Freedom of Expression

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Violations of Freedom of Expression continued on an increased level in 2005. Discussions on the new penal code that entered into force on 1 June continued over the whole year. The Turkish Penal Code (TPC) of 1 June 2005 includes restrictions to freedom of expression as well as freedom of assembly and association. Individuals may be punished (including deprivation of liberty) for expressing peaceful opinions. Many court cases were initiated under provisions of the new TPC.
During the period the "Union of Jurists" filed a large number of official complaints against intellectuals, writers, journalists and even the co-chair of the joint commission of Turkey and the EU, Joost Lagendijk, accusing them of insulting Turkishness, the Turkish Army, the State President and Atatürk. Members of the Union of Jurists and so-called nationalists entered court rooms when such cases were heard and attacked defendants verbally. Outside the court rooms they resorted to physical violence. The Documentation Center of the HRFT runs an Active Project for Observing Democracy and documented many violations in this area.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan filed many cases against journalists and cartoonists asking for compensation in cases of alleged insults. In May Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek answered a question of CHP deputy Haluk Koç on such cases. Cemil Çiçek stated that the Prime Minister had launched 57 cases for compensation. Of them 31 had been concluded and 26 were continuing. In the concluded cases the Prime Minister had been awarded compensation of YTL 111,500.
On 15 May Mustafa Altınpınar, governor of Sütçüler district (Isparta) wrote a letter to all official institutions in the district and asked for confiscation and destruction of all books written by Orhan Pamuk. The letter mentioned the words that Orhan Pamuk reportedly used during an interview abroad when he said that the Turks killed 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds.
The Interior Ministry conducted an investigation into the act of the governor and in April decided to punish him with a warning. Interior Minister Abdülkadir Aksu said that he personally was not satisfied with such a disciplinary measure, but that was the limit in law. Mustafa Altınpınar was appointed governor of Dicle (Diyarbakır) in September.

top

Legal Amendments
The new penal code (Law 5237) passed the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) on 26 September 2004. It was envisaged to enter into force on 1 April 2005. However, the discussions on additional amendments continued during the first five months of 2005 and with additional changes Law 5237 entered into force on 1 June 2005.
Many initiatives criticized the new TPC. The Association of Turkish Journalists (TGC) sent a letter to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and stated that many provisions were not in line with the European Convention of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression. TGC suspected that the number of journalists under threat of imprisonment would be doubled. Many provisions contained increased sentences, if the offence was "committed via the press". TGC had found 26 Articles in the new TPC that needed revision.
On 6 April a delegation chaired by the President of the Press Council, Oktay Ekşi, met Prime Minister Erdoğan to raise the Council's concern about the new TPC. The Press Council asked for a change of Articles 5, 84, 125 (insult), 132 (confidentiality of communication), 134, 267, 288, 301 (insult and denigration of State institutions), 305 (protection of national interests) and 304 TPC.
A delegation of representatives of various organizations of journalists met representatives of the Justice Ministry on 13 and 16 April. They later stated that the meetings had not been very helpful.
On 27 May the GNAT accepted Law 5357 that amended Law 5237. State President Ahmet Necdet Sezer objected to some provisions so that the GNAT had to deal with them again. On 29 June the GNAT passed Law 5377 with 40 Articles. They entered into force on 8 July by promulgation in the Official Gazette.

Some Articles of the new TPC concerning Freedom of Expression are as follows:
Praising offences and offenders
ARTICLE 215 - (1) Anyone who openly praises an offence or praises an offender because of their offence shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years.
Inciting the population to enmity or hatred and denigration
ARTICLE 216- (1) Anyone who openly incites sections of the population to enmity or hatred towards another group on the basis of social class, race, religion, or sectarian or regional difference, in a manner which may present a clear and imminent danger in terms of public safety shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from one to three years.
(2) Anyone who openly denigrates a section of the population on grounds of their social class, race, religion, sectarian, gender or regional differences shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from six months to one year.
(3) Anyone who openly denigrates the religious values of a part of the population shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from six months to one year, where the act is sufficient to breach public peace.
Incitement to disobey the law
ARTICLE 217 - (1) Anyone who openly incites the population to disobey the laws shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from six months to two years or a judicial fine, where the incitement is sufficient to breach public peace.
Common provision
ARTICLE 218 - (1) (Amended by Law No. 5377 of 29 June 2005 Article 25) If the offences defined in the Articles above are committed through the media and press, the penalty shall be increased by one half. However, expressions of thought made with the intention of criticism, and which do not exceed the limits of providing information shall not constitute an offence.
Insulting the President of the Republic
ARTICLE 299- (1) Anyone who insults the President of the Republic shall be imprisoned for a term of from one to four years.
(2) (Amended by Law 5377 dated 29 June 2005/Article 35) Where the offence is committed in public, the sentence shall be increased by one sixth.
(3) Initiation of a prosecution for this offence shall be subject to authorization by the Minister of Justice.
Insulting the symbols of the sovereignty of the State
ARTICLE 300 - (1) Anyone who publicly tears, burns or otherwise denigrates the Turkish flag shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from one to three years. This provision shall apply to all manner of signs bearing the white crescent and star on a red ground described in the Constitution as a symbol of the sovereignty of the State of the Republic of Turkey.
(2) Anyone publicly denigrating the National Anthem shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from six months to two years.
(3) If the crime defined in the present paragraph is committed by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country, the penalty shall be increased by one third.
Insulting Turkishness, the Republic, the organs and institutions of the State
ARTICLE 301- (1) Anyone who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey shall be punished with imprisonment of from six months to three years.
(2) Anyone who publicly insults the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial bodies of the state, the military or police shall be punished with imprisonment of from six months to two years.
(3) Where a Turkish citizen denigrates Turkishness in a foreign country, the penalty shall be increased by one third.
(4) Expressions of opinion with the intention of criticism shall not incur punishment.
Obtaining material advantage for activities contrary to the fundamental national interests
Article 305 - (1) (Amended by Article 38 of Law 5377 of 29 June 2005) Any citizen or foreigner resident in Turkey who gains material advantage for themselves or for others, directly or indirectly, from foreigners or foreign organizations in exchange for committing acts contrary to fundamental national interests shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from three to ten years and a judicial fine of up to ten thousand days. The same sentence shall be given to those who provide or promise such advantage.
(2) (Amended by Article 38 of Law 5377 of 29 June 2005) Where the act is committed during time of war, the sentence shall be increased by one half.
(3) If the offence is committed other than in time of war, the prosecution of the offence shall be subject to authorization by the Minister of Justice.
(4) The term "fundamental national interests" shall mean independence, territorial integrity, national security and the fundamental characteristics defined in the Constitution of the Republic.
Discouraging people from performing military service
ARTICLE 318 - (1) Anyone who instigates, recommends or spreads propaganda which results in discouraging people from performing military service shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from six months to two years.
(2) If the act is committed through press and publications, the penalty shall be increased by one half.

Court Cases on Freedom of Expression
The case against Orhan Pamuk
In September a court case was initiated against the writer Orhan Pamuk in connection with an interview with a Swiss newspaper in which he reportedly said "In this land 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed". The public prosecutor in Şişli charged Orhan Pamuk with an offence under Article 301 new TPC (denigration of Turkishness). Earlier the public prosecutor in İstanbul had decided that the interview did not contain such an offence.
In December the file was sent to the Justice Ministry. Lawyer Haluk İnanıcı stated that the date of the alleged offence was 9 February and, therefore, previous Article 159 old TPC might be applied. For such a trial permission had to be given by the Justice Ministry.
Nevertheless, the trial started on 16 December. Outside the court a group that called itself "Patriotic Movement" attacked Orhan Pamuk, his lawyers and members of the European Parliament. In front of the court room and inside the court room verbal attacks continued. Defense lawyer Eren Keskin talked to the prosecutor Metin Fadıllıoğlu who stated that it would be problematic to remove the aggressors and suggested to increase the number of police officers.
After the hearing the MEPs including Cem Özdemir and journalists were attacked again. Stones and eggs were thrown at the car in which Orhan Pamuk was driven away. Two people were detained in connection with the incident. During the hearing the possible charges were discussed, but without a decision on that point the hearing was adjourned to 7 February 2006.

Form the Amnesty international report: Turkey: Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now! (AI Index: EUR 44/035/2005 of 1 December 2005)
…
Orhan Pamuk is an internationally-known Turkish author whose novels, including Snow and My Name is Red, have been translated into many languages and have received wide critical acclaim. He is facing charges under Article 301 for comments he made during an interview he gave to a Swiss newspaper (Tages Anzeiger) on 5 February 2005. In the interview, Orhan Pamuk stated, "30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians were murdered. Hardly anyone dares mention it, so I do. And that's why I'm hated". The first hearing of his case will take place in the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul on 16 December 2005.
Case against the members of the Human Rights Advisory Council (İHDK)
In November the public prosecutor in Ankara indicted Prof. Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu, former chair of the Human Rights Advisory Council (İHDK) and Prof. Dr. Baskın Oran in connection with their "Minority Report" of October 2004. The indictment claimed that instead of using the term of "being a Turk" using the term "being from Turkey" was an offence. The prosecutor maintained that the report showed parallels to the Treaty of Sevres that had "put our country under occupation". The indictment claimed that the report had incited the people to separatism and belittled the judicial organs. The prosecutor sought a conviction according to Article 301 and 216 of the news TPC. The first hearing was to be held on 15 February 2006.

Further Court Cases and Investigations
Selahattin Demirtaş
On 24 January Diyarbakır Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of the chair of the Diyarbakır branch of the HRA, Selahattin Demirtaş in connection with an interview he had given to the daily Gün. The Court acquitted him from charges under Article 312 old TPC.
Sait Bıçakçı
On 16 February Bingöl Penal Court acquitted Sait Bıçakçı, member of the DEHAP parliament, from charges that had been brought against him in connection with a speech he had held on a congress of the party in Bingöl on 29 April 2003. In this speech he had allegedly advocated to legalize KADEK. In the verdict the court pointed at the judgment of the Court of Cassation on the author Selahattin Aydar and an article in the Milli Gazete.
Erdal Özakçil
On 22 February Erzurum Heavy Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Erdal Özakçil, former chair of DEHAP for Erzurum province, to three months' imprisonment in connection with a press statement in which he allegedly disseminated propaganda for an illegal organization.
Necmettin Erbakan
In March the Court of Cassation agreed that former chair of the Welfare Party (RP) Necmettin Erbakan, should get a re-trial in connection with a speech he had held in Bingöl in 1994. He had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment under Article 312/2 old TPC. The decision was based on the fact that Article 312 TPC had been amended.
Mehmet Salih Yıldız, İrfan Dündar, Mahmut Şakar
On 31 March Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11 acquitted İrfan Dündar, Mahmut Şakar and Mehmet Salih Yıldız, Mayor of Yüksekova, from charges of supporting an illegal organization with speeches they made on Med TV in 1999. On 5 April the same court acquitted İrfan Dündar and Mahmut Şakar from the same charges for another speech they had made on Med TV.
Sabri Ejder Öziç
In April the chief prosecutor at the Court of Cassation asked to quash the verdict against Sabri Ejder Öziç, executive of the ÖDP and former editing director of the radio station Dünya. He argued that the incriminated words should be taken as a whole and not only based on half a sentence. The Court of Cassation followed the arguments, but the re-trial at Adana Penal Court No. 5 did not conclude in 2005. Sabri Ejder Öziç had been tried at this court for a speech he made on 23 February 2003 and on 5 January 2005 Adana Penal Court No. 5 had sentenced him to one year's imprisonment under Article 159 TPC.
Mehmet Kayik
On 12 April Nusaybin Penal Court fined Mehmet Kayik, executive of DEHAP in Nusaybin district (Mardin), YTL 500 under Article 312 old TPC for having called Abdullah Öcalan "honorable" and demanded to lift his isolation in a press statement of March in connection with the anniversary of the massacre in Halebje.
Eren Keskin
On 26 April Tunceli Penal Court sentenced Eren Keskin, chair of the İstanbul branch of the HRA, to five months' imprisonment under Article 159 old TPC. On a panel on "Women in Social Life" she had spoken about women who had been sexually assaulted in custody. The sentence was commuted to a fine of YTL 1,000.
Mesut Beştaş
In June Siirt Penal Court sentenced Mesut Beştaş, who had been a candidate for the position of mayor in Siirt during the elections of 28 March 2004, to six months' imprisonment because he had spoken Kurdish in the election campaign. The sentence was commuted to a fine of YTL 1,980. Together with earlier fines Mesut Beştaş was to pay YTL 2,420.
Yusuf Uğur, Abdülaziz Bilgi
On 27 April the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the sentences for Yusuf Uğur and Abdülaziz Bilgi who had been convicted for having sung Kurdish songs at a meeting in Şırnak in 2003. The Court decided that the singing of songs was not covered with the Law on Elections that prohibited the use of languages other than Turkish. The Court of Cassation ruled that the defendants had to be acquitted.
Tuncer Bakırhan, Bedri Fırat
In July Erzurum Heavy Penal Court No. 2 acquitted DEHAP chair Tuncer Bakırhan and DEHAP chair for Erzurum province, Bedri Fırat from charges under Article 312 old TPC in connection with speeches they had held in Tekman district (Erzurum) on 28 October 2002. In 2003 Erzurum SSG had convicted the defendants and sentenced them to 10 months' imprisonment.
Zehra Çomaklı
On 25 November İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 acquitted Zehra Çomaklı, chair of Özgür-Der from charges under the Law to Protect Atatürk. She had been charged for a speech she had held on 4 July 2003 at a gathering of the Coordination of "No to the War in Iraq". The Court ruled that the material elements of the offence had not been fulfilled.
Şefika Gürbüz
In November the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence passed by İstanbul SSC on Şefika Gürbüz, chair of Göç-Der. In January 2004 İstanbul SSC had fined her under Article 312 TPC with TL 2.2 billion for the "Research Report on Forced Migration". The sociologist Mehmet Barut from Mersin University who had prepared the report had been acquitted.
Hülya Şekerci, Hamza Türkmen, Ahmet Ağırakça, Mustafa Karahasanoğlu
On 25 November Fatih Penal Court No. 2 acquitted Özgür-Der chair Hülya Şekerci, writer Hamza Türkmen, Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ağırakça and the journalist with the daily Vakit Mustafa Karahasanoğlu from charges under Article 312 TPC. They had been charged in connection with their press statement on 1 March 2003 against the participation of Turkish soldiers in the war in Iraq.
Şükrü Oğuz
On 27 November Siirt Penal Court fined Şükrü Oğuz, DEHAP chair in Siirt for the central district in connection with a speech he had held on Roj TV. The fine of YTL 740 was passed under Articles 215 and 218 new TPC. The incriminated words had been that he did not wish the mothers of soldiers and guerrillas to shed tears.
Şükran Aydın
In December the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed the fine against Şükran Aydın, mayor in Bismil district (Diyarbakır). During a meeting in 2002 in Kulp district she had spoken in Kurdish and Kulp Penal Court had fined her YTL 1,526. Similar charges and convictions against Şükran Aydın exist for her speeches in Hani, Lice, Çermik and Hazro districts (Diyarbakır).
Ferhat Kaya
On 6 December Erzurum Heavy Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Ferhat Kaya, chair of DEHAP for the central district in Ardahan to six months' imprisonment. On a congress of the party on 28 April 2003 he had spoken of Abdullah Öcalan as "honorable Mr. Öcalan". Ferhat Kaya first had been convicted by Erzurum SSC under Article 312 TPC and following the amendments the latest conviction was based on Article 215 new TPC.
Osman Çolakoğlu, Ali Çakır, Bülent Yıldıray, Orhan Koray Ergun, Erol Demiröz, Murat Ergenlioğlu, Cengiz Uzun, Ayhan Önem, Hürol Ertaş, Tarık Güvenç, Hakan Savunmuş
On 13 December Kocaeli Penal Court acquitted the theater players from Ankara and the trade unionist Osman Çolakoğlu (teachers' union Eğitim-Sen) from charges brought in connection with the play "how to found a secret organization". Çolakoğlu and the theater artists Ali Çakır, Bülent Yıldıray, Orhan Koray Ergun, Erol Demiröz, Murat Ergenlioğlu, Cengiz Uzun, Ayhan Önem, Hürol Ertaş, Tarık Güvenç and Hakan Savunmuş had been charged with insulting the security forces.
Şehmuz Ülek, Hrant Dink
On 28 April Urfa Penal Court No. 3 started to hear the case of Şehmuz Ülek, deputy chair of Mazlum-Der and the editing director of the newspaper Agos, Hrant Dink in connection with speeches they held on a conference of the Urfa branch of Mazlum-Der on 14 December 2002 on security, terrorism, human rights and minority rights. Having held another hearing on 7 July the Court adjourned the case to 9 February 2006- Ülek and Dink are charged under Article 215 new TPC with praising a criminal and a crime.

