Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISTANBUL: Presidential Report Backs Probe Into Officials For Role In

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ISTANBUL: Presidential Report Backs Probe Into Officials For Role In

    PRESIDENTIAL REPORT BACKS PROBE INTO OFFICIALS FOR ROLE IN DINK MURDER

    Today's Zaman
    Feb 22 2012
    Turkey

    A new report from the country's top office is expected to put much
    needed support behind judges and prosecutors who are currently
    conducting investigations into several public officials for their
    role in the murder of Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos' editor Hrant Dink.

    The State Audit Institution (DDK), which started the investigation
    into the issue last year in January and posted it on the website of
    the presidential office on Monday, has stated that a threat against
    Dink's life was known by the police and gendarmerie officials who
    failed to take the necessary measures in light of early warnings and
    tips about the plot to kill Dink.

    The report also noted that the seriousness of the actions of public
    officials in the run up to the murder has not been understood and the
    link between their actions and the murder could not be established,
    leading to the failure of all of the investigations into public
    officials.

    The DDK report came out at a time when there is a secret investigation
    into some public officials who allegedly had roles in preventing the
    murder of Dink, who was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager in
    broad daylight. Dink was convicted in 2005 for "insulting Turkishness"
    in a newspaper article, despite an expert report that he had not
    committed the said charge. He received threats from extremist rightist
    groups and ultranationalist circles until he was murdered, causing
    outrage among many Turks who joined a massive demonstration on the
    day of his funeral.

    The 650-page report stated that the DDK's authority is limited in
    conducting such an investigation, and it should avoid influencing
    the judiciary, but it evaluates the situation in the face of the
    ECtHR ruling, which declared in September 2010 that Turkey failed to
    fulfill its duty to protect the life of Dink and included a reference
    to possible links between the 2007 murder of Dink and Ergenekon,
    a clandestine terrorist group accused of plotting a military coup
    against the government.

    "In that context, there is a decision to evaluate laws and regulations
    criticized in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling in
    relation to the prosecution of the public officials," the report
    stated, adding that only a part of the report -- the conclusion with
    some parts covered with black -- was made public because of an ongoing
    investigation by the prosecution into some public officials. "The
    first point is that it is understood that there are structural problems
    in the security sector related to the failure to protect the life of
    Hrant Dink.

    In this framework, in the murder of Hrant Dink and in similar
    events (murder in the Council of State, murders of intellectuals
    and journalists, Sivas and MaraÅ~_ events), there were problems in
    institutional structures and practices in relation to the collection
    and evaluation of intelligence and providing individual security;
    therefore, there is a need to touch on the 'need for reform'," the
    report stated.

    Cem Halavurt, a co-plaintiff lawyer for the Dink family, told Today's
    Zaman that there are several positive elements in the DDK report,
    and there are some unknowns due to the secrecy of some parts.

    "The report made the point that we have long been making in regards
    to Law 4483, which protects public officials," he said. "It also
    makes another point that we have long been making, and it is that
    public officials who are suspects can be tried in accordance with
    the Turkish Penal Code's related articles."

    Co-plaintiff lawyers for the Dink family have been defending the
    view that in order to solve the murder of Dink, the whole picture
    should be seen, and this cannot be done with one separate case in
    Trabzon, another in Samsun and yet another in Ä°stanbul; therefore,
    all the separate cases should be combined. One example of that is in
    a separate case in Trabzon in which a public official was punished
    with a prison sentence of six months for dereliction of duty. However,
    the lawyers of the Dink family say if that case was part of the main
    murder trial, then it would be possible to ask for this official's
    punishment under Articles 83 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code [TCK].

    Article 83 relates to malicious murder by dereliction of duty. And
    Article 220 clearly states that if someone contributes to organized
    crimes intentionally, then that person needs to be tried and punished
    accordingly.

    "We don't know yet if the DDK report goes further to reveal
    organizational links of the public officials in the murder," Halavurt
    said. "The team from the DDK worked well. They called us for submission
    of many documents. But we don't know yet how far they went.

    We expect to receive the full report from them. And as this report
    comes from the top office of the Turkish state, judges and prosecutors
    should feel the courage to reveal all the facts, all of the wrongful
    acts of public officials."

    The Dink case was closed last month in the five-year-long murder
    trial with a verdict saying that the suspects had no ties to a larger
    crime network but acted alone -- even though government officials,
    politicians and commentators have asserted that this cannot be true.

    Even Judge Rustem Eryılmaz, who delivered the verdict, said --
    amid growing outrage over the trial that many feel has failed to
    shed light on alleged official negligence or even collaboration --
    that while he personally cannot deny the murder was the work of
    an organized network, the evidence submitted to the court was not
    sufficient to issue such a ruling.

    The trial ended with conviction of the hitman and his instigator. The
    ruling was appealed as both the prosecution and lawyers on behalf of
    the Dink family believe the killers are affiliated with the Ergenekon
    network, whose suspected members currently stand trial on charges of
    plotting to overthrow the government.

    The gunman, Ogun Samast, and 18 others were brought to trial. During
    the process, lawyers for the Dink family and the co-plaintiffs in the
    case presented evidence indicating that Samast was not acting alone.

    Samast stood trial in a juvenile court because he was a minor at
    the time of the murder, and he was sentenced to 22 years 10 months
    in prison.

    The report by the DDK made a reference to Samast -- who was
    photographed after being captured, posing in front of a Turkish flag
    and holding another flag next to security officials, indicating that
    he was given the hero treatment -- saying that it is necessary "to
    confront with marginal understandings that gave a flag to the killer
    of Hrant Dink."

    In a separate trial, two gendarmerie officers were convicted on
    charges of "dereliction of duty" in the run-up to the Dink murder.

    Another suspect, Yasin Hayal, was given life in prison for inciting
    Samast to murder.

    "The DDK report presents new opportunities," said law professor
    Hakan Hakeri.

    Since opinions in the Turkish press indicate that a new investigation
    should be started into the murder of Dink, he added that it is not
    technically possible to start another investigation into the suspects
    because the case is under review by the Supreme Court of Appeals.

    "However, if the top court overrules the verdict, then a new
    investigation can be possible. Additionally, with the DDK report,
    investigations can be started against people who have never been
    investigated before," he said.

    In late January, a group of people who identify themselves as "Hrant's
    Friends" released a press statement pointing out "untouchable"
    officials allegedly responsible for Dink's murder. The list included
    Muammer Guler, who was the governor of Ä°stanbul at the time and
    currently a lawmaker. Guler was listed as being responsible because
    Dink was threatened by two MİT officials, Ozel Yılmaz and Handan
    Selcuk, at the office of Deputy Governor Ergun Gungör.

    Other individuals listed as being responsible for Dink's assassination
    include Osmaniye Governor Celalettin Cerrah, who was the Ä°stanbul
    chief of police at the time of the murder; Ahmet Ä°lhan Guler,
    then head of intelligence at the Ä°stanbul Police Department;
    ReÅ~_at Altay, then Trabzon police chief; Engin Dinc, then head of
    intelligence at the Trabzon Police Department and the man who told
    the Ä°stanbul Police Department that Dink was going to be killed;
    and Ali Oz, the then commander of the Trabzon Gendarmerie Command,
    who covered up information regarding plans to murder Dink.

Working...
X