Victory for Hrant at the European Court

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found Turkey to have violated numerous human rights both before and after the assassination of Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Dink was assassinated in January 2007 and the investigation that has followed has been tainted by a series of cover-ups and serious judicial mishandling. (For background, click here).

The Court found Turkey to have failed to protect Dink's right to life and freedom of expression, as well as to have fallen short of its obligations to provide for an effective investigation of his murder. In the weeks, months, and years after Dink's murder, numerous high-ranking state security officials and police have been implicated as either falling far short of their duties to protect Dink, at best, and at worst, actively conspiring with Dink's murderers.

During its defense at the ECHR, Turkey argued that Dink did not fear for his life or else would have asked for private police protection. A recent book by journalist Nedim Sener, who this year escaped criminal charges brought against him in relation to a book he published revealing details of the Dink murder and subsequent cover-up, alleges that security officials warned Dink of threats to his life before the assassination. Security officials have denied such knowledge.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has said it will not appeal the court's decision. It is yet to be seen whether Turkey will provide for a remedy to its previous failure to effectively investigate Dink's assassination.

Aydemir Continues to Fight for Conscientious Objection

The case of conscientious objector Enver Aydemir has become a rallying cry for activists pushing Turkey to recognize a right to conscientious objection from military service. Of the 47 countries in the Council of Europe, Turkey joins Belarus and Azerbaijan as the only three countries that do not recognize conscientious objectors.

This week an Ankara court heard the cases of 19 supporters of Aydemir currently on trial under a variety of charges related to a demonstration they held on Jan. 6 in which the group issued a press release. Among the charges were alleged violations of Article 315 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), making it illegal to discourage or alienate the public from military service. The charge is often brought against conscientious objector and those who defend them. Two of the 19 charged in Ankara were convicted under the provision.

After claiming conscientious objector status in 2007, Aydemir was detained and held for three months in prison as a deserter. After giving a speech in Istanbul this December at the Covention of the Platform of Conscientious Objection for Peace, Aydemir was detained and arrested once more and subject to another three months in a military prison.

Following this second detention period, Aydemir was jailed once more when he was taken back to his military unit and refused to wear a uniform. Released from an Eskisehir prison on June 9, the Turkish military issued an "incapability report," stating that Aydemir was unable to serve due to a social personality disorder.

In a press release issued in association with the Human Rights Association in Istanbul, Aydemir and his attorneys argued that Turkey's failure to recognize the legal validity of Aydemir's conscientious objector status constituted a violation of international law.

Despite the European Union raising the issue with Turkey in accession negotiations, the Copenhagen Criteria does not address the subject and Turkey has not signed relevant international law creating such a right. However, in 2006, in the case of Osman Murat Ulke, the European Court of Human Rights did find that the way Turkey punishes conscientious objectors by basically stripping citizenship rights constutes a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

For other cases of conscientious objector status, including the EU position on the issue, see past posts.


UPDATE I (6/27) -- On Saturday, Sendogan Yazici became the 121st Turk to claim conscientious objector status. From Hurriyet Daily News:

In a press conference in front of the Turkish Radio and Television’s Istanbul Radio building on Saturday, Yazıcı, supported by the “Conscientious Objection Platform for Peace,” said he was refusing to touch a weapon so as to “contribute to a peaceful world for my children.”

Yazıcı, a 36-year-old with two children, said he was aware of the consequences of his action, but was happy to be a part of the conscientious objection movement.

Addressing journalists after Yazıcı, Ezgi Aydın, a member of the platform, said the recent military operations in the southeast are making families and the youth worried about their future.

“Conscientious objection is a right,” she said. “We call on everyone to claim their rights. Use your free will not to kill or be killed – do not spill your brothers’ blood.”

It will be interesting to see if increased dangers in the southeast (and other parts of the country), as well as opposition to the state's response to the recent upsurge in PKK violence, make claiming conscientious objector status a more frequent phenomenon and just how the Kurdish conflict might transform the issue, for better or worse.

Turkey's Trying Relationship with the ECHR

Though the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has played an important role in Turkey's democratization process, the Court has long grumbled that complaints from Turkey constitute too high a percentage of its total caseload. In 2009, the ECHR issued 1,625 judgements, of which 256 were against Turkey. In only nine of these cases was Turkey found not to have violated the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which the ECHR aims to consistently uphold. As is the case with other member states party to the Convention, Turkish citizens may apply to the ECHR as a court of last resort once they have exhausted all remedies available in Turkey.

In 2004, Turkey legally recognized the supremacy of the Convention over its national laws. However, despite attempts to harmonize Turkish law and the judgements of Turkish courts with the Convention and ECHR case law, the number of complaints Turkish citizens file at the ECHR continues to increase. Out of the total number of complaints the ECHR receives, the growing number of which have resulted in the ECHR facing a serious backload, complants from Turkey comprise 11%. Only Russia, with more citizens, fares worse (complaints from Russian citizens comprise 28% of the caseload). Ukraine and Romania have also proved problematic (at 8% each).

In an effort to pressure all four states to take measures to stem the number of complaints coming from their citizens, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has threatenened sanctions. The ECHR is asking Turkey to better ensure that its draft laws are consistent with the Convention, as well as requesting the Turkish parliament to adopt procedures for overseeing the implmentation of the ECHR's decisions. A significant number of the cases the ECHR receives mirror cases in which the Court has already ruled. There is also a significant problem when it comes to lower and appellate courts not properly applying ECHR case law. For an example of this, see Taraf journalist Orhan Miroglu's application the ECHR. Miroglu was convicted in 2007 for speaking Kurdish during an electoral campaign. Miroglu asserts that a ban on campaign rhetoric in Kurdish remains despite prior ECHR judgements stating that such rhetoric is protected under the Convention's clause protecting freedom of expression.

In spring 2011, Turkey will host a conference on ECHR reform that will pick up where February's conference in Interlaken left off.

As part of the constitutional amendment package, the government has drafted measures to allow individuals to file complaints at the Constitutional Court. If the amendment becomes law, some European jurists have expressed hopes that the number of Turkish cases might be reduced in future years.

