Tweet
DINK LAWYERS DEMAND PROBE INTO ISTANBUL, TRABZON MIT BRANCHES
Today's Zaman
March 15 2012
Turkey
Lawyers for the family of Hrant Dink, a Turkish journalist of
Armenian origin who was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager
in broad daylight five years ago, have demanded that prosecutors
investigate archives of the İstanbul and Trabzon branches of the
National Intelligence Organization (MİT) in order to understand how
those agencies failed to prevent the murder.
"MİT's responsibility has not been stressed so far even though it's
an institution that would naturally know about close threats to Hrant
Dink's life. But MİT was left out of the investigations," the lawyers
said in a press conference on Thursday.
The lawyers told prosecutors who are once more investigating the
events preceding the murder of Dink that it is obvious that MİT's
Trabzon officials are not telling the truth when they say that they
had not received any information related to plans to murder Dink,
because even common people in Trabzon's Pelitli -- a small town where
Dink's convicted murderer, Ogun Samast, is from -- knew about it.
"The information regarding plans to kill Dink was known by police and
gendarmerie intelligence units; however, it is unconvincing that the
biggest intelligence agency in the country, MİT, was unaware of the
danger and the threat," the lawyers also said, adding that it should
be made clear how the police and gendarmerie failed to pass information
about plans to kill Dink to MİT, despite laws requiring them to do so.
The lawyers said that Dink had clearly written in his column in Agos
weekly on Jan. 12 in 2007 that he was threatened with what was called
a "warning" by two MİT officials at the office of İstanbul's Deputy
Governor Ergun Gungor.
Lawyers of the Dink family also noted that, following Dink's murder on
Jan. 19, 2007, Dink's widow, Rakel Dink, filed a criminal complaint
against the two MİT officials on Feb. 12 and the deputy governor,
who did not take any actions to protect Dink, despite their awareness
of threats on Dink's life.
In addition, the lawyers filed a criminal complaint at the 14th High
Criminal Court of İstanbul on Feb. 8, 2010 calling for the prosecution
of those three people and other MİT officials who neglected their
duties and did not take preventive actions.
However, the court forwarded the complaint to the İstanbul Public
Prosecutor's Office, which forwarded it to the Ankara Public
Prosecutor's Office on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over
the issue. Then the Ankara Public Prosecutor's Office asked for
permission from the Prime Ministry on June 21, 2010 to investigate
the MİT officials who had met with Dink in İstanbul, Ozel Yılmaz and
Handan Selcuk. The Prime Ministry granted permission on Jan. 21, 2011.
On Sept. 29, 2011, the Ankara Public Prosecutor's Office ruled that
the suspects had committed the crime but the statute of limitations
would not allow an investigation into the matter.
"We objected to this ruling but the Sincan 1st High Criminal Court
turned our objection down without any justification," the lawyers
stated. "There was a crime but it remained unpunished. With the ruling
of the Sincan 1st High Criminal Court, domestic legal remedies were
exhausted and therefore we will take the case to the European Court
of Human Rights [ECtHR]."
At the press conference, Rakel Dink said the court's final verdict
in January fell short of justice.
The final verdict, which caused outrage in large parts of society,
established that the suspects had no ties to a larger criminal network,
but acted alone. On the other hand, the prosecution believes the
killers are affiliated with the Ergenekon network, whose suspected
members are currently standing trial on charges of plotting to
overthrow the government.
In February a report from the State Audit Institution (DDK), the
presidency backed a probe into officials for their role in the Dink
murder. 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 evaluated 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.
The lawyers indicated at the press conference that they will watch
how Turkey implements the ECtHR ruling.
From: A. Papazian
Today's Zaman
March 15 2012
Turkey
Lawyers for the family of Hrant Dink, a Turkish journalist of
Armenian origin who was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager
in broad daylight five years ago, have demanded that prosecutors
investigate archives of the İstanbul and Trabzon branches of the
National Intelligence Organization (MİT) in order to understand how
those agencies failed to prevent the murder.
"MİT's responsibility has not been stressed so far even though it's
an institution that would naturally know about close threats to Hrant
Dink's life. But MİT was left out of the investigations," the lawyers
said in a press conference on Thursday.
The lawyers told prosecutors who are once more investigating the
events preceding the murder of Dink that it is obvious that MİT's
Trabzon officials are not telling the truth when they say that they
had not received any information related to plans to murder Dink,
because even common people in Trabzon's Pelitli -- a small town where
Dink's convicted murderer, Ogun Samast, is from -- knew about it.
"The information regarding plans to kill Dink was known by police and
gendarmerie intelligence units; however, it is unconvincing that the
biggest intelligence agency in the country, MİT, was unaware of the
danger and the threat," the lawyers also said, adding that it should
be made clear how the police and gendarmerie failed to pass information
about plans to kill Dink to MİT, despite laws requiring them to do so.
The lawyers said that Dink had clearly written in his column in Agos
weekly on Jan. 12 in 2007 that he was threatened with what was called
a "warning" by two MİT officials at the office of İstanbul's Deputy
Governor Ergun Gungor.
Lawyers of the Dink family also noted that, following Dink's murder on
Jan. 19, 2007, Dink's widow, Rakel Dink, filed a criminal complaint
against the two MİT officials on Feb. 12 and the deputy governor,
who did not take any actions to protect Dink, despite their awareness
of threats on Dink's life.
In addition, the lawyers filed a criminal complaint at the 14th High
Criminal Court of İstanbul on Feb. 8, 2010 calling for the prosecution
of those three people and other MİT officials who neglected their
duties and did not take preventive actions.
However, the court forwarded the complaint to the İstanbul Public
Prosecutor's Office, which forwarded it to the Ankara Public
Prosecutor's Office on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over
the issue. Then the Ankara Public Prosecutor's Office asked for
permission from the Prime Ministry on June 21, 2010 to investigate
the MİT officials who had met with Dink in İstanbul, Ozel Yılmaz and
Handan Selcuk. The Prime Ministry granted permission on Jan. 21, 2011.
On Sept. 29, 2011, the Ankara Public Prosecutor's Office ruled that
the suspects had committed the crime but the statute of limitations
would not allow an investigation into the matter.
"We objected to this ruling but the Sincan 1st High Criminal Court
turned our objection down without any justification," the lawyers
stated. "There was a crime but it remained unpunished. With the ruling
of the Sincan 1st High Criminal Court, domestic legal remedies were
exhausted and therefore we will take the case to the European Court
of Human Rights [ECtHR]."
At the press conference, Rakel Dink said the court's final verdict
in January fell short of justice.
The final verdict, which caused outrage in large parts of society,
established that the suspects had no ties to a larger criminal network,
but acted alone. On the other hand, the prosecution believes the
killers are affiliated with the Ergenekon network, whose suspected
members are currently standing trial on charges of plotting to
overthrow the government.
In February a report from the State Audit Institution (DDK), the
presidency backed a probe into officials for their role in the Dink
murder. 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 evaluated 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.
The lawyers indicated at the press conference that they will watch
how Turkey implements the ECtHR ruling.
From: A. Papazian