Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 22 2012
Hrant Dink lawyer Becerik: Court's final verdict a fireball
22 January 2012 / YONCA POYRAZ DO��AN , �°STANBUL
As the final verdict in the five-year-long Hrant Dink murder trial --
which established that the suspects had no ties to a larger crime
network but acted alone -- government officials, politicians and
commentators have asserted that this cannot be true, and a lawyer for
the Dink family told Monday Talk that this is because the court's
ruling has become a ball of fire.
`The court's ruling has become a fireball. Government officials try to
distance the government from the verdict. Nobody wants to touch it,
and those who touch it, get burned. The verdict has burned even the
judge! The judge tries to shy away from the verdict he gave,' said
lawyer Arzu Becerik.
Following the court's ruling last week, Judge R�¼stem Ery�±lmaz said
amid growing outrage over the trial that many feel has failed to shed
light on alleged official negligence or even collaboration; and 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.
Dink was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager in broad daylight
five years ago. The gunman, Og�¼n 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. He was recently sentenced to
22 years 10 months in prison by the court.
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. However, Erhan Tuncel, who worked as an informant
for the Trabzon Police Department, was not found guilty of the murder.
On the other hand, the prosecution believes the killers are affiliated
with the Ergenekon network, whose suspected members currently stand
trial on charges of plotting to overthrow the government.
The lawyers have documented that the police force in Trabzon, where
most of the suspects are from and where the assassination plot was
hatched, and the �°stanbul Police Department knew about the murder.
The lawyers of the Dink family have long held that some other
individuals who assumed active roles in the preparation of Dink's
murder have long remained untouched, only to be affected during the
investigation of Ergenekon. Those people, including Veli K�¼�§�¼k, Kemal
Kerin�§siz, Sevgi Erenerol, �-zer Y�±lmaz and Levent Temiz, are accused
of a number of criminal offenses, including setting up, managing and
being members of a terrorist organization, but so far it has not been
possible to question them about Dink's murder.
The court's verdict came on Sept. 17, two days before the fifth
anniversary of the murder of Dink. The protests reflected a combined
sense of mourning, grief and anger.
As the case is expected to go to the Supreme Court of Appeals, Becerik
answered our questions elaborating on the issue.
Following the �°stanbul court's verdict in the Dink case, from the
president to the prime minister, and from the deputy prime minister to
other ministers, high-level officials commented on the case,
expressing hope that the Supreme Court of Appeals `will clear up any
doubts' with regards to the Dink murder trial and indicating that the
court's ruling failed to satisfy the public's sense of justice. What
do you make up of those comments?
Indeed, government officials have changed the direction of their
statements. Following the murder, government officials had said, `We
found the murderer, that's it.' That's what B�¼lent Ar�±n�§ [currently
deputy prime minister] had said. Ar�±n�§ now says the ruling failed to
satisfy the public's sense of justice because of national and
international reactions to the verdict. Now, they do not want to be
held accountable for the verdict. The court's ruling has become a
fireball. Government officials try to distance the government from the
verdict. Nobody wants to touch it, and those who touch it, get burned.
The verdict has burned even the judge! The judge tries to shy away
from the verdict he gave.
And the prosecutor [Hikmet Usta] has been critical of the ruling, too.
Yes, but the prosecutor's argument was not adequate; it was not enough
to solve the murder because even if the court had ruled for life
imprisonment for all the hit-men, this would not have solved the
murder. The prosecutor announced his opinion as to who masterminded
the assassination and as to the accusations directed at suspects
[during the 20th hearing of the Dink trial]. The prosecutor said the
murder was the work of Ergenekon's Trabzon cell and demanded life
imprisonment for seven suspects, including key suspects Hayal and
Tuncel, on charges of attempting to destroy the constitutional order.
Hayal received the heaviest sentence, but he was cleared of charges of
membership in a terrorist organization. If he was not, then he would
have received an even heavier sentence. As a result, the hit-men have
been protected. The court ruling does not have a deterrent effect. In
fact, the ruling gave the message to society that those who express
their hate against somebody -- especially an Armenian -- with violent
acts, have no reasons to be fearful because the state can protect
them. Unfortunately, the court has not been objective.
`No political will behind case'
Usually, judges do not come out and make such statements after they a
verdict is reached in a case. Why do you think the presiding judge
[R�¼stem Ery�±lmaz] in the Dink case has been acting unconventionally?