ECHR Rules on Greek Cypriot Property Claims

In a victory for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Friday recognized the jurisdiction of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) set up by the TRNC in 2005 as a means to address property claims by Greek Cypriots. According to the ECHR's decision, claimants must first apply for redress to the IPC before applying to the ECHR. During the Turkish invasion and occupation of Northern Cyprus, several thousands of Greek Cypriots left their properties in the north, the issue remaining a significant part of conflict resolutions efforts between the north and south. The IPC was largely formed as a response to the growing number of property cases put before the ECHR, and according to Today's Zaman, since November 2009 has had 433 cases brought to it. Thousands more are awaiting a decision at the ECHR, though the decision means those cases must now be brought to the IPC. The ECHR was clear that recognizing the IPC did not equate to recognition of the TRNC. The decision also does not mean that the ECHR will not in the future make judgements ordering Turkey to pay compensation to Greek Cypriots once redress is sought at the IPC. From the ECHR press release:

The Court maintained its view that pending resolution of the illegal occupation of northern Cyprus, it was crucial that individuals nonetheless continued to receive protection of their rights on a daily basis. Even if the applicants did not live as such under the control of the “TRNC”, if there was an effective remedy available for their complaints there, the rule of exhaustion applied. This did not put in doubt the fact that the government of the Republic of Cyprus remained the sole legitimate government of Cyprus. The Court reiterated that an appropriate domestic body, with access to the relevant information, was clearly the more appropriate forum for deciding on complex matters of property ownership and valuation and assessing financial compensation, notwithstanding the time and efforts required from the applicants to exhaust domestic remedies.

. . . .

Even though the international community regarded Turkey as being in illegal occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, this did not mean that, when dealing with individual complaints under the Convention concerning interference with property, its discretion as to the manner in which it executed a judgment should not be respected. In the light of the many changes some 35 years after the properties were left, it would risk being arbitrary and injudicious for the Court to impose an obligation to effect restitution in all cases – which would result in the forcible eviction and rehousing of many men, women and children – even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention.

. . . .

The Court also stressed that this decision was not to be interpreted as an obligation to make use of the IPC; the claimants could choose to await a political solution. However, if applicants wished to lodge an application before the European Court of Human Rights, its admissibility would be decided in line with the present principles.

The ECHR, the Aczmendis, and Bad Reporting

PHOTO from Hurriyet Daily News

From Hurriyet:

The European Court of Human Rights approved a complaint by a Turkish religious group regarding clothing regulations during hearings in Turkish courts.

The case was filed by Müslüm Gündüz and 126 other members of the Aczmendi community, which describes itself as an Islamic order, reported broadcaster CNNTürk on Tuesday.

The groups’ special attire consists of wearing black robes and a black turban, while males in the community have long beards.

The court had already ruled in favor of Gündüz in two instances against Turkey, both in 2003 for violations of his freedom of expression, and in 2005, for violations of his right to a fair trial.

The European court has now ruled that Aczmendis can attend court hearings in the outfit of their choice.

Gündüz, who founded the Aczmendi community, graduated from an Elazığ evening school 1985 and is an alleged member of the Islamic Nurcu movement.

Today's Zaman has a different account of the case, reporting that the ECHR "ruled that the 1997 conviction of 127 Turkish citizens for a breach both of the law on the wearing of headgear and of the rules on the wearing of certain garments, specifically religious garments, in public other than for religious ceremonies were found to be a violation of Article 9 of the convention." According to the Today's Zaman article, "the [Aczmendis] met in Ankara for a religious ceremony held at the Kocatepe Mosque. They toured the city streets while wearing the distinctive dress of their group, which comprised a turban, şalvar (baggy trousers), a tunic and a stick. Following various incidents on the same day, they were arrested and placed in police custody."

However, neither Today's Zaman nor Hurriyet Daily News have the entire story. In fact, the ECHR ruled that the Aczmendis, in this particular circumstance, could not be convicted (as they had been in 1997) for wearing religious garb in "public." Also, contrary to the Hurriyet Daily News, public places are not limited to "hearings," but all public places, including the march the group held. Generally both papers reporting is much better, but perhaps the ECHR is still a difficult subject on which to report since it is a bit different system about which Turkish opinion leaders have learned a lot in only the past few years as its decisions have come to play a greater role.

From the ECHR press release :

It was established that the applicants had not received criminal-law convictions for indiscipline or lack of respect before the State Security Court, but rather for their manner of dressing in public areas that were open to everyone (such as public streets or squares), a manner that was held to be contrary to the legislative provisions.

The applicants’ conviction for having worn the clothing in question fell within the ambit of Article 9 – which protected, among other things, the freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs – since the applicants were members of a religious group and considered that their religion required them to dress in that manner. Accordingly, the Turkish courts’ decisions had amounted to interference in the applicants’ freedom of conscience and religion, the legal basis for which was not contested (the law on the wearing of headgear and regulations on the wearing of certain garments in public).

It could be accepted, particularly given the importance of the principle of secularism for the democratic system in Turkey, that this interference pursued the legitimate aims of protection of public safety, prevention of disorder and protection of the rights and freedoms of others. However, the sole reasoning given by the Turkish courts had consisted in a reference to the legal provisions and, on appeal, a finding that the disputed conviction was in conformity with the law.

The Court further emphasised that this case concerned punishment [Emphasis Added] for the wearing of particular dress in public areas that were open to all [Emphasis Added], and not, as in other cases that it had had to judge, regulation of the wearing of religious symbols in public establishments, where religious neutrality might take precedence over the right to manifest one’s religion.

In a 2005 ruling, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, the ECHR ruled Turkey had a legitimate interest in banning the headscarf (türban) in public universities and other state institutions.

Literature or Pornography?

Literature and works of art are exempt from articles criminalizing obsencity in the Turkish Penal Code, but what is deemed "literature" is subject to debate. In a recent case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Court ruled that Turkey infringed on the freedom of expression when it convicted Hades Publishing House owner Rahmi Akdas for publishing the controversial, highly erotic novel of French author Guillaume Appolinaire. From Bianet:

The decision was announced by the ECHR on Tuesday (16 February). The court declared that there nothing to say against the protection of moral values. Nevertheless, "Acknowledgment of the cultural, historical and religious particularities of the Council of Europe's member States could not go so far as to prevent public access in a particular language, in this instance Turkish, to a work belonging to the European literary heritage".

The ECHR pointed out that the requirements of morals depended on time and place and therefore national authorities were more competent to perceive whether restrictions were necessary. However, in this case it should not be ignored that the work had been initially published more than a century ago.

The court board, including Turkish judge Işıl Karakaş, unanimously decreed for a violation of article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights on freedom of expression. Since Akdaş had not requested compensation, the court refrained from sentencing Turkey to a compensation fine.

