Tweet
Bikya Masr , Egypt
Sept 19 2010
HRW to Turkey: Uncover plot behind journalist's murder
Turkish authorities should redouble their efforts to bring to justice
all those involved in the killing of Hrant Dink, Human Rights Watch
said Thursday, following a ruling on September 14, 2010, of the
European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled that Turkey should
have, but failed to, take steps to protect Dink, the prominent
Armenian-Turkish journalist, and failed to conduct an effective
investigation into his murder in January 2007. The European Court
ordered the government to pay his family 105,000 in damages.
A murder trial of the alleged gunman and 19 other defendants in the
case has been ongoing for three years. But the European Court ruled
that Turkish administrative and judicial authorities have blocked
investigations into whether members of the Istanbul and Trabzon police
and gendarmerie were also implicated in the killing.
`The European Court's damning verdict should not be the end of efforts
to deliver justice for Hrant Dink's murder,' said Emma Sinclair-Webb,
Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. `Turkey now has an
unambiguous duty to reopen the investigation and cast the net wider
than those currently on trial. Both legal obligations and justice
require addressing state negligence and possible collusion in the
killing.'
Only days before Dink was murdered, his lawyers had applied to the
European Court of Human Rights, contending that his freedom of
expression and right to a fair trial had been violated after he was
convicted of `insulting Turkishness.' Following his murder, lawyers
acting for his family lodged four more separate applications to the
European Court, contending that the Turkish authorities had failed to
protect Dink's life and to conduct an effective investigation into his
murder. The European Court decided to consider all the applications
together.
The European Court ruled that Turkey's Court of Cassation's decision
to uphold Dink's conviction for `insulting Turkishness' had
constituted a restriction on his free speech since his writings
neither incited hatred nor violence. The European Court also ruled
that the Turkish authorities had not only failed to uphold his right
to free speech, but had failed to protect his life despite repeated
and detailed intelligence reports about plans to assassinate him. The
Court also held that local state authorities had been negligent and
engaged in misconduct that led to a violation of their duty to protect
Dink's life.
Successive Turkish governments have responded to judgments by the
European Court holding Turkey in violation of the European Convention
on Human Rights by paying the stipulated compensation to victims, but
without taking further steps to implement rulings. In cases where the
European Court has held Turkey responsible for violating the right to
life, Turkish authorities have repeatedly failed to reopen
investigations or to take concrete steps to identify those responsible
for killings.
Following the ruling on the Dink case, however, the Foreign Affairs
Ministry stated that Turkey would not appeal the decision and that it
would take all possible steps to implement the ruling and take
measures to prevent future violations.
`The initial response of the Turkish government to the ruling is a
positive change,' Sinclair-Webb said. `If Ankara is serious about
implementing the ruling, it needs to end restrictions on free speech
by repealing restrictive laws and protect the right to speak out.'
Background
Hrant Dink, the founding editor of the bilingual Turkish-Armenian
newspaper Agos, was a courageous champion of open debate, dialogue,
and cooperation between all communities in Turkey, and a man committed
to democratization and human rights. He was shot dead outside his
office in Istanbul on January 19, 2007. Dink's killing was apparently
politically and ethnically motivated; he was identified by his
murderers as an Armenian who had been convicted in court for
`insulting Turkishness.'
Dink had been prosecuted for an article in which he discussed Armenian
identity. In July 2006 the General Penal Board of the Court of
Cassation, Turkey's court of appeal, upheld a six-month suspended
sentence under article 301, a provision of the Turkish penal code that
criminalized `publicly insulting Turkishness.' Dink was prosecuted
again in September 2006 under the same provision for using the term
`genocide' in a statement made to the Reuters news agency to describe
the massacres of Armenians in Anatolia at the end of the Ottoman
Empire.
The defendants in the Dink murder trial in Istanbul Heavy Penal Court
No. 14 are the alleged gunman, who was 17 years old at the time of the
murder and was apprehended shortly after the killing, and 19 other
defendants who, like the gunman, are mostly young men from the Pelitli
district of Trabzon sharing ultranationalist political sympathies.
