Tweet
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RULES IN FAVOR OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE SCHOLAR TANER AKCAM
armradio.am
26.10.2011 11:12
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Turkish government's
prosecution under Article 301 of its penal code with respect to Dr.
Taner Akcam's public views on the Armenian Genocide violated Akcam's
right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, reported the Armenian Assembly of America
(Assembly).
Dr. Akcam, the holder of the Kaloosdian/Mugar Chair for the Study of
Modern Armenian History and Armenian Genocide at Clark University in
Worcester, Massachusetts, became the target of threats and harassment
for expressing his views and publishing his findings on the Armenian
Genocide. A close friend to the late Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian
journalist assassinated in January 2007, Dr. Akcam knew all too well
the dangers of speaking about this taboo subject in Turkey. Before
he was gunned down in broad daylight, Hrant Dink was also prosecuted
under Article 301. The Court acknowledges this connection and in
its decision notes "it was widely believed that Hrant Dink had been
targeted by extremists because of the stigma attached to his criminal
conviction for 'insulting Turkishness.'"
In its verdict today, the Court honors Dink's legacy in its conclusion
that "the criminal investigation commenced against the applicant
[Taner Akcam] and the standpoint of the Turkish criminal courts on
the Armenian issue in their application of Article 301 of the Criminal
Code, as well as the public campaign against the applicant in respect
of the investigation, confirm that there exists a considerable risk of
prosecution faced by persons who express 'unfavourable' opinions on
this matter and indicates that the threat hanging over the applicant
is real."
The Court further concluded that changes to Article 301 and the
replacement of the term "Turkishness" by the words "the Turkish
Nation" made "no change or major difference in the interpretation of
these concepts because they have been understood in the same manner
by the Court of Cassation...[in other words it] does not introduce
a substantial change or contribute to the widening of protection of
the right to freedom of expression."
Welcoming the court's decision, Dr. Akcam commented that "Turkey should
learn that facing history and coming to terms with past human rights
abuses is not a crime but a prerequisite for peace and reconciliation
in the region. I consider myself as a part of Turkish civil society,
which fights for a truly free and democratic Turkey.
This cannot happen if Turkey continues to criminalize discussion of
the Armenian Genocide." He added: "You cannot achieve reconciliation
and peace with Armenia with the existence of this kind of poisonous
law or continue to deny diplomatic relations."
armradio.am
26.10.2011 11:12
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Turkish government's
prosecution under Article 301 of its penal code with respect to Dr.
Taner Akcam's public views on the Armenian Genocide violated Akcam's
right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, reported the Armenian Assembly of America
(Assembly).
Dr. Akcam, the holder of the Kaloosdian/Mugar Chair for the Study of
Modern Armenian History and Armenian Genocide at Clark University in
Worcester, Massachusetts, became the target of threats and harassment
for expressing his views and publishing his findings on the Armenian
Genocide. A close friend to the late Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian
journalist assassinated in January 2007, Dr. Akcam knew all too well
the dangers of speaking about this taboo subject in Turkey. Before
he was gunned down in broad daylight, Hrant Dink was also prosecuted
under Article 301. The Court acknowledges this connection and in
its decision notes "it was widely believed that Hrant Dink had been
targeted by extremists because of the stigma attached to his criminal
conviction for 'insulting Turkishness.'"
In its verdict today, the Court honors Dink's legacy in its conclusion
that "the criminal investigation commenced against the applicant
[Taner Akcam] and the standpoint of the Turkish criminal courts on
the Armenian issue in their application of Article 301 of the Criminal
Code, as well as the public campaign against the applicant in respect
of the investigation, confirm that there exists a considerable risk of
prosecution faced by persons who express 'unfavourable' opinions on
this matter and indicates that the threat hanging over the applicant
is real."
The Court further concluded that changes to Article 301 and the
replacement of the term "Turkishness" by the words "the Turkish
Nation" made "no change or major difference in the interpretation of
these concepts because they have been understood in the same manner
by the Court of Cassation...[in other words it] does not introduce
a substantial change or contribute to the widening of protection of
the right to freedom of expression."
Welcoming the court's decision, Dr. Akcam commented that "Turkey should
learn that facing history and coming to terms with past human rights
abuses is not a crime but a prerequisite for peace and reconciliation
in the region. I consider myself as a part of Turkish civil society,
which fights for a truly free and democratic Turkey.
This cannot happen if Turkey continues to criminalize discussion of
the Armenian Genocide." He added: "You cannot achieve reconciliation
and peace with Armenia with the existence of this kind of poisonous
law or continue to deny diplomatic relations."