Publisher Akdaş, who lives in the city of Bandırma south of the Sea of Marmara, was sentenced to a monetary fine of 684 Turkish Lira (TL) on the grounds of "obscenity" and "harming inner feelings of the people" by publishing the work which contains graphic descriptions of scenes of sexual intercourse, even though it is a fictional work.

On 11 March 2004, the Court of Appeals approved the decision and decreed for the seizure and destruction of all copies of the book. Akdaş was forced to pay his fine in November 2004.

Sel Publishing official İrfan Sancı is being prosecuted on the grounds of Guillaume Apollinaire's book entitled "The Exploits of a Young Don Juan". Additionally, Metin Üstündağ stood accused of "obscene contents" regarding the caricature album entitled "Sunday Lovers", he was released. Enis Batur was tried under the same allegations for his novel "Apple".

According to the Guardian, Akdas had argued the "the humorous and exaggerated nature of the text was more likely to extinguish sexual desire."

The Sanci case drew the attention of the European officials this week when European Parliament MP Philip Claeys submitted an inquiry to the European Commission. Commisioner Olli Rehn responded that the Commission is monitoring the case, and will inform Turkey of its concern. Apparently, in some review process of which I am not aware (required for prosecutors to bring charges?) "experts" at Istanbul Commerce University ruled that three works Sanci published through Sel had no literary value, "paving the way for them to be accused of being obscene."

Power and Discipline?: Religion and Identity Cards

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that religion cannot be listed as a field on Turkish national identification cards, which all Turkish citizens are required by law to carry. In 2006, Turkey began allowing people the right to leave the field blank or change their religious designation by application, though the ECHR ruled that the new regulation did not go far enough. The ECHR decision also said it was not the duty of the state to collect religious information about its citizens, which the Turkish Statistical Institute collects all the same regardless of whether religion is left blank or entered on the ID card.

The case that resulted in the ECHR decision came from an Alevi man who claimed state authorities would not allow him to change the religion on his identifiation card from "Islam" to "Alevi," and that this violated Article 9 ("freedom of thought, conscience, and religion") of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as the Turkish constitutional prohibition against anyone being coerced to disclose religious beliefs (Article 24).

At the moment, the Turkish government has only a limited number of categories citizen may declare on their identification cards: Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Confucian, Taoist, Buddhist, Religionless, Other, or Unknown. As the U.S. Department of State's report on religious freedom in Turkey observes, some religions, such as the Baha'i, have complained about not having their religion included in the listing. As the report also documents, several non-Muslim minorities have complained of exposure to harassment and discrimination as a result of the inclusion of their religion on their identification cards, and as is the case with the Alevi petitioner, others have complained of harassment by local authorities when seeking to change their religious designation. Additionally, some groups, like Protestants and Syriac Christians, have faced particular difficulty opting out of otherwise compulsory religion classes if their identification cards did not include a religion other than "Islam." The courses teach world religions, but minorities, including Alevis, have long complained about a Hanafi Sunni Muslim slant.

There is also the question, of course, of the sheer construction of such categories by the state, in particular the consideration of "Alevi" as apart from "Muslim," the lack of specific categories for Syriac Christians (who are not Greek Orthodox or Rumeli), and as aforementioned, the fact that some religions in Turkey are simply not represented in the choices available.

Also of interest are demands from women and gender groups to remove marital status and gender from religious identification cards, as well as to change the current law governing women's surnames. Divorce can result in discrimination and other difficulties fror women that men simply do not experience, and LGBT and other gender-conscious groups have long decried the blue and pink color of the cards in terms of LGBT rights.


UPDATE I (2/11) -- Ayse Karabat of Today's Zaman has written more about the demands from women's groups. The article expounds on the Bianet article linked above, and gives some more specific examples of discrimination. In regard to surnames, several women's groups are also demanding amendment of Article 187 of the Civil Code, which restricts women's surnames. A local court has petitioned for the Constitutional Court to consider the matter, implying that the article might violate the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). According to the Turkish Constitution, and thanks to the EU-inspired reform process, treaty law supercedes the Civil Code.

The Council of State and Coefficient Reform

The 8th Council Chamber of State has again ruled against reform that would make it easier for graduates from imam-hatip schools to enter universities. These schools are theological, but also have curriculum equivalent to that at Turkish public schools.

Following the infamous Feb. 28 process, which is considered by many Turkey's "postmodern coup," measures were put in place to curb the influence of imam-hatip, including the now contested the lower coefficient applied to the scores imam-hatip students receive on the Student Selection Examination (ÖSS). The lower coefficient places these students in the same field as those graduating from vocational schools, significantly reducing their chances of entering public universities.

In July, the Higher Education Council (YÖK) eliminated the lower co-efficients altogether. However, in December, the 8th Chamber of the Council of State reversed the YÖK policy change following an application from the Istanbul Bar Association. YÖK then moved to reduce the difference in the coefficients, the change again affecting both imam-hatip and vocational students. It is this most recent reform that the Council annulled.

Some Turks see the coefficient system as inherently unjust, discriminating against students who receive the same education yet are treated differents in the university admissions process (for example, see news coverage from Today's Zaman and this column from Fatma Sisli Zibak.) Yet, other Turks fear overhauling the coefficient system would result in a flood of religiously-oriented imam-hatip students entering university, and thus the state establishment.

For more on mam-hatip schools, see TESEV's 2004 report, "Imam Hatip Liseleri: Efsaneler ve Gercekler" (Imam Hatip Schools: Myths and Realities). Some of the report is in English, and gives a history of imam-hatip schools, as well as explains their popularity, explores attitudes of their students, and discusses their relationship with public universities.

UPDATE I (2/20) -- A student from Konya has applied to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR has affirmed Turkey's headscarf ban, though this is a different issue entirely. Not to politicize th ECHR, but a ruling in favor of the student and against the coefficient system here could help the image of the Court and Europeaniation in the eyes of religious Muslims who used to be more inclined to see Europeanization as a means to protect "their" rights against a "secular" state. As always, more details on the boy's human rights complaint and the legal grounds for bringing it here are appreciated.