From the Amnesty international report: Turkey: Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now! (AI Index: EUR 44/035/2005 of 1 December 2005)
…
Sehmus Ulek is the Vice-President of the Turkish human rights NGO Mazlum Der. On 28 April 2005 the Sanlıurfa Court of First Instance No. 3 started hearing a case against him and Hrant Dink, under Article 159 of the old TPC (now Article 301) for speeches they made during a conference organized by Mazlum Der's Urfa branch on 14 December 2002 entitled "Global Security, Terror and Human Rights, Multi-culturalism, Minorities and Human Rights". Sehmus Ulek referred in his speech to the nation-building project of the Turkish Republic as it had affected, in particular, the southeastern area of the country; Hrant Dink discussed his own relationship to official conceptions of Turkish identity. The next hearing of the case will take place on 9 February 2006.

Eyyüp Tutal, Halil Yazar, Güzel Kutlu, Mahmut Aslan, Fahri Yüksekyayla and four people
On 5 May Urfa Penal Court No. 1 started to hear the case of nine people who during the opening ceremony of a special Kurdish language course had shouted slogans in Kurdish and Turkish in favor of Abdullah Öcalan. The defendants including the representative of the daily Özgür Gündem in Urfa, Eyyüp Tutal are charged under Article 312 of the old TPC.
Alaattin Dinçer, Yüksel Mutlu
In May the prosecutor in Ankara indicted Alaattin Dinçer, chair of the teachers' union Eğitim-Sen and the executive of the HRA, Yüksel Mutlu in connection with speeches they held during a visit of the Peace Mothers to the trade union on 12 July 2004. The prosecutor demanded convictions under Article 312 old TPC, because in their speeches they had praised the head of the terror organization PKK as an ambassador of peace. On 19 July Ankara Penal Court No. 7 started to hear the case. Defense lawyer Zuhal Çolak said that her client Yüksel Mutlu had attended the visit as an observer and had not delivered a speech. The court case did not conclude in 2005.
Medeni Ayhan
On demand of the General Staff the prosecutor in Ankara indicted the lawyer Medeni Ayhan in connection with a speech he allegedly held during the general assembly of Ankara Bar Association on 17 October 2004. Reportedly he said that he "as an individual of the Kurdish nation and a citizen of Kurdistan advocated the right of the Kurds to found a separate State". Medeni Ayhan was also quoted as feeling sorrow about the Armenian genocide. The prosecutor asked for a conviction under Article 312 old TPC. The trial started at Ankara Penal Court No. 15 on 3 June. After the hearing of 29 June the court decided to forward the case to a heavy penal court, because lawyers had to be tried there.
Mihdi Perinçek, Selahattin Demirtaş
The public prosecutor in Kızıltepe (Mardin) indicted the HRA representative for Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, Mihdi Perinçek and the chair of the Diyarbakır branch of the HRA, Selahattin Demirtaş in connection with a report the HRA published concerning the killing of Ahmet Kaymaz and his son Uğur Kaymaz in Kızıltepe (Mardin) on 21 November 2004. The prosecutor alleged that the report was a violation of Article 19 of the Press Law that related to the confidentiality of the preparatory investigation.
On 13 July Kızıltepe Penal Court No. 4 started to hear the case. After the hearing Selahattin Demirtaş said that the report had been prepared by five people but only two of them had been indicted. They had not even seen the cover of the prosecutor's file so that it was impossible for them to comment on the investigation. Demirtaş also raised the question that they were treated as journalists and charged under the Press Law. At the time the press officer of the General Directorate for Security, Ramazan Er, had made detailed statements on the results of the examination in the criminal laboratory. They had complained about this but the prosecutor in Ankara had argued against a case stating that the announcement of the press officer had been done in order to inform the public.
Tuncer Bakırhan, Hatice Çoban, Alican Önlü, Muammer Değer, Orhan Miroğlu, Hüseyin Yılmaz, Mehmet Tusun, Veli Büyükşahin
In August the public prosecutor in Ankara indicted the chair of DEHAP, Tuncer Bakırhan and the officials Hatice Çoban, Alican Önlü, Muammer Değer, Orhan Miroğlu, Hüseyin Yılmaz, Mehmet Tusun and Veli Büyükşahin and charged them with membership of an illegal organization and propaganda for an illegal organization because they had called Abdullah Öcalan "honorable Mr. Öcalan".
Ender İmrek, Yavuz Karakuş, Mefair Altındağ, Ali Öncü
On 28 December Diyarbakır Penal Court No. 1 continued to hear the case related to speeches at the 3rd Ordinary Congress of EMEP in Diyarbakır province. EMEP deputy chair Ender İmrek, EMEP chair in Diyarbakır province, Yavuz Karakuş, former HADEP chair for Diyarbakır province, Mefair Altındağ and the trade unionist Ali Öncü are charged under Article 301 new TPC. Defense lawyer Deniz Doğan argued that the speeches were only natural for politicians and had stayed in the limits of the freedom of expression. The hearing was adjourned to 11 May 2006.
Hasip Kaplan
In December the public prosecutor in Beyoğlu (İstanbul) indicted the lawyer Hasip Kaplan in connection with a speech he held on Flash TV on 30 May. He was charged under Articles 216/1 and 218 new TPC. The trial was to commence at Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2.
Shop Owners on Trial
The prosecutor in İstanbul indicted the owners of nine shops in Aksaray and Laleli quarters. In protest at constant visits by the police they had not opened their shops on 24 November and put up posters against the pressure of the police. The prosecutor asked for convictions under Article 301/4 TPC. The trial was to start at İstanbul Peace Court on 20 March 2006.
Ethem Gürsu
The prosecutor in Konya indicted Ethem Gürsu, inspector of the Ministry for National Education under Law 5816 on Protection of Atatürk. Allegedly Ethem Gürsu stated on a conference for teachers on 26 June that "Atatürk whom they praised to the skies had not rescued him since he died 20 years before he was even born.

top

Journalists on Trial
On 25 April the Press Council published its report on imprisoned journalists as of 1 January. The report stated that the situation of 32 people had been investigated under the aspect of whether these prisoners were of special concern for the Press Council and concluded that there was nobody imprisoned for their journalistic activities.

According to the Solidarity Platform of Imprisoned Journalists the following journalist were imprisoned as of 31 December 2005:
1- Memik Horuz, editor of the paper İşçi Köylü, Bolu F-type Prison
2- Erol Zavar, owner and editor-in-chief of Odak, Sincan F-type Prison
3- Gülizar Kesici, editing director of Ekmek ve Adalet, Gebze Special Type Prison
4- Hatice Duman, owner and editor-in-chief of Atılım, Gebze Special Type Prison
5- Metin Yavuz, owner of Yaşadığımız Vatan, Tekirdağ F-type Prison
6- Mehmet Yayla, reporter of Gençlik Gelecektir, Kandıra F-type Prison No. 2
7- Mustafa Gök, Ankara representative of Ekmek ve Adalet, Sincan F-type Prison
8- Cengiz Doğan, editor-in-chief of Mavi ve Kent (Nusaybin), Mardin E-type Prison

