adrian: journalists around the world are frequently detained, kidnapped, and even killed for simply reporting the news. in the past 30 years, 1400 have died, and most of those responsible for their deaths have gone free. so how can this be changed? a collective of advocacy groups has come together in the hague to raise awareness. but will it be enough to turn this around? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the

program. i am adrian finighan. three press freedom groups are leading the fight to bring justice to journalists killed for simply doing their job. we have launched what they call the people's tribunal on the murder of journalist in the hague to name and shame offenders. it does not have the power to punish or sentence anyone, but it has the ability to raise public awareness and collect evidence to support investigations into abuses. its legitimacy comes from the involvement of some of the world's top legal experts and journalists. survivors directly affected by the crimes including relatives of colleagues of murder journalists will be given a platform to make their case. the people's tribunal on the murder of journalists as a six-month timeframe involving five hearings, the final in may of next year. the panel consists of nine judges, and the lead prosecutor is a renowned human rights lawyer.

an indictment contains charges against the governments of sri lanka, syria, and mexico, along with survivors of abuse, leaders of the fight for press freedom will also give testimony. some of those include this year's nobel peace prize laureate. she will speak about the threats she has faced as a journalist in the philippines. a lot to discuss with our guests but first a report from step vaessen, who has been at that tribunal in the hague. step: the people's tribunal for the murder on journalists is held here in a church in the hague. this is a story close to our heart because many journalists know a colleague or a friend who was killed or murdered for doing their job. in my case, this is a dutch journalist who was murdered in 1999 in east timor. investigators found perpetrators belonged to the minute -- to the indonesian military but no one was ever brought to trial. this is just one example. it is said eight out of 10 cases are never brought to justice, so

the organizers of the tribunal say killing a journalist is basically the safest crime. so to fight this impunity, they have organized this tribunal. it has no legal power, they will be no arrest warrant, but there will be a judge, prosecutors, and witnesses. this is very important. for the so-called cases -- cold cases for witnesses to be able to testify in court in this room here for their stories to be heard. three cases are being focused on here during this tribunal. the murder of a sri lankan journalist murdered in 2009. we have a syrian journalist who was killed in military detention in 2015. and another, murdered with his wife and son in mexico. mexico is seen as one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. increasingly journalists are

under attack. in recent years more crimes are being committed not only in rural situations, but more and more investigative journalists are being murdered for revealing corruption cases, for doing anything that people in power might not like. that is also one of the reasons organizers say this impunity is continuing, because very often it is people who are part of the state, part of the government, part of the army who are responsible. in total, more than 1400 murdered journalists, many of them cold cases, are reported by the organizers of the tribunal. the tribunal will last around six months and there'll be some kind of verdict at the end of it. step vaessen for "inside story" from the hague. adrian: let's bring our guests for today's discussion from the hague. we are joined by leon willems, director of free press unlimited and founder of a safer world for

the truth project, which is behind the tribunal. from malta, corinne vella is the sister of a member of the daphne foundation. and from oxford, julie posetti, global director of research for the international center of research. welcome to all of you. leon, what is the point of this tribunal when it does not have the power to punish anyone or hold to account any perpetrator? leon: i think the people's tribunal -- good afternoon, by the way. the people's tribunal is an attempt to seek justice. more than 1400 journalists have been killed since 1992, meaning 1400 stories have been killed, 1400 family members have been left with a spot of emptiness in their soul. we need to seek justice. the reason we are doing this

grassroot attempt at the people's tribunal is basically because states are not living up to their responsibility to protect journalists and to investigate duly what happens when a journalist is murdered. so, it's really promoting a better standard for seeking justice. giving recommendations for better investigations. and highlighting and documenting some of the graphic cases of injustices which have happened in the past years. that is the objective. and we believe it will have an impact. adrian: you think so? you think states will feel pressured by this, shamed into doing something about it? leon: i think one of the things we are hoping for is that the international jurisdiction is improved. at the moment, we see many of the cases of murder journalists are prosecuted as a case of a normal murder. whereas it is our conviction and actually the evidence representing to the people's

tribunal judges is showing that in most cases, more than 900 of the 1400 cases, journalists were actually killed for the stories that they were writing. this is neglected in judicial processes. there is much to improve, and we believe these recommendations will help. of course in the case of the syrian arab republic, one of the cases that we are bringing to highlight to the tribunal, we do not expect them to change their behavior. but the international jurisprudence, the quality, the best practices of best practices, that is what we can promote. we can show it is possible to investigate these cases. that is what we are all about. adrian: corinne, given what happened to your sister, why do you think this tribunal is so important? corinne: good afternoon, by the way. it is important for multiple reasons, as was already

explained. it raises awareness. it forces people to think. it might not get states to do what they should be doing but it is certainly focusing attention where it should be. leon spoke about the total number of journalists who have been killed. when you look at it in detail it is even more frightening. every week a journalist is killed. every single week of the year. think of how many stories are lost. think of how many people are left in distress. think of how much is being counted out. the tribunal is focusing responsibility where it should be. states should be protecting journalists, they should not be protecting the people who kill them. adrian: has the situation in malta changed since daphne's murder? could what happened to daphne happen again there? corinne: nothing has been done to change the systems that failed her. so, the situation now is