Medine Memi and the Duty to Protect

After burying alive 16-year-old Medine Memi, her father and grandfather face life in prison for "premeditated homicide with aggravating circumstances, perpetrated with cruelty." Memi had been missing for over forty days when her body was uncovered in a concrete-covered hole outside the family chicken coop. After complaing to police about severe beatings received at home, it is entirely possible that her father and grandfather killed her out of revenge. However, authorities and media jumped to call the crime an honor killing, claiming the motive for her family's savagery had to do with Memi spending time/having friendships with boys. In a very provocative post, Jenny White criticizes the media for having jumped to the conclusion that the crime was an honor killing, pointing out that Memi's father was most likely the source of this information.

Honor killings are a familiar story — but this might well be a case of outright murder for revenge and to hide family violence. That would demonstrate the low status of women outside of the “honor” paradigm (and the authorities’ disinclination to take their claims seriously). In the most recent Turkish article, the father and grandfather are reported as claiming that when Medine reported the beatings to the police, the father and grandfather told the police that she was beaten because she was “talking to boys”. The police now say they began a “procedure” (islem) at the time. Yet Medine disappeared for 40 days before anyone investigated.

Significantly, it will be interesting to see if any investigation is made of these local authorities who seemingly did little to prevent Memi's horrible death. Memi's case parallels that of Nahide Opuz, whose case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and resulted in a historic decision last summer in which the ECHR ruled that failure to protect women from domestic violence constitutes gender-based discrimination, in addition to violating an individual's right to life and be free from torture. According to the ECHR, the state has a responsibility to protect women from domestic violence. In the case of Medine Memi, local authorities seem clearly to have fallen short.

Human Rights Watch Releases Turkey Report

Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently released its World Report, a country-by-country survey of the status of human rights across the world. While HRW praises the Turkish government's recent Kurdish initiative, it notes problems in Turkish courts' treating of PKK supporters the same as armed militants under Turkey's Anti-Terrorism Law. Specifically, the report mentions the number of children who have been tried under the Law. HRW also criticizes the ease of bringing charges against supporters of Kurdish rights by claiming they are members of the PKK.

Torture, detention, killings by security forces, and prison conditions remain par for the course, as does impunity (including Hrant Dink's assasination) and restrictions on the freedom of expression. Of particular concern for HRW is the Court of Cassation's unwillingness to apply the European Convention on Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms in its case law, which continues to result in Turkish citizens submitting more petitions to the Court than the citizens of any other state in the Council of Europe.

On Europe, HRW continues to see Turkey's bid for European membership as "the most important international actor with the potential to foster respect for human rights in Turkey."

The report does laud the military courts law the government passed in June, but which was just last week overturned by the Constitutional Court.

There's Still No Free Speech In Turkey, and It's Still a Bad Thing . . .

Adnan Oktar, the prominent social conservative and creationist, has filed multiple court cases to shit down websites, including, most famously, that of Richard Dawkins.

The Turkish government's laws allowing for Internet censorship are despised by many across a wide spectrum of society. Unlike Turkey's many speech codes, including the infamous Article 301, which rarely draw much public scorn other than from human rights groups, Internet censorship via IP-blocking of sites deemed inappropriate is seen as a particularly troublesome violation of freedom. Many Turks often have varying opinions on what speech should be banned -- yours, not mine; and speech that seems, for whatever reason, unduly insulting (and, of course, the idea of what is "insulting" varies). Yet, Internet laws are the most widely condemened state imposed limits on freedom of expression.

The lack of freedom to surf has also drawn quite a great deal of condemnation from human rights monitors. Monday involved yet another, this last emanating from from Milos Haraszti, the OSCE's media freedom monitor. According to Haraszti, over 3,700 websites have been blocked for "arbitrary and political reasons." In 2008, head of the Telecommunications Board Tayfun Aracer put the number of sites banned since November 23, 2007, at 1,112. Haraszti called on Turkey to reform its Internet law, which was passed as Law No. 5651 in May 2007. The law directs the state-run Telecommunications Board to block access to websites that are obscene, encourage suicide, or promote or facilitate prostition, gambling, the use of narcotics, and the sexual exploitation of children.

While these reasons might seem relatively narrow in scope, the law also directs the Board to block sites that violate other Turkish laws, including the broadly applied anti-terrorism law and Turkey's speech codes (in the Penal Code), e.g. insulting the Turkish nation, the Turkish republic, or Turkish governmnent/state institutions (Article 301), inciting hatred or hostility among the population (Article 216), slander (Article 267), influencing the judiciary during an ongoing court case (Article 277), influencing an ongoing investigation (Article 285), preventing a fair trial (Article 288), discouraging indivduals to serve in the military (Article 318), and engaging in acts that run counter to fundamental national interests (Article 305). In November 2007, the state initiated a telephone hotline and website to report offenses

Additionally, under Article 24 on the Civil Code, individuals can apply for access to be blocked to a website they think is "an infringement on their personal rights." This had led numerous indviduals, from religious conservatives like Adnan Oktar, the anti-Darwin cult figure, to nationalists, like members of the Ataturkist Thought Association, to apply to courts to shut down sites on any number of grounds. Courts have the right to order the Telecommunications Board to block access to a website during an investigation or trial following the receipt of a complaint.

The European Union called on Turkey in it 2009 progress report to amend the Internet law, and numerous cases have begun to appear before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). A party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Turkey's routine practice of proscribing websites deemed offensive to any number of parties has only increased the level of criticism the government receives at home and abroad, as well as injured its position in the EU accession process. Many of the civil society projects in Turkey receiving EU funding are related to the freedom of expression. For an account of the Internet restrictions, see Freedom House's Freedom on the Net report.

Sites that have been banned include YouTube, GoogleGroups, WordPress, and Blogspot (which you are on now). For more on the Internet law, see Google's efforts to navigate Turkey's vast array of speech codes (a near Herculean task) (Dec. 8, 2008), as well as this analysis from Gareth Jenkins (Oct. 4, 2008). See also this post authored in 2008 when Turkey moved to amend Article 301, though proesecutions continue and the change was largely regarded as cosmetic.

Also recommended in CyberRights, a site setup by activists Kerem Altıparmak and Yaman Akdeniz to publicize violations of Internet freedom.

The YouTube ban was taken to the ECHR this past December. From Bianet:

The Internet Technology Association (INETD) applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), objecting to the decision to block youtube.com in Turkey. Access has been banned to the global video sharing site for 19 months now since 5 May 2008.

INETD president Mustafa Akgül announced that INETD filed the complaint "on behalf of the ones harmed by the ban and on behalf of the entire country". Akgül claimed that the ban is "against the law and contrary to the public interest".

