HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, /MONTSAME/
(continuation)
Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice; however, corruption and outside influence were increasingly problematic, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court. Bribery could contribute to the dismissal of a case or reduction of a recommended sentence. There were three cases involving judges pending at year's end.

Trial Procedures
The law provides for the right to a fair public trial by a judge, but this was undermined by frequent cases of bribery and a large number of cases per judge. The law provides that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and this was respected in practice. Juries are not used. Closed proceedings are permitted in cases involving state secrets, rape cases involving minors, and other cases as provided by law. Defendants may question witnesses, present evidence, and appeal decisions. The law extends these rights to all citizens.
Despite these provisions, trial procedures were often plagued by legal inconsistencies. There was a shortage of state-provided defense lawyers, and many defendants lacked adequate legal representation. Judges often relied on confessions, many of which were coerced by police, in convicting defendants. There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
Administrative and judicial remedies are available for alleged wrongs. Corruption, outside influence, and enforcement of court orders were problems in the civil judicial system. Although by law victims of police abuse can sue for damages, in practice few were able to claim compensation.
In February 2009 Ulaanbaatar police detained for four hours a lawyer who represented religious workers facing deportation. No charges were issued, but the lawyer said that police fined him. The lawyer appealed the fine, and in March 2009 the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. However, the plaintiff stated that police disregarded the Supreme Court's judgment and refused to repay him.

Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The criminal code and constitution prohibit such actions; however, there were reports of government surveillance, wiretapping, and e-mail account intrusions against journalists and NGOs critical of the government.

Respect for Civil Liberties, Including: Freedom of Speech and Press
The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. Nevertheless, government interference with licensing and indirect intimidation of the press, particularly broadcast media, was evident.
A variety of newspapers and other publications represented both major political parties and independent viewpoints. The Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs licensed newspapers, television and radio broadcasters, and magazines. The media law bans censorship of public information and any legislation that would limit the freedom to publish and broadcast; however, perceived self-censorship continued to be a problem. A December 2009 poll of journalists by Globe International, a domestic media rights NGO, found that half of them reported self-censoring their work because of threats or the fear of prosecution or job loss. The government monitored all media for compliance with antiviolence, antipornography, antialcohol, and tax laws.
In September 2009 the Media Office of the General Policy Authority sent a "cooperation agreement" valid for one year to all Ulaanbaatar-based television stations. In exchange for providing "safety for television stations that signed the agreement and for their journalists working at flashpoints," the police required "balanced" and "true and objective information" and forbade the dissemination of "incorrect information and propaganda that encourages mass disorder during public demonstrations" or "information compromising public or organizational privacy and state secrecy." The agreement also required that "when reporting, media outlets shall regularly contact central headquarters for information on the current situation." In addition it stated that "if a public demonstration becomes mass disorder, the media shall cooperate with the police and broadcast propaganda to defuse and resolve the situation." All but two television stations reportedly signed the agreement, leaving in question whether the police would extend protection to those that did not. There were no reports the two stations that did not sign the agreement experienced public safety problems.
In December 2009 the investigative newspaper Niigmiin Toli was fined for defamation by the Ulaanbaatar Metropolitan Court following a letter it published from an anonymous citizen in the province of Bayan-Olgii criticizing local Governor Khaval and his staff. On August 27, following the newspaper's rejection of the court order to apologize and pay a fine of two million tugrik ($1,610) to the "defamed" officials, the GAICD raided the office and seized a computer with a database of confidential sources. Although authorities reportedly claimed that the property was seized in lieu of the fine, the editor in chief stated that, unlike newer computers in the office, the value of the antiquated computer was less than the amount of the fine, leading the newspaper to allege the specific computer was seized by authorities to uncover confidential sources.
Press representatives alleged indirect censorship in the form of government and political party harassment, such as frequent libel complaints and tax audits. The law places the burden of proof on the defendant in libel and slander cases. Both libel and "insult" were criminal charges. Globe International reported that in advance of the protests of late March and early April, the nominally independent Communications Regulatory Commission demanded that one television station not cover the demonstrations. Due to the commission's role in licensing, observers interpreted this as tantamount to a threat, and by extension, censorship.
Observers stated that many newspapers were either affiliated with political parties or owned (fully or partly) by individuals affiliated with political parties and that such affiliation strongly influenced the published reports. The observers also noted that underpaid reporters frequently demanded payment to cover or fabricate a story.
Broadcast media similarly were not free of political interference. A lack of transparency during the tendering process and lack of a fully independent licensing authority inhibited fair competition for broadcast frequency licenses and benefited those with political connections. At the provincial level, local government control of the licensing process similarly inhibited the development of independent television stations.

Internet Freedom
There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail; however, there were reports that the government monitored some e-mail accounts. According to the Information and Communication Technology Agency, there were 56 Internet service providers with 106,000 subscribers in the country, and all provinces had Internet connectivity. Internet access continued to expand during the year to remote areas as a result of government and private-sector efforts. According to a 2009 survey by the technology agency, 73 percent of Ulaanbaatar residents had used the Internet at least once. According to the same agency, 6 percent of families in Ulaanbaatar had Internet connections in their homes.
A representative of the LGBT Centre alleged government monitoring of their personal e-mail accounts, stating that recent activity logs frequently listed unknown Internet protocol addresses within the country.
(to be continued)