The judge seems to be under the influence of the political leadership;
he probably can't have an objective approach to the case. During the
course of the court case, we had expectations from the court, and the
political authorities always told us that the judicial process is
continuing. Even when we pointed out the deficiencies in the court's
handling of the case, we were told that the prosecution is pursuing
the case, and if there is evidence, the investigation would go deeper.
But the verdict came out without digging any deeper. Now, all eyes are
turned to the political authorities. The public's reaction has been
influential in the judge's current stance. Political authorities have
been trying to divert the attention to the judge. But it is not right
to blame only the judge or the court for all that has happened. We
have to question the political will that was apparently not behind
this case. It is apparent because the government has saved its
officials from deeper investigations related to the case.
But you also say that the court has not fulfilled its responsibilities either¦
Yes, there was much evidence that the court could have taken into
consideration. If it did, it could have found not one but many
organizational links. We have the testimony of defendants, we have
knowledge of how this murder was committed, we have the testimony of
informant Erhan Tuncel, etc. Even one example to show how the court is
inconsistent in its own verdict would help us understand the
situation. The court found instigator Yasin Hayal guilty of murder;
the court also found two other people, Ersin Yolcu and Ahmet �°skender,
who helped Hayal, guilty of co-partnership in committing a crime. As
we know, a juvenile court convicted the assassin, Og�¼n Samast. Here is
the trigger man, here are his partners, and here is the instigator.
According to law, that type of grouping means that there is a terror
organization; there is no doubt. But even though the court passed
those rulings on those people, it ignored the fact that there is a
terror organization.
During those five years since Hrant Dink was killed, you have pointed
out a lengthy list of suspicious irregularities in the investigation,
including deleted records and hidden files. You have argued much of
the evidence indicates that the murder could have been prevented.
Where is the weakest link that can break this chain of events?
There is evidence pointing to public officials' involvement in the
assassination. For example, Dink was threatened by two National
Intelligence Organization [M�°T] officials in the office of the
governor of �°stanbul. Dink had described the situation in his articles
just prior to his murder. Why wasn't the involvement of former
�°stanbul police chief Celalettin Cerrah investigated? Why was the
involvement of the �°stanbul police officers who are appointed to fight
terrorism not investigated? What about not protecting Dink even though
M�°T had harshly warned him? Furthermore, it became known on Feb. 6,
2007, that Erhan Tuncel had informed the police of plans to kill Dink.
Ramazan Aky�¼rek, who was the police chief in Trabzon at the time, knew
of Tuncel. A specially authorized prosecutor's office can start an
investigation into all that. But the entire investigation should part
of one case. And the government should stand behind it.
`We'd like to see fruits of promises'
Another person who publicly criticized the ruling was �°stanbul Deputy
Prosecutor Fikret Se�§en. He said that he believed the murder of Dink
was the work of an organized criminal gang. He also said he was going
to petition the Supreme Court of Appeals and challenge the ruling.
Se�§en added that the �°stanbul prosecutor's office has been conducting
an investigation into the alleged negligence of a number of police
department and gendarmerie intelligence officers. Your comment?
This investigation that he is talking about, related to the
involvement of public officials, has been going on for at least
one-and-a-half years, and it is not going anywhere. And there is the
main case for which we were not able to obtain results for the last
five years! We'd like to see the results of his promises at this
point. In addition, this is required by the the European Court of
Human Rights [ECtHR] ruling [in Sept. 2010] that stated that Turkey
had failed to investigate and prosecute those who were responsible for
these failures and that this constitutes a second violation of Hrant
Dink's right to life. Turkey accepted the European court's ruling; if
it does not carry out its requirements, this will create a lot of
problems for Ankara.
What is your evaluation of Erhan Tuncel's recent remarks saying that
the court's verdict pointing to an absence of an organized network
behind the crime was wrong?
First of all, Tuncel must have been surprised by the court's verdict;
he must have thought that the state really loves him. Tuncel was the
first one to be questioned by the police after Dink's murder. He was
brought to the offices of the Trabzon police even before Samast was
captured. But Tuncel was not kept at the police station as a suspect.