Trial against the Kırandi Mission
On 11 July HPG militants kidnapped the soldier Coşkun Kırandi on the road between Tunceli and Erzincan. On 4 August a mission was successful in securing his release. In December the members of this mission: Selahattin Demirtaş, chair of the Diyarbakır branch of the HRA, Mihdi Perinçek, HRA representative fort he region, singer Ferhat Tunç, DEHAP deputy chair Alaaddin Erdoğan, Özgür Söylemez, member of the local parliament in Tunceli, Umur Hozatlı, reporter of Özgür Gündem, Ferit Demir, reporter of DHA, Haydar Toprak, reporter of the Anatolian news agency and the reporters of DİHA, Kadir Özbek and Rüştü Demirkaya were indicted for having disseminated propaganda for an illegal organization.
Yaşar Çamyar - Alınterimiz
Former editor-in-chief of the journal Alınterimiz, Yaşar Çamyar, was released on 7 February because of amendments to the TPC. Yaşar Çamyar had been sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment under Article 159 old TPC. He had been arrested on 17 December 2004.
Ülkede Özgür Gündem
On 27 April the daily Ülkede Özgür Gündem announced that 304 court cases had been initiated against the paper which had published 423 editions (so far). Of these trial 54 were conducted at Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2; 241 at heavy penal courts that had replaced the state security courts. Nine trials were being conducted at various courts. Nine trials had ended in conviction, while 18 trials had resulted in acquittal.
Lawyer Özcan Kılıç, acting for Ülkede Özgür Gündem stated that of 16 trials conducted at İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 9 (previously İstanbul SSC No. 1) 14 had resulted in conviction under Article 6/2 ATL; one had resulted in conviction under Article 7/2 ATL and one had resulted in acquittal. The editor-in-chief had been sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and fined YTL 18,583 and the owner Ali Gürbüz had been fined YTL 35,564.
At İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 10 (previously İstanbul SSC No. 2) 27 trials ended with convictions under Articles 6/2 and 7/2 ATL. Hasan Bayar was sentenced to a total of 60 months' imprisonment. Some examples of trials against the daily Özgür Gündem are:
Ali Gürbüz, Hasan Bayar
On 4 May İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 started to hear the case of Ali Gürbüz, owner of Özgür Gündem and Hasan Bayar, editor-in-chief of the paper in connection with the revelations of JİTEM staff Abdülkadir Aygan. Defense lawyer İnan Akmeşe stated that the people named in connection with the killing of Musa Anter had been put on trial in Diyarbakır. The trial based on charges of showing members of the security forces as targets (Article 6/1 ATL) did not conclude in 2005.
Birgül Özbarış
On 8 December Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of Ülkede Özgür Gündem reporter Birgül Özbarış. She was charged with discouraging people from conducting military service in articles that were published on 14 May, 24 September and 19 October.
Ferhat Tunç, Mehmet Çolak
Throughout 2005 Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case of singer Ferhat Tunç and the then editor-in-chief of Özgür Gündem in connection with an article of 19 January 2004. The trial had been initiated in 2004, but did not conclude in 2005.
Ragıp Zarakolu, Ali Çelik Kasımoğlulları, Mehmet Çolak
On 2 March Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case of publisher Ragıp Zarakolu in connection with an article in Yeniden Özgür Gündem of 8 March 2003. During the hearing Ragip Zarakolu stated that he could not understand why he was put on trial for having opposed the participation of Turkey in an unjustified war. This re-trial did not conclude in 2005.
The first trial had concluded at İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 on 10 September 2004. The owner of Yeniden Özgür Gündem, Ali Çelik Kasımoğulları had been fined TL3.3 billion under Article 7/2 ATL and the editor-in-chief Mehmet Çolak had been fined TL 3.7 billion. The case of Ragip Zarakolu had been separated since he should be tried under Article 312 old TPC.
Other Journalists
Alev Çukurkavaklı-Hergele, Deli Yürek
In January Bakırköy Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Alev Çukurovalı who in 2000 had published the journals "Perfect Stranger" (Hergele) and "Crazy Heart" (Deli Yürek) to 367 days' imprisonment and a fine of TL 7 billion on charges of having published obscene material.
Tolga Şardan, Gökçer Tahincioğlu, Eren Güvener-Milliyet
On 3 February a trial against the journalists Tolga Şardan and Gökçer Tahincioğlu and the editor-in-chief of Milliyet started. They were charged with an offence under Law 4422 on Fight against Criminal Organizations. This law was abolished on 1 June so that the prosecutor asked during the hearing of 25 October that the hearings should be held at a penal court under Article 285 new TPC.
In connection with the same articles Eraslan Özkaya, former President of the Court of Cassation had asked for compensation, but in September Ankara Judicial Court No. 15 rejected the demand. The journalists had reported on connections of Mafia boss Alaattin Çakıcı with the secret service MİT and the Court of Cassation.
Tolga Şardan, Eren Güvener, Hasan Çakkalkurt-Milliyet, Posta, Radikal
On 9 June Bağcılar Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the reporter Tolga Şardan and editor-in-chief of Milliyet, Eren Güvener in connection with 7 articles on the connection of Mafia boss Alaattin Çakıcı to the secret service MİT and the Court of Cassation. They had been charged under Article 19 of the Press Law.
On the same day the editor-in-chief of the dailies Posta and Radikal Hasan Çakkalkurt was acquitted on charges related to articles on the same subject dated 20 August 2004 (Radikal) and 12 October 2004 (Posta).
Fatih Demir, Yeter Cemile Gündoğdu-Radyo Dünya
On 3 February Adana Heavy Penal Court No. 6 acquitted the editing director of the radio station Özgür (Adana), Fatih Demir and the speaker Yeter Cemile Gündoğdu because of a lack of evidence. They had been charged under Article 7/2 ATL.
The Ministry for Industry and Trade had asked the court to ban the company running the radio station. Adana Heavy Penal Court No. 6 turned down the request pointing at the acquittal.
Hakkı Sağlam-Sakarya
On 29 March Eskişehir Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of Hakkı Sağlam, editor-in-chief of the local newspaper Sakarya published in Eskişehir in connection with a cartoon on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The court dropped the case because it had not been initiated within two months after the cartoon had been published (on 6 July 2004; the court case had been initiated on 4 February).
For the cartoon Musa Kart from the daily Cumhuriyet had been ordered to pay compensation of YTL 5,000 to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, while the columnist Önder Baloğlu from the paper Sakarya who had published a copy in his column did not have to pay compensation.
Mehmet Şevki Eygi, Selami Çalışkan-Milli Gazete
On 15 March the Panel of Chambers at the Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence of journalist Mehmet Şevki Eygi and the editor-in-chief of Milli Gazete Selami Çalışkan in connection with an article of 15 November 2000 entitled "Terror of Enemies of Religion". On 9 October 2002 İstanbul SSC had sentenced the journalist under Article 312 old TPC to 20 months' imprisonment. The sentence of Çalışkan was commuted to a fine of TL 1.8 billion. In September 2004 the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation had quashed the sentences ruling that the article did not carry expressions that called for violence and there was no imminent danger.
Hüseyin Aygün, İnan Yılmaz-Munzur Haber
On 24 February the prosecutor in Tunceli decided not to bring charges against Hüseyin Aygün, former chair of Tunceli Bar Association and owner of the local newspaper Munzur Haber and the editor-in-chief İnan Yılmaz. The investigation had been launched under Article 159 old TPC in connection with an article on village headmen in Hozat district having been threatened. The appeal against this decision was turned down by Malatya Prosecutor's Office on 6 September.
Hüseyin Aygün, İrfan Uçar, Hasan Bayar-Munzur Haber, Özgür Gündem
During a press conference at the Elazığ branch of the HRA Hüseyin Aygün announced that he had been threatened by the commander of the gendarmerie in Tunceli, Major Namık Dursun (see the Chapter on the Kurdish question).
Once the news had been reported in the press Hüseyin Aygün published the rectification of Dursun in his newspaper Munzur Haber. However, the public prosecutor in Tunceli indicted Hüseyin Aygün and the editing director of Özgür Gündem, İrfan Uçar and the editor-in-chief, Hasan Bayar under Article 482 for insult. The trial started at Tunceli Penal Court on 13 May. After the hearing of 11 July the court decided to combine the case with a separate trial at Elazığ Penal Court No. 2 where the same people had been indicted on charges of threats.
Erkan Sarıçam, Murat Tosumoğlu-Yeni Zemin, Kocaeli Gerçek
In March Gebze Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the owner of the local weekly Yeni Zemin and the owner of the weekly Kocaeli Gerçek, Murat Tosumoğlu in connection with charges that had been brought on complaint of the district's governor claiming that the newspapers had not provided the necessary documents.
Eren Güvener-Milliyet
On 12 April the former editor-in-chief of the daily Milliyet, Eren Güvener was acquitted for charges of having disclosed secrets of the State by publishing excerpts from the book of Fikret Bila entitled "Initiatives for a civilian coup d'etat and the Iraq wars in Ankara".
Vedat Büyükşahin, Abdürrezzak Taş-Bingöl Ab-ı Hayat
On 14 April Bingöl Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the owner of the local newspaper Bingöl Ab-ı Hayat," Vedat Büyükşahin and the editor-in-chief Abdürrezzak Taş who had been tried for having putt he wrong address and date in the newspaper.
Gökhan Bozkurt, Ahu Özyurt, Caferi Tayyar Özilhan-CNN Türk
The public prosecutor in İstanbul indicted the journalist Gökhan Bozkurt, the producer of the program Night Views Ahu Özyurt and the responsible director of CNN Türk (TV), Caferi Tayyar Özilhan for having published the recording of phone conversations between AKP deputy Cemal Kaya and civil servants investigating allegations of fraud in the Ministry of Energy.
Ersen Korkmaz-Demokrat İskenderun
In 2005 İskenderun Penal Court No. 4 continued to hear the case of Ersen Korkmaz, editor-in-chief of the local weekly Demokrat İskenderun and the TKP official Necmettin Salaz. They had been indicted under Article 159 old TPC. After the hearing of 27 December the court decided not to be competent and sent the file to İskenderun Penal Court No. 2. The trial had been initiated after an article in the newspaper on a meeting of the TKP in September 2002. The article of 1 October 2002 had been entitled "The Leader of the Kurds was captured and handed over to the fascists". Necmettin Salaz had been indicted for a speech he held during the meeting.
In June Ersen Korkmaz was indicted for an article of 12 April on the First of May. He was accused of having insulted the State authorities. The first hearing was held on 21 October and adjourned to 17 March 2006 for an expert to express his opinion on the case.
Hacı Boğatekin-Gerger Fırat
On 27 April Adıyaman Penal Court continued to hear the case of Hacı Boğatekin, owner and editor-in-chief of the newspaper Gerger Fırat published in Adıyaman. He was charged under Article 159 old TPC for an article that had been published in August 2004 under the title "Gang State". The Court rejected the demand of the defendant to hear certain witnesses. After this decision the defendant objected to the judge. The file was sent to Adıyaman Heavy Penal Court to decide on the objection. The rejection of the objection was announced during the hearing of 22 June. On 6 June Adıyaman Penal Court acquitted the defendant. On the same day Hacı Boğatekin was fined YTL 1,000 for not having informed the public prosecutor of the nature of his publication.
Sebati Karakurt, Hasan Kılıç, Necdet Tatlıcan-Hürriyet
On 25 October İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 10 decided to forward the case of the journalist Sebati Karakurt and the owners of the daily Hürriyet, Hasan Kılıç and Necdet Tatlıcan to a penal court. The trial had been initiated under Articles 6/2 and 7/2 ATL for an article that had been published in the Sunday supplement of the daily on 10 October 2004 under the title "The female consciousness in the Kandil Mountains has overtaken Kurdish nationalism".
Toygun Atilla, Çetin Aydın-Hürriyet
On 25 October İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 10 decided on not being authorized to hear the case of the journalists Toygun Atilla and Çetin Aydın who had reported on police operations against the Mafia boss Sedat Peker and his group. The trial had been initiated under Article 10 of the Law 4422 to Fight Criminal Organizations that prohibited the distribution of confidential information.
Rahmi Yıldırım-sansürsüz
The General Staff complained to the Justice Minister about an article which the journalist Rahmi Yıldırım published on the Internet site sansursuz.com on 23 January 2005 under the title "Knowing the job and putting on a sword". When the same article was published in the journal Sol the General Staff filed a second complaint.
Rahmi Yıldırım was indicted in May under Article 159 old TPC. On 7 September Ankara Penal Court No. 12 started to hear the case. The defendant said that the indictment had not quoted his article correctly and the wording in the indictment did not reflect his thoughts. He further argued that the new penal code did not contain an offence as described in Article 159 old TPC. Rahmi Yıldırım also said that he had not criticized the army but only named some generals who had been involved in fraud.
The last hearing was held on 24 October, The public prosecutor argued that even though the article was written in a harsh language the limits of criticism had not been exceeded and, therefore, the defendant should be acquitted. The court followed the arguments and acquitted the Rahmi Yıldırım.
Selahattin Aydar-Milli Gazete
On 13 June İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 sentenced Selahattin Aydar, journalist with the Milli Gazete to 20 months' imprisonment under Article 312 old TPC for an article that had been published on 11 September 2001 under the title "Let us take possession of our children". Earlier Selahattin Aydar had been tried at İstanbul SSC and in March 2004 the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation had confirmed the conviction. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had objected and the Panel of Chambers of the Court of Cassation had quashed the verdict with 14 against 13 votes. However, since the judgment was passed on objection of the prosecutor it was not legally binding and, therefore İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 had taken up the case again. The Panel of Chambers of the Court of Cassation will again have to deal with the case
Elif Korap, Eren Güvener-Milliyet
On 22 June Bağcılar Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the journalist Elif Korap and the editor-in-chief of the daily Milliyet, Eren Güvener from charges brought in connection with an interview with the son of İlyas Kuncak, Nurullah Kuncak, who on 20 November 2003 had conducted a suicidal attack on the General Directorate of the HSBC Bank. The Court argued that the legal element of the offence had not materialized.
Halil Eyüpoğlu, Atilla Konukoğlu-Zafer
On 10 June Gaziantep Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Halil Eyüpoğlu, columnist with the local newspaper Zafer (Gaziantep) to 3 months and 3 days' imprisonment. The sentence was commuted to a fine of YTL 1,481. The trial had been initiated because of an article dealing with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In a separate case the Prime Minister had been awarded compensation of YTL 3,000 for the offence contained in the article.
Sami Tan, Serdar Altan, Birol Duru-DİHA
On 13 July Bingöl Penal Court started to hear the case of Rıdvan Kızgın, chair of the Bingöl branch of the HRA, Sami Tan, editor-in-chief of the news agency DİHA and the journalists Serdar Altan and Birol Duru in connection with a press statement of 24 September 2004 in which Rıdvan Kızgın had alleged that the forests were set on fire because of artillery fire. Rıdvan Kızgın and Sami Tan were charged under Article 283 old TPC for having complained about a non-existing crime and Serdar Altan and Birol Duru who had published an article under the title "Soldiers set the woods on fire" were charged under Article 159 old TPC (also see the Chapter on Freedom of Communication).
Rojda Kızgın, Adil Önal, Şeyhmus Çakan, Vedat Büyükşahin-DİHA, DHA, Ab-ı Hayat
In June Bingöl Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of Rıdvan Kızgın, chair of the Bingöl branch of the HRA, Rojda Kızgın, reporter with DİHA, Adil Önal and Şehmus Çakan, reporters with DHA and Vedat Büyükşahin, editor-in-chief of the local paper Ab-ı Hayat in connection with a press statement on the alleged rape of a mute-deaf girl (N.S.) by Yunus Sayın, the son of a village guard in Ardıçdibi village in Genç district (Bingöl). The case had been opened after the defendants had refused to pay an initial fine of YTL 20,000 on the complaint of the father of Yunus Sayın who had alleged that the report had exceeded the limits of mere information.
Emin Karaca, Doğan Özgüden, Mehmet Emin Sert-Avrupa'da ve Türkiye'de Yazın
On 22 June İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case based on articles in the journal Avrupa'da ve Türkiye'de Yazın in April 2002. Emin Karaca was charged for an article entitled "What 30 years remind us of" and Doğan Özgüden was charged for an article entitled "30 Years Later". Mehmet Emin Sert was charged as editor-in-chief of the journal. During the hearing the public prosecutor asked for conviction of Emin Karaca under Article 301/2 new TPC. He wanted Mehmet Emin Sert to be acquitted and the file of Doğan Özgüden to be separated since he was living abroad. On 13 September the Court sentenced Emin Karaca to five months' imprisonment. The sentence was commuted to a fine of YTL 900 and suspended. Mehmet Emin Sert was acquitted and the file of Doğan Özgüden was separated.
Hrant Dink, Karin Karakaşlı-Agos
On 8 July İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case of Hrant Dink, editing director of the journal Agos and Karin Karakaşlı, editor-in-chief of the journal on charges under Article 159 old TPC. Mehmet Soydan who had filed the complaint and the lawyers Zeki Hacı İbrahimoğlu, Zekeriya Şerbetçioğlu, Kemal Kerinçsiz, Namık Nas, Ramazan Kırkık, Ramazan Bakkal, Mustafa Özkurt, Sami Esen and Musa Gümüş asked to be accepted as sub-plaintiffs. They objected to an expert opinion prepared at the Faculty of Law of İstanbul University. The report had argued that the expression of "poisoned blood" did not refer to being Turkish but a wrong understanding of the Armenian identity. On 7 October İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Hrant Dink to six mo9nths' imprisonment and dropped the case against Karin Karakışlı on the grounds of amended provisions in the new TPC. The sentence of Dink was suspended.

From the Amnesty international report: Turkey: Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now! (AI Index: EUR 44/035/2005 of 1 December 2005)
…
Hrant Dink is a journalist and the editor of the Armenian-language weekly newspaper Agos, which is published in Istanbul. On 7 October 2005, Hrant Dink was given a six-month suspended prison sentence by the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul for "denigrating Turkishness" in an article he wrote on Armenian identity. According to the prosecutor in the case, Hrant Dink had written his article with the intention of denigrating Turkish national identity. The court suspended the sentence as the journalist had no previous convictions, on condition that he does not repeat the offence. Hrant Dink is currently appealing the decision. Should he be imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.

