Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 27 2012
The DDK report
by Markar Esayan*
26 February 2012 /
The scandalous outcome of the Hrant Dink murder case that was being
heard at a court of first instance led tens of thousands of people to
take to the streets, shouting, `This trial won't end like this,' on
the fifth anniversary of Dink's death.
Not only the public, but also President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an, other ministers and opposition party leaders
expressed their discontent with the court's decision. Strikingly, the
presiding judge and the prosecutors' claims went back and forth
concerning the court's ruling that there was no criminal organization
associated with the crime, and even the prosecutor claimed that the
presiding judge committed a crime with this ruling. The court of first
instance's decision to sentence instigator Yasin Hayal to life in
prison is now being appealed at the Supreme Court of Appeals.
At this point, the Presidency's State Audit Institution (DDK), which
was created on President Gül's instruction after the European Court of
Human Rights' (ECtHR) found Turkey to be in violation of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on Dec. 17, 2010, recently issued a
report on the murder of Dink. It is claimed that the report was
completed on Feb. 2, 2012, but its announcement was delayed because of
the recent National Intelligence Organization (MÄ°T) crisis that
erupted as there were some points in the report that also concerned
MÄ°T as well. I don't know whether this crisis had any effect on the
writing or observations of this report. Indeed, both the MÄ°T crisis
and the Dink case overlap with respect to the litigation against state
officials.
The DDK's report essentially says this: The offenses committed by
state officials have not been effectively investigated since the
pro-Community of Union and Progress (CUP) committee, which overthrew
the government in 1913, passed a provisional law, i.e., for about a
century. In 1913, CUP passed this law possibly to cover up its
probable future crimes or offenses it would make state officials
commit.
This law has been in place for 86 years even though governments
changed one after another. But, in 1999, Turkey was cornered with the
cases brought against it at the ECtHR and the European Union wanted it
to change this law. It was replaced with Law No. 4483, but it is
equally problematic. Indeed, it provides ambiguous definitions about
offenses state officials may commit and the investigation period is
specified as 25 days. In complicated cases like the Dink murder case,
it is impossible to be productive in 25 days even if you manage to
obtain administrative permission for launching an investigation.
Moreover, the coup perpetrators of 1980 completed what was left
unfinished by the coup perpetrators of 1913 by introducing a
constitutional guarantee for state officials in Article 129 of the
Constitution, which we still use. Article 129 gives an equivocal
definition of a crime and empowers the administration, not the
judiciary, with the litigation against state officials.
Admitting Dink murder was committed by organized crime group
Speaking on the DDK report, Cem Halavurt, a lawyer representing the
Dink family, told Barçın Yinanç from the Hürriyet Daily News that such
a report by a top state institution may be a turning point in the Dink
case. With this report, the state admits that the Dink murder was
committed by an organized crime group. Furthermore, the report
acknowledges that the murder case was not resolved just because a
number of hitmen were convicted and that several police and security
officers who contributed to the commission of the crime through
negligence were not properly investigated or prosecuted despite clear
evidence and that they were not brought to trial.
Counsel Halavurt recalls that the DDK report repeats what they have
been telling the court for five years. `The DDK did not make a gesture
with this report; such investigations are among the duties and
missions of the state. The fact that the DDK said the security
officials should have been prosecuted for involvement in the murder in
addition to acts of negligence shows the reaction of the president to
the court verdict. With this reaction, the president implied that the
murder was not ordinary and that it might have been committed by an
organized group.'
Halavurt was also asked whether he had a clear image in his mind about
the murder. In response, he said neo-nationalists who were favoring
the preservation of the status quo planned such actions in the 2000s,
when Turkey was going through a process of huge transformation
following its bid for EU membership. It is possible to make such an
argument because we have a number of incidents that corroborate this,
including plots and plans on murder, provocation, coups and warnings.
This argument was also spelled out in the legal view and evaluation by
the prosecutor who reviewed the case. All relevant actors, including
the politicians, said this suspicion emerged out of the overall
outlook. The prosecutor also concluded that such a huge and
significant murder could not have been committed by a few children who
were selling goods on the street. The judge also admitted that they
realized there was an organization behind the murder but were unable
to spot it in the evidence submitted.
However, in other parts of the interview, the argument was put forth
that the pro-reformist coalition led by the government which fought
with neo-nationalists purposefully allowed the Dink murder to initiate
the Ergenekon operations. However, the incidents and events that would
justify the launch of the Ergenekon operations, including the Father
Santoro murder and the Council of State attack, were already there
before the Dink murder. That said, I must note that the Council of
State murder and the Ergenekon case were merged.
In conclusion, I hope the DDK report raises the morale of the judiciary.
