In Pentikäinen v. Finland, the Court underlined the crucial role of the media in providing information on the authorities’ handling of public demonstrations and the containment of disorder.  Stressing the “watchdog” function of the media, the court stated that any attempt to remove journalists from the scene of demonstrations must be subject to strict scrutiny.

According to the Court’s approach, any such situations should be seen in the light of the circumstances of every particular case. The elements to be taken into account by national courts include (a) whether the authorities had deliberately prevented or hindered the media from covering the demonstration/event in an attempt to conceal from the public gaze the actions of the police/other public bodies; (b) whether obeying the authorities’ orders would have completely prevented media representatives from performing their professional duties. The Court, nonetheless, also stated that journalists must obey lawful orders of the police and cannot claim immunity from criminal liability for the sole reason that the offence was committed during the performance of their journalistic functions. ^[1]  

In Selmani and others v. FYROM,^[2] a case  concerning removal from the Parliament’s press gallery, the Court emphasised that the above findings apply even more so when journalists report on the behaviour of elected representatives in Parliament and on the manner in which authorities handle disorder that occur during parliamentary sessions.

Given journalists’ crucial role in relaying information to the public and holding authorities to account, particularly in sensitive contexts, it is imperative that state authorities do not interfere with their coverage of events that have important implications for the functioning of democratic systems. It follows that journalists and other media actors are entitled to photograph/film demonstrations, including police handling of disorder and that their equipment must not be seized.

LEAs must be attentive to journalistic insignia and credentials. Moreover, a lack thereof should not be used as a pretext for undue restrictions on journalisic activities. Where journalists and other media actors are not able to produce documentation showing their status, the authorities should endeavour to verify it by other means, for instance, by consulting credible media organisations and journalists’ professional organisations that can confirm the journalist’s status. Coordinated training/dialogue between media and the police is important in order to understand each other’s responsibilities and constraints and therefore ensure trust and good working relationships.

The former Council of Europe Commissioner of Human Rights Nils Muiznieks has highlighted that police violence against journalists, in particular when covering demonstrations, is among the most widespread threats to media freedom. For instance, in 2013 more than half of all the cases of injured journalists involved injury caused by the police.^[1] The 2018 Mapping of Media Freedom special report by Index of Censorship also highlights that members of law enforcement are accountable for more than half of the incidents against the media during protests reported in the first seven months of 2018 in Europe.^[2] This  demonstrates an urgent need for improvements in police handling of media covering demonstrations.

The case of Najafli v. Azerbaijan^[3] concerned a journalist beaten by the police while covering an unauthorised demonstration. Although the journalist was not wearing a blue vest identifying him as a member of the press, he was wearing a journalistic badge and had repeatedly stated he was a journalist. The Court not only found a violation of Article 3 on the account of ill-treatment, but also a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court stated that the use of excessive force to journalists while they are performing their professional duties, seriously hampers their exercise of the right to receive and impart information, irrespective of whether there had been any intention on the part of the police to interfere with journalistic activity.

Principle 22 of the Recommendation CM/Rec (2016)4 contains detailed provisions regarding policing operations, including the policing of public demonstrations.

• In the UK, the “Public Order Authorised Professional Practice” (APP) is used for all public order command and tactical advisor training. The APP is based on the premise that the public has the right to access information about police activity and that the media is central to making this happen. It contains guidance on public order communication, including sections on media relations, developing media plans and media engagement (e.g., facilitating access to a suitable viewing point and advice to staff). 

A video highlighting the role and status of journalists, the possibility to advise them on where to report from and stressing “unsafe” areas has also been included in the public order training curriculum.

• In the Netherlands, the 'Pocket book order and safety' (Zakboek openbare orde en veiligheid) – a book containing advice for mayors and their staff – states that journalists should only be forbidden to enter dangerous areas in crisis situations if this complies with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. In the case of acute emergency situations, journalists should be enabled to enter these dangerous areas, where possible under (police) escort.^[1]
• France is also working on a training course for the police aimed at facilitating mutual understanding between journalists and the police and ensuring journalists’ safety during public demonstrations.
• In Ukraine, training involving nearly 150 police officers from different regions of the country has been organised and conducted, including on proper interaction of the police with the media in connection with public events.

• In the UK, an agreement between several journalists’ unions and the country’s police forces has been entered into,^[2] providing guidelines that:

(a) allow and assist the media to carry out their reporting responsibilities from the scene of incidents, provided that the media do not interfere with police activity;

(b) recognise rights of members of the media in situations of potential frictions;

(c) agree rules for the police on respecting press cards as forms of media identification.^[3]

• The Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ) and Dutch national police have agreed to meet every three months to discuss collaboration between the press and the police, in particular in relation to incidents involving journalists during riots and the rights of journalists in public spaces. They have further agreed on the best courses of action to take during protests and other incidents. Under this agreement, journalists are advised to contact the operational commander of the police unit on site so that the police can be on the alert for possible incidents between journalists and protestors.^[1]

Furthermore, in the context of the 2018 agreement between the national police, the public prosecutor’s office, the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ) and the Dutch Society of Chief Editors “to counter threats and violence against journalists”, journalists have agreed to systematically report any security-related incidents and file complaints with law enforcement authorities. 

• In Sweden, Stockholm Police has established a development center which is responsible for offences that threaten human rights. It meets on a regular basis with organisations representing journalists (and also politicians and artists) to exchange experience and to improve operational collaboration. Furthermore, an industry association representing a number of large Swedish media organisations has set up a consultation forum between the heads of security of these organisations and police representatives working on crime victims and personal safety. Meetings in the past took place twice a year and can currently be convened at short notice, if necessary.
• During demonstrations and other public events France provides for a 24/7 police emergency line (SICOP) for journalists in difficulty.

• Where journalists and other media actors are not able to provide documentation showing their status, the authorities should endeavour to verify it by other means, for instance, by consulting credible media organisations and journalists’ professional organisations that can confirm that status.
• Regular meetings and working groups should be organised gathering journalists, media actors, representatives of police forces and prosecutors. Meetings should also be organised ahead of major events such as elections, protests, big sports events, etc.
• As concerns demonstrations, it is advisable that: non-mandatory briefing with journalists takes place ahead of such events; a safe communication perimeter is established, where the media can be present and receive information from an advantageous location.^[1]
• LEAs and the media should designate focal points in order to ensure smooth communication.
• Guidelines should be developed/agreed between police and media reporters, especially concerning media coverage of demonstrations, crime scenes and major events. Such guidelines should set out the rights of members of the media in situations of potential frictions, outline steps to promote practical co-operation and rules for the police on respecting press cards as forms of media identification^[2], including a requirement that where journalists and other media actors are not able to produce documentation showing their status, it should be verified by other means.

• Guidelines should be issued and training provided to the military and the police prohibiting harassment, intimidation or physical attacks on journalists.
• Where the Court has ruled against the state, finding that there has been abuse of force by law enforcement officers, NHRIs should be implicated in devising, assessing and implementing specific action plans aimed at stemming such abuse of force.