By Muhammed Enes Calli
ISTANBUL (AA) - The verdict in a trial of journalists from Finland's largest newspaper will be announced in late January.
Two reporters and a former editor at the daily Helsingin Sanomat are facing possible prison sentences for publishing a report that allegedly included classified defense intelligence on Dec. 16, 2017.
The article, titled "Finland's most secret place," was about the activities of the Finnish Intelligence Research Center and revealed information about the location and tasks of one particular intelligence unit.
According to the prosecutor, the information contained in the article broke the law.
- 5 years of hate speech
Laura Halminen is one of those journalists accused of leaking state secrets, along with Tuomo Pietilainen. They penned the story.
Kalle Silfverberg, head of the paper's political news at the time, also faces charges.
Speaking to Anadolu, Halminen said she "personally has been treated ill" since the article was published.
"I have had to tolerate about five years of public hate speech directed against me as a journalist, as a woman, and as a citizen of Finland. All this is because I became the center of public attention since the police searched my apartment following the publication of that article in December 2017," Laura, who has been working as a journalist for 22 years, said in an e-mail interview.
Underlining that she had no publishing authority at the paper, she said: "The publisher is my employer Helsingin Sanomat, and the power of decision about what goes published lies in the hands of the editor-in-chief and managing editors of Helsingin Sanomat. "
Attorney Kai Kotiranta, who is the defense team's lead counsel, told Anadolu that in the trial, they argued that no state or military secrets were published and no actions "were criminalized or against the law."
Asked about why the Finnish Defence Forces, may have taken issue with the article, Halminen noted that the military was not authorized to conduct legal prosecutions against civilians in the country, only their own personnel.
"But, the issue is touchy for Defence Forces because their former high-ranking employee is suspected as the source of the material, which did not end up in the hands of Helsingin Sanomat due to anything I have done."
Halminen was referring to Georgij Alafuzoff, a former Finnish military officer and military intelligence chief suspected of handing over secret information about the Nordic country's defense forces to outsiders, including Russia, in December 2017.
"During the trial new details have emerged, and along with that maybe a bit more level-headed understanding about the entire issue has been more open to the public. Openness is a core value when implementing democracy," said Halminen.
"Maybe some people now see more clearly how little I have been able to affect what has been going on. At least the hate speech has lessened."
- Call to drop charges
Finland was ranked fifth out of 180 countries in the 2022 World Press Freedom Index, compiled by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders group, dropping from third in 2017.
"In 2017, when that article was published, Finland was ranked 3rd on the World Press Freedom Index. Just recently the ranking has decreased due to the fact that charges were pressed against my colleagues and me," Halminen said.
"The defence believes that the prosecution is groundless and it should be dismissed in total," said Kotiranta, the attorney.
The trial has drew attention from across the world among international journalist organizations, including the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CFJ), which said that all criminal charges filed against the three journalists should be dropped.
"(Finnish authorities) should ensure that members of the press can cover sensitive issues without facing government retaliation," it said in a statement on Nov. 3, 2021.
Helsingin Sanomat's Editor-in-Chief Kaius Niemi and Managing Editor Esa Makinen were also suspects in the criminal investigation phase, but no charges were pressed against them.
The newspaper defended its reporting by saying that the article published was in the public interest and by denying that the journalists involved had revealed any state secrets.