDM countries, the internet makes it easier for journalists today to access and compare data. Increasingly digital platforms have been boosting (форсувати) data-driven journalism [Data-driven journalism, often shortened to "ddj", is a term in use since 2009/2010, to describe a journalistic process based on analyzing and filtering large data sets for the purpose of creating a news story. Main drivers for this process are newly available resources such as "open source" software and "open data"]. Digitization was very often mentioned by journalists interviewed for this project as a driving force behind the creation and use of databases. Data-driven journalism has been developing fast in Western Europe and North America, with Eastern Europe coming up fast behind.

Digital media are likely to trigger changes in media structures in countries where news remains heavily censored.

Meanwhile, digital media have posed new challenges for investigative journalism. The most common problems include hacking websites; reporters and sources being followed, monitored, and threatened; prosecution; the theft of information; difficulties in reaching sources; and the interception (перехоплення, прослуховування) of information by the government.

In addition, the fast and huge flow of news has adversely affected (негативно позначилось) investigative journalism. In countries as varied as Japan, Russia, Slovakia, Estonia, and India multiple forms of digital media, increasing numbers of media outlets, fierce (заповзятий, енергійний) media competition, and journalists’ pressure to break news (сповістити новину першими) have led to the inclusion of erroneous, misleading, and misinterpreted information in the news. There is unverified or biased coverage even in investigative reports. In Malaysia, journalists’ exaggerated reliance on user- generated content such as Wikipedia led to misreporting. In Moldova there have also been more misleading and misinterpreted data in journalistic stories.

In Canada, although the ways in which digitization has improved or hindered investigative journalism are still unclear, new opportunities are being made available through digital media tools for sources to contact journalists and for journalists to discover new sources. The digitization of huge volumes of information has improved access, particularly access to government documents. Yet digitization has also increased the demand for immediacy in news delivery: the drive to be there, live, on location. Investigative journalism suffers in this context as the news content suffers in quality. The negative impact of time pressure on journalists’ output (кінцевий продукт) has been also noted in India:

The frenetic pace (божевільний темп), partially set by digitization and partly by competition, has led to mistakes, even blunders (груба помилка). In addition, round- the-clock schedules leave reporters and editors with less time to pursue serious, long-term, in-depth investigations. Apart from a few print publications, mainstream television channels and websites have been unable to pursue (займатися) investigative journalism seriously. Even though access to information has become easier, few journalists have been trained or take the time to wade through (пробиратися крізь, осилити) the enormous amount of data available online.

A phenomenon that has not been spawned (метати ікру, розмножуватися) by digitization and that survives in many countries, badly affecting the editorial output and the journalistic profession, is self-censorship. Countries as varied as Nigeria, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and China have continued to experience the bad effects of self-censorship on investigative reporting in particular. In China above all, there have been numerous threats to investigative journalism:

In the digital age, investigative journalism still encountered obstacles from the government, social organizations, and individuals, in the form of state supervision (державний контроль) systems and the self-censorship practices of both media and individuals. Professional journalists who publish sensitive stories still face punishment such as loss of status, reduced wages (зниження зарплатні), being fired, or permanent expulsion from the media community. Also, the government has not allowed websites to be set up to host investigations into specialized subjects or themes, such as corruption, human rights, energy and the environment, health and safety.

In Japan, “investigative reporting by mainstream mass media still has the most influence and gains the most public attention.” Although there has also been some investigative reporting by independent and eminent individuals, most of them “have reached an advanced age and rarely publish on the internet.”

The findings of the MDM reports are supported by leading journalists and experts. Dick Tofel, president of the American-based nonprofit news organization ProPublica, says that big data along with new ways to tell stories are two key trends shaping the future of investigative journalism. “Investigative journalists can cover new and different kinds of stories using big data sets and digital storytelling. Using data to let people localize national stories is just one important way that investigative journalism is changing for the better.”