Akgul's petition alleges violations of the right to free expression, the right to a fair trial, and the right to assembly and association.


UPDATE I (1/27) -- Left out of the litany of speech-related offenses in Turkey's Penal Code is Article 125, which makes it illegal to insult the honor and dignity of someone. Article 125 was used as the basis of the criminal complaint against Yeni Asya cartoonist Ibrahim Ozdabak when he seemingly depicted Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya as a hooting owl during the closure case against the AKP in 2008.

UPDATE II (2/20) -- The Intitative Against Crime of Thought has published its annual report, "Freedom of Thought 2009" (in Turkish). The report, in book form, documents 36 cases of imprisoned journalists, as well as prominent and not-so-prominent cases of individuals who fell scrutiny to Turkey's many codes hindering freedom of expression in Turkey, including those in the Turkish Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Law. The review includes cases against Osman Baydemir, Aysel Tuğluk, Leyla Zana, Ragıp Zarakolu, Nedim Şener, Nedim Gürsel, Erol Karaaslan, Ahmet Karayay, İbrahim Kaboğlu, Baskın Oran, as well as cases of censorship and the DTP closure clase.

Three Years After

A crowd of around 3,000 people gathered on Tuesday to commemorate the third anniversary of the murder of Hrant Dink, the prominent Turkish Armenian journalist who was slain outside his home by an ultranationalist youth in cooperation with a larger group of ultranationalists speculated to have links to local and national security forces. The Dink murder is speculated to have ties to deep state elements currently being investigated as part of the rather unwieldly and broadly encompassing Ergenekon investigaton. Dink's assassination and the possibility of a wide-reaching coverup have become a rallying cry for progressive reformers. At the end of the commemoration, demonstrators replaced a Sisli street sign reading reading "Ergenekon" with another, re-naming the street for Hrant Dink

The photo posted here is of Dink's assasin, Ogun Samast, and the officers who arrested him. This photo and similar video footage, along with withheld and disappeared evidence and documents like this one proving that security forces iknew about the assassination plot before it took place, have all given reason to think that Dink's assassination involved a large number of people, some perhaps deep within the state structure. The Dink murder trial is still underway, hampered by a variety of difficulties, including the harassment of Dink's family, supporters, and attorneys. Last July, the Prime Ministry Inspection Board released its report of an investigation into security forces' potential neglect/involvement in the Dink assassination. Though critics claimed the Ministry watered it down, the report does indicate that security officials had reason to think the assassination was impending. Much has been made of whether evidence was properly shared with police in Istanbul, and whether officials of the Istanbul Intelligence Unit were also involved.

20 suspects in addition to Samast are also on trial, but in different courts, including eight gendarmerie officers on trial in Trabzon for negligence. Dink's supporters want the trials merged and a comprehensive investigation into all possible elements involved in the murder, arguing that their own future security is also at stake as long as responsible parties enjoy impunity for their crimes. In July, a court in Istanbul ruled against a petition that an investigation be opened into the role of Istanbul Police Chief Celalettin Cerrah and seven other officers, one of many examples cited of officials' refusal to conduct a proper investigation. Friends of Hrant, an organization of Dink's supporters, this week issued a statement reiterating its demands. Lawyers have applied again to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that Dink's right to life was violated by the state's failure to protect him, as well as other rights that have been violated in the course of the investigation and trials.

For more on Dink's murder and its aftermath, see this excellent 2009 documentary, "For Hrant, For Justice," by Umit Kivanc. (Thanks to Jenny White and Bulent, who posts on this blog as well.)


UPDATE I (1/27) -- In a speech commemorating Hrant Dink, Canadian journalist and human rights activist Naomi Klein used the podium to argue the government of Turkey gives Israel a public relations weapon when it violates the rights of Kurds and Armenians while at the same time criticizing Israel. A strong critic of Israel, Klein lauded Prime Minister Erdogan's denunciations of Israeli war crimes, but noted what she considers the hypocrisy of the Turkish government's position. Hürriyet ran a piece covering the speech, though I doubt it got more attention outside of the English-language press.

UPDATE II (2/8) -- The investigation launched by the Interior Ministry at the behest of the Prime Ministry Inspection Board has cleared 19 police officers working in the National Police department's intelligence unit and the Trabzon local police. The Prime Ministry Inspection Board prompted the investigation at the petition of Dink's wife.

Kurdish Openings and Closings

Largely seen as a dove within the DTP, its leader Ahmet Turk was one of two parliamentarians to be banned from participating in politics for five years. PHOTO from Milliyet

The recent decision by Turkey's Constitutional Court to close the Democratic and Society Party (DTP), Turkey's primary Kurdish political party, will make the government's recent initiative to provide more rights and economic opportunities for the country's Kurdish minority all the more difficult. Not only this, but the decision will play directly into the hands of the terrorist Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK), which will, of course, use the Court's finding as evidence that the Turkish state has little interest in having Kurds represented in Turkey's parliament or dealing with them on an equal basis. The DTP had 21 seats in Turkey's parliament, and performed quite well in municipal elections held on March 29. While not representing all of Turkey's Kurds, there is little question that the party is a powerful force and could have been a hugely potential ally for the AKP-led government's effort to "open" Turkish society to greater Kurdish political participation and rights protections.

The Court's decision was announced on Dec. 11, and effectively not only closed the DTP, but banned 37 of its members from participating in politics for five years. Most important of these 37 are parliamentatians Ahmet Turk, the party's leader, Aysel Tugluk, both largely considered moderates in their party. Interestingly, the Court's decision did not ban some DTP members who have adopted a harder line against the government's initiatives and have made less of an effort to make gestures toward peace and reconciliation. After the decision, the Court's head, Hasan Kiliç, said the DTP had become "a focal point of activities against the state's unity." As Amnesty International reports, Kiliç also said the DTP was at odds with the "independence of the state, its indivisible integrity within its territory and nation."

The indictment that initiated the case against the DTP was filed in November 2007 by the same prosecutor who filed against the AKP the following March. Legal scholars have criticized the evidence presented in both indictments as shaky and not meeting international standards. Turkey's Law on Political Parties easily allows parties to be closed, and thus closures have become commonplace in Turkey's political terrain.