Sarkis Seropyan, Arat Dink-Agos
On 9 December Şişli Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the owner of the journal Agos, Sarkis Seropyan and the editor-in-chief Arat Dink from charges of having commented on an ongoing trial. The Court argued that the article had contained objective information and no comment.
Hrant Dink, Arat Dink, Sarkis Seropyan, Aydın Engin-Agos
In December the public prosecutor in Şişli (İstanbul) indicted the editing director of the journal Agos, Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief Arat Dink, the owner Serkis Seropyan and the journalist Aydın Engin for articles of 14 October that had dealt with the decision of 7 October. The prosecutor indicted the defendants under Article 288 with the attempt to influence a fair trial. Reportedly the case was initiated in complaint of some lawyers including Kemal Kerinçsiz.
İlhan Selçuk, İbrahim Yıldız, Mehmet Temoçin Sucu, İlhan Taşçı-Cumhuriyet
The public prosecutor in İstanbul indicted the owner of the daily Cumhuriyet, İlhan Selçuk, the editing director İbrahim Yıldız, the editor-in-chief, Mehmet Temoçin Suçu and the reporter İlhan Taşçı in connection with an article of 1 January on the killing of Ahmet Kaymaz and his son, Uğur Kaymaz in Kızıltepe district (Mardin, in November 2004). The indictment alleged that the article contained details from an indictment that had not been introduced in the trial. The article criticized the indictment as being full of contradiction and argued that it was a hint at an extra-judicial execution that the confessor Halil İbrahim Öztürk whose information allegedly had resulted in the operation had been detained one day after the incident.
On 21 December İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case and adjourned the hearing to 31 January 2006. The defendants are charged under Article 19 of Press Law 5187 and Article 119 new TPC.
Cumhur Kılıççıoğlu-Siirt'te Mücadele
In October the public prosecutor in Siirt indicted Cumhur Kılıçoğlu, owner of the local newspaper Siirt'te Mücadele under Article 125 new TPC (insult). The case was opened on complaint of Dr. Ergun Çelik from Dicle University.
Abdurrahman Dilipak, Mustafa Karahasanoğlu, Adnan Tanrıverdi, Hüseyin Arı, Mustafa Hacımustafaoğulları-Cuma
On 7 September İstanbul Military Court continued to hear the case of the journalist Abdurrahman Dilipak, the editor-in-chief of the journal Türkiye'de Cuma, Mustafa Karahasanoğlu, pensioned General Adnan Tanrıverdi, pensioned Colonel Hüseyin Arı and pensioned Major Mustafa Hacımustafaoğulları in connection with an article of 29 August 2003 entitled "If Generals don't Listen". In July 2004 the military court had ruled that the case should be head at Bakırköy Penal Court, but the Court of Cassation had sent back the file to the military court. The trial did not conclude in 2005.
Abdurrahman Dilipak-Akit
On 11 October Bağcılar Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case of Abdurrahman Dilipak in connection with an article in the daily Akit of 27 April 2001 entitled "My home country is different". The hearing was adjourned to 18 April 2006. In 2001 the public prosecutor had indicted Dilipak under Article 312 TPC. After legal amendments the charges were changed to Article 216 new TPC and the file was transferred from İstanbul SSC to a penal court.
Abdurrahman Dilipak-Vakit
On 29 November Bağcılar Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case of Abdurrahman Dilipak for an article in the daily Vakit of 9 November 2003 under the title "Sezer should henna himself". The defendant argued that public authorities such as the Prime Minister or the State President had to accept harsher criticism of journalists than usual citizens. The trial did not conclude in 2005.
Hamdullah Yılmaz-Azadiya Welat
On 24 July İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 started to hear the case of Hamdullah Yılmaz, editor-in-chief of Azadiya Welat published in Kurdish. The indictment accused him of having made propaganda fort he PKK in a series that was published between 24 and 30 January
Mehmet Ali Birand, İrfan Dündar, Mahmut Şakar, Doğan Erbaş-CNN Türk
On 14 October İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 continued to hear the case of Mehmet Ali Bırand, responsible for the program 32nd Day on CNN-Türk. In connection with the edition of 8 April 2004 the lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan, İrfan Dündar, Mahmut Şakar and Doğan Erbaş were charged with him on the allegation that they supported Kongra-Gel. The lawyer requested that the ban to visit their client was lifted, but the court rejected the demand. The trial did not conclude in 2005.
İlhan Selçuk, Mehmet Sucu, Alper Turgut-Cumhuriyet
The owner of the daily Cumhuriyet, İlhan Selçuk, the editor-in-chief Mehmet Sucu and the reporter Alper Turgut were tried at İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 because they did not pay the fine of YTL 60,000 in connection with a report on a torture trial. The article had been on the trial of police officers alleged to have tortured Ahmet Turan, Müslüm Turfan and Dinçer Erduvan and the journalists were accused of having influence the judiciary. They had been fined under Article 19/2 of the Press Law.
Gülten Aydın, Hasan Kılıç-Hürriyet
On 17 October Datça Penal Court sentenced Gülten Aydın for a report on Sinan Kara's Black Book. Her sentence of 3 months' imprisonment was commuted to a fine of YTL 784. The editor-in-chief Hasan Kılıç was acquitted.
Neşe Düzel, Orhan Doğan-Radikal
In November the public prosecutor in İstanbul-Bağcılar indicted the journalist with the daily Radikal, Neşe Düzel and former deputy and founder of the DTP Orhan Doğan on charges of having disseminated propaganda for an illegal organization. The charges were based on an interview that was published in the paper on 15 August.
İsmet Berkan, Erol Katırcıoğlu, Murat Belge, Haluk Şahin, Hasan Cemal-Radikal, Milliyet
In December the public prosecutor in İstanbul-Bağcılar indicted the editor-in-chief of the daily Radikal, İsmet Berkan, the journalists Erol Katırcıoğlu, Murat Belge, Haluk Şahin and the journalist with Milliyet, Hasan Cemal for articles on the postponement of a conference at the Bosphorous University on the Armenian question. The indictment alleged that the journalists had tried to influence the judiciary and had insulted State authorities. The charges had been brought on complaint of the Union of Jurists. The trial was to start at Bağcılar Penal Court No. 2 on 7 February 2006.
Ali Kırca, Ertuğrul Mavioğlu-ATV
On 8 December İstanbul Peace Court No. 2 started to hear the case of journalist Ertuğrul Mavioğlu and the moderator of the program "Political Square" broadcasted on ATV. During the program the military coup of 12 September (1980) had been criticized and the prosecutor alleged that members of the security forces had been shown as targets for illegal organizations (an offence under Article 6 ATL). During the hearing Ertuğrul Mavioğlu said that the presiding judge of Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11, Mehmet Orhan Karadeniz had filed a complaint, because he had accused him of kicking defendants out of the court room. Yet, it was not the duty of a judge to fight terrorism. The hearing was adjourned to 7 February.
Mehmet Aslan-Dema Nu
On 14 December Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Mehmet Aslan, editor-in-chief of the weekly Dema Nu published in Kurdish and Turkish for an article written by Kemal Burkay and published on 15 March 2002 under the headline "It is comic to put he generals on trial". The Court commuted the sentence of 5 months' imprisonment passed under Article 159 old TPC to a fine of YTL 900.
Aydoğan İnal-Dema Nu
On 14 December Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Aydoğan İnal, editor-in-chief of Dema Nu, for an article of 1 November 2003 under the title "405 Turkish soldiers raped one woman – does Iraq wait for these soldiers?". The court commuted the sentence of 5 months' imprisonment passed under Article 159 old TPC to a fine of YTL 1,350.
Murat Yetkin-Radikal
In December the prosecutor in İstanbul-Bağcılar indicted the Ankara representative of the daily Radikal, Murat Yetkin under Article 288 new TPC fort he attempt to influence a fair trial. The charges were based on an article of 18 September entitled "In the trial of Orhan Pamuk Turkey will be charged".
Cengiz Doğan-Mavi ve Kent
On 13 September Orhan Doğan, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Mavi ve Kent, published in Nusaybin (Mardin) was imprisoned. He was charged with disseminating propaganda of an illegal organization and praising a crime and a criminal, because he had published announcements of the HPG in the editions 37, 38, 44 and 45. The trial at Diyarbakır Heavy Penal Court No. 5 did not conclude in 2005.
Erol Özkoray-İdea Politika
In 2005 the court case against Erol Özkoray, editing director of İdea Politika continued. He was charged under Article 301 new TPC (former Article 159) for two articles in 2001. Earlier he had been tried at a heavy penal code and had been fined. The Court of Cassation ruled that the trial should be conducted according to the new TPC.
Aziz Özer-Yeni Dünya İçin Çağrı
On 22 December İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Aziz Özer, editor-in-chief of the journal Yeni Dünya İçin Çağrı, for an article in the 71st edition of the journal. The sentence of 6 months' imprisonment was commuted to a fine of YTL 3,000.
On the same day the court concluded a trial for an article in the 72nd edition of the journal. The Court commuted the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment to a fine of YTL 6,000.
On 14 December İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 had convicted the reader Erkan Akay for an article that had been published in April. The Court sentence Erkan Akay under Article 301/1 new TPC to one year's imprisonment. The sentence was suspended since Erkan Akay had no previous record.

