Elizabeth Palmer: You mentioned regulations and a UN resolution. These are things that work if there is a decent legal infrastructure in the countries involved. What about other measures, such as tying international aid or World Bank programs to a country's record on protecting journalists and investigating deaths? Have you gone that way - something that would have a bit of financial clout?

Richard Sambrook: It's obviously one possibility. That would stem from being able to come up with some kind of meaningful index, if we are able to do that. There's a range of things, that I put under the name-and-shame category, and these are all ways of trying to apply some form of international pressure. It could be political, economic or other kinds of pressure, to get countries and authorities to address this issue seriously - because frankly, at the moment, a journalist being killed gets less attention and less serious treatment than an ordinary civilian in some countries. That's clearly not acceptable.

Elizabeth Palmer: We're going to talk to a journalist who was present at the Andijan massacre in May of this year in Uzbekistan. Galima Bukharbaeva joins us by satellite from New York. She left the country after the massacre. She was one of the only journalists to have witnessed it and now, as I understand it, can't go home.

Galima Bukharbaeva (journalist, ex-IWPR): At the moment I'm a student at the Columbia School of Journalism. I had to leave my country in May after the events in Andijan, when the government shot peaceful demonstrators.

Elizabeth Palmer: How did you know that you were under threat?

Galima Bukharbaeva: After Andijan, we were just a few journalists who were there then. It was really very difficult and very dangerous for many journalists to work in Uzbekistan, even before Andijan. The situation changed very dramatically for us after the revolution in Kyrgyzstan in March [2005]. After Andijan I realised that, for the government of Uzbekistan, there are no rules, no laws that they will respect, and the lives of their people were nothing to them. It was really dangerous because the government tried to conceal the truth, and the journalists who were there in Andijan at that moment were the first targets of government oppression.

Elizabeth Palmer: What's happened to the journalists who stayed in Uzbekistan and saw what happened?

Galima Bukharbaeva: Many journalists who covered the events in Andijan had to leave the country. The few journalists who stayed have worked during the past few months under really serious pressure.

I would like to show you a photo of my colleague Aleksei Volosevich, taken two days ago. He looks like this because two days ago he was attacked in front of his apartment. Five unidentified men attacked him and spilled [paint] on his face, on his body, on his hair. At the same moment, a few teenagers painted insults on the walls of his house, calling him "Jewish spy," "dirty journalist" and saying he has to leave the country, otherwise he will have serious problems. Aleksei Volosevich is one of the few journalists remaining and still trying to work in Uzbekistan.

Elizabeth Palmer: What kind of things do you think would help protect the journalists there? What makes an Uzbek government decide that it has to be careful and not allow journalists to be killed or intimidated?

Galima Bukharbaeva: At the moment only local journalists in Uzbekistan can do something, but there are very few people still there. Foreign journalists cannot go to Uzbekistan; they just can't get visas. The few journalists still working there need protection. Of course, it's impossible to hire a lawyer and a bodyguard for all of them.

We are local journalists. We do our work not just because we want to do something for the news organisation we work for, but also because we would like to do something for our country. Aleksei Volosevich is not planning to leave the country. He wants to stay there. But it's really dangerous, and the next attack could be much more serious for him.

What can the international community and news organisations do for local journalists? At least try not to be indifferent to their problems, always raise their problems and report about them - because totalitarian regimes like Uzbekistan do not care about anything, even about killing 1,000 people. They don't try to have any negotiation, just killing all of them.

Elizabeth Palmer: What do they care about? What would make them leave Aleksei alone? Why sorts of rules or changes might help protect the colleagues who are left behind in Uzbekistan?

Galima Bukharbaeva: I think the only protection that you can provide to local journalists in Uzbekistan is at least to follow their lives, and watch what is going on with them, to report about it and write stories in the international press about attacks on journalists.

Aleksei Volosevich is not the only victim of today's regime. There are a few journalists who are still in prison. There are many human-rights defenders in Andijan who have been in prison since May. A few days ago I received a message that a few human-rights defenders - including one of my friends, who's from Dzhizak, who has disappeared since August - no one knows about him, and there are almost no journalists who can report about it. So awareness and attention from the world press can help protect local journalists.

Elizabeth Palmer: I'd like to hear from journalists from some of the other countries where attacks and intimidation are a problem. The Philippines has become extremely dangerous for journalists. We don't have anyone, as far as I know, here from the Philippines, but perhaps one of our colleagues here from some of the other INSI offices would like to comment.

Birima Fall (INSI Africa co-ordinator): I'm based in Dakar, the capital city of Senegal. I'd like to take this opportunity, in the presence of global network news [organisations], to draw your attention to the question of impunity, because it is a real issue in Africa. Most journalists get killed or arrested in Africa without any protest from the global media.

In our countries, you have governments that are very sensitive to what the global media might say about their country. That's why I liked your question about linking aid to journalists' deaths. It's important, when a journalist gets arrested or killed in Africa, that the global networks get interested in that, just like RFI [Radio France International]. When journalists were taken hostage, there was a campaign and every day in RFI, you had something related to that, and the global media did talk about that. The same thing should happen when it comes to journalists in Africa. We need the global networks to get interested in those arrests or deaths.

Elizabeth Palmer: You agree with Richard, that "name and shame" is a very effective tactic?

Birima Fall: Yes, because I know our governments are very sensitive to what the international community says about their countries. I come from a country where democracy is a reality, of course, but I know our authorities are very sensitive about what the international community might think about them. If you have the global networks, like CNN and Sky News, getting interested in African journalists being arrested or killed, that will help a lot, in putting pressure on our governments.

We should have that solidarity as journalists. Wherever you are exercising your job, it doesn't matter whether you're African or Asian or European - what matters is the job you're doing, and we're facing the same problems. That solidarity should be a reality, and we need it to come from the global networks.