Keeping Samast at the police station seems to be part of a damage
control process. In �°stanbul, Erhan, after his arrest, disclosed the
fact that he was an informant. Later, he did not speak for a long time
and used his right to remain silent. Then he demanded of the court
that police officers in Trabzon should be questioned -- this was
something that we demanded, too -- and those police officers were
brought to court. Tuncel thought that those police officers would be
on his side, but they weren't. After that, Tuncel started to speak out
about the events, but his statements were limited to the involvement
of low-level officials in Dink's murder. Right now, Tuncel seems to
try to understand his position in the current picture. But his release
has been a very positive development for him. From now on, I don't
expect him to speak out ever again. I should note that the court's
ruling related to Tuncel is quite problematic, too. The court found
Tuncel responsible for his role in the 2004 bombing of a McDonald's in
Trabzon. This bombing was the first act that Tuncel and Hayal
committed together. They attacked a foreign company during the month
of Ramadan; this is symbolic. In the case file, this is shown as an
act of an organization. How come he can be found responsible in the
bombing but not in the murder of Dink? Obviously, Hayal and Tuncel
acted together in the murder against a symbolic figure in an organized
manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Officials, not just Ergenekon, targeted Armenian, socialist Dink'
This murder is the work of a large organization involving both state
officials and deep state elements. Unfortunately, state officials and
deep state elements acted together. Interestingly, we see that various
groups -- nationalists, ultranationalists, neo-nationalists,
militarists, etc. -- within the security forces, gendarmerie and
military seemed to reconcile when it came to acting against Hrant Dink
even though they are from different cliques. The reason for that is
that Hrant Dink was both an Armenian and socialist. The fact that he
was both an Armenian and socialist, made the camp against Dink quite
broad. Dink, who defended the brotherhood of peoples, who never
produced animosity and alienation against Turks, had distinct views,
and those views stemmed from his socialist background. Yes, Ergenekon
has been involved in the murder of Hrant Dink, but the camp against
Dink was not restricted to Ergenekon. We want to emphasize this
because some government officials who had roles in the murder of Dink
still have not been brought to justice yet. The current AKP [Justice
and Development Party or AK Party] government has been ruling since
2002, and it had a responsibility to prevent this murder. In addition
to not protecting Hrant Dink before his murder, there has not been
enough effort to solve the murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`We did not expect this'
Right after the court's ruling, you stated that you did not expect
this. What was your expectation?
We did not expect that the court would ignore the organizational ties
in the murder because it is so obvious; the prosecution says that
there is an organizational link. If there are no organizational links
accepted, it becomes impossible to link the case to the people other
than the current defendants in the case.
At this point, are you still hopeful that there can be a breakthrough?
We are still hopeful; we are stubborn. We are responsible to Hrant
Dink, we are responsible to his family.
Are your hopes reinforced by the big public demonstration on Friday
for Hrant Dink?
Very much so! The demonstration has had a major influence; for
example, it helped politicians to change their rhetoric. It was also a
great support for the family who feels unsafe here. The demonstration
was also important for us too because we saw that we were able to make
ourselves heard by some people even if not by the court. As long as
this public support continues, there is hope that the Dink case can go
forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ECtHR calls on Turkey to investigate state officials
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment on
the Dink v. Turkey case on Sept. 14, 2010. In this ruling, The ECtHR
found Turkey in violation of Article 2 and 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These articles are related to the
`right to life' and `freedom of expression,' respectively. The ECtHR
has merged all cases brought by the Dink family and declared its
verdict in one single judgment.
Some findings from the ECtHR ruling:
`First of all that the provincial governor's office had refused to
authorize criminal proceedings against the Trabzon gendarmerie
officers, with the exception of two NCOs [noncommissioned officers].
No judicial ruling had been given on the reasons why the officers
competent to take the appropriate steps following transmission of the
information by the NCOs had failed to take action. In addition, the
NCOs had been forced to give false statements to the investigators.
This was a case of a manifest breach of the duty to take steps to
gather evidence concerning the events in question and of concerted
action to hamper the capacity of the investigation to establish who
was responsible¦
`Taken overall, the prosecuting authorities' investigation had
amounted to little more than a defense of the police officers
concerned, without providing any answers to the question of their
failure to take action vis-Ã?-vis the suspected assassins.
`With regard to the failures imputed to the �°stanbul police, the court
noted that no criminal proceedings had been started against them
either, despite the findings of Interior Ministry investigators to the
effect that the police authorities had not taken the measures that the
situation required. No explanation had been provided as to why the
�°stanbul police had not responded to the threat¦'
`Lastly, the court observed that the investigations concerning the
Trabzon gendarmerie and the �°stanbul police had been conducted by
officials belonging to the executive, and that the dead man's
relatives had not been involved in the proceedings, a fact that served
to undermine the investigations.'