top

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECoHR)
On 11 January the ECoHR concluded the following two cases.
Halis v. Turkey (no. 30007/96)
Atilla Halis, born in 1969 and living in Istanbul, reviewed four books about problems relating to Turkey's south-eastern region in the 2 January 1994 edition of the newspaper Özgür Gündem. One of the books, "Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi", was written by the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan.
On 20 March 1995 Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of disseminating propaganda about an illegal separatist organisation and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and to a fine of four hundred million Turkish liras. The execution of his sentence was suspended on 25 July 2002.
The ECoHR attached particular significance to the fact that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for disseminating propaganda about the PKK even though the impugned article was never actually disseminated, since the 2 January 1994 edition of Özgür Gündem was seized before it was distributed. The Court further observed that, notwithstanding the fact that the execution of the sentence imposed on the applicant was suspended, he nevertheless faced the threat of a heavy penalty.
Finding that the applicant's conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, not "necessary in a democratic society", the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.
The ECoHR awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,375 for costs and expenses.
Zana and Others v. Turkey
Leyla Zana, Veysel Turhan and Hamit Geylani were born in 1961, 1968 and 1947 respectively. Mrs Zana is a former member of the DEP (Democracy Party) that was dissolved by the Constitutional Court. Mr Turhan is the fomer president of the HADEP (People's Democracy Party) in the province of Siirt and Mr Geylani was the Secretary General of that party.
They were sentenced to one year and four months' imprisonment and the payment of a fine for publishing separatist propaganda after an article and a statement published by Mr Turhan and Mr Geylani had appeared in the January 1997 edition of the HADEP monthly journal. Mrs Zana was also sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine for inciting hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction made on the grounds of social class, race and religion.
The applicants alleged under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that their convictions by a national security court which failed to meet the independence and impartiality requirements set out in Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) had constituted a violation of their freedom of expression.
The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which Mrs Zana will receive EUR 9,000 for damage and for costs and expenses. Mr Turhan and Mr Geylani will each receive EUR 7,000 for damage and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).
A judgment of 13 January:
Dağtekin v. Turkey (no. 36215/97)
Hasan Dağtekin was born in 1959 and lives in Diyarbakır. At the material time he was the owner and editor of the "Dilan" publishing house.
In 1994 he published a novel written by Rıza Çolpan, entitled "Xide Naxirvan U Tevkustina Dersim" (Xide Naxirvan and the Genocide of Dersim), which criticised the pressure that Turkey had allegedly exerted on the Kurdish people throughout history. As a result of its publication, Ankara State Security Court, in a judgment of 14 November 1995, instructed the applicant to pay a fine for disseminating separatist propaganda and ordered the confiscation of the disputed book. That verdict was upheld by the Court of Cassation.
The ECoHR held that the grounds put forward by the Turkish courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although certain particularly acerbic passages in the book presented an extremely negative picture of the history of the Turkish State, thus giving the story a hostile connotation, they did not incite the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection; nor was the book an example of hate speech.
Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded Mr Dağtekin EUR 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 25 January:
Karademirci and Others v. Turkey (nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97)
İsmail Karademirci, Mehmet Zencir, Şennur Yılmaz, Ayla Bilir, Ayfer Aydoğdu and S.T. were born in 1961, 1964, 1966, 1966, 1961 and 1972 respectively and live in Izmir (Turkey). Mr Karademirci is the chairperson of the Union of Health Professionals for the Izmir region.
On 30 June 1995 25 persons, including the applicants, gathered in front of the Yenişehir Meslek Lisesi secondary school. Mr Karademirci read out a text signed by the Izmir branches of the Union of Health Professionals (Tüm Sağlık Sen) and of the Union of Education Professionals (Eğitim Sen), criticising the treatment meted out to certain pupils in the İzmir Atatürk Sağlık Meslek Lisesi secondary school.
The persons who attended that meeting were prosecuted for making a "statement to the press" (basın açıklaması) without having first submitted the text of the statement to the public prosecutor's office, in accordance with sections 44 and 82 of the Associations Act (Law no. 2908). On 13 February 1996 the applicants and the other co-defendants were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, which was commuted to a suspended fine. They appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.
The ECoHR Court noted that the applicants had been convicted for having made a "statement to the press" under sections 44 and 82 of the Associations Act, which imposed "a formal requirement or condition" on associations before they could publish or distribute leaflets, written statements and similar publications.
Article 10 did not in itself prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on a form of communication. However, in the Court's opinion, where failure to observe a formal requirement was punishable by a criminal penalty, as in this case, the law must clearly define its application.
In the present case, the criminal court had found that the fact of organising a press conference and reading a text aloud amounted to an action that was subject to the same formality as that established for "leaflets", "written statements" and "similar publications" under section 44 of the Associations Act. Such an interpretation represented an extension of the scope of section 44 to an area that could not reasonably have been foreseen in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the applicants could not reasonably have foreseen that the public reading and distribution of a press statement could be considered as an action which fell within the scope of section 44 of the Associations Act.
Consequently, the Court considered that, in the present case, section 44 of the Act did not meet the requirement of foreseeability as to its application, and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the six applicants EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded EUR 1,500 jointly to the first five applicants for costs and expenses, and EUR 1,500 to S.T. for costs and expenses, less EUR 625.04 which the Council of Europe had already paid in legal aid.
Judgment of 8 February:
Erdost v. Turkey (no. 50747/99)
Muzaffer Erdost was born in 1932 and lives in Ankara.
He wrote a book entitled ‘Three Sivases, in the centre of the pressure being exerted for the imposition of a new [Treaty of] Sèvres on Turkey' (Türkiye'nin Yeni-Sevr'e zorlanmasının odağında : Üç Sivas), which was published in September 1996. It was a political essay relating how extrajudicial persecution had led to bloodshed in the town of Sivas in 1978, 1993 and 1996. It contained a number of quotations from various newspapers and reviews.
A public prosecutor applied to a judge of the Ankara State Security Court for an order for the book's seizure, as he considered that it contained separatist propaganda that represented a threat to the integrity of the State. He also instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. The book was seized on 4 October 1996 and on 20 February 1997 Mr Erdost was sentenced to one-year's imprisonment and the payment of a fine.
The ECoHR acknowledged that passages from the book on which the domestic courts had relied in convicting the applicant contained references to "people from different ethnic origins" and to the founding of "a Kurdish state" on "the collapse of the Republic of Turkey". However, those references were quotations from articles in the press which could not of themselves justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, although certain passages from the book had to be regarded as critical of the national authorities, they did not incite violence or hatred, which, in the Court's view, was an essential factor to be taken into consideration.
In the circumstances, the Court considered that the tenor of the book was not such as to justify the applicant's criminal conviction, which, along with the confiscation of the book, did not meet a pressing social need and was accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society". Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the State Security Court's lack of independence and impartiality.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for pecuniary damage, EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 1 March:
Birol v. Turkey (no. 44104/98)
Ilknur Birol was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time she was a school teacher and a member of the Education and Science Workers' Union.
On 26 June 1997 she was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for insulting and vilifying the Minister and Ministry of Justice in a speech at a demonstration in favour of "democracy and trade-union rights".
The ECoHR considered that the reasons stated by the domestic courts were insufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although certain particularly acerbic passages from her speech had portrayed the Minister of Justice of the day in a most negative light, so that it carried hostile undertones, they had not encouraged the use of violence or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. That, in the Court's view, was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court also took into account the fact that the comments had been made at an outdoor demonstration so that the applicant had had no opportunity to reformulate, perfect or retract them before they became public.
The Court found that the applicant's conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, had not been "necessary in a democratic society". There had therefore been a violation of Article 10. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 15 March:
Gümüş and Others v. Turkey (no. 40303/98)
The applicants are practising lawyers, one is a lecturer at the Law Faculty of Kocaeli University, one is a member of the TESİŞ Workers' Union and one is a member of the Municipal Workers' Union.
In March 1992 two newspapers (Diyarbakır Söz and Felak) carried a press statement criticising Turkey's handling of the Kurdish problem, which had been drafted by a delegation including the applicants as well as two former Turkish parliamentarians, Leyla Zana and Hatip Dicle, and 20 representatives of various political parties and public organisations. The applicants were convicted of incitement to hatred and hostility and given a suspended prison sentence and fine.
The ECoHR considered that the conviction complained of constituted an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression, that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, that of protecting territorial integrity. It also took into account the background to the case and, in particular, the problems linked to the prevention of terrorism. In that connection, the Court observed that the press statement in question consisted of a critical assessment of Turkey's policies concerning the Kurdish problem.
However, although certain particularly acerbic passages of the article painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State and thus give the narrative a hostile tone, they did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. The applicants' conviction was therefore disproportionate to the aims pursued and not "necessary in a democratic society". The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Articles 10 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 2,000, each, for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 17 March:
Tanıyan v. Turkey (no. 29910/96)
Necati Tanıyan was born in 1947 and lives in Artvin (Turkey).
The applicant is the owner of Yeni Politika, a daily newspaper published in Istanbul between 13 April 1995 and 16 August 1995. During these four months, confiscation orders were issued for 117 of the 126 issues published, either under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or under Article 312 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed against the orders on 21 occasions, each of the appeals being dismissed by Istanbul State Security Court.
The applicant relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention.
The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 7,710 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses.
Judgments of 29 March:
Ağın v. Turkey (no. 46069/99)
Ömer Ağin was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul.
On 11 March 1993 the applicant was sentenced, inter alia, to one year and eight months' imprisonment for conducting propaganda against the integrity of the State on the occasion of a round table organised by the Demokrat magazine, which published the proceedings of that meeting. The article analysed the Kurdish question in the geopolitical context of the Middle East, and criticised the Government's policy towards people of Kurdish origin.
On 8 March 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court reduced the applicant's sentence to one year, one month and ten days' imprisonment.
The ECoHR considered that the reasoning of the domestic courts could not in itself be considered sufficient to justify the interference in the applicant's right to freedom of expression. While certain passages in the article concerned painted an unflattering picture of the Turkish State's policies with regard to its citizens of Kurdish origin, they did not encourage the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection, nor did they amount to hate speech. In the Court's view, that was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. It found that the applicant's sentence was disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society". There had thus been a violation of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Alınak v. Turkey (no. 40287/98)
Mahmut Alınak was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara. He wrote a novel based on real events which took place in Ormaniçi village in the province of Şırnak.
The book was published in September 1997 and, in October 1997, the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court applied for the seizure of copies of the book, claiming that the content of the book incited hatred and hostility by making distinctions between Turkish citizens on the basis of their ethnic or regional identity. The applicant appealed against the seizure order. He mistakenly gave an incorrect case number on his appeal, and as a result, it appeared that the appeal court examined the facts of another case. The applicant's appeal was dismissed and the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991. In September 1999, Istanbul State Security Court stayed the proceedings against the applicant. However, the court did not determine the applicant's request to annul the interim seizure order concerning his book.
The applicant complained that the seizure order was in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).
The ECoHR observed that the book in question was a fictional novel inspired by real events. It did not give a neutral account of the events. The plot of the book concentrated on the ill-treatment to which the villagers were subjected at the hands of security force officials and the villagers' unsuccessful attempts to have them punished. Having examined the whole book, the Court found no reference to the real name or rank of any official…
The Court took into account the problems linked to the prevention of terrorism and the Turkish authorities' concern about the dissemination of views which they considered might exacerbate the serious disturbances that had been going on in Turkey for some 15 years. However, the applicant, although a former Member of Parliament, was at the material time a private citizen expressing his views in a novel which would reach only a small audience, which limited its potential impact on "public order" to a substantial degree. Thus, even though some of the passages from the book seemed very hostile in tone, the Court considered that their artistic nature and limited impact reduced them to an expression of deep distress in the face of tragic events, rather than a call to violence.
The Court concluded that the order to seize the applicant's book was disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society". The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10. The applicant was invited to submit his claims for just satisfaction, but did not do so within the required time-limits. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under Article 41.
Judgment of 26 April:
Falakaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 77365/01)
Bülent Falakaoğlu was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time he was the editor of the daily newspaper Yeni Evrensel.
He was charged with disseminating separatist propaganda on account of the publication in the 17 March 2000 edition of the newspaper of an article analysing events likely to occur during the Newroz festival (the celebration of spring and the New Year according to Kurdish and Iranian tradition). In the article the author took a critical look at the Kurdish question and painted a picture of Turkey at that time.
In a judgment of 3 October 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of inciting the people to hatred on racial and regional grounds and gave him, in his capacity as editor, a two-year prison sentence that was subsequently converted into a fine of approximately 1,050 euros (EUR). The applicant appealed in vain to the Court of Cassation.
The ECoHR unanimously declared the complaint of a violation of the right to freedom of expression admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It considered that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts could not be considered by themselves sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although certain passages in the newspaper article had portrayed the Turkish authorities in power when the Newroz festival was celebrated at the beginning of the 1990s in a particularly negative light, it did not encourage the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. That was an essential factor in the Court's view.
As in a number of previous similar cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Judgments of 19 May:
Töre v. Turkey (no. 50744/99)
Teslim Töre was born in 1939. When the application was lodged he was detained in Bayrampaşa Prison (Turkey). In November 1996, Istanbul State Security Court found him guilty of disseminating separatist propaganda and sentenced him to one year, one month and ten days' imprisonment and fined him 111 111 110 Turkish liras for having written an article entitled "Kurdistan's socialists must seize the moment" ("Kürdistan sosyalistleri momenti yakalamalı"), which was published in July 1994 in the magazine Medya Güneşi (The Sun of Medya).
Finding that the severity of the applicant's sentence was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 310 for pecuniary damage, EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for cost and expenses.
Turhan v. Turkey (no. 48176/99)
Talat Turhan was born in 1924 and lives in Istanbul. He is the author of a book entitled "Extraordinary War, Terror and Counter-terrorism" ("Özel Savaş Terör ve Kontragerilla"). The applicant was ordered to pay damages to the Secretary of State Orhan Sefa Kilercioğlu, since certain passages of his book were held to have been defamatory towards him.
The European Court of Human Rights observed that the impugned remarks were the applicant's opinion about statements made by Mr Kilercioğlu in an interview, which had already been published in a magazine. They were value judgments on an issue of public interest. The Court reiterated that the truthfulness of a value judgment was not susceptible of proof and that the value judgment made by the applicant was based on information which was already known to the general public.
The domestic courts did not convincingly establish any pressing social need for putting the protection of the personality rights of a public figure above the applicant's right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned. In particular, it did not appear from the domestic courts' decisions that the applicant's statement affected Mr Kilercioğlu's political career or his professional and private life.
In conclusion, the Court found that the Turkish authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the relevant interests and the interference complained of was not "necessary in a democratic society". The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 600 for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 7 June
Pamak v. Turkey (no. 39708/98)
Mehmet Pamak was born in 1950 and lives in Ankara.
He is a journalist and the author of an article entitled "In its seventy-first year the regime is looking for extra support to keep it on its feet", which was published in the weekly newspaper Selam in the issue of 31 October and 6 November 1994. The article criticised the Turkish Government's policy for fighting terrorism and separatist movements.
The applicant was prosecuted for "inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on adherence to a religion" and committed for trial in the Istanbul National Security Court, which sentenced him on 1 November 1996 to one year and eight months' imprisonment, among other penalties. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed on 6 March 1997.
The Court observed that it had already dealt with numerous similar cases in which it had found violations of Article 10. It considered that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient justification for the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although certain parts of the article presented a negative view of the Turkish State's policy, and gave the account a hostile ring, they did not constitute incitement to violence, armed resistance or rebellion, nor was it an instance of hate-speech, which in the Court's view was the essential element to be taken into consideration. In those circumstances the Court considered that the applicant's conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society". There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 16 June:
Ergin v. Turkey (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) (applications nos. 48944/99, 49566/99, 50691/99, 63733/00 and 63925/00)
Ergin and Keskin (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 50273/99 and 63926/00)
Ahmet Ergin and Halit Keskin were born in 1973 and 1952 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the material time Mr Ergin was the editor and publisher of the newspaper Günlük Emek ("Daily Labour") and Mr Keskin was the proprietor.
Both applicants were convicted by Istanbul State Security Court on account of the publication of various articles in the newspaper between 2 September 1997 and 4 June 1998.
Ergin v. Turkey (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
Mr Ergin was prosecuted for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on racial or regional origin following the publication of articles in the newspaper on 2 September 1997, 15 January 1998, 19 March 1998, 26 March 1998 and 4 June 1998.
Two of the articles strongly criticised the Government's policy on the "Kurdish question", another contained serious accusations about the security forces, another criticised an article in another newspaper about the "Newroz" festival by the son of a well-known nationalist, and the last one levelled fierce criticism at another newspaper's campaign to encourage investment in south-east Turkey and at the Government's policy on assimilation of the Kurdish people.
In judgments delivered on 14 April, 8 September, 14 October, 5 November and 25 December 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment in two cases, six months' imprisonment in one case and two years in another case, also imposing fines.
Ergin and Keskin v. Turkey (nos. 1 and 2)