possibly even more precarious than it was before daphne was killed. because after daphne's murder, we knew it was a possibility. now we know definitely that it can happen. adrian: just to play devil's advocate for a moment, should journalists working in areas where international law and local legislation, if it even exists, is not implemented, should they understand that there is -- there's -- that their's is a risky profession? you are going to upset people, you are going to make enemies. julie: in fact, it is your job to speak truth to power. inevitably that results in making enemies, particularly if it is a case of investigating corruption, into organized crime, into environmental crimes. naturally, there is risk attached to this. that is why i think shining a light on the murder of

journalist with impunity and the general culture of impunity when it comes to attacks on journalists in an event like the one that is in the hague is important. because a large part of the battle is actually getting citizens around the world to recognize that when you kill or mutate journalists through attacks, you are killing stories and you are killing the public's right to know who is abusing power, who is stealing from the public purse, who is inflicting harm on others. and it is important for people to understand, as leon began, that this is a freedom of expression crisis. it is not just about individuals being murdered or threatened or harmed, online or off-line. it's actually about attempts to prevent us as citizens knowing what we need to know to be able to make choices.

whether it is about who to elect, or how to protect ourselves from a pandemic. adrian: where are the deadliest places in the world to be a journalist right now? why is latin america, mexico so dangerous in particular? julie: well, latin america is certainly a focus. mexico, indeed. places like the philippines, which remains one of the dangerous -- most dangerous places on earth to practice journalism. syria, indeed. the countries that are in focus in this tribunal hearing. it is a combination of corrupt power, and in the age of disinformation, it's also a case of undermining public trust in journalism and journalists. you take someone like daphne in a place like malta, which we did not necessarily think was one of the places on earth that it could be so dangerous to be a journalist. and we see in this era, as the

world really does to hurt -- does tilt towards fascism, threats to journalists are not just happening in conflict zones like syria and afghanistan, they are happening in western europe, in countries that we previously considered to be safe to practice journalism. and the reason that is occurring is because there's been an enabling environment created by the rise of populism, by weaponized social media platforms, and the general threats to journalist whose job it is to ensure that we have access to truth, has become that much more difficult. and the demonization and criminalization of journalism has caused an escalation of these threats. it is no longer to just about conflict, or being elsewhere in despotic states or states beset by organized crime. it is increasingly a case of

emboldened political leaders and corporations and corporate actors feeling safe to attack journalists, and that we have to change. adrian: you raise some extremely interesting points. we will come back to you to talk more about that in a few moments. first, leon, tell us more about the three cases in particular this tribunal -- i know it is very broad, it is not just going to take in these three cases, but it is focusing on three cases in particular. tell us more about those. leon: today we are hearing graphic evidence from a number of celebrity cases. but for us, the objective is also to look at places far away that normally don't have the public eye. one of the cases we are bringing to the judges is the case of a journalist who is heading a media outlet in sri lanka and it was during the civil war, he was one of the critics of the

government policy that was leading to the killing of innocent citizens. and because of that, social media campaign and threats remained by government officials. one of them, graphically, is the brother of the current president of sri lanka. so we have selected this case because there is really no chance that there will be a real trial happening in sri lanka today. that is why we bring it to this international forum. similarly, in the case of one of the founders of sons of the village, a very important syrian media outlet, independent media outlet, was killed in custody in syria in 2015 after two years of back and forth in prison. he was tortured. one of the important aspects of the international governing for

the human rights charter that we know is people should be protected from torture. in this case, clearly there has been torture. moreover, the syrian authorities have failed to respond to any kind of accusations made. so clearly another case we cannot expect local expect -- the last case is of a journalist in veracruz, mexico and uncovering drug-related crime, which in mexico, especially in veracruz, one of the deadliest provinces of mexico, miguel was investigating crimes of the drug mafia, which was connected to, let's say, the upper world. so people indicted, or not indicted, but people that he blamed for being complicit in the criminal acts of the drug smuggling were connected to the local government, high officials. so again, although we believe

that there may be an object for bringing it to the federal prosecutorial level, we do not expect that in mexico this case will be further processed. so, ap-art from that, these are the three cases where it is clear the level of impunity, we cannot expect to have more local action on this. in fact, we've also investigated 10 other cases in which there is a possibility for local action. for example, we investigated the death of a man in pakistan and found in our investigation new evidence, which has allowed the family and lawyers to reopen the case in pakistan. so what we are trying to do is use every avenue to create justice. because at the end of the day, all of these people deserve their day in court, they deserve

to be heard. something that is not happening today. adrian: corinne, where are you on the road for justice for daphne? one man has been sentenced. at least here we have had one man in court after pleading guilty. what is happening now? corinne: seven people have admitted to the murder of daphne . one person is in prison because he pled guilty. two others are putting spokes in the wheel. a third person is accused of commissioning daphne's murder has been indicted. two further people have been arraigned. they are pleading innocent as well. they are accused of supplying the weapon. earlier this year, public inquiry into circumstances of daphne's closed and the recommendations, but three months later we are still

