Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Dec 21 2012
Judge hearing Dink appeal convicted him in first place
21 December 2012 / TODAY'S ZAMAN, Ä°STANBUL ,
The judge and prosecutor who have been assigned to hear the appeal of
the Hrant Dink murder trial are the same individuals who ruled against
the Turkish-Armenian journalist prior to his murder for violating the
infamous Turkish Penal Code (TCK) Article 301, which criminalized
`insulting Turkishness.'
Dink was shot dead in broad daylight outside his office by an
ultranationalist teenager in January 2007. During the four-year trial,
evidence established that the assassination was carried out in
collusion with the gendarmerie and police force, but the judge in his
verdict found that the hitman and another suspect accused of inciting
him to murder had acted alone. The judge later said he knew that there
was an organized crime link behind the murder, but accused the
prosecutor of not having established this as fact, in a publicized
debate between the two.
Lawyers for the Dink family appealed the case and the 9th Criminal
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals will process the appeal.
According to the Taraf daily, the judge assigned to the murder trial
review, Ekrem ErtuÄ?rul, and Hasan Erbil, the prosecutor who will
prepare the necessary documents for the court, were responsible for
Dink's conviction over violating Article 301, which was slightly
reworded after Dink's death. The slain journalist had referred to
Article 301, or just 301 as it is commonly called, as `my death
certificate' prior to the murder, according to family and friends.
Many feel that this is true as the 301 conviction brought Dink into
the limelight and to the attention of ultranationalist groups.
Taraf's report follows earlier news about the election of Mehmet Nihat
Ã-meroÄ?lu, a retired member of the Supreme Court of Appeals, as
Turkey's first chief ombudsman. After his election, it emerged that
Ã-meroÄ?lu was one of the judges on the Supreme Court of Appeals who
approved a local court's ruling against Dink over charges of
`insulting Turkishness' according to Article 301. Observers have said
that the government's choice indicated an inclination toward state
authoritarianism, which defeats the purpose of having an ombudsman's
office in the first place.
The Dink family's lawyers are specifically interested in the high
court's final say on the Ä°stanbul 14th High Criminal Court's finding
that there was no organized crime link behind Dink's murder. The 9th
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal might also find the sentences
given to the suspects to be too low or too high, but the real
expectation is for it to overrule the no organized crime link ruling
and ask for a larger investigation, which is one of the possibilities
ahead in the appeal case.
Dec 21 2012
Judge hearing Dink appeal convicted him in first place
21 December 2012 / TODAY'S ZAMAN, Ä°STANBUL ,
The judge and prosecutor who have been assigned to hear the appeal of
the Hrant Dink murder trial are the same individuals who ruled against
the Turkish-Armenian journalist prior to his murder for violating the
infamous Turkish Penal Code (TCK) Article 301, which criminalized
`insulting Turkishness.'
Dink was shot dead in broad daylight outside his office by an
ultranationalist teenager in January 2007. During the four-year trial,
evidence established that the assassination was carried out in
collusion with the gendarmerie and police force, but the judge in his
verdict found that the hitman and another suspect accused of inciting
him to murder had acted alone. The judge later said he knew that there
was an organized crime link behind the murder, but accused the
prosecutor of not having established this as fact, in a publicized
debate between the two.
Lawyers for the Dink family appealed the case and the 9th Criminal
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals will process the appeal.
According to the Taraf daily, the judge assigned to the murder trial
review, Ekrem ErtuÄ?rul, and Hasan Erbil, the prosecutor who will
prepare the necessary documents for the court, were responsible for
Dink's conviction over violating Article 301, which was slightly
reworded after Dink's death. The slain journalist had referred to
Article 301, or just 301 as it is commonly called, as `my death
certificate' prior to the murder, according to family and friends.
Many feel that this is true as the 301 conviction brought Dink into
the limelight and to the attention of ultranationalist groups.
Taraf's report follows earlier news about the election of Mehmet Nihat
Ã-meroÄ?lu, a retired member of the Supreme Court of Appeals, as
Turkey's first chief ombudsman. After his election, it emerged that
Ã-meroÄ?lu was one of the judges on the Supreme Court of Appeals who
approved a local court's ruling against Dink over charges of
`insulting Turkishness' according to Article 301. Observers have said
that the government's choice indicated an inclination toward state
authoritarianism, which defeats the purpose of having an ombudsman's
office in the first place.
The Dink family's lawyers are specifically interested in the high
court's final say on the Ä°stanbul 14th High Criminal Court's finding
that there was no organized crime link behind Dink's murder. The 9th
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal might also find the sentences
given to the suspects to be too low or too high, but the real
expectation is for it to overrule the no organized crime link ruling
and ask for a larger investigation, which is one of the possibilities
ahead in the appeal case.