Both applicants were prosecuted for designating individuals as targets for terrorist organisations on account of the publication of articles on 20 September and 2 November 1997. In connection with the second article, Mr Ergin was also prosecuted for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on racial or regional origin.
The first article consisted of information and comment about new arrangements in the Black Sea region following the appointment of a new gendarmerie commander there. The second contained strong criticism of the Government and other State institutions against the background of topical events such as the celebration of the anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Turkey, the building of new types of prison and the arrest of union-affiliated workers at a demonstration.
In judgments of 16 April and 30 June 1998 Istanbul State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and fined them.
In each of the cases the ECoHR Court considered that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression. Although certain passages of the articles painted a negative picture of the Turkish State and gave the content a hostile tone, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not amount to hate speech; that, in the Court's view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court concluded that the applicants' convictions had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and had accordingly not been "necessary in a democratic society".
Judgment of 21 June:
Perinçek v. Turkey (no. 46669/99)
The applicant, Doğu Perinçek, is the chairman of the Workers' Party and the former chairman of the Socialist Party, which was dissolved by the Constitutional Court in 1992. He is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and was in Haymana Prison (Turkey) when the application was lodged.
In 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for allegedly disseminating propaganda aimed at undermining the territorial integrity of the State in speeches he had made as the leader of the Socialist Party. The same speeches had also served as a basis for the party's dissolution by the Constitutional Court. As a result of the dissolution, a complaint was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and ended with the Court finding a violation of Article 11 of the Convention by Turkey in its Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998. The Court found in that case that the speeches put forward a political programme with the essential aim being the establishment, in accordance with democratic rules, of a federal system in which Turks and Kurds would be represented on an equal footing and on a voluntary basis.
In a judgment of 6 January 1995, the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of the offences as charged and sentenced him to two years and four months' imprisonment and the payment of a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 8 July 1998. The applicant remained in prison until 28 September 1998.
The ECoHR Court decided that the applicant's complaints should be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention. The reasons relied on by the Turkish courts could not be regarded as sufficient by themselves to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The applicant had made his speeches in his capacity as a politician, a player on the Turkish political scene; the speeches did not encourage the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech, which, in the Court's view, was an essential factor. The Court further noted that, although the text of the Court judgment in the Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey case had been before the Court of Cassation when it upheld the applicant's conviction, it had not considered it necessary to take it into account. In the absence of any criminal-review procedure at the material time, the applicant had remained in prison until September 1998. In addition, the Court found that the applicant's conviction and sentence were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, not "necessary in a democratic society". There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 290 for pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 13 September:
Han v. Turkey (no. 50997/99)
Tahir Han was born in 1960 and lives in Adana (Turkey).
In January 1996 the public prosecutor at Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment in which he accused the applicant of disseminating propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State, an offence under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The offence related to a speech the applicant made in 1994 at a congress held by the Peoples' Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi), of which he was a member.
In January 1997 Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and a fine.
On 21 December 2000 Law No. 4616 on Conditional Release, Deferral of Procedure and Punishments was promulgated and the applicant's sentence was deferred. As a result, he did not pay the fine or serve his prison sentence.
The European Court of Human Rights found, as it had done in previous cases of a similar nature, that it was understandable that the applicant, who had been prosecuted in a State Security Court should have been apprehensive about being tried by a bench which included a regular army officer and member of the Military Legal Service. The applicant's fear as to the State Security Court's lack of independence and impartiality could be regarded as objectively justified.
It examined the reasons given in the State Security Court's judgment and did not consider them sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. It considered that, taken as a whole, the applicant's speech did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and, therefore, did not constitute hate speech. In the Court's view, this was the essential factor in the assessment of the necessity of the measure.
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and Article 10. It considered the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage in respect of Article 6 § 1 but awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage for his complaint under Article 10 and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 20 September:
Veysel Turhan v. Turkey (no. 53648/00)
Veysel Turhan was born in 1968 and lives in Siirt (Turkey). At the material time he was chairman of the Siirt provincial branch of the People's Labour Party (Halkın Emek Partisi).
After giving a live telephone interview on 2 June 1998 to the illegal television station Med-TV the applicant was convicted, under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code, of inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction on grounds of race and region. He was charged, in particular, with having criticised the Government's economic policy and having claimed that "the Kurdish people" were victims of an assimilation policy.
On 20 April 1999 Diyarbakır State Security Court found Mr Turhan guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and four months' imprisonment and a fine under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). On 2 November 1999 the state security court stayed the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant under section 1 of Law no. 4454 which provides for the deferment of judgment and of execution of sentence in respect of offences committed before 12 July 1997 through the medium of the written and oral press.
It was clear to the ECoHR that the applicant had expressed himself in his capacity as a politician and player on the Turkish political scene, neither inciting to nor using violence nor inciting to armed resistance or uprising. It pointed out that it had already dealt with cases raising questions that were similar to those raised in the present case, in which it had concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.
The Court also noted that the stay of proceedings from which the applicant had benefited had had the effect of partly censoring his activities and substantially reducing his ability to voice publicly criticism that had its place in a public debate and whose existence could not be denied.
In those circumstances the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10. Although invited to do so, Mr Turhan did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed. The Court did not therefore consider it necessary to make such an award.
Judgment of 27 September:
Aslı Güneş v. Turkey (no. 53916/00)
Aslı Günes was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul.
At the material time she was the editor of the political journal Hedef ("The Target"). In that capacity, she co-authored an article in 1992 entitled Yeni Dersimler ve Halepçeler istemiyoruz, Bahar saldirisina hayir ("We don't want another Dersim or Halepçe, No to any springtime offensive") which was published in March 1992 in the bimonthly periodical Emeğin Bayrağı ("The Flag of Work"). In substance, the article expressed the view that for so long as the Kurdish people did not liberate themselves, the Turkish people would not be able to liberate themselves either. The applicant sought to draw people's attention to the fact that military operations could affect "trade union and social rights and freedoms" and she launched this appeal: "As representatives of the future, let us refuse to fight with the Turkish troops who are going to fill the Kurds' future with gloom".
The applicant was prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda. On 8 December 1995 Istanbul State Security Court found her guilty as charged and sentenced her to one year and four months' imprisonment. After legislation (Law no. 4454) was introduced providing for proceedings and sentences in respect of press and publishing related offences to be deferred, the state security court deferred execution of the sentence for a period of three years. Since the applicant did not commit any further offences during that period, it declared the sentence void in 2003.
The ECoHR found that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although the article for which the applicant had been prosecuted contained references to the "struggle" and the "fight for the national liberation of Kurdistan", it did not encourage the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech, which, in the Court's view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. In addition, the effect of deferring execution of sentence had been to censor part of Ms Güneş's activities as a journalist during the relevant period and to severely restrict her ability to voice criticism in public, when such criticism had a role to play in public debate. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.
As regards the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted for approximately six years and seven months. In the light of the circumstances of the case, it found that that period was excessive and did not satisfy the "reasonable-time" requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
The Court awarded Ms Güneş EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses, less EUR 701 she had already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid.
Judgment of 4 October:
Ünsal Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 29365/95)
Ünsal Öztürk was born in 1957 and lives in Ankara. He is the owner of "Yurt Books and Publishing", a small independent firm that has published numerous books in Turkey.
The applicant published certain books between 1991 and 1994 which were held by State Security Court to constitute propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State. In most cases he was convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3712), fined and sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from six months to two years.
His sentences were commuted to fines following changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Act in October 1995. In August 1997 Law No. 4304 on the deferment of the judgments and of the execution of sentences in respect of offences committed by editors before 12 July 1997 came into force and the applicant's ongoing criminal proceedings were suspended. Most of the books were confiscated.
In all, the applicant served a total of one year, five months and 20 days in prison and paid the equivalent of EUR 5,121 in fines.
The ECoHR found, as it had done in previous cases raising similar issues that the imposition of a prison sentence on the applicant, a publisher of books, under Article 8 § 2 of Law No. 3713, in its form at the material time, was incompatible with the principle of "no penalty without a law" embodied in Article 7. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 7.
As to the complaints under Article 10, for practical reasons the Court was selective in its analysis and only took into account the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant under Article 8 § 2 of Law No. 3713. The Court found that neither the conviction nor the sentence of the applicant was prescribed by law. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 in respect of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for his role in the publication of books.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 14,500 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 1 October
Ceylan v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 46454/99)
Münir Ceylan was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. At the relevant time he was a trade-union member.
In January 1996 the applicant signed an article entitled Emekçiler ve Kürtler (The proletarians and the Kurds) which appeared in the newspaper Demokrasi (Democracy). The article was published in the wake of elections and criticised the "Kurds, proletarians and democrats" who had not voted for the People's Democracy Party (HADEP), which according to the applicant was best able to defend the cause of "society's underdogs", namely the Kurds and workers. He also took the position that the conditions of war prevailing in the south-eastern part of the country explained the situation of hardship in which those people found themselves.
The applicant was charged with the offence of inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of race or regional origin and was sentenced by Istanbul State Security Court to two years' imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. The court also ordered the closure of the newspaper Demokrasi for ten days. At the applicant's request and on the payment of a sum of money, he obtained a stay of execution of his prison sentence.
The ECoHR held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the lack of independence and impartiality of state security courts.
The Court moreover considered that the reasoning given by the domestic courts could not in itself be regarded as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. While certain passages of the impugned article portrayed a most negative picture of the Turkish State and thus gave a hostile connotation to the views expressed, there was no incitement to violence, armed resistance or uprising, and it did not constitute hate speech, which, in the Court's view, was the main factor to be taken into account.
Moreover, the nature and severity of the sentences were also to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of the interference. The applicant had suffered restrictions, especially in connection with his political activities, as a result of his conviction. In those circumstances the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 20 October:
Osman Özçelik and Others v. Turkey (no. 55391/00)
Osman Özçelik, Kemal Bilget, Kemal Okutan, Bahattin Günel and Murat Bozlak were born in 1952, 1952, 1957, 1946 and 1952 respectively and live in Ankara. At the material time Mr Bilget was the Vice-President of the Democracy Party (Demokrasi Partisi – DEP) and the other applicants members of its executive board.
In June 1993 Mr Bilget made a speech at the DEP's first congress in his capacity as Vice-President of the party in which he sought to set out the party's objectives by reference to the Kurdish people's desire for freedom. In August that year, the applicants signed a declaration entitled "Demokrasi Partisinin Barış Çağısı" ("The Democracy Party's Appeal for Peace") and helping to produce posters with the slogan "Savaş Değil, Demokrat Çözüm" ("Not war but a democratic solution"). These took the form of a political appeal addressed to "the workers and to defenders of human rights and peace" with a view to obtaining a ceasefire between the security forces and the PKK and recognition of the Kurdish identity.
The applicants were prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda. On 17 November 1998 Ankara state security court found them guilty as charged. The sentences handed down to all the applicants except Mr Bilget included one year's imprisonment for signing the declaration and helping to produce the posters. Mr Bilget was given a two-year sentence as he had also made the speech. Under Law no. 4454 concerning the suspension of pending cases and penalties in media-related offences, the sentence imposed on the applicants for signing the declaration and helping to produce the posters was suspended for three years.
The ECoHR found that the reasons stated by the Turkish courts could not be considered by themselves sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression. The applicants had expressed their views in their capacity as politicians and as players on the Turkish political scene. They had not encouraged the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection and had not engaged in hate speech, which, in the Court's view, was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court added that because of their dominant position, Governments should be slow to resort to the criminal law, especially when other means were available to respond to unjustified attacks or criticism by opponents. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation Article 10. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court. Lastly, it noted that the proceedings had lasted approximately five years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that period excessive and in breach of the "reasonable-time" requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
The Court awarded Mr Bilget EUR 572 for pecuniary damage and EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded each of Mr Özçelik, Mr Günel, Mr Bozlak and Mr Okutan EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Lastly it made a joint award to the applicants of EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgments of 25 October:
Bakır v. Turkey (no. 54916/00)
Yüksel (Geyik) v. Turkey (no. 56362/00)
Bakır v. Turkey
Vedad Bakır, aged 31, lives in Bitlis (Turkey). A journalist by profession, he described in the course of a live broadcast for the radio station Karacadağ the events he had witnessed during the Newroz (new year) celebrations. His comments, which were also retransmitted by the television station MED TV, were critical of the way in which the security forces had handled the celebrations.
On 29 September 1998 Diyarbakır State Security Court sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment for having "incited the people to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races or regions". Execution of the sentence was stayed under Law no. 4454.
Yüksel (Geyik) v. Turkey
Vasfıye Tülay Yüksel (Geyik), aged 41, lives in Istanbul. She is a lawyer and a delegate of the Democracy Party in Istanbul. In December 1993, during a party congress, the applicant made a speech in her capacity as party delegate in which she criticised the Government's policy towards the Kurdish people.
The applicant was prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda and on 5 October 1998 was sentenced by Ankara State Security Court to one year's imprisonment and payment of a fine. She was imprisoned on 26 July 1999 and granted conditional release for good behaviour on 19 December 1999.
The ECoHR considered that the grounds advanced by the domestic courts in the two cases were not in themselves sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression. It observed that the applicants had not been guilty of incitement to violence, armed resistance or rebellion, or of hate speech. It also took account of the nature and severity of the sentences imposed. The Court held that the applicants' convictions were disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society". There had therefore been a violation of Article 10 in both cases.
The Court awarded EUR 2,000 to Mr Bakır and EUR 6,500 to Mrs Yüksel (Geyik) for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded EUR 1,000 to Mr Bakır and EUR 3,000 to Mrs Yüksel (Geyik) for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 8 November:
Haydar Kaya v. Turkey (no. 48387/99)
Haydar Kaya was born in 1942. At the relevant time he was chair of the Ankara regional branch of the Employment Party (Emeğin Partisi).
In July 1997 he made a statement addressed to the press and public opinion in which, using words with Marxist connotations, he condemned State policy and attacked certain political and military figures whom he described as "putschists" and "gangs". He offered an explanation for the rise in violence of the preceding years in southeast Turkey and criticised the leaders' economic and social programmes. His main arguments appeared to be that "workers, proletariats, progressives and democrats" should take united action for freedom and democracy.
Criminal charges were brought against him for inciting the people to hatred and hostility and for creating discrimination founded on social class and race. He was convicted by Ankara State Security Court in November 1997 and given a two year suspended prison sentence and a fine. In addition, he was excluded from the party by its executive committee at the public prosecutor's request.
The ECoHR found that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be considered sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The applicant had issued his statement in his capacity as chair of the Ankara regional branch of the Employment Party and as a player on the Turkish political scene, and it had taken the form of a political speech, both in its content and in the kind of terms employed. It was more a reflection of intransigence on the part of one of the parties to the conflict than an incitement to violence. The Court also noted the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, whose conviction had also resulted in his being excluded from the party.
In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicant's conviction and sentence were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, therefore, not "necessary in a democratic society". There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.
Lastly, the Court noted that the applicant's exclusion from the party was, by virtue of Article 312 of the Criminal Code, a direct and automatic consequence of his conviction. In view of its finding that there had been a violation of Article 10, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine this complaint separately.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,048 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 10 November:
Abdullah Aydın v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 63739/00)
Abdullah Aydın was born in 1944 and lives in Ankara. At the relevant time he was general secretary and a member of the general assembly of the association "The People's House" in Keçiören.
In 1993 the applicant participated, as the announcer, at a meeting on the theme of "Rights and Freedoms", organised in Ankara by the association's board. He addressed the crowd. His remarks referred, among other things, to the issue of rights and freedoms, and he criticised the military coup in 1980; he also alleged that there was a national problem in Turkey, namely "the issue of Kurdish nationality and the Kurdish struggle".
The applicant was prosecuted for separatist propaganda, and was convicted and sentenced, among other things, to one year's imprisonment in July 1998. Ruling after a referral from the Court of Cassation, Istanbul State Security Court upheld the sentence but ordered that it be suspended.
The ECoHR noted that the use of such words as "struggle" and "combat" conferred a certain virulence on the applicant's words. However, it was clear that he was referring to a combat "for rights and freedoms". Consequently, "the struggle" or "Kurdish resistance" were considered as part of this combat and could not, if read in context, be taken as incitation to the use of violence, hostility or hatred between citizens. They did not call for bloody revenge. In addition, the Court was of the opinion that the grounds given by the Turkish courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference in the applicant's right to freedom of expression. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.