However, since the adoption of Article 90 into the Turkish constitution in 2004, which stipulates that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms trumps national law, legal scholars like Ergun Ozbudun have insisted that the Consitutional Court must follow European standards despite the fact that it has yet to amend its Law on Political Parties. Amendment of this law has has long been requested by the European Union (EU) and human rights groups, and the AKP pledged to make the legislation a priority after its own near closure experience last year. Amending the Law on Political Parties is essential to Turkey meeting the Copenhagen political criteria for EU acccession. Recently, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, the EU parliament's rapporteur charged with reporting Turkey's progress toward accession, pointed to Turkey's failure to change its party law during a discussion about the DTP closure case.

The Venice Criteria

Significantly, the Court's verdict followed its rapporteur's decision that the DTP had strong enough ties to the PKK to consider it deserving of closure under the Venice Commission's criteria for party closure. The Venice Commission, formally the European Commission for Democracy Through Law, is an advisory organ of the Council of Europe set up to legally advise European democracies of proper legal procedure. Under the Commission's Guidelines on Prohibition and Dissolution of Political Parties and Analogues Measures, it is legally appropriate to close "parties which advocate the use of violence or use violence as a political means to overthrow the democratic constitutional order, thereby undermining the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution." Whether the DTP had in fact done either is contested, the question of fact likely to eventually go before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). However, as a note, undermining the perceived unity of the Turkish state or calling for autonomy does not in itself meet the Venice Criteria and so the Constitutional Court's final judgement will make an interesting read. For DTP's part, its leaders have repeatedly denied having "organic ties" to the PKK, which the ECHR used in June to uphold the Spanish government's closure of Batasuna, a Basque party affiliated with ETA. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International agree that the Venice Criteria cannot be applied to the case of DTP. A broad swath of human rights groups in Turkey have also widely condemned the ruling, including the Human Rights Association (IHD). However, many of those who thought the DTP's closure might well be justified under the Venice Criteria were opposed to it since the politial impact will indeed be great. (For one example, see Ihsan Dagi's column from last year.)

Aftermath

After the closure case, protests broke out throughout the Kurdish southeast, as well as in Istanbul and Ankara. From Jurgen Gottschlich:

Thousands of angry demonstrators fought bloody street battles with the police and gendarmes. In Hakkari, Van and Diyarbakir Kurdish youths barricaded off whole districts and held prolonged skirmishes with the police.

On Saturday 12 December businesses in all Kurdish cities remained closed in protest against the ban. For some time there has been talk of a Kurdish intifada.

. . . .

The PKK has meanwhile declared that with the constitutional court's decision, dialogue can definitively be said to have failed. The PKK prisoners said that state, media, military, police and judiciary had shown their racist, colonialist faces.

The prisoners have announced a hunger strike and called on the population to show "resistance on the streets". With the attack on a military vehicle last week, for which the PKK claimed responsibility just a few hours before the constitutional court's judgement last Friday and in which seven soldiers were killed, the mood was already tense.

These protests succeeded a an earlier round sparked by reports on the prison conditions of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan. The earlier round led to a 23-year-old university student shot in the back by police. The PKK is already using the closure case to mobilize more street protests, and it is likely PKK attacks will escalate as the group reorganizes and finds its bearings post-DTP. Indeed, political analyst Mehmet Ali Birand wrote before the closure case that many in the PKK were desperately hoping that DTP would be shut down since "the PKK is fed up with difference in opinion within the DTP and is looking for a new party and members that will strictly obey."

Pressed by Turkey's recent retrenchment with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and fears that the government's Kurdish initiative might actually turn out to be successful, the PKK is now likely to experience an increase in new recruits, and perhaps, greater sympathy with Kurdish leaders in the KRG who have previously denounced PKK violence and sworn to crack down on the terrorist organization.

The Closing of the Kurdish Opening?

With increased hostilities and the likelihood of more PKK attacks akin to the PKK shooting of 7 Turkish soldiers in Tokat earlier this month, the AKP is likely to find the political atmosphere for reform more difficult. While the AKP has stated its opposition to the closure case, calling it a regrettable development and having Interior Minister Besir Atalay meet with Turk, it has not taken a strong line nor does it plan to push for political parties reform any time in the near future -- both gestures that would strengthen its legitimacy with Kurds.

Prime Minister Erdogan has been particularly critical of the DTP since he announced his initiative in July. Erdogan's announcement followed Ocalan's declaration that he was drawing up a roadmap for peace to be released Aug. 15. Erdogan beat Ocalan to the process, and Ocalan's roadmap ended up not being released, falling instead into the hands of an Istanbul prosecutor. Erdogan's criticism of DTP was particularly virulent following DTP-planned celebrations surrounding the rather bizarrely planned surrender of 26 fighters entering Turkey from Northern Iraq as "peace messengers." The prime minister will no doubt find more difficulties following the removal of moderate figures like Turk. In June, speaking ahead of the announced initiative, Minister of Culture and Tourism Ertugrul Gunay declared Turk to be the most important person for peace in Turkey.

Kurdish Politics

As to the future of DTP, after announcing that the 19 remaining MPs would resign from parliament, the party has reversed its decision and plans to join the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), established shortly after the closure case was opened in November 2007. In order to form a parliamentary group, independent MP Ufak Uras will likely join the party to meet the threshold of 20 MPs required to do so. Ironically, more hardline Selahattin Demirtas and Emine Ayna are now among the contending figures to be elected as chairs of the new party.

DTP is the fourth Kurdish party to be closed in Turkey. For a basic accounting, see Ayse Karabat's reporting on party reorganization efforts after the March elections. For more understanding of developments and rivalries within the party, see past posts, especially Aug. 12, 2008 and July 22, 2008, as well as Ayse Karabat's reporting on an open conference DTP held this past July when both the government and Ocalan were talking about reforms, the peace process, and potential amnesty for PKK fighters. After it became clear that the AKP would not push amnesty for PKK fighters as part of the peace process, the DTP became particularly insistent on the point, as well as on Ocalan's release, and moderate voices in the party were drowned out.

In the past, figures like Turk had treaded a middle line, frequently denouncing violence as a legitimate strategy (as he did this past May following a mine blast that killed 6 Turkish soldiers) and praising government intiatives like the Ergenekon investigation and limited cultural rights reforms. In recent months, though, even Turk has become harder line. At Newroz festivities in March, he compared Ocalan to Nelson Mandela and stood by as more militant Leyla Zana -- who is not a member of DTP, but was among the 37 politicians banned by the court (she is actually serving a prison sentence at the moment) -- insisted disarmament be a final step in the peace process, some might argue thus tacitly legitimizing violence. He has also recently insisted that the Kurdish problem will not be solved until Ocalan is released. However, Turk's constituency must also be kept in mind, and him urging for Ocalan's release and saying it is necessary for peace in no way means he supports PKK violence.