HRW
http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=17017
From: A. Papazian
Sept 19 2010
HRW to Turkey: Uncover plot behind journalist's murder
Turkish authorities should redouble their efforts to bring to justice
all those involved in the killing of Hrant Dink, Human Rights Watch
said Thursday, following a ruling on September 14, 2010, of the
European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled that Turkey should
have, but failed to, take steps to protect Dink, the prominent
Armenian-Turkish journalist, and failed to conduct an effective
investigation into his murder in January 2007. The European Court
ordered the government to pay his family 105,000 in damages.
A murder trial of the alleged gunman and 19 other defendants in the
case has been ongoing for three years. But the European Court ruled
that Turkish administrative and judicial authorities have blocked
investigations into whether members of the Istanbul and Trabzon police
and gendarmerie were also implicated in the killing.
`The European Court's damning verdict should not be the end of efforts
to deliver justice for Hrant Dink's murder,' said Emma Sinclair-Webb,
Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. `Turkey now has an
unambiguous duty to reopen the investigation and cast the net wider
than those currently on trial. Both legal obligations and justice
require addressing state negligence and possible collusion in the
killing.'
Only days before Dink was murdered, his lawyers had applied to the
European Court of Human Rights, contending that his freedom of
expression and right to a fair trial had been violated after he was
convicted of `insulting Turkishness.' Following his murder, lawyers
acting for his family lodged four more separate applications to the
European Court, contending that the Turkish authorities had failed to
protect Dink's life and to conduct an effective investigation into his
murder. The European Court decided to consider all the applications
together.
The European Court ruled that Turkey's Court of Cassation's decision
to uphold Dink's conviction for `insulting Turkishness' had
constituted a restriction on his free speech since his writings
neither incited hatred nor violence. The European Court also ruled
that the Turkish authorities had not only failed to uphold his right
to free speech, but had failed to protect his life despite repeated
and detailed intelligence reports about plans to assassinate him. The
Court also held that local state authorities had been negligent and
engaged in misconduct that led to a violation of their duty to protect
Dink's life.
Successive Turkish governments have responded to judgments by the
European Court holding Turkey in violation of the European Convention
on Human Rights by paying the stipulated compensation to victims, but
without taking further steps to implement rulings. In cases where the
European Court has held Turkey responsible for violating the right to
life, Turkish authorities have repeatedly failed to reopen
investigations or to take concrete steps to identify those responsible
for killings.
Following the ruling on the Dink case, however, the Foreign Affairs
Ministry stated that Turkey would not appeal the decision and that it
would take all possible steps to implement the ruling and take
measures to prevent future violations.
`The initial response of the Turkish government to the ruling is a
positive change,' Sinclair-Webb said. `If Ankara is serious about
implementing the ruling, it needs to end restrictions on free speech
by repealing restrictive laws and protect the right to speak out.'
Background
Hrant Dink, the founding editor of the bilingual Turkish-Armenian
newspaper Agos, was a courageous champion of open debate, dialogue,
and cooperation between all communities in Turkey, and a man committed
to democratization and human rights. He was shot dead outside his
office in Istanbul on January 19, 2007. Dink's killing was apparently
politically and ethnically motivated; he was identified by his
murderers as an Armenian who had been convicted in court for
`insulting Turkishness.'
Dink had been prosecuted for an article in which he discussed Armenian
identity. In July 2006 the General Penal Board of the Court of
Cassation, Turkey's court of appeal, upheld a six-month suspended
sentence under article 301, a provision of the Turkish penal code that
criminalized `publicly insulting Turkishness.' Dink was prosecuted
again in September 2006 under the same provision for using the term
`genocide' in a statement made to the Reuters news agency to describe
the massacres of Armenians in Anatolia at the end of the Ottoman
Empire.
The defendants in the Dink murder trial in Istanbul Heavy Penal Court
No. 14 are the alleged gunman, who was 17 years old at the time of the
murder and was apprehended shortly after the killing, and 19 other
defendants who, like the gunman, are mostly young men from the Pelitli
district of Trabzon sharing ultranationalist political sympathies.
HRW
http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=17017
From: A. Papazian