At some point over the next month, a representative of the Government will have to explain to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva why it has failed to reform the laws relating to the media.
It should be an embarrassing moment for Ireland, an advanced liberal democracy and a member of the EU, being treated like Belarus, Turkey or Croatia under its late president, Franjo Tudjman.
Last October, a special rapporteur on the Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Abid Hussain, visited Ireland to compile a report which will be presented to the 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which opened last week in Geneva. The Government will have a right of reply of five minutes following the presentation of Mr Hussain's report.
Behind the politeness of the language of diplomacy, Mr Hussain is heavily critical of the Government and its failure to act on a number of issues. The right of journalists to protect sources of confidential information is one such. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled in 1996 that a right to protect anonymous sources was fundamental to journalism in a democratic society.
The Government's response to Mr Hussain's questioning on the issue of the protection of journalists' sources was that the situation here had "developed" since 1996.
"According to Irish authorities, there is an emerging recognition in the courts that journalists should not be constrained to reveal their sources," Mr Hussain's report says.
Mr Hussain does not elaborate as to what this means, so we must assume that he was not told. In reality, it means that lawyers will rarely ask journalists to reveal their sources and if they do and the journalists refuse to name them, the judge will do anything rather than send the journalist to jail. The reason for this is a fear that the journalist will head straight off to Strasbourg, appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and win.
It is not as if politicians are unaware of the need for reform or that Ireland is increasingly out of step with its EU partners, for instance. In opposition, politicians have promised reform.
The present Attorney General, Michael McDowell, demonstrated outside the Dublin District Courts when journalist Susan O'Keeffe, was charged with contempt before the beef tribunal for refusing to name her sources. His proposed legislation was dropped when the then Government, the Fianna Fail-Labour coalition, announced its own plans for legislation. We are still waiting.
IT IS, however, in the area of defamation that the real pressure will come. Politicians have resisted changing the laws since 1991 when the Law Reform Commission, under the chairmanship of the present Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ronan Keane, published its recommendations for change.
They included switching the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff, as is the case in other areas of law. Nothing has changed other than that the awards against the media have increased.
Mr Hussain notes - "with concern" - that there is neither public nor political support for a change in the law. He recommends a number of changes, including placing the onus of proof of defamation and the issue of the truth of the libel on the plaintiff.
"The sanctions for defamation should not be so large as to exert a chilling effect on the freedom of opinion and expression and the right to receive and impart information," he says.
The authorities told Mr Hussain that a defamation Bill was being prepared even though politicians will privately tell you that they have no intention of changing the law. Recently Mr McDowell told a student conference at the Dublin Institute of Technology that there was little chance of libel reform while newspapers remain reluctant to admit their mistakes.
Mr McDowell was not suggesting that this was his view, but one held by many politicians. Think about this for a minute. Much-needed legislation, which the Government's own advisory body, the Law Re form Commission, has recommended, now depends on the behaviour of a few newspaper editors. Just imagine if this principle was applied in other areas.
In the meantime, two recent libels, with high awards - £300,000 and £250,000, respectively - are expected to be appealed to Strasbourg, which has ruled already, in a case against the UK, that very high awards infringed a person's rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights.
In the end, it might be Strasbourg which will force politicians to make changes to the law, regardless of the behaviour of the newspapers.
It comes out of Mr Hussain's wide-ranging report that successive governments have never fully understood the role of the media in a democratic society. Rather than view it as integral, it is, at best, an irritant which must be tolerated. That is not a tenable position any more.
Repressive laws, censorship and secrecy were tolerated when Ireland was on the right side during the Cold War. Now the test of democracy is more complex. Elections all over the world are scrutinised, not just for voting malpractice, but also to see how the media acted, to see if people were informed and if the press was able to do its job.
If Mr Hussain's report is seen as a sort of democratic audit, then Ireland gets only a "must do better" comment.
Michael Foley is a lecturer in journalism at the Dublin Institute of Technology. He is the author of an article on media law reform and press regulation to be published in the forthcoming issue of Administration.
michael.foley@dit.ie.