Many politicians and intellectuals in Turkey have long argued that Turkey's peace process is contingent on negotiating with the PKK, following examples of negotiations with the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) in Northern Ireland and, recently, the Spanish government's negotiations with ETA after the group declared a permanent ceasefire in 2006 (though ETA's ceasefire was broken nine months later and negotiations ended).

FYI -- For a nice briefing and short analysis of the AKP's recent initiative, see former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Mort Abramowitz and Kurdish expert Henri Barkey's recent article, "Turkey's Transformers," in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs.

Landmark ECHR Decision on Domestic Violence

Nahide Opuz and her mother were subject to the extreme violence of Nahide's husband and stepfather, her husband's mother, between 1995, when Nahide was married, and 2002, when Nahide's husband shot and killed her mother while they were attempting to drive away. Nahide and her mother had complained to police since 1995, and continued to complain after Nahide's husband stabbed her in 2001 to be released with a fine. The two left after Nahide's mother reportedly decided the two neeed to leave to save their lives. After killing Nahide's husband killed her mother, local authorities released him despite his receiving a life sentence. His release resulted from his claim that he had murdered Nahide's mother to protect the family's honor.

After her mother's murder, Nahide appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after exhausting all legal resorts in Turkey. Nahide claimed the police and local courts had violated numerous articles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, include Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibiting torture and "inhuman or degreading treatment and punishment"), Article 13 (guaranteeing the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of the Convention), and Article 14 (prohibiting discrimination). The ECHR found all rights had been violated, including, most significantly, Article 14. In its conclusion, the ECHR recognized "gender-based" violence as discrimination, for the first time ruling that the state had a right to protect women from domestic violence under the article. Click here for the decision. From the Wall Street Journal:

The case is a landmark ruling for Europe. For the first time, it classifies such cases as gender discrimination, giving the Strasbourg court jurisdiction in cases of domestic violence.

Andrea Coombers, legal practice director at the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights in London, said describing gender-based violence as discrimination "is what the rest of the world has thought for at least a decade. It is a significant step in the right direction by the European Union."

Mesut Bestas, the lawyer for Ms. Opuz, added: "European legislation on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and right to life is clear, but when it comes to the issue of women's rights, the legal framework is murky. ... This trial begins to shed light on that murkiness."

Bianet reports that though Opuz is pleased with the decision, she still lives in fear of her husband is not receiving protection from the police.

For more on violence against women, see especially Jenny White's blog, Kamil Pasha, which does an excellent job of chronicling domestic violence cases. I would also


UPDATE 6/23 -- Today's Zaman reports that Opuz is now receiving protection from the state, but is also seeking the protection of her children. See also Rahila Gupta's recent column in The Guardian. Gupta addresses the case in regard to domestic violence cases in the UK. See also the comments of Hülya Gülbahar, president of the Association for the Support and Education of Women Candidates (KA-DER), which ran in Bianet.

Güvenç Case Settled at ECHR

From Bianet:

Oktay Güveç was under fifteen years old when he was arrested for alleged PKK membership and tried in a State Security Court. He was kept in prison with adults for more than five years and tried with the threat of the death penalty for 18months.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has decreed that Turkey violated the ban on torture, his right to freedom and security and his right to a fair trial. It has sentenced Turkey to paying Güveç 45,000 Euros compensation and 4,150 Euros legal costs. The court said that the time in prison damaged Güveç psychologically.

Referring to international agreements, the ECHR said that children should only be detained as a last resort and that their trial should be resolved in the shortest time possible. The fact that Güveç was tried in a State Security Court rather than a children’s court, so the ECHR, represented a violation of the right to a fair trial.

This is by no means the only case in Turkey. Currently children accused of “membership in an illegal organisation” after taking part in protests in Diyarbakır, Adana and other provinces are being tried in Special Authority Heavy Penal Courts (set up after the State Security Courts were dissolved) instead of children’s courts.

Changes in the Law on Terrorism in 2006 have made it possible to try children aged 15-18 in these courts.

Recently, two children were sentenced to 21 years imprisonment in Adana after taking part in pro-Kurdish Newroz events in Gaziantep.

Güvenç was arrested in September 1995, and put on trial the next year. For a press release and a link to the judgement issued by the ECHR, click here. His case has been in Turkish courts for over a decade. Since this time, Turkey has eliminated the death penalty. However, torture continues, as do questionable detentions and a number of other abuses by security forces.

Güvnç's arrest is also a violation of his rights as a child. Despite significant progress made since 1995, children's rights continue to be violated largely thanks to Turkey's 2006 amendments to its Anti-Terrorism Law. Turkey is a state-party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which its continued prosecution of children contravenes. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which applies to everyone under 18, states should aim to establish laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children accused of infringing the penal law. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules"), adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 1985, stipulate in particular that proceedings for children should be conducive to the best interests of the child and shall be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding allowing them to participate and to express themselves freely, and that the well-being of the child should be the guiding factor in the consideration of the case. In a high-profile case earlier last year, choir children were tried as adults in Diyarbakir province for singing Kurdish anthems at a concert in California. The case is a good illustration of just how the Anti-Terrorism law is used.

For more information, see the Child Information Network in Turkey.

HRW Turkey Report

Human Rights Watch released its world report on the status of human rights in countries. Summarizing the state of human rights in Turkey, HRW cited the increase in police abuse it documented in detail in its December report, as well as the continued use of torture, ill-treatment, and killing by security forces. HRW writes these abuses are aggravated by the impunity of police and security forces. In addition, the report documents continued limitations on freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, the continued harrassment and persecution of human rights defenders, and the continued killing of civilians by the PKK. The report also recommends the revivification of the reform proces, and notes the important role of the EU and the ECHR in the protection of human rights. From HRW:

The European Union remains the most important international actor with the potential to foster respect for human rights in Turkey. The public hostility of some EU member states, notably France and Germany, to eventual EU membership for Turkey—even if those countries did not block Turkey-EU negotiations—lessened the EU’s leverage. The European Commission commented on the continuing lack of progress on human rights in its annual progress report published in November.

At this writing, the European Court of Human Rights has issued 210 judgments against Turkey in 2008 for torture, extrajudicial execution, unfair trial, and other violations.