waiting to see any actions taken towards addressing the balance. there are clearly problems within state institutions. the state was found to be held responsible for daphne's murder even though it was not found to be guilty of commissioning the murder. but those failures that led to daphne's have not been redressed. we are still working towards that. adrian: what is the state saying , when that is raised with them? why is it taking so long? corinne: i would imagine, and i am taking a guess here, but i would imagine that the larger principle is being subordinated to political expediency. any political decisions that have to be taken to fix things that have rotted for so long are necessarily going to upset a lot of people. i would imagine that is the problem. but the urgency remains. international ngos are literally on the case.

there was a mission here on the fourth anniversary of daphne's murder here, and they met with the head of police, the head of government, they met with journalists, and they recognized the situation for what it is. it remains problematic. adrian: julie, coming back to what you were saying, we live in an era of disinformation and fake news. to what extent are online platforms aiding and abetting violence against journalists at the moment? julie: it is a very significant function that they are playing, in fact, to facilitate or to be victors for violence against journalists. at most stark example i can give you to illustrate this point is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that facebook decided that it was not ok to threaten to murder a journalist on the platform. which is extraordinary. up until that point, to reflect what leon was saying earlier

about the murder of journalist with impunity being a special case, the justification facebook gave her failing to act in such cases with that your nosed draw attention to themselves, they are public figures, and therefore should expect to be abused. well, on nonviolence, which is particularly virulent against women journalists, when you see a blend of network misogyny and viral disinformation, and other forms of hate speech such as racism, intersecting on a platform like facebook or any other number of digital platforms, you see that that creates an enabling environment. it aids and abets crimes against journalists because it creates almost a sort of tide of abuse which can be triggered by political actors. and fueled by political actors. but it also is amplified by algorithmic abuse, if you like, in such a way that it can

embolden those who hurl threats and sexist abuse against women like daphne, who was herself brutally trolled and threatened with murder and sexual violence before her death. these are real threats, and they are also part of the impunity problem. adrian: what needs to happen to stamp it out? julie: the first thing is i think where there are laws against hate speech, they can be used against women journalists only if misogyny is recognized as a hate crime or a form of hate speech. so that's really important. secondly, when it comes to the platforms, as we have recommended, myself and colleagues researching online violence for unesco and the international center for journalists looking at cases such as the nobel peace prize winner, we've recommended that the onus needs to be shifted

from the women being attacked to the platforms facilitating the abuse and the perpetrators. so there needs to be much more stringent action taken. perhaps this should be enacted in reference to one of our other findings, which is that from a survey of women journalists, 20% had experienced off-line attacks and abuse and harassment which they linked to on nonviolence -- to online violence episodes. there is a direct correlation, and that is extremely disturbing in an environment such as the one we are inhabiting. adrian: leon, when so many have literally gotten away with murder for so long, why should anything change now? particularly when someone governments around the world still see journalists as a problem. leon: i think that we have to realize as a general public, but also as journalists working together, that the reason why

journalists are more and more targeted is because our institutions are weakening. we see a decline of the independence of the judicial imperatives around the world. presidents, politicians are taking charge of the judiciary system. so we need to stand up towards that. we believe that the fact that journalists are targeted more and more and more is partly because they are the last resort for investigating crimes that are happening. journalists perform an extremely important public function because they uncover with their stories the wrongdoing that is happening in all of our societies, left, right, and center. and because journalists is not about policing but asking questions that is critical, that is a role that journalists have traditionally. and we need that institution to be protected by the institutions that are guaranteeing us independence. so, for me the question is

not whether or not journalists should ask these questions. the question is why do we allow is a general public, do we allow ourselves to be engulfed in this sphere where journalists are criticized, etc., rather than supported. we believe solidarity is extremely important. we at free press unlimited, we see more than 600 requests for journalists in danger last year. that was a duplication of the number the year before. this year we have afghanistan, burma, nicaragua. we cannot just go on to protect and prevent. we have to get the prosecution. we have to strengthen our independent judiciary. adrian: i'm afraid we are going to have to leave it there. many thanks to all of you. leon willems, corinne vella, and julie posetti, for being with us. and thank you for watching. don't forget you can see the program any time by going to the website at aljazeera.com. for further discussion join us

on our facebook page on facebook.com/ajinsidestory. and join the conversation on twitter @ajinsidestory. for me, adrian finighan, and the whole team here in doha, see you again. bye for now. ♪

.=.ñóóó■■■■■■■ñ■?áaa)aaaa

nakul mahendro: it never made sense to me that, like, you walk into this restaurant, everything is super formal, and then you go and you sit down and you're, like, oh, i'll have the 10.99 buffet. okay. 10.9buffetyou know. so we were just like, you know, let's just scrap everything. let's start fresh. like, what do we want our restaurant to look like? arjun mahendro: we want to change the perction of indian culture in america. so how do we push this needle forward and how do we grow?