Feb 27 2012
The DDK report
by Markar Esayan*
26 February 2012 /
The scandalous outcome of the Hrant Dink murder case that was being
heard at a court of first instance led tens of thousands of people to
take to the streets, shouting, `This trial won't end like this,' on
the fifth anniversary of Dink's death.
Not only the public, but also President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an, other ministers and opposition party leaders
expressed their discontent with the court's decision. Strikingly, the
presiding judge and the prosecutors' claims went back and forth
concerning the court's ruling that there was no criminal organization
associated with the crime, and even the prosecutor claimed that the
presiding judge committed a crime with this ruling. The court of first
instance's decision to sentence instigator Yasin Hayal to life in
prison is now being appealed at the Supreme Court of Appeals.
At this point, the Presidency's State Audit Institution (DDK), which
was created on President Gül's instruction after the European Court of
Human Rights' (ECtHR) found Turkey to be in violation of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on Dec. 17, 2010, recently issued a
report on the murder of Dink. It is claimed that the report was
completed on Feb. 2, 2012, but its announcement was delayed because of
the recent National Intelligence Organization (MÄ°T) crisis that
erupted as there were some points in the report that also concerned
MÄ°T as well. I don't know whether this crisis had any effect on the
writing or observations of this report. Indeed, both the MÄ°T crisis
and the Dink case overlap with respect to the litigation against state
officials.
The DDK's report essentially says this: The offenses committed by
state officials have not been effectively investigated since the
pro-Community of Union and Progress (CUP) committee, which overthrew
the government in 1913, passed a provisional law, i.e., for about a
century. In 1913, CUP passed this law possibly to cover up its
probable future crimes or offenses it would make state officials
commit.
This law has been in place for 86 years even though governments
changed one after another. But, in 1999, Turkey was cornered with the
cases brought against it at the ECtHR and the European Union wanted it
to change this law. It was replaced with Law No. 4483, but it is
equally problematic. Indeed, it provides ambiguous definitions about
offenses state officials may commit and the investigation period is
specified as 25 days. In complicated cases like the Dink murder case,
it is impossible to be productive in 25 days even if you manage to
obtain administrative permission for launching an investigation.
Moreover, the coup perpetrators of 1980 completed what was left
unfinished by the coup perpetrators of 1913 by introducing a
constitutional guarantee for state officials in Article 129 of the
Constitution, which we still use. Article 129 gives an equivocal
definition of a crime and empowers the administration, not the
judiciary, with the litigation against state officials.
Admitting Dink murder was committed by organized crime group
Speaking on the DDK report, Cem Halavurt, a lawyer representing the
Dink family, told Barçın Yinanç from the Hürriyet Daily News that such
a report by a top state institution may be a turning point in the Dink
case. With this report, the state admits that the Dink murder was
committed by an organized crime group. Furthermore, the report
acknowledges that the murder case was not resolved just because a
number of hitmen were convicted and that several police and security
officers who contributed to the commission of the crime through
negligence were not properly investigated or prosecuted despite clear
evidence and that they were not brought to trial.
Counsel Halavurt recalls that the DDK report repeats what they have
been telling the court for five years. `The DDK did not make a gesture
with this report; such investigations are among the duties and
missions of the state. The fact that the DDK said the security
officials should have been prosecuted for involvement in the murder in
addition to acts of negligence shows the reaction of the president to
the court verdict. With this reaction, the president implied that the
murder was not ordinary and that it might have been committed by an
organized group.'
Halavurt was also asked whether he had a clear image in his mind about
the murder. In response, he said neo-nationalists who were favoring
the preservation of the status quo planned such actions in the 2000s,
when Turkey was going through a process of huge transformation
following its bid for EU membership. It is possible to make such an
argument because we have a number of incidents that corroborate this,
including plots and plans on murder, provocation, coups and warnings.
This argument was also spelled out in the legal view and evaluation by
the prosecutor who reviewed the case. All relevant actors, including
the politicians, said this suspicion emerged out of the overall
outlook. The prosecutor also concluded that such a huge and
significant murder could not have been committed by a few children who
were selling goods on the street. The judge also admitted that they
realized there was an organization behind the murder but were unable
to spot it in the evidence submitted.
However, in other parts of the interview, the argument was put forth
that the pro-reformist coalition led by the government which fought
with neo-nationalists purposefully allowed the Dink murder to initiate
the Ergenekon operations. However, the incidents and events that would
justify the launch of the Ergenekon operations, including the Father
Santoro murder and the Council of State attack, were already there
before the Dink murder. That said, I must note that the Council of
State murder and the Ergenekon case were merged.
In conclusion, I hope the DDK report raises the morale of the judiciary.