The Court reiterated that it had already held that, having regard to the nature of the Principal Public Prosecutor's submissions and to the fact that defendants were not given an opportunity to make written observations in reply, the failure to communicate the Principal Public Prosecutor's opinion entailed an infringement of Article 6 § 1. As it saw no reason to depart from that conclusion in this case, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 22 November:
Emire Eren Keskin v. Turkey (no. 49564/99)
Emire Eren Keskin was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. At the relevant time she was a practising lawyer.
In April 1995 the bimonthly review Medya Güneşi (The Sun of Medya – although, literally, the name Medya translates into "media", the use of that term refers to the country of the Meds, the mythical country of the Kurds) published an interview with the applicant. The applicant described the actions waged by the Turkish authorities in the south-east region of the country as "war" and "barbarism", and there was a definite aggressiveness and a virulence to the terms used in the article.
The applicant was prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda through the medium of the press and sentenced by Istanbul State Security Court to a year and four months' imprisonment, which was reduced to one year, one month and ten days on account of her behaviour during the hearing. In November 1999 the public prosecutor deferred execution of the applicant's sentence under Law no. 4454, which provides for a deferment of execution of sentences for offences committed through the medium of the press.
The ECoHR held that the reasons for the domestic courts' decisions could not be regarded as sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The article in question had reflected an intransigent attitude on the part of one of the parties to the conflict rather than incitement to violence. The Court also noted the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant. In those circumstances it held that the applicant's conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society" There had therefore been a breach of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 6 December:
Fikret Şahin v. Turkey (no. 42605/98)
Fikret Şahin was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara. He is a member of the DBT (Party for Democracy and Peace).
On 1 September 1996 the applicant made a speech on the occasion of the "World Day of Peace and Freedom" organised on the initiative of various non-governmental organisations and political parties. He spoke of the damage caused by the armed conflict in south-eastern Turkey and criticised the Government's position on the matter.
The applicant was prosecuted on the charge of inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction grounded on allegiance to a particular social class, race and region. He was accused among other things of describing the battle against the PKK as a war against part of the Turkish people. On 21 October 1977 Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and payment of a fine. He appealed on points of law, but without success.
The ECoHR considered that the grounds given by the domestic courts could not in themselves be regarded as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although the remarks made in the offending speech were particularly bitter and thus gave the applicant's words a hostile connotation, they did not incite violence, armed resistance or an uprising, and they did not amount to hate-speech, which, in the Court's opinion, was the essential element to be taken into consideration. As regards the nature and severity of the penalties imposed, the Court noted that the applicant had been sentenced, among other penalties, to one year's imprisonment, of which he had served about five months.
That being so, it held that the applicant's conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and was accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society". There had therefore been a violation of Article 10. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the complaint that the state security court had not been independent and impartial. As to the other complaint about the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not in any event guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction. It therefore took the view that it was not necessary to examine that complaint.
The Court awarded Mr Şahin EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
Judgments of 20 December:
Çetin v. Turkey (no. 42779/98) Violation of Article 10
Vedat Çetin was born in 1961 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is editor of the newsletter of the Human Rights Association.
In the August-October 1996 edition, the newsletter published three articles conveying the aspirations of the population of south eastern Turkey for peace and criticising the manner in which the armed forces were conducting their anti-separatist activities.
Following publication of the articles, the applicant was charged with incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between races and between regions. In October 1997 Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to stay the proceedings against the applicant under Law no. 4304, by which proceedings against editors may be stayed and resumed in the event of a further offence within three years. On 10 September 2001 the proceedings against the applicant were discontinued.
The ECoHR considered that the conditional decision to stay the proceedings had been liable to discourage the applicant from contributing to public debate on issues of interest to society and had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. It noted that, while some particularly virulent passages in the articles painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State, thereby lending a hostile tone to the articles, that did not mean that they encouraged the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection or amounted to hate speech. In the Court's view, that was an essential factor to take into consideration. It found that the impugned measure had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not "necessary in a democratic society". Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
Korkmaz v. Turkey (No. 1) (no. 40987/98)
Korkmaz v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 42589/98)
Korkmaz v. Turkey (No. 3) (no. 42590/98) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 10
Vedat Kokmaz was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. He is the owner of the daily newspaper Evrensel.
On 16 October 1995, 12 June 1996 and 17 August 1996 the newspaper published three articles entitled "DHKC denies allegations", "The bloody rise to power of Mr Ağar" and "PKK suspends ceasefire". The first article consisted of a denial by the organisation DKHC of reports that it had been involved in a break-in. The second contained a virulent criticism of the Minister of Justice in the form of a scathing commentary on his professional career, while the third consisted of a report of a telephone interview conducted by a television station with the head of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan.
The applicant was prosecuted on the basis of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) and sentenced by Istanbul State Security Court in April 1996 and February and May 1997 to three substantial fines. All three judgments were upheld by the Court of Cassation.
The ECoHR considered that the grounds advanced by the domestic courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. It noted that the articles in issue did not encourage the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection, nor did they amount to hate speech. In the Court's view, that was an essential factor to take into consideration. It found that the applicant's convictions had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not "necessary in a democratic society". It therefore held, unanimously in all three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 10.
The Court awarded the applicant a total of EUR 8,000 in respect of pecuniary and non pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses.
Judgment of 22 December:
Ahmet Turan Demir v. Turkey (no. 72071/01) Friendly settlement
Ahmet Turan Demir was born in 1949 and lives in Ankara. At the relevant time, he was the leader of the People's Democratic Party (HADEP).
Criminal proceedings were brought against him in relation to a speech he made at a party meeting in Ankara in October 1999, following which, on 1 June 2000, Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of disseminating propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State, contrary to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). He was fined 800,000,000 Turkish liras and sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment. He appealed unsuccessfully.
The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 5,500 is to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.
Çamlıbel v. Turkey (no. 64609/01) Violation of Article 10
Yılmaz Çamlıbel was born in 1938 and lives in Ankara.
On 14 December 1992 Mr Çamlıbel, in his capacity as secretary of the Kurdish Rights and Freedom Foundation, took part in a symposium organised by the Kütahya Human Rights Association. He gave a talk in which he criticised the Government's policy concerning the problem of Kurds living in Turkey.
Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and, on 20 September 1999, he was sentenced by the State security court to one year's imprisonment, among other penalties, for disseminating separatist propaganda. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction.
The ECoHR considered that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not in themselves be regarded as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Although certain passages in the talk painted a negative picture of the Turkish State's policy and gave the words a hostile tone, they did not incite violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not amount to hate speech, which, in the Court's opinion, was the essential element to be taken into consideration. It found that the applicant's conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not "necessary in a democratic society".
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 14. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
Decisions on "no violation of Article 10"
Judgment of 13 September:
İ.A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98)
İ.A. was born in 1960 and lives in France.
He is the proprietor and managing director of the Berfin publishing house. In November 1993 he published a novel by Abdullah Rıza Ergüven called Yasak Tümceler ("The Forbidden Phrases") in which the author addressed philosophical and theological issues in a novelistic style. 2,000 copies of the book were printed.
The applicant was prosecuted under Article 175 §§ 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code for publishing insults against "God, the Religion, the Prophet and the Holy Book". On 28 May 1996 Istanbul Court of First Instance sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, which was later commuted to a fine equivalent at the time to 16 United States dollars. The court based its decision on an expert opinion and on an extract from the book in which the author asserted, among other things: "Some of these words were, moreover, inspired in a surge of exultation, in Aisha's arms . God's messenger broke his fast through sexual intercourse, after dinner and before prayer. Muhammad did not forbid sexual intercourse with a dead person or a living animal."
The applicant appealed on points of law but was unsuccessful.
The ECoHR considered that the applicant's conviction had amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting morals and the rights of others.
The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference had been "necessary in a democratic society"; this involved weighing up the conflicting interests relating to the exercise of two fundamental freedoms, namely the applicant's right to impart his ideas on religious theory to the public, on the one hand, and the right of others to respect for their freedom of thought, conscience and religion, on the other hand.
The Court reiterated in that connection that those who chose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion, irrespective of whether they did so as members of a religious majority or a minority, could not reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They had to tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.
However, the present case concerned not only comments that were disturbing or shocking or a "provocative" opinion but an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a certain tolerance of criticism of religious doctrine within Turkish society, which was deeply attached to the principle of secularity, believers could legitimately feel that certain passages of the book in question constituted an unwarranted and offensive attack on them.
In those circumstances, the Court considered that the measure in question had been intended to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims and had therefore met a "pressing social need". It also took into account the fact that the Turkish courts had not decided to seize the book in question, and consequently held that the insignificant fine imposed had been proportionate to the aims pursued by the measure in question.
The Court therefore held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 10.
Judgment of 10 November:
Leyla Şahin v. Turkey
Leyla Şahin was born in 1973. She has lived in Vienna since 1999, when she left Istanbul to pursue her medical studies at the Faculty of Medicine at Vienna University. She comes from a traditional family of practising Muslims and considers it her religious duty to wear the Islamic headscarf.
At the material time she was a fifth-year student at the faculty of medicine of Istanbul University. On 23 February 1998 the Vice-Chancellor of the University issued a circular directing that students with beards and students wearing the Islamic headscarf would be refused admission to lectures, courses and tutorials.
In March 1998 the applicant was refused access to a written examination on one of the subjects she was studying because she was wearing the Islamic headscarf. Subsequently the university authorities refused on the same grounds to enrol her on a course, or to admit her to various lectures and a written examination.
The faculty also issued her with a warning for contravening the university's rules on dress and suspended her from the university for a semester for taking part in an unauthorised assembly that had gathered to protest against them. All the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant were revoked under an amnesty law.
Like the Chamber, the Grand Chamber proceeded on the assumption that the circular in issue, which placed restrictions of place and manner on the right to wear the Islamic headscarf in universities, constituted an interference with the applicant's right to manifest her religion.
As to whether the interference had been "prescribed by law", the Court noted that the circular had been issued by the Vice-Chancellor within the statutory framework set out in section 13 of Law no. 2547 and in accordance with the regulatory provisions that had been adopted earlier. According to the applicant, the circular was not compatible with transitional section 17 of that law, which did not proscribe the headscarf but instead provided that students were free to dress as they wished provided that their choice did not contravene the law.
The Court reiterated that, under its case-law, "law" was the provision in force as the competent courts had interpreted it. In that connection, it noted that the Constitutional Court had ruled that freedom of dress in institutions of higher education was not absolute. The Constitutional Court had held that authorising students to "cover the neck and hair with a veil or headscarf for reasons of religious conviction" in the universities was contrary to the Constitution. That decision of the Constitutional Court, which was both binding and accessible, as it had been published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 1991, supplemented the letter of transitional section 17 and followed the Constitutional Court's previous case-law. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court had by then consistently held for a number of years that wearing the Islamic headscarf at university was not compatible with the fundamental principles of the Republic. Furthermore, regulations on wearing the Islamic headscarf had existed at Istanbul University since 1994 at the latest, well before the applicant enrolled there.
In these circumstances, the Court found that there was a legal basis for the interference in Turkish law and that it would have been clear to the applicant, from the moment she entered the university, that there were restrictions on wearing the Islamic headscarf and, from the date the circular was issued in 1998, that she was liable to be refused access to lectures and examinations if she continued to wear the headscarf.
The Court considered that the impugned interference primarily pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and of protecting public order.
As to whether the interference was necessary, the Court noted that it was based in particular on the principles of secularism and equality. According to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, secularism, as the guarantor of democratic values, was the meeting point of liberty and equality. The principle prevented the State from manifesting a preference for a particular religion or belief; it thereby guided the State in its role of impartial arbiter, and necessarily entailed freedom of religion and conscience. It also served to protect the individual not only against arbitrary interference by the State but from external pressure from extremist movements. The Constitutional Court added that freedom to manifest one's religion could be restricted in order to defend those values and principles.
Like the Chamber, the Grand Chamber considered that notion of secularism to be consistent with the values underpinning the Convention, upholding that principle could be considered necessary to protect the democratic system in Turkey.
The Court also noted the emphasis placed in the Turkish constitutional system on the protection of the rights of women. Gender equality – recognised by the European Court as one of the key principles underlying the Convention and a goal to be achieved by member States of the Council of Europe – had also been found by the Turkish Constitutional Court to be a principle implicit in the values underlying the Constitution.
In addition, like the Constitutional Court, the Court considered that, when examining the question of the Islamic headscarf in the Turkish context, there had to be borne in mind the impact which wearing such a symbol, which was presented or perceived as a compulsory religious duty, may have on those who chose not to wear it. As had already been noted, the issues at stake included the protection of the "rights and freedoms of others" and the "maintenance of public order" in a country in which the majority of the population, while professing a strong attachment to the rights of women and a secular way of life, adhered to the Islamic faith. Imposing limitations on the freedom to wear the headscarf could, therefore, be regarded as meeting a pressing social need by seeking to achieve those two legitimate aims, especially since that religious symbol had taken on political significance in Turkey in recent years.
The Court did not lose sight of the fact that there were extremist political movements in Turkey which sought to impose on society as a whole their religious symbols and conception of a society founded on religious precepts.
Against that background, it was the principle of secularism which was the paramount consideration underlying the ban on the wearing of religious symbols in universities. In such a context, where the values of pluralism, respect for the rights of others and, in particular, equality before the law of men and women were being taught and applied in practice, it was understandable that the relevant authorities should consider it contrary to such values to allow religious attire, including, as in the case before the Court, the Islamic headscarf, to be worn on university premises.
In those circumstances, and having regard to the Contracting States' margin of appreciation, the Court found that the interference in issue was justified in principle and proportionate to the aims pursued, and could therefore be considered to have been "necessary in a democratic society". It therefore found no violation of Article 9.
Contrary to the decision of the Chamber on this complaint, the Grand Chamber was of the view that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, the fundamental importance of the right to education and the position of the parties, the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 could be considered as separate from the complaint under Article 9 and therefore warranted separate examination.
On the question of the applicability of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the Court reiterated that it was of crucial importance that the Convention was interpreted and applied in a manner which rendered its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. Moreover, the Convention was a living instrument which had to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. While the first sentence of Article 2 essentially established access to primary and secondary education, there was no watertight division separating higher education from other forms of education. In a number of recently adopted instruments, the Council of Europe had stressed the key role and importance of higher education in the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the strengthening of democracy. Consequently, it would be hard to imagine that institutions of higher education existing at a given time did not come within the scope of the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No 1. Although that Article did not impose a duty on the Contracting States to set up such institutions, any State that did so was under an obligation to afford an effective right of access to them. In a democratic society, the right to education, which was indispensable to the furtherance of human rights, played such a fundamental role that a restrictive interpretation of the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 would not be consistent with the aim or purpose of that provision.
Consequently, the Court considered that any institutions of higher education existing at a given time came within the scope of the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, since the right of access to such institutions was an inherent part of the right set out in that provision.
In the case before it, by analogy with its reasoning on the question of the existence of interference under Article 9, the Court accepted that the regulations on the basis of which the applicant had been refused access to various lectures and examinations for wearing the Islamic headscarf constituted a restriction on her right to education, notwithstanding the fact that she had had access to the university and been able to read the subject of her choice in accordance with the results she had achieved in the university entrance examination. As with Article 9, the restriction was foreseeable and pursued legitimate aims and the means used were proportionate.
In these circumstances, the ban on wearing the Islamic headscarf had not impaired the very essence of the applicant's right to education and, in the light of the Court's findings with respect to the other Articles relied on by the applicant. Neither did it conflict with other rights enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols. The Court therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court did not find any violation of Articles 8 or 10, the arguments advanced by the applicant being a mere reformulation of her complaint under Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, in respect of which the Court had concluded that there had been no violation.
As regards the complaint under Article 14, the Court noted that the applicant had not provided detailed particulars in her pleadings before the Grand Chamber. Furthermore, as had already been noted, the regulations on the Islamic headscarf were not directed against the applicant's religious affiliation, but pursued, among other things, the legitimate aim of protecting order and the rights and freedoms of others and were manifestly intended to preserve the secular nature of educational institutions.
Consequently the Court held that there had been no violation of Articles 8, 10 or 14.
Judges Rozakis and Vajic expressed a joint concurring opinion and Judge Tulkens expressed a dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.

