SafeJournalists has raised concerns about several provisions in the new internal rules of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO), which are expected to take effect on September 1, 2026.
Të lidhura
None found
The international network for the protection of journalists acknowledges the court’s obligation to maintain security and ensure the proper conduct of proceedings, but warns that the combined effect of several provisions could significantly undermine freedom of information.
The statement emphasizes that Articles 76 and 93(16) impose a complete ban on bringing phones, laptops and other electronic devices into the courtroom.
According to SafeJournalists, this measure makes it more difficult for journalists to take notes, verify information and communicate with their newsrooms in real time.
The strict annual accreditation system, together with the requirement to provide 24 hours’ notice of attendance at a hearing, has also raised concerns.
The network believes these requirements create an administrative burden and could discriminate against independent journalists, new reporters and small media outlets.
Objections have also been raised regarding the handling, through accreditation, of ethical issues or matters involving the use of artificial intelligence, as well as the lack of a rapid appeals procedure for refusals.
Full statement:
SafeJournalists expresses its concern over several media-related provisions in the new Internal Rules, approved by the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime through Decision No. 49, dated July 17, 2026. The document was published on July 31, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2026.
The network acknowledges that the Special Court has a responsibility to guarantee security, protect everyone involved in proceedings, ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings and facilitate the proper administration of justice. It also welcomes the measures included in the rules concerning transparency, equal treatment and reasoned decision-making.
However, the combined application of several of these provisions could restrict journalists’ ability to follow proceedings directly, take accurate notes, communicate with their newsrooms and report without delay on matters of exceptionally high public interest.
Article 90 provides for individual accreditation valid for one year, while Article 93(1) sets out the access arrangements for accredited media representatives. The rules do not make it clear whether a journalist without permanent accreditation at the Special Court may attend, as a member of the public, a hearing that would otherwise be open.
Meanwhile, Annex 7 requires independent journalists to prove that they have engaged in professional activity during the preceding 12 months. Such a requirement could disadvantage freelance journalists, independent reporters, those at the beginning of their careers or journalists newly assigned to cover the Court. Accreditation can help with identification and ensuring equal access, but it must not be used as a filter or as an unnecessary condition for attending public proceedings.
The procedure for obtaining access may also create an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, particularly for independent journalists and those working for small newsrooms. When the special procedure under Article 93(2) applies, Article 93(3) establishes as a rule that requests must be submitted at least 24 hours before the hearing.
In addition, journalists may be required to reconfirm their attendance, comply with the general rule allowing only one representative from each media outlet and, when audiovisual coverage is sought, submit a separate request under Article 95. Such procedures may be useful for organizational purposes when there is a specific reason related to courtroom capacity or security, but they must not become a routine prerequisite for attending public hearings. A rapid and straightforward process is needed for urgent hearings, last-minute notices and reporter substitutions.
SafeJournalists is particularly concerned about Articles 76 and 93(16), which do not allow journalists admitted solely to attend a hearing to bring or use mobile phones, laptops and other electronic devices. A ban on unauthorized broadcasts or recordings is legitimate, but a blanket restriction also prevents silent electronic note-taking, written reporting, contact with editors, checking legal information and using devices for accessibility purposes.
For this reason, less restrictive and practically workable solutions should be considered. These could include using devices in silent mode, creating designated media areas, disabling or restricting camera functions and allowing the presiding judge to issue instructions tailored to the specific circumstances.
Article 95 specifically addresses audiovisual coverage of court proceedings, including photography, filming, audio recording and broadcasting. Requiring prior judicial authorization and imposing restrictions on this type of reporting may be justified when the aim is to protect witnesses, minors, privacy, evidence, courtroom order or the proper administration of justice.
Nevertheless, any restrictive measure must be based on the specific circumstances of the hearing, be reasoned and be proportionate. Less restrictive alternatives should be considered before imposing a complete ban. Footage or materials prepared by the Court, or those distributed through a “media pool” system, may facilitate access when there are technical or security constraints, but they should supplement rather than routinely replace the independent presence of journalists in the courtroom.
Another issue concerns Article 96(3)(e)–(g), which addresses artificial intelligence manipulation, content deemed misleading and the publication of photographs of identifiable individuals when their identification is considered unnecessary. Protection against false manipulation and unlawful publication is justified. However, the accreditation system must not be used to control editorial decisions or post-publication conduct occurring outside the Court’s premises. Such cases should be addressed through applicable legislation, legal remedies, correction procedures and professional ethical standards.
Under Article 98, measures against journalists may begin with a warning, proceed to the suspension of accreditation for up to six months and extend to its revocation. For the most serious sanctions, the rules contain several important safeguards, including the requirement for specific facts, the issuance of a reasoned order and the opportunity for the journalist or media outlet to present its position.
Despite these safeguards, the document does not clearly establish an expedited review procedure through which a refusal of access or a measure affecting accreditation can be resolved before the relevant hearing loses its journalistic relevance.
SafeJournalists calls on the Special Court to suspend implementation of the contested media-related provisions and conduct a focused review process through meaningful consultations with journalists, media organizations, legal experts and civil society.
The revised rules must ensure that any restriction on media access and reporting has a legal basis, is necessary, proportionate, clearly formulated and applied equally. They must enable journalists to carry out their work under reasonable and practical conditions, while refusals, exclusions or measures against them must be reasoned and subject to rapid and effective review.
The SafeJournalists network will notify relevant stakeholders in the country and abroad about this issue and will continue to monitor how the rules are implemented.
Pristina – Skopje – Sarajevo – Zagreb – Belgrade – Podgorica – Tirana, August 7, 2026
Association of Journalists of Kosovo
Association of Journalists of Macedonia
Association of Journalists of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatian Journalists’ Association
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia
Trade Union of Media of Montenegro
