Tweet
INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL'S THREAT AGAINST DINK TIME-BARRED?
BIAnet.org
Dec 14 2011
Turkey
In 2004, two members of the National Intelligence Agency allegedly gave
slain Turkish-Armenian journalist Dink a lesson on where his place
was at a meeting at the Governor's Office. The related investigation
was now time-barred.
Ayca SOYLEMEZ [email protected] Ankara - BİA News Center14 December
2011, Wednesday Three years before his violent death, Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink was allegedly threatened by two officers of the
National Intelligence Agency (MİT) at the Istanbul Governor's Office
on 24 February 2004. After five years, the related investigation and
the according charges reached the statute of limitation now.
Yet, in a notification sent to the journalist's widow Rakel Dink,
the Ankara Public Chief Prosecution agreed on "negligence of duty and
misconduct in office" of MİT officials Ozel Yılmaz and Handan Selcuk.
Lawyers Fethiye Cetin and Hasan Urel, joint attorneys of the Dink
Family, appealed the decision of the prosecution that there was
"no grounds for a prosecution" of the MİT officials and claimed
that the date of the offence was not in 2004 but on 19 January 2007,
the day Dink was assassinated.
The lawyers submitted their appeal to the Sincan (Ankara) High
Criminal Court and put forward that the action of MİT officials was
"negligent homicide".
"Operation to teach him his place" Dink was called to the Istanbul
Governorship on 24 February 2004. The meeting took place at the
office of the Deputy Governor at the time, Ergun Gungör, and was
attended by two MİT officials. Dink had subsequently assessed the
meeting as "a part of the operation to teach me my place" and wrote
"I am a target now".
Yılmaz was one of the two persons who attended the meeting. It turned
out that he was one of the two high-rank intelligence officials and a
defendant of the Ergenekon trial regarding the clandestine Ergenekon
organization charged with the attempt to topple the government. The
MİT Undersecretaryship confirmed in a letter sent to the Istanbul
14th High Criminal Court on 19 July 2010, three and a half years after
the murder, that the persons who attended the meeting with Dink at
the time were MİT members.
Regardless of the reason for the meeting with Dink, this way it also
turned out that MİT knew since after the meeting in February 2004
that the journalist's life was in serious danger.
Knowing this, the joint attorneys applied to the Prime Ministry which
issued permission for a probe on 21 January 2011. Hence, the Ankara
Public Chief Prosecution launched an investigation.
Not "negligence of duty" but murder In the application of the Dink
lawyers it was stated that Yılmaz and Selcuk threatened Dink even
though they had actually been on duty to protect him. It was said
in the application that "they committed the crime of intentional
killing by negligent behaviour". Thus, the joint attorneys requested
the prosecution of the MİT members under Article 83 of the Turkish
Criminal Law.
They also demanded to investigate the decision for the meeting with
Dink at the Governor's Office with regard to the authority and legal
background it was based on.
On 29 September, prosecutor Murat Demir announced in writing that
there were "no grounds for a prosecution of Yılmaz and Selcuk. Demir
also mentioned that the issue became time-barred since five years
had passed.
The Dink family lawyers appealed the decision of prescription
referring to the date of the murder (19 January 2007) as the date
of crime instead of February 2004 when the meeting at the Governor's
Office took place. They claimed, "The negligence that constituted the
offence of the suspects was being continued until the murder of Dink
in January 2007".
The appeal emphasized that the date of crime and the statute of
limitation was the initial mistake of the prosecution and that the
action of the MİT officials should be evaluated in context with
the result.
Furthermore, the Dink family lawyers underlined that the offence was
not a simple "negligence of duty": "Yılmaz and Selcuk were members
of the Istanbul Provincial Protection Commission but did not take any
measures. With their negligent behaviour they committed intentional
homicide", the joint attorneys stressed. (AS/VK)
From: Baghdasarian
BIAnet.org
Dec 14 2011
Turkey
In 2004, two members of the National Intelligence Agency allegedly gave
slain Turkish-Armenian journalist Dink a lesson on where his place
was at a meeting at the Governor's Office. The related investigation
was now time-barred.
Ayca SOYLEMEZ [email protected] Ankara - BİA News Center14 December
2011, Wednesday Three years before his violent death, Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink was allegedly threatened by two officers of the
National Intelligence Agency (MİT) at the Istanbul Governor's Office
on 24 February 2004. After five years, the related investigation and
the according charges reached the statute of limitation now.
Yet, in a notification sent to the journalist's widow Rakel Dink,
the Ankara Public Chief Prosecution agreed on "negligence of duty and
misconduct in office" of MİT officials Ozel Yılmaz and Handan Selcuk.
Lawyers Fethiye Cetin and Hasan Urel, joint attorneys of the Dink
Family, appealed the decision of the prosecution that there was
"no grounds for a prosecution" of the MİT officials and claimed
that the date of the offence was not in 2004 but on 19 January 2007,
the day Dink was assassinated.
The lawyers submitted their appeal to the Sincan (Ankara) High
Criminal Court and put forward that the action of MİT officials was
"negligent homicide".
"Operation to teach him his place" Dink was called to the Istanbul
Governorship on 24 February 2004. The meeting took place at the
office of the Deputy Governor at the time, Ergun Gungör, and was
attended by two MİT officials. Dink had subsequently assessed the
meeting as "a part of the operation to teach me my place" and wrote
"I am a target now".
Yılmaz was one of the two persons who attended the meeting. It turned
out that he was one of the two high-rank intelligence officials and a
defendant of the Ergenekon trial regarding the clandestine Ergenekon
organization charged with the attempt to topple the government. The
MİT Undersecretaryship confirmed in a letter sent to the Istanbul
14th High Criminal Court on 19 July 2010, three and a half years after
the murder, that the persons who attended the meeting with Dink at
the time were MİT members.
Regardless of the reason for the meeting with Dink, this way it also
turned out that MİT knew since after the meeting in February 2004
that the journalist's life was in serious danger.
Knowing this, the joint attorneys applied to the Prime Ministry which
issued permission for a probe on 21 January 2011. Hence, the Ankara
Public Chief Prosecution launched an investigation.
Not "negligence of duty" but murder In the application of the Dink
lawyers it was stated that Yılmaz and Selcuk threatened Dink even
though they had actually been on duty to protect him. It was said
in the application that "they committed the crime of intentional
killing by negligent behaviour". Thus, the joint attorneys requested
the prosecution of the MİT members under Article 83 of the Turkish
Criminal Law.
They also demanded to investigate the decision for the meeting with
Dink at the Governor's Office with regard to the authority and legal
background it was based on.
On 29 September, prosecutor Murat Demir announced in writing that
there were "no grounds for a prosecution of Yılmaz and Selcuk. Demir
also mentioned that the issue became time-barred since five years
had passed.
The Dink family lawyers appealed the decision of prescription
referring to the date of the murder (19 January 2007) as the date
of crime instead of February 2004 when the meeting at the Governor's
Office took place. They claimed, "The negligence that constituted the
offence of the suspects was being continued until the murder of Dink
in January 2007".
The appeal emphasized that the date of crime and the statute of
limitation was the initial mistake of the prosecution and that the
action of the MİT officials should be evaluated in context with
the result.
Furthermore, the Dink family lawyers underlined that the offence was
not a simple "negligence of duty": "Yılmaz and Selcuk were members
of the Istanbul Provincial Protection Commission but did not take any
measures. With their negligent behaviour they committed intentional
homicide", the joint attorneys stressed. (AS/VK)
From: Baghdasarian