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269290-hrant-dink-lawyer-becerik-courts-final-verdict-a-fireball.html
Jan 22 2012
Hrant Dink lawyer Becerik: Court's final verdict a fireball
22 January 2012 / YONCA POYRAZ DO��AN , �°STANBUL
As the final verdict in the five-year-long Hrant Dink murder trial --
which established that the suspects had no ties to a larger crime
network but acted alone -- government officials, politicians and
commentators have asserted that this cannot be true, and a lawyer for
the Dink family told Monday Talk that this is because the court's
ruling has become a ball of fire.
`The court's ruling has become a fireball. Government officials try to
distance the government from the verdict. Nobody wants to touch it,
and those who touch it, get burned. The verdict has burned even the
judge! The judge tries to shy away from the verdict he gave,' said
lawyer Arzu Becerik.
Following the court's ruling last week, Judge R�¼stem Ery�±lmaz said
amid growing outrage over the trial that many feel has failed to shed
light on alleged official negligence or even collaboration; and 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.
Dink was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager in broad daylight
five years ago. The gunman, Og�¼n 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. He was recently sentenced to
22 years 10 months in prison by the court.
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. However, Erhan Tuncel, who worked as an informant
for the Trabzon Police Department, was not found guilty of the murder.
On the other hand, the prosecution believes the killers are affiliated
with the Ergenekon network, whose suspected members currently stand
trial on charges of plotting to overthrow the government.
The lawyers have documented that the police force in Trabzon, where
most of the suspects are from and where the assassination plot was
hatched, and the �°stanbul Police Department knew about the murder.
The lawyers of the Dink family have long held that some other
individuals who assumed active roles in the preparation of Dink's
murder have long remained untouched, only to be affected during the
investigation of Ergenekon. Those people, including Veli K�¼�§�¼k, Kemal
Kerin�§siz, Sevgi Erenerol, �-zer Y�±lmaz and Levent Temiz, are accused
of a number of criminal offenses, including setting up, managing and
being members of a terrorist organization, but so far it has not been
possible to question them about Dink's murder.
The court's verdict came on Sept. 17, two days before the fifth
anniversary of the murder of Dink. The protests reflected a combined
sense of mourning, grief and anger.
As the case is expected to go to the Supreme Court of Appeals, Becerik
answered our questions elaborating on the issue.
Following the �°stanbul court's verdict in the Dink case, from the
president to the prime minister, and from the deputy prime minister to
other ministers, high-level officials commented on the case,
expressing hope that the Supreme Court of Appeals `will clear up any
doubts' with regards to the Dink murder trial and indicating that the
court's ruling failed to satisfy the public's sense of justice. What
do you make up of those comments?
Indeed, government officials have changed the direction of their
statements. Following the murder, government officials had said, `We
found the murderer, that's it.' That's what B�¼lent Ar�±n�§ [currently
deputy prime minister] had said. Ar�±n�§ now says the ruling failed to
satisfy the public's sense of justice because of national and
international reactions to the verdict. Now, they do not want to be
held accountable for the verdict. The court's ruling has become a
fireball. Government officials try to distance the government from the
verdict. Nobody wants to touch it, and those who touch it, get burned.
The verdict has burned even the judge! The judge tries to shy away
from the verdict he gave.
And the prosecutor [Hikmet Usta] has been critical of the ruling, too.
Yes, but the prosecutor's argument was not adequate; it was not enough
to solve the murder because even if the court had ruled for life
imprisonment for all the hit-men, this would not have solved the
murder. The prosecutor announced his opinion as to who masterminded
the assassination and as to the accusations directed at suspects
[during the 20th hearing of the Dink trial]. The prosecutor said the
murder was the work of Ergenekon's Trabzon cell and demanded life
imprisonment for seven suspects, including key suspects Hayal and
Tuncel, on charges of attempting to destroy the constitutional order.
Hayal received the heaviest sentence, but he was cleared of charges of
membership in a terrorist organization. If he was not, then he would
have received an even heavier sentence. As a result, the hit-men have
been protected. The court ruling does not have a deterrent effect. In
fact, the ruling gave the message to society that those who express
their hate against somebody -- especially an Armenian -- with violent
acts, have no reasons to be fearful because the state can protect
them. Unfortunately, the court has not been objective.
`No political will behind case'
Usually, judges do not come out and make such statements after they a
verdict is reached in a case. Why do you think the presiding judge
[R�¼stem Ery�±lmaz] in the Dink case has been acting unconventionally?
