YEREVAN. – The new draft law “On audiovisual media services” has not been discussed in public, the authorities and the authors of the draft law did not organize professional hearings and did not create a platform for exchanging professional opinions. “Media Advocate” Initiative of Armenia has noted this in a statement, which also reads as follows:

The project contains a number of problematic aspects. For example, Article 7 of the draft specifies detailed requirements for the content produced and broadcast by audio-visual media. Furthermore, some of these requirements apply only to news programs, and the other, at least, may be assumed to apply to all programs.

The concepts of Article 7 of the draft are quite subjective and evaluative. This refers to concepts that may be interpreted differently by different people according to their desire and expediency.

This article is a good basis for censorship, as there are no clear explanations and criteria, and only a decision may be made with the subjective explanation of the person examining the case or the person in charge of the case, which is very worrying, as violating Article 7 may result in a fine (23 part of the 59 article of the draft).

One can not judge from the draft how many TV stations can operate in the public multiplex in case that the places are limited. This issue is regulated by Article 47 of the current law. This article describes how many and what kind of TV channels can broadcast via digital broadcasting network. Meanwhile, this issue is not regulated by Article 44 of the Draft. Article 44 of the draft defines that the content and concepts of thematic directions are defined by the decision of the regulatory body (TRC – Television and Radio Commission). However, the draft does not even specify which body will determine the maximum possible number of TV companies operating in the public multiplex.

While reading the project, we also notice problems with the involvement of private TV companies in the public multiplex. For example, it is not clear whether licensing under Article 45 of the Draft will provide the TV company with a de facto opportunity to operate in a public multiplex.

If licensing itself implies the use of slot in a public multiplex, then why does the 5th part of the Article 53 define that a private multiplex operator must provide 20 percent of its multiplex audio-visual information to the audiovisual service licensed by the state regulatory body?

That is, why does a private multiplex operator have to provide 20% of its multiplexes to licensed (actually those given slot) TV companies?

And if the licensing itself does not imply the occupation of slot in the public multiplex, then by what criteria will be determined which licensed TV companies will receive slot in the public multiplex? The licensing criteria set out in Article 47 of the draft essentially refer only to the provision or non-provision of a license, and not to the question of which licensed companies will actually receive a slot in the public multiplex.

After all, what will be the fate of those TV stations that will not be licensed and/or will not have the right to take part in the public multiplex? Part 5 of Article 53 of the draft specifies that the private multiplex operator must provide 20% of the video audio information of its multiplex to audiovisual media service licensed by the regulatory body and the rest audiovisual information may use on its own, exclusively for the purpose of re-broadcasting in accordance with the procedure provided by this law.

That is, it turns out that 20% of the opportunities of a private multiplex should be provided to licensed and public TV companies that have the right to occupy slot in the public multiplex. The remaining 80% must be used either by the multiplex operator personally or only for the purpose of re-broadcasting.

In general, the law has a number of conceptual issues such as the ambiguity of definitions, the rights and responsibilities of Internet and terrestrial broadcasters are intertwined, the regulatory body is endowed with disproportionately large powers, and opportunities have been created for interfering into media editorial policy. All of this raises serious concerns that it will open a wide field for arbitrary interpretations and restrictions on the right to freedom of _expression_.

The draft including this and many other problematic issues has accepted in the first reading in the National Assembly, while there is no discussion conducted for public groups and professional groups, they are trying to pass the incomplete draft in the National Assembly.

“Media Advocate” initiative urges TV companies and professional groups, to demand from the National Assembly and the authors of the law that the latter ones organize professional discussions and public hearings before the second reading of the draft.

The new law should contain provisions that will not restrict freedom of speech.