Wronged by the State, Not by the People

Last September, the European Court of Human Rights pronounced Turkey partly responsible for the murder of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in 2007. It also called on Turkey to pay compensation to members of Dink's family. Hülya Sancak spoke to Arzu Becerik, Hrant Dink's lawyer, about the trial

Last September the European Court of Human Rights pronounced Turkey partly responsible for the murder of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in 2007. It also called on Turkey to pay compensation to members of Dink's family. Hülya Sancak spoke to Arzu Becerik, Hrant Dink's lawyer, about the trial

Arzu Becerik (photo: Hülya Sancak)
"The murder trial was planned and carefully directed. The perpetrators were then given protection," says Arzu Becerik, lawyer of the assassinated journalist Hrant Dink

​​How did Turkey react to the European Court of Human Rights' decision?

Arzu Becerik: The court's decision concurred with our demands. The Turkish government was somewhat surprised.

Why?

Becerik: There are several layers to this case. The murder was planned in several different cities. The contract killer or killers travelled from Trabzon to Istanbul to carry out the murder. There are several crime scenes and, as a result, there are several trials. It was always our desire to merge all the different trials that are happening in different cities and handle them in one single trial, but the Turkish courts always refused to do this. Furthermore, we believe that the officials implicated in this case must be brought to trial as well.

The European Court of Human Rights decided in favour of merging the different trials into one. It also criticised the protection of officials, which repeatedly prevented them from being brought before the courts. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Turkish state acted negligently and was therefore partly to blame for Dink's death.

In what way did Turkey act negligently?

Becerik: Police headquarters in Istanbul had already received a warning from officials in the city of Trabzon, but did not act upon it. Both before and after the murder there were indications and warnings about a planned attempt on Hrant Dink's life, but they were not taken seriously. Before the murder, the local government council in Istanbul contacted Hrant Dink and intimidated him, but they did not inform him about any specific death threats.

The murder trial was planned and carefully directed. The perpetrators were then given protection. Evidence such as camera footage and written death threats were not produced in court. The state should have given Dink police protection, but it did nothing of the sort. The European Court of Human Rights took all of this into account in giving the reasons for its judgement.

Did the European Court of Human Rights make any comments about freedom of expression in Turkey?

The European Court of Human Rights (photo: DW)
In September 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ordered Turkey to pay Hrant Dink's family approximately €100,000 in compensation; Dink was shot dead by extremists on the street in Istanbul in 2007

​​Becerik: The court has categorised the definition of Article 301 on "Turkishness" and "insulting Turkishness" as discriminatory against ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. This article also restricts freedom of expression. Anyone who criticises the government and its performance is prosecuted; even the prime minister can prosecute journalists who criticise him. The European Court of Human Rights has condemned this article as a restriction of the freedom of expression.

A prime minister must be able to take criticism. There are many restrictions of freedom of expression. The ruling political class in particular uses the limitation of freedom of expression for its own benefit. There is a very serious problem with freedom of expression in Turkey. That is the biggest difference between Turkey and Europe. But the politicians have no intention of changing this.

Are the European Court of Human Rights' decisions regarding Turkey binding?

Becerik: Yes. If Turkey does not accept its decisions, there are various sanctions that can be imposed, up to a suspension of its membership of the European Court of Human Rights.

Is the perpetrator Ogün Samast being protected?

Becerik: Ogün Samast is being protected. Evidence of his crime was not gathered properly. After he was arrested, he was feted as a hero, even though this is forbidden. He got married while he was in prison. With the new regulations about the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, his case was immediately referred to them because of his age at the time the crime was committed.

Ogün once boasted before the court that he would be out of prison in five years. If this trial doesn't end in a verdict, he'll be proved right. [According to Turkey's new laws, suspects can only be remanded in custody pending trial for between five and ten years. If no sentence is passed during this time, they have to be released – ed.] In accordance with the change in the law, he really will be freed after five years.

Can you tell us anything about the current status of the trial against Ogün Samast?

Hrant Dink (photo: AP)
The judges in Strasburg ruled that the Turkish authorities acted with gross negligence because they did nothing to prevent the murder although they were aware of plans to assassinate the journalist

​​Becerik: The trial is still in the early stages. The case began with 18 accused and it looks as if it will end the same way, with 18 accused. This is a distraction. We have found the right people, the ones who planned and directed the murder. Unfortunately, that doesn't get us anywhere. In this case it's the contract killers who will be sentenced, not the ones pulling the strings.

The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights focussed on this aspect. If this trial goes on much longer, Turkey will lose credibility. If the perpetrators continue to be protected and go unpunished, Turkey cannot call itself a constitutional state.

Has Ogün Samast shown any regret for what he did?

Becerik: Ogün Samast is a football player from Trabzon who has acquired through this murder a certain reputation, which he sees as an affirmation of his personality. He does not regard himself as a murderer; during the trial he displayed no shame whatsoever. He is pleased with himself. He thinks he is a hero. Samast is a man who has been used, but he doesn't realise this. Perhaps he thinks that when he is freed his reputation will be on a level with those who share his opinions, and that he too will be invited to appear on television shows.

How do Dink's relatives feel? Do they feel wronged by Turkish society?

Becerik: I don't think that they feel a lot of anger towards society. But the family has lost its rudder; they are very sad, very despondent. On the other hand, the sympathy and support offered by large sections of society was a great comfort to them. They do differentiate between the Turkish state and the Turkish people. They were wronged by the state, not by the people.

Interview conducted and translated from the Turkish by Hülya Sancak

© Qantara.de 2011

Translated from the German by Charlotte Collins

Editor: Aingeal Flanagan/Qantara.de

Qantara.de

Interview with the Turkish Writer Dogan Akhanli
Caught in the Crossfire
Turkish writer and human rights activist Dogan Akhanli talks to Eren Güvercin about his politically motivated trial, the Turkish judicial system and the current socio-political debate in his home country

Armenians in Turkey
A Feeling of Powerlessness
About two years after the assassination of the prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, many Armenians are sceptical about the chances of being given equal status in state, society, and the eyes of the law. Günter Seufert sends us this report

Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement
The End of a Long Beginning
A dialogue between Armenians and Turks on the Armenian genocide appears to be an impossible prospect – but academics on both sides are showing that the opposite is the case. Wolfgang Gust reports