Dear Y, the note began, with the purpose of co-ordinating our work I would like to ask you to prepare a list of x x x and x x x x x with their names, contact details, political preferences...

If the above was not a recent occurrence, it may make an interesting film about communism in the 60s. But, as it is, it might in fact commence a court action much better. That is, the note's author might decide to recognise him or herself and sue the publishers and journalists in order to crush them, make them pay some money, and find out the name of the institutional traitor.

Many libel and insult cases against journalists begin like this, sometimes even when names or initials are not mentioned in the news, said lawyers from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) and the Foundation Access to Information Programme (AIP) during the latest Legal Help for Journalists seminar organised by the Bulgarian Media Coalition (BMC) on September 29 - October 1.

State law and courts tolerate public officials who often decide to defend their honour in court and thus produce what participants in the seminar agreed to call modern examples of regional feudalism. "Unlike the situation in the so-called normal countries, public officials in Bulgaria have more legal protection than do ordinary citizens," said BMC executive director Dimitar Sotirov. Investigative journalists are in for much more trouble if they write against a public official than if they write against ordinary people.

Part of the problem is that Bulgaria has not decriminalised libel and insult - something that Romania did in August this year, Sotirov said. In fact, only about a third of the Council of Europe member states have decriminalised libel and insult. Those other two-thirds, however, heed the European Convention on Human Rights, while Bulgarian courts may refer to old European punitive codes that sometimes date to the 19th century. (The country has been charged a couple of times for breaching Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that still hasn't helped get court practice into line.)

The weird thing here is that Bulgaria, in fact, has one of the best punitive codes in Europe, AIP legal team head Alexander Kashumov said earlier this year, but courts just do not use it correctly.

When, for example, an investigative journalist has used the so-called special technical devices to report on corruption, the courts like using the punitive code's Article 339a against him. The latter says that those who produce, use, sell, or have a special technical device; have obtained no permission to hold the special technical device; but still use it to collect information, may be jailed for three years. Article 339a is rarely brought up on any occasion, but is skillfully used against journalists, Kashumov said earlier this year. The law, of course, does not say that journalists should ask for permission to use the so-called special technical devices, so article 339a is practically unusable for media. But it still is, and only practice can change this, Kashumov said: "Each attempt to change the law itself can make it dangerous".

The introduction of new laws and the amendment of old ones became so hectic around the EU entrance date that it is difficult to follow what goes on in Parliament, Kashumov says. MPs prefer to introduce amendments and not discuss them publicly. So it is up to NGOs to use their connections in the Cabinet, constantly follow media reports, Government websites, and so on, to find out what is going on, and raise a public debate. Bulgarian institutions still do not have the attitude that debating proposed laws and law amendments is necessary, Kashumov said. BHC lawyer Svilen Ovcharov gives another perspective of the problem:

"There is this problem of conceptualisation (in institutions)," Economy and Energy Minister Roumen Ovcharov said. "The ordinary citizen is thought to stand lowest; the state official is higher; and the institution is something important, sacred, right." The state is, of course, highest. An example of the confidence in the latter is Justice Minister Georgi Petkanov. In 2005, he attempted to amend the penal code in a way that would make writing anything bad about Bulgaria a crime, Ovcharov said.

Naturally, as media and civil society watchdogs, the BMC, BHC and AIP want to change this. An important point in their plan is decriminalising libel and insult. "I think that with a strong and well-structured campaign, we can at least achieve the beginning of a change, if not a complete change," Sotirov said.

Something else they want to do is have cases against journalists heard in a third-instance court. At the moment, depending on the monetary amount of the claims, a majority of the cases are only heard in city and regional courts situated in the region where the alleged offence took place, which allows for little impartiality and makes it easy for plaintiffs to influence the outcome of court proceedings. "You have no clue how this or that case will end because you never know whose friend the judge is and how he would rule," Ovcharov said. The outcome of such cases is naturally unpredictable.

The lack of a unified record of court practice also gets in the way. At the moment, only the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) is preparing software that will make its court practice accessible. The Supreme Cassation Court may do the same later, Kashumov said.

A third and fourth thing the non-Ggovernment trio wants to achieve is to take some of the case load off the court system and delegate it to the recently established ethics commission made up of journalists; and have media support each other when there is court action against another media outlet. The latter may be difficult for some. BMC's project Legal Help for Journalists has had no precedent in Bulgaria, which probably explains the comparatively modest number of participants. Interest is growing, though. About 20 journalists have attended BMC's seminars and listened to preventive advice from Kashumov, Ovcharov, and BHC legal defence programme director Yonko Grozev. About 15 of them had court action lodged against them (several had up to 10 or 11) before the start of the seminars. And some had their caseload increase between two seminar meetings.

Advice is, of course, also helpful to those who have not had legal trouble so far. Those who know Bulgarians, however, know that they like learning things the hard way. So, even if the legal-help seminar is free and inspires a lot of interest, the number of journalists who consult lawyers before publishing is still not huge.

This is mainly because the media has tended to employ lawyers since 2003, and bigger media have had their own legal departments with expertise in libel and insult cases, Sotirov said earlier this year. So journalists in bigger media often think that they do not need preliminary legal advice,which is why plaintiffs usually choose to target small regional media even when bigger media have already published the sensitive information.

The three NGOs are currently preparing a handbook that will guide journalists through trouble by giving information about how to prevent going to court, what to expect from a possible plaintiff, and what to do while a case runs - a book that should not come in handy in courts, some joked. One of the best pieces of advice to journalists, however, came from journalist Hristo Hristov. Speaking at the BMC annual meeting of media and NGOs in Bansko this year, he said: If you want to be left alone - publish. If you are in doubt whether to publish but your facts are reliable - consult a lawyer. If you stop publishing, they will torment you more. If you go on, at some point they just stop dealing with you.

Psychological support for journalists may be the next step of BMC's project, the organisers said. As they are now, the seminars are reminiscent of therapy sessions, with a strong legal workshop element. Outsiders may compare the journalists and lawyers gathering for legal-help seminars to a cabal plotting to dispel the absurdity of courts as well - and doing so not without a certain healthy sense of black humour.

The libel and insult cases discussed are sometimes absurd and funny.

Troyan journalist Roumyana Mokanova, for example, compared a local company owner to a Bedouin chieftain, thinking that she would get away with it because articles in Western media had made wilier comments about Reverend Jesse Jackson. The company's boss, however, decided that his reputation was worth 50 000 leva and lodged a civil claim against Mokanova. (In the course of the case, the 50 000 claim first fell to 1000, and then the plaintiff and his lawyer stopped appearing in court altogether.)

When building Mokanova's defence, Ovcharov brought to court travel brochures about Jordan - the land of the Bedouins - to explain how highly respected Bedouin chieftains actually are. The court did not like the approach very much, but Ovcharov and Mokanova still won.

The most twisted example of journalists' need to nourish some black humour and strong nerves, though, is the case of Kalina Grancharova from Toutrakanski Glas (Toutrakan Voice). Grancharova spent six months collecting documents about the Toutrakan mayor's illegal sale and partial giveaway of municipal land to a Sofia company. All facts she used to write her article were true, public and legally obtained. Still, Grancharova was convicted at a first instance hearing in the Toutrakan regional court, acquitted at a second-instance hearing in Silistra that returned the case to a Toutrakan second jury (which ruled against her, this time to the tune of 1000 leva, compared to the sumbolic one lev the first time), and is now waiting for a final hearing in Silistra again.