top

Writers and Publishers on Trial
In July the Committee for Publishing Freedom in the Union of Turkish Editors published its 2005 report. On the situation in Turkey and the world the report stated inter alias:
"Last year hopes were raised on freedom of expression but this year has given reason for concern. There were positive developments such as 'no prison sentences' in the Press Law, but they were taken back by amendments to the penal code that passed parliament without considering the criticism of press institutions. In addition, some radical groups tried to hinder the freedom of expression."

According to the Union of Turkish Editors the following books resulted in charges in 2004 and the first six months of 2005:

Publisher	Author	Book
Aram	Menaf Osman	"Gire Sekan" (Yigitler Tepesi – Hill of Heroes)
Aram	Mehmet Sabatli	"Kasirga Taburu" (Hurricane Battalion)
Aram	Kayhan Adnut	"Tufanda 33 Gün" (33 days in Inundation) acquittal
Aram	Timur Sahan	"Itirafçi/ Bir JITEM'ci Anlatti" (Confessor-JITEM member talked)
Ayrinti	S. Reynolds–J. Press	"Seks Isyanlari-Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Baskaldiri Rock'n Roll" (Sex Riots – Sex in Society, Rock'n Roll Revolt) acquittal
Ayrinti	C. Palahniuk	"Tikanma" (Clog) acquittal
Belge	George Jerjian	"Gerçek Bizi Özgür Kilacak" (The Truth Will Set Us Free)
Belge	Zülküf Kisanak	"Yitik Köyler" (Lost Villages)
Bilge Karinca	Murat Kürüz	"Kadin-Erkek Faaliyet Raporu" (Woman-Man Activity Report)
Ceylan	Hasan Basri Aydin	"Tanriya Metuplar" (Letters to God) acquittal
Çetin	A. Öcalan	"Güney. Kürdistan'da Egemenlik" (Sovereignty in South Kurdistan)
Çetin	Derleme	"Ögrenci Gençlik Hareketi" "Student Youth Movement)
Çetin	Gülseren Aksu	"Günesin Sofrasindayiz" (Meal of the Sun)
Çetin	A.Öcalan	"Sosyal Devrim ve Yeni Yasam" (Social Revolution and New Life)
Çetin	Mahsun Safak	"PKK Kongre Belgeleri" (Documents on PKK Congresses)
Çiviyazilari	M. de Sade	"Juliette"
Deng	Kemal Burkay	"Seçme Yazilar" (Selected Articles)
Deng	Ehmede Xani	"Mem u Zin"
Deng	Munzur Cem	"Alevilik, Zazaki ve Dersim" (Alevites, Zaza and Dersim)
Deng	Ali Dicleli	"Kürt Sorunu Baris Demokrasi" (The Kurdish Question, Peace, Democracy)
Doz	Mesut Barzani	"Barzani ve Özgürlük Hareketi" (Barzani and the Freedom Movement) acquittal
Everest	Meltem Arikan	"Yeter Tenimi Acitmayin" (Enough, don't hurt my skin)
Evrensel	Ahmet Kahraman	"Kürt Isyanlari" (Kurdish Uprisings)
Güncel	Nedim Sener	"Uzanlar/Bir Korku Imparatorlugunun Çöküsü" (The Uzan family-the decline of an Empire of Fear)
Haziran	Derleme	"Cezaevi Direnisi 3: Ulucanlar" (Resistance in Prison 3: Ulucanlar)
Iletisim	Herkül Milas	"Göç: Anadolu Rumlari 1919-1922 (Migration: Anatolian Greeks) conviction
Metis	Filiz Bingölçe	"Kadin Argosu Sözlügü" (Dictionary of Women Slang) acquittal
Özgür Üniversite	Fikret Baskaya	"Akintiya Karsi Yazilar" (Articles against the Flow) acquittal
Pencere	Fevzi Karadeniz	"Eski Zamanlar" (Old Times) conviction
Peri	Naci Kutlay	"21. yy Girerken Kürtler" (Kurds on the Entry to the 21st Century) acquittal
Sel	Metin Üstündag	"Pazar Sevisgenleri" (Sunday Lovers) Court of Cassation quashed acquittal
Sel	Enis Batur	"Elma" (Apple) Court of Cassation quashed acquittal
Sorun	Talat Turan	"Mehmet Eymur, Bir MIT'çinin Portresi" (Mehmet Eymur, the Portrait of an Agent) conviction
Stüdyo/Imge	Sabri Kaliç	"Eminem"
Stüdyo/Imge	IrvineWelsh	"Porno"
Stüdyo/Imge	Sibel Torunoglu	"Travesti Pinokyo"
Stüdyo/Imge	Eminem	"Kizgin Sarisin" (Furious Blond)
Stüdyo/Imge	Suat Bilgi	"Show"
Stüdyo/Imge	Irwine Welsh	"Olaganüstü Üç Kimyasal Roman" (Extraordinary Three Chemical Novel)
Tohum	Derleme	"Kuzey Bati Dersim: Koçgiri" (Northwest Dersim: Koçgiri)
Umut	Derleme	"Bir Mesale: Ibrahim Kaypakkaya" (A Flambeau: Ibrahim Kaypakkaya)
Yeni Gökyüzü	Hasan Baran	"Ayaginda Kundura" (Shoe at your Foot"
-	Cemal Anadol	"Israil ve Siyonizm Kiskacinda Türkiye" (Turkey in the Clamp of Israel and Zionism)

The writer Necmiye Alpay was detained on 24 March during a conference of the Turkish and the Kurdish PEN in Diyarbakır on Cultural and Language Variety. She was detained at 5am on the pretext that a warrant existed but released at 10am stating that there had been a mistake.
Confiscated books of İsmail Beşikçi
The 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation lifted decisions on confiscation of 16 books of İsmail Beşikçi in 2005. Following the abolition of Article 8 ATL lawyer Levent Kanat appealed to Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11 asking to lift the decisions of confiscation of books under this provision. Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11 rejected the demand and the appeal against this decision was also turned down. The prosecutor maintained that the books were still violating existing law.
The Ministry of Justice approached the Court of Cassation asking to correct the verdict with a written order. The 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation issued such an order for 16 books. On 25 November Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11 dealt with the order. The prosecutor demanded not to lift the decisions of confiscation, while lawyer Levent Kanat argued that the order of the Court of Cassation was binding. On 22 November Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11 passed its verdict. It rejected to lift the orders of confiscation. The 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation will have to deal with the issue again.
"Confessing Member of JİTEM Explained"-Fatih Taş
The prosecutor in İstanbul indicted Fatih Taş, the owner of Aram publishing house, for the second edition of the book "Confessing Member of JİTEM Explained" which contained revelations of the PKK defector Abdülkadir Aygan on crimes committed by officials and defectors in the region under state of emergency in the 1990s. The prosecutor alleged that persons who had taken part in the fight against terrorism were shown as targets to illegal organizations.
Two cases had been opened for the book, but later the case at İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 10 was combined with the case at İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 11.
"Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade" -Fatih Taş
The prosecutor in İstanbul indicted Fatih Taş for the book of John Tirman, "Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade". He wanted him to be convicted under Article 301 new TPC and Law 5816 on Offences against Atatürk. On 17 November İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case. The hearing was adjourned to 8 February 2006.
"They say you are Lost"-Fatih Taş
On 20 October İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 sentenced Fatih Taş to six months' imprisonment under Article 301/1 new TPC (159 old TPC) for the book "They say you are Lost" that had been written under the name of State Secretary "Ali Aydın". On 7 December Fatih Taş appealed against the verdict.
There are further trials against Fatih Taş, mainly based on Article 7/2 ATL. At least three of these cases are heard at İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 9 and another three at İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 11. Another four trials are being conducted at Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 under Article 159 old TPC.
"Articles against the Flow"-Fikret Başkaya, Özden Bayram, İsmet Erdoğan
Dr. Fikret Başkaya as author of the book "Articles against the Flow" and the responsible of the publishing house Maki, Özden Bayram and İsmet Erdoğan were tried at Ankara Penal Court No. 2 under Article 159 old TPC. They were acquitted on 2 March.
"Turkey in the Clamp of Israel and Zionism" -Y. Cemal Anadol
On 10 March İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of Prof. Dr. Y. Cemal Anadol (72) in connection with his book "Turkey in the Clamp of Israel and Zionism". He was charged under Article 312 old TPC. The court case did not conclude in 2005.
"The Truth Will Set Us Free" -Ragıp Zarakolu
On 16 March İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of the owner of Belge Publishing House, Ragıp Zarakolu in connection with the book of the British writer George Jerjian entitled "The Truth Will Set Us Free". Zarakolu said that the author had no intention of insult and, if the book was read as whole, it become clear that he wanted to normalize Armenian-Turkish relations.
During the hearings of 17 May and 20 September the Court waited for an expert opinion. During the hearing of 22 November the defense lawyers objected to the expert Dr. Musa Duman from İstanbul University. They said that he had written articles in favor of former Mayor of İzmir, Burhan Özfatura who had insulted the writer Yaşar Kemal. The Court agreed to change the expert and adjourned the hearing to 15 February 2006.
Dr. Garabed Hatcherian's journal "My Smyrna Ordeal of 1922"-Ragıp Zarakolu
In August Ragıp Zarakolu was indicted for the translation of the book "Dr. Garabed Hatcherian's journal "My Smyrna Ordeal of 1922" published by Prof. Dr. Dora Sakayan. He was charged under Article 301 new TPC (Article 159 old TPC) with having insulted the army. The first hearing was held at İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 on 22 September. At the hearing of 22 November the prosecutor asked for conviction. The court adjourned the hearing to 15 February 2006 for the defense to prepare the final statement.
"Stories of Patty Diphusa"-Avo Pardo, Metin Celal Zeynioğlu
On allegation that the book of Pedro Almodovar "Stories of Patty Diphusa" was obscene the translator Avo Pardo and the executive of Parantez Publishing House, Metin Celal Zeynioğlu were indicted under Article 426 TPC. On 23 March Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the defendants and lifted the order of confiscation.
"Memoirs of Abdullah Öcalan-At the Table of the Sun"-Abdurrezzak Güngör, Sadık Daşdöğen
In April the public prosecutor indicted the owner of Çetin publishing house, Aburrezzak Güngör and the owner of the printing house Berdan, Sadık Daşdöğen in connection with the book "Memoirs of Abdullah Öcalan-At the Table of the Sun" alleging that it contained propaganda for an illegal organization.
"Philosophy in the Sleeping Room"-Ömer Faruk
On 29 June İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the owner of Ayrıntı publishing house, Ömer Faruk, from charges of having hurt the moral feeling of the people in the book "Philosophy in the Sleeping Room" by Marquis de Sade. In the first round Ömer Faruk had been fined YTL 4,285 since the translator of the book, Kerim Sadi, could not be found. The Court of Cassation had quashed the sentence.
"The last Deportation"-Dragan Babic
In June İstanbul Penal Court No 2 lifted the order of confiscation for the book of Dragan Babic "The last Deportation". In January 2002 İstanbul Peace Court No. 3 had ordered the confiscation of the book on the grounds that it hurt the moral feelings of the people.
"Sunday Lovers" -Metin Üstündağ, İrfan Sancı
On 25 July İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the author of the cartoon album "Sonday Lovers", Metin Üstündağ and the owner of Sel publishing house, İrfan Sancı. On 4 July 2002 the defendants had been acquitted, but the Court of Cassation had quashed this decision.
"Apple"-Enis Batur, İrfan Sancı
On 23 December İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 acquitted Enis Batur, author of the novel "Apple" and the publisher İrfan Sancı from charges of having published against the general moral. On 16 July 2002 the defendants had been acquitted but the Court of Cassation had quashed the decision.
"Poisoning of Kemalism accompanied by Laws of the Revolution"-Kasım Gümüş
In February Kasım Gümüş, technician at the official radio and TV station TRT in Ankara, was indicted for having printed three copies of the book "Poisoning of Kemalism accompanied by Laws of the Revolution". He was charged under Law 5816 with having insulted Atatürk.
"The story of two towns-Clash between Ankara and İstanbul"-Seyfi Öngider
The editor and author Seyfi Öngider was charged in connection with the book "The story of two towns-Clash between Ankara and İstanbul" published by Aykırı publishing house. He was charged with having insulted Atatürk. The indictment did not include the publisher Ahmet Saim Koç. On 8 December Kadıköy Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case.
"Witches of İzmir"-Abdullah Yılmaz
The prosecutor in İstanbul-Beyoğlu indicted Abdullah Yılmaz, executive of the publishing house Literatür, for having insulted Turkishness in the book of Mara Meimaridi "Witches of Izmir". The trail was to start on 6 April 2006.
"How the Heritage of a thousand years was destroyed-Lost Villages"-Zülküf Kışanak
On 22 December İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 convicted the writer Zülküf Kışanak under Article 301/1 new TPC for having insulted the Turkish Republic in her book "How the Heritage of a thousand years was destroyed-Lost Villages". The sentence of 5 months' imprisonment was commuted to a fine of YTL 3,000.
"Lilith"-Nermin Acar, Aysel Aktaş
On 21 December İstanbul Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the translator Nermin Acar and the owner of the publishing house Güncel, Aysel Aktaş from charges of having publicized against the general moral in the book of French writer Alina Reyes entitled "Lilith". The trial had been initiated under Article 426 old TPC.
"Varieties of Torture in Diyarbakır Prison"-Mehdi Tanrıkulu
On 24 December Fatih Penal Court No. 2 acquitted the owner of the publishing house M, Mehdi Tanrıkulu from charges of having incited the people to enmity in the book of Zülfikar Tak entitled "Varieties of Torture in Diyarbakır Prison". The court ruled that the legal elements of the offence had not materialized.
"Blood Flowers from the Captive General on Ararat"-Mustafa Balbal, Ahmet Zeki Okçuoğlu
In 2005 Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case of the writer Mustafa Balbal and the owner of publishing house Doz, Ahmet Zeki Okçuoğlu in connection with the book "Blood Flowers from the Captive General on Ararat". The book had been confiscated in 2002.
"Sinan Kara's Black Book"-Sinan Kara
On 17 October Datça Penal Court sentenced the journalist Sinan Kara to 9 months' imprisonment and a fine of YTL 514 for having insulted Datça Governor Savaş Tuncer in "Sinan Kara's Black Book".
"Teyre Baz or Kurdish Businessman Hüseyin Baybaşin"-Ahmet Önal
In 2005 Beyoğlu Penal Court No. 2 started to hear the case of Ahmet Öncal, owner of the publishing house Peri, again. He was charged with insult in the book of Mahmut Baksi "Teyre Baz or Kurdish Businessman Hüseyin Baybaşin". The hearing was adjourned to 7 February 2006. On 22 March 2004 Ahmet Önal had been fined TL 1.69 million, but the Court of Cassation had quashed the verdict.
"Alevites in Dersim"-Ahmet Önal
Fatih Penal Court No. 2 continued the case related to the book of Munzur Cem "Alevites in Dersim" on charges of having insulted Atatürk and the army. The hearing was adjourned to 21 February 2006.
"Woman, Voice of Pain"-Ahmet Önal
In 2005 the case related to the book of M. Erol Coşkun "Woman, Voice of Pain" continued. In 2003 Ahmet Önal had been fined TL 2.65 million under Article 159 old TPC but the Court of Cassation had quashed the verdict.
"Passion and Prisoners"-Ahmet Önal
The trial related to the book of Evin Çiçek "Passion and Prisoners" continued in 2005. Ahmet Önal was charged with a violation of the Press Law. The hearing was adjourned to 29 March 2006. Earlier Ahmet Önal had been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment but the Court of Cassation had quashed the verdict.
"Historical and Contemporary Study on Kurds in the Soviet-Union: Kurds Diaