4.2.4 Confiscation of media property [ICCPR art 19] Condensed entry: Confiscation of media property is the seizure of the property of a media outlet, such as a newspaper or broadcaster, or of a journalist or a person with a stake in a media outlet. Confiscation of media property breaches the right to freedom of expression if it is not provided for by law, does not serve a legitimate public interest, and is not necessary and proportional. Such a seizure might also breach more general rules on confiscation of property. Confiscation must be subject to independent review. Prohibitions against sale or other disposal of property and denial of access to property may constitute confiscation. Confiscation can be effected indirectly, for example by revoking the citizenship of a naturalized citizen, when citizenship of a country is a requirement for owning a media outlet in the country. Comprehensive entry: Confiscation of media property is the seizure of the property of a media outlet, such as a newspaper or broadcaster, or of a journalist or a person with a stake in a media outlet. Confiscation may for example entail the seizure of newspapers or the confiscation of a journalist’s camera, photos (or deleting them) or notes. Confiscation of media property would violate article 19 ICCPR, and regional instruments,[1] if it directly or indirectly prevents the free expression of opinions unless the confiscation is according to law and necessary and proportional for a legitimate public interest. (See *interference with opinions held or expressed*). The arbitrary confiscation of media property without compensation may also constitute a violation of the right to property. (See *arbitrary expropriation of property*).[2] The African Commission has held that seizure of large numbers of newspapers and magazines for reasons that were not shown to be in the public need or interest violated freedom of expression.[3] Property may be confiscated without formal dispossession or expropriation.[4]Prohibitions against sale or other disposal of property may constitute confiscation. The right to media property includes the right to have access to one's property and the right for one's property not to be removed. Thus the sealing of the premises of a newspaper constituted confiscation of media property.[5] Confiscation of media property may be effected indirectly. Hence, in Ivcher Bronstein v Peru, Mr Bronstein, a naturalized Peruvian, was a majority shareholder of a broadcasting company. In 1997, following the broadcasting of various programmes denouncing grave violations of human rights and corruption, the Peruvian government revoked his Peruvian citizenship. According to Peruvian legislation, owners of telecommunications media companies should be of Peruvian nationality. Bronstein was therefore suspended from his ownership of the broadcasting media and barred from transferring his ownership rights as well as receiving dividends. The IACtHR held that the stripping of the nationality of the applicant which resulted in the confiscation of his media property constituted an indirect mode of violation of freedom of expression.[6]
[1] Art 9 ACHPR; art 13 IACHR; art 10 ECHR. [2]Ivcher Bronstein v Peru Series C No 74 (IACtHR 2001) paras 128, 129. The Court held that confiscation of property can only be justified if (1) show public utility or social interest; (2) pay just compensation; and (3) confiscation should be restricted to the cases and according to the forms established by law. [3]Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 200 (ACHPR 1998) para 77. [4]Ivcher Bronstein v Peru Series para 124. The Inter-American Court defines ‘property’ as ‘those material objects that may be appropriated, and also any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony; this concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal elements, and any other intangible object of any value’, Ivcher Bronstein v Peru para 122. [5]Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 200 (ACHPR 1998) paras 76 & 77. [6] Ivcher Bronstein v Peru paras 162 & 163.
Condensed entry:
Confiscation of media property is the seizure of the property of a media outlet, such as a newspaper or broadcaster, or of a journalist or a person with a stake in a media outlet. Confiscation of media property breaches the right to freedom of expression if it is not provided for by law, does not serve a legitimate public interest, and is not necessary and proportional. Such a seizure might also breach more general rules on confiscation of property. Confiscation must be subject to independent review.
Prohibitions against sale or other disposal of property and denial of access to property may constitute confiscation. Confiscation can be effected indirectly, for example by revoking the citizenship of a naturalized citizen, when citizenship of a country is a requirement for owning a media outlet in the country.
Comprehensive entry:
Confiscation of media property is the seizure of the property of a media outlet, such as a newspaper or broadcaster, or of a journalist or a person with a stake in a media outlet. Confiscation may for example entail the seizure of newspapers or the confiscation of a journalist’s camera, photos (or deleting them) or notes. Confiscation of media property would violate article 19 ICCPR, and regional instruments,[1] if it directly or indirectly prevents the free expression of opinions unless the confiscation is according to law and necessary and proportional for a legitimate public interest. (See *interference with opinions held or expressed*). The arbitrary confiscation of media property without compensation may also constitute a violation of the right to property. (See *arbitrary expropriation of property*).[2]
The African Commission has held that seizure of large numbers of newspapers and magazines for reasons that were not shown to be in the public need or interest violated freedom of expression.[3] Property may be confiscated without formal dispossession or expropriation.[4] Prohibitions against sale or other disposal of property may constitute confiscation. The right to media property includes the right to have access to one's property and the right for one's property not to be removed. Thus the sealing of the premises of a newspaper constituted confiscation of media property.[5]
Confiscation of media property may be effected indirectly. Hence, in Ivcher Bronstein v Peru, Mr Bronstein, a naturalized Peruvian, was a majority shareholder of a broadcasting company. In 1997, following the broadcasting of various programmes denouncing grave violations of human rights and corruption, the Peruvian government revoked his Peruvian citizenship. According to Peruvian legislation, owners of telecommunications media companies should be of Peruvian nationality. Bronstein was therefore suspended from his ownership of the broadcasting media and barred from transferring his ownership rights as well as receiving dividends. The IACtHR held that the stripping of the nationality of the applicant which resulted in the confiscation of his media property constituted an indirect mode of violation of freedom of expression.[6]
[1] Art 9 ACHPR; art 13 IACHR; art 10 ECHR.
[2] Ivcher Bronstein v Peru Series C No 74 (IACtHR 2001) paras 128, 129. The Court held that confiscation of property can only be justified if (1) show public utility or social interest; (2) pay just compensation; and (3) confiscation should be restricted to the cases and according to the forms established by law.
[3] Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 200 (ACHPR 1998) para 77.
[4] Ivcher Bronstein v Peru Series para 124. The Inter-American Court defines ‘property’ as ‘those material objects that may be appropriated, and also any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony; this concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal elements, and any other intangible object of any value’, Ivcher Bronstein v Peru para 122.
[5] Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 200 (ACHPR 1998) paras 76 & 77.
[6] Ivcher Bronstein v Peru paras 162 & 163.