The judge seems to be under the influence of the political leadership;
he probably can't have an objective approach to the case. During the
course of the court case, we had expectations from the court, and the
political authorities always told us that the judicial process is
continuing. Even when we pointed out the deficiencies in the court's
handling of the case, we were told that the prosecution is pursuing
the case, and if there is evidence, the investigation would go deeper.
But the verdict came out without digging any deeper. Now, all eyes are
turned to the political authorities. The public's reaction has been
influential in the judge's current stance. Political authorities have
been trying to divert the attention to the judge. But it is not right
to blame only the judge or the court for all that has happened. We
have to question the political will that was apparently not behind
this case. It is apparent because the government has saved its
officials from deeper investigations related to the case.
But you also say that the court has not fulfilled its responsibilities either¦
Yes, there was much evidence that the court could have taken into
consideration. If it did, it could have found not one but many
organizational links. We have the testimony of defendants, we have
knowledge of how this murder was committed, we have the testimony of
informant Erhan Tuncel, etc. Even one example to show how the court is
inconsistent in its own verdict would help us understand the
situation. The court found instigator Yasin Hayal guilty of murder;
the court also found two other people, Ersin Yolcu and Ahmet �°skender,
who helped Hayal, guilty of co-partnership in committing a crime. As
we know, a juvenile court convicted the assassin, Og�¼n Samast. Here is
the trigger man, here are his partners, and here is the instigator.
According to law, that type of grouping means that there is a terror
organization; there is no doubt. But even though the court passed
those rulings on those people, it ignored the fact that there is a
terror organization.
During those five years since Hrant Dink was killed, you have pointed
out a lengthy list of suspicious irregularities in the investigation,
including deleted records and hidden files. You have argued much of
the evidence indicates that the murder could have been prevented.
Where is the weakest link that can break this chain of events?
There is evidence pointing to public officials' involvement in the
assassination. For example, Dink was threatened by two National
Intelligence Organization [M�°T] officials in the office of the
governor of �°stanbul. Dink had described the situation in his articles
just prior to his murder. Why wasn't the involvement of former
�°stanbul police chief Celalettin Cerrah investigated? Why was the
involvement of the �°stanbul police officers who are appointed to fight
terrorism not investigated? What about not protecting Dink even though
M�°T had harshly warned him? Furthermore, it became known on Feb. 6,
2007, that Erhan Tuncel had informed the police of plans to kill Dink.
Ramazan Aky�¼rek, who was the police chief in Trabzon at the time, knew
of Tuncel. A specially authorized prosecutor's office can start an
investigation into all that. But the entire investigation should part
of one case. And the government should stand behind it.
`We'd like to see fruits of promises'
Another person who publicly criticized the ruling was �°stanbul Deputy
Prosecutor Fikret Se�§en. He said that he believed the murder of Dink
was the work of an organized criminal gang. He also said he was going
to petition the Supreme Court of Appeals and challenge the ruling.
Se�§en added that the �°stanbul prosecutor's office has been conducting
an investigation into the alleged negligence of a number of police
department and gendarmerie intelligence officers. Your comment?
This investigation that he is talking about, related to the
involvement of public officials, has been going on for at least
one-and-a-half years, and it is not going anywhere. And there is the
main case for which we were not able to obtain results for the last
five years! We'd like to see the results of his promises at this
point. In addition, this is required by the the European Court of
Human Rights [ECtHR] ruling [in Sept. 2010] that stated that Turkey
had failed to investigate and prosecute those who were responsible for
these failures and that this constitutes a second violation of Hrant
Dink's right to life. Turkey accepted the European court's ruling; if
it does not carry out its requirements, this will create a lot of
problems for Ankara.
What is your evaluation of Erhan Tuncel's recent remarks saying that
the court's verdict pointing to an absence of an organized network
behind the crime was wrong?
First of all, Tuncel must have been surprised by the court's verdict;
he must have thought that the state really loves him. Tuncel was the
first one to be questioned by the police after Dink's murder. He was
brought to the offices of the Trabzon police even before Samast was
captured. But Tuncel was not kept at the police station as a suspect.