Aron Phihofer, associate managing editor of digital strategy at The New York Times, and Francesca Panetta, audio producer at The Guardian, have also noted that “digital doesn’t mean the death of investigative and long form journalism,” citing award-winning projects such as “Snow Fall” and “Firestorm.” Barry Sussman, editor of the Nieman Watchdog Project, agrees that websites have created new multimedia platforms for news organizations to display their investigative pieces. Nonprofit entities (організації) and individuals are also given the chance to publish their own investigative work. However, few investigative assignments will be or should be completed online. It is still important to work with actual sources. “Databases, and the computer tools we have to work with, are a terrific resource,” he said, “but there still need to be stories about real people and real people’s lives.”

Judicial System of the Russian Federation

The existing judicial system of the Russian Federation was formed and is being developed as a result of a judicial reform carried out in Russia from the beginning of the 90s with the purpose to create and maintain the judicial power in the state mechanism as an independent branch of power, free from political and ideological bias, independent in its activities from the executive and legislative branches of power.

Independent, competent law court is an important component of a democratic state based on a rule of law.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 became the main legal basis for the introduction of the judicial reform. For the first time the Constitution contained a Chapter “Judicial Power” according to which the state power in the Russian Federation should be exercised on the basis of its division into legislative, executive and judicial powers, and all these branches of power should be independent.

The structure of the judicial system of the Russian Federation and the sphere of activities of its various parts are determined by the Constitution and federal constitutional laws (paragraph 3 Article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

The judicial system of the Russian Federation consists of:

- The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and constitutional courts of the republics and other subjects of the Russian Federation.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation considers cases relating to the compliance of the federal laws, normative acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Council of the Federation, the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation, constitutions of republics, charters and other normative acts of the subjects of Russian Federation with the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 125 of the Constitution);

- four-tiered system of courts of general jurisdiction. Three-tiered system of the military courts is an integral part of it. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is the supreme judicial body of this branch;

- three-level system of arbitration courts with the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation as a supreme judicial body competent to settle economic disputes and other cases considered by arbitration courts, exercise judicial supervision over their activities according to the federal law-envisaged procedural forms . The system of the arbitration courts comprises: arbitration courts of the subjects of the Russian Federation; courts of arbitration districts (10) and the Higher Arbitration Court.

The system of general jurisdiction courts has the following structure:

The first tier comprises all general jurisdiction rayon (district) courts -city, intermunicipal and equal to them - acting on the territory of Russia.

Middle tier of general jurisdiction courts includes the supreme courts of the republics, krai (regional), oblast (provincial) courts, city courts of Moscow and St.-Petersburg, courts of autonomous provinces and autonomous districts.

The main tier of military courts are the military courts of armies, fleets, garrisons and military formations.

The middle tier of military courts consists of military courts of the branches of the Armed Forces, military districts, districts of antiaircraft defence, navy and separate armies.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is the supreme judicial body for all courts of general jurisdiction, both civil and military.

Rayon courts form the basis of the system of general jurisdiction courts of the Russian Federation.

The law attributes to the jurisdiction of rayon courts all civil cases, overwhelming majority of criminal cases and cases relating to administrative offences.

Rayon courts act as a higher judicial instance for the Justices of the Peace operating on the territory of the appropriate judicial district.

Justices of the Peace are judges of the subjects of the Russian Federation and form an integral part of the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

The reestablishment of the institute of Justices of the Peace in Russia in 2000 is an important step in the course of development of the judicial and legal reform and provides for more operative and accessible judicial protection for the citizens of the country.

The law entrusts the Justices of the Peace with functions and duties equal for all the judges of Russia: to exercise justice observing precisely and strictly the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized rules, norms and principles of the international law and international agreements concluded or joined by the Russian Federation.

The Justices of the Peace are included into the structure of general jurisdiction courts and participate in the work of its bodies.

Courts of general jurisdiction: of krai, oblast, city, of autonomous oblast and autonomous districts act as higher instance courts for rayon courts.

The courts of this tier of the judicial system are empowered to carry out all the powers of a judicial instance, namely to examine cases as a first instance court in the order of cassation, by way of supervision and upon newly discovered evidence. They work in the following composition: presidium of the court, judicial panel for civil cases and judicial panel for criminal cases.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 1369