For the full report, click here. See also HRW's report, "We Need a Law for Liberation," on the discrimination of and violence committed against Turkey's LGBT community. To compare this report with that of last year, click here.

KADER Wins Victory in Freedom of Expression Case

From Hürriyet:

KADER President Hülya Gülbahar and association lawyers argue in court that their campaign was covered by the freedom of expression. They cite a case that in the past went to the European Court of Human Rights and a French court’s decision to aid their defense

A women’s organization’s campaign poster featuring a collage of three party leaders arm-in-arm does not violate any law, a court in Ankara decided Friday.

A photo showing Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan linking arms with opposition leaders, Deniz Baykal from the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, and Devlet Bahçeli from the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, were adorned on 1,376 billboards as part of a campaign launched by the Association for the Education and Support of Female Candidates, or KADER.

The move was made to support further female representation in the upcoming local elections in March.

Under the photo, a banner read: "All three of us have the same view: our target is to have women make up 50 percent of candidates for local administrations."

The collage, however, was a fictional one prepared for a billboard campaign to criticize the 1 percent presence of women in local administrations and the political parties’ lack of commitment to boosting female representation in politics.

Soon after the poster appeared on billboards, the MHP leader filed a complaint against KADER for not asking for permission to use his photo.

KADER President Hülya Gülbahar and association lawyers argued in court that their campaign was covered by the freedom of expression. They cited a case that went to the European Court of Human Rights and a French court’s decision in their defense.

For further background, see TDZ, Dec. 25.

A Win for Laicism at the ECHR

From TDZ:

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a complaint filed by two Turkish immigrants in France is not admissible, while pointing to a previous headscarf decision against Turkish national Leyla Şahin as a precedent for the ruling.

The applicants, Belgin Doğru and Esma-Nur Kervancı, are French nationals who were born in 1987 and 1986, respectively, and are living in Flers, France. As practicing Muslims, they complained about their expulsion from the school they had been attending as a result of wearing headscarves during physical education and sports classes. The two relied on European Convention on Human Rights Article 9, which covers freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the convention, which covers the right to an education.
The European court, however, ruled yesterday that its reasons for rejecting a similar case by Şahin set a precedent for these applicants’ complaints as well, the Anatolia news agency reported.

Şahin had to leave university in 1998 because the school prevented her from attending courses and exams when she refused to remove her headscarf. The court’s Grand Chamber ruled in 2005 that the ban did not violate the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion guaranteed by an international human rights treaty.

The ruling was in response to an appeal by Şahin against an earlier ruling from a lower chamber of the court, which found the headscarf ban was in place to protect the rights and freedoms of all students and safeguard public order.

A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols from French state schools went into force in September 2004. Forbidden items include Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crucifixes.

The ECHR affirmed Şahin in a similar decision this June. The political context of the ruling is that the ECHR's stance on the türban does little to endear Europe in the hearts and minds of religious Turks, some of whom have tended to support Europeanization as a potentially positive force in efforts to renegotiate state secularism.

Prosecutor of Ceber Case Bases Prosecution on ECHR Law

From Bianet:

The High Criminal Court of Bakırköy has accepted the indictment about sixty officials held responsible for the arrest, torture and death of Engin Ceber.

Taylan Tanay, one of Ceber’s lawyers, said in the written announcement he made that the three of the guardians and a prison director will be prosecuted for the charge of killing a person by torture”, facing life imprisonment.

Fuat Karaosmanoğlu, prison director on duty at the time and guardians Sami Ergazi, Nihat Kızılkaya and Selahattin Apaydın, all of whom are accused of torture, are still arrested.

Moreover, the twenty-seven guardians are accused of not reporting the crime, the three guardians and the two prison directors are accused of misconduct in office and the three guardians are accused of tormenting.

In addition to this list, thirteen police officers will be prosecuted for “tormenting” once or more than once. Four gendarmerie officers are accused of malicious injury and the doctor who prepared a medical report without examination will be prosecuted for preparing a fake official document.

The European Human Rights Convention against the Turkish Penal Code
According to the indictment, the police officers who took Ceber and his friends into custody and those at the station they were taken to are among the accused as well.

The Prosecutor’s Office stated that nobody could be subjected to torture, referring to the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC). It also emphasized that the EHRC was at the same level with the Constitution and therefore came before the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).

Basing its argument on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the prosecutor described beating and wetting with water as “bad treatment” and based the accusation of torture on the EHRC. The prosecutor also indicated that the claim in the legal background of the 94th article of the Penal Code that the purpose of the person making the torture was a factor of the crime was not valid according to the EHRC.

The hearing is in January
Tanay said that it was important the torture accusation was in the indictment and this happened because of the public pressure.

When the accused had been arrested the prosecutors had not included the torture among the reasons, but the lawyers had opposed to this.

On September 28, Ceber and his three friends had been taken into custody for protesting the fact that the police officer who had shot and left paralyzed Ferhat Gerçek had not been arrested. They had been arrested the next day and sent to the prison.

In the prison, Ceber had been tortured and eventually lost his life at the intensive care unit of the Şişli Etfal Hospital on October 10.

The Medical Examiner’s report had emphasized that Ceber had died because of the torture he had experienced. Minister of Justice Mehmet Ali Şahin had recognized that Ceber had been tortured and apologized for it.

The first hearing will be on January 21, 2009.(EÜ/TB)

EU Links Freedom of Expression to the Kurdish Issue

From LALE SARIIBRAHIMOĞLU in TDZ:

Turkey's persistent and indiscriminate approach to cracking down on the expression of opinions that incite violence and the expression of non-violent opinions has finally prompted the European Union, of which Turkey aspires to become a member, to write for the first time in its yearly progress report specifically about the problem of freedom of expression in relation to the Kurdish issue.

"This year, the EU has used more specific language with freedom of expression over the Kurdish issue, as we have witnessed permanent harassment of Kurdish mayors in the southeastern region, despite the fact that they have been expressing non-violent opinions," said a Western diplomat.
The diplomat further stressed that they saw the need to encourage the people of the Kurdish-dominated Southeast to engage in the political process, through the free expression of their opinions to reduce the violence instigated by outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists.

In previous years, progress reports issued by the EU have expressed concerns with problems in freedom of expression as a whole in Turkey, but the 2008 Progress Report, which was issued on Nov. 5, for the first time, used "Kurdish issue" in relation to serious flaws in the area of freedom of expression.

For full article, click here.