Our Methodology

The term journalist in UNESCO's monitoring and reporting mechanisms covers “journalists, media workers and social media producers who are engaged in journalistic activity”, in line with IPDC Decisions on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity adopted by the IPDC Council in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022. This definition also aligns with General Comment No. 34's broad interpretation of journalism as a "shared function" by a wide range of actors, including professional full-time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the internet."

The cases of journalist killings recorded in this Observatory are also identified and verified based on confirmatory reports from multiple sources, including international, regional and local monitoring groups; UNESCO field offices; UNESCO Permanent Delegations; and other UN bodies and mechanisms such as Special Rapporteurs. In addition, for a case to be verified, a journalist must have been targeted for reprisals as a result of their work, or killed while on assignment.

The status of the investigations carried out on each killing condemned by the Director-General is based solely on the updates provided by concerned States.

The cases of killings of journalists are systematically condemned by the Director-General of UNESCO through press releases. General Conference 29 C/Resolution 29 (1997) mandates the Director-General to “condemn assassination and any physical violence against journalists as a crime against society, since this curtails freedom of expression and, as a consequence, the other rights and freedoms set forth in international human rights instruments”. This mandate has been reinforced by other resolutions, such as the General Conference 36 C/Resolution 53 (2011), which calls on UNESCO to monitor the status of press freedom and safety of journalists in coordination with other UN bodies and relevant organizations in this field.

The information provided by States has been analyzed for the purpose of the UNESCO Director-General's Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity and categorized as follows:

Resolved

The status of a case regarding the killing of a journalist is considered as “Resolved” if the State has provided one or more of the following responses to the Director-General’s request to provide information concerning the status of the investigation:

1. The perpetrator(s) of the crime has (/have) been brought to justice and been convicted by a court of law.

2. The suspected perpetrator(s) of the crime died before a court case could take place or be completed.

3. The judicial process has revealed that the death was not related to the victim’s journalistic practice.

4. The perpetrator(s) of the crime has (/have) been determined and sentenced, but due to a Presidential Pardon or Amnesty Law, they are released before their sentence has been carried out fully.

The Director-General no longer requests status updates once a case is deemed to have been resolved. However, a case may be moved back to the “Ongoing/Unresolved” category if UNESCO is informed of new developments about the case, such as an appeal, occurring at national, regional or international courts. In these cases, UNESCO will resume requesting status updates from the concerned State.  

Ongoing/Unresolved

The status of a case regarding the killing of a journalist is considered as “Ongoing/Unresolved” if the State has provided one of the following responses to the Director-General’s request to provide information concerning the status of the investigation:

1. The case is currently being investigated by law enforcement agencies or other relevant authorities.

2. The case has been taken up by the judicial system but a final verdict has not yet been reached and the suspect(s) has (/have) not been convicted and sentenced. The “Ongoing/Unresolved” category also applies to cases where an appeal is ongoing or where only one of the suspected killers has been convicted and sentenced.

3. The journalist has been reported by the Member State as having been killed by foreign actors beyond national jurisdiction. 

4. A court of law has acquitted the suspected perpetrator(s) of the crime (for example due to lack of or tampered evidence).

5. A court of law has ruled to archive the case or is otherwise unable to be processed through the judiciary system (for example, due to statutes of limitations). This category therefore also includes those cases for which a judicial process has been completed, but where no person(s) has (/have) yet been successfully held accountable in terms of due legal process, and hence where impunity in regard to the killing(s) still remains unresolved.

The Director-General continues to request status updates for all of the above cases, except in the instances where it is explicitly mentioned that the case has been judicially archived or killed by foreign actors beyond national jurisdiction.

No information received so far

“No information received so far” is used if the State has never provided information to UNESCO on the status of the investigation, whether this year or in previous years. This does not, however, exclude the possibility of the case having been resolved unbeknownst to UNESCO.

‘Acknowledgments’ are included in this category insofar as they do not include any specific information on the judicial follow-up into the cases of killings of journalists condemned by the Director-General. 

The Director-General continues to request status updates for such cases.