Keeping Samast at the police station seems to be part of a damage
control process. In �°stanbul, Erhan, after his arrest, disclosed the
fact that he was an informant. Later, he did not speak for a long time
and used his right to remain silent. Then he demanded of the court
that police officers in Trabzon should be questioned -- this was
something that we demanded, too -- and those police officers were
brought to court. Tuncel thought that those police officers would be
on his side, but they weren't. After that, Tuncel started to speak out
about the events, but his statements were limited to the involvement
of low-level officials in Dink's murder. Right now, Tuncel seems to
try to understand his position in the current picture. But his release
has been a very positive development for him. From now on, I don't
expect him to speak out ever again. I should note that the court's
ruling related to Tuncel is quite problematic, too. The court found
Tuncel responsible for his role in the 2004 bombing of a McDonald's in
Trabzon. This bombing was the first act that Tuncel and Hayal
committed together. They attacked a foreign company during the month
of Ramadan; this is symbolic. In the case file, this is shown as an
act of an organization. How come he can be found responsible in the
bombing but not in the murder of Dink? Obviously, Hayal and Tuncel
acted together in the murder against a symbolic figure in an organized
manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Officials, not just Ergenekon, targeted Armenian, socialist Dink'
This murder is the work of a large organization involving both state
officials and deep state elements. Unfortunately, state officials and
deep state elements acted together. Interestingly, we see that various
groups -- nationalists, ultranationalists, neo-nationalists,
militarists, etc. -- within the security forces, gendarmerie and
military seemed to reconcile when it came to acting against Hrant Dink
even though they are from different cliques. The reason for that is
that Hrant Dink was both an Armenian and socialist. The fact that he
was both an Armenian and socialist, made the camp against Dink quite
broad. Dink, who defended the brotherhood of peoples, who never
produced animosity and alienation against Turks, had distinct views,
and those views stemmed from his socialist background. Yes, Ergenekon
has been involved in the murder of Hrant Dink, but the camp against
Dink was not restricted to Ergenekon. We want to emphasize this
because some government officials who had roles in the murder of Dink
still have not been brought to justice yet. The current AKP [Justice
and Development Party or AK Party] government has been ruling since
2002, and it had a responsibility to prevent this murder. In addition
to not protecting Hrant Dink before his murder, there has not been
enough effort to solve the murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`We did not expect this'
Right after the court's ruling, you stated that you did not expect
this. What was your expectation?
We did not expect that the court would ignore the organizational ties
in the murder because it is so obvious; the prosecution says that
there is an organizational link. If there are no organizational links
accepted, it becomes impossible to link the case to the people other
than the current defendants in the case.
At this point, are you still hopeful that there can be a breakthrough?
We are still hopeful; we are stubborn. We are responsible to Hrant
Dink, we are responsible to his family.
Are your hopes reinforced by the big public demonstration on Friday
for Hrant Dink?
Very much so! The demonstration has had a major influence; for
example, it helped politicians to change their rhetoric. It was also a
great support for the family who feels unsafe here. The demonstration
was also important for us too because we saw that we were able to make
ourselves heard by some people even if not by the court. As long as
this public support continues, there is hope that the Dink case can go
forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ECtHR calls on Turkey to investigate state officials
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment on
the Dink v. Turkey case on Sept. 14, 2010. In this ruling, The ECtHR
found Turkey in violation of Article 2 and 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These articles are related to the
`right to life' and `freedom of expression,' respectively. The ECtHR
has merged all cases brought by the Dink family and declared its
verdict in one single judgment.
Some findings from the ECtHR ruling:
`First of all that the provincial governor's office had refused to
authorize criminal proceedings against the Trabzon gendarmerie
officers, with the exception of two NCOs [noncommissioned officers].
No judicial ruling had been given on the reasons why the officers
competent to take the appropriate steps following transmission of the
information by the NCOs had failed to take action. In addition, the
NCOs had been forced to give false statements to the investigators.
This was a case of a manifest breach of the duty to take steps to
gather evidence concerning the events in question and of concerted
action to hamper the capacity of the investigation to establish who
was responsible¦
`Taken overall, the prosecuting authorities' investigation had
amounted to little more than a defense of the police officers
concerned, without providing any answers to the question of their
failure to take action vis-Ã?-vis the suspected assassins.
`With regard to the failures imputed to the �°stanbul police, the court
noted that no criminal proceedings had been started against them
either, despite the findings of Interior Ministry investigators to the
effect that the police authorities had not taken the measures that the
situation required. No explanation had been provided as to why the
�°stanbul police had not responded to the threat¦'
`Lastly, the court observed that the investigations concerning the
Trabzon gendarmerie and the �°stanbul police had been conducted by
officials belonging to the executive, and that the dead man's
relatives had not been involved in the proceedings, a fact that served
to undermine the investigations.'
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269290-hrant-dink-lawyer-becerik-courts-final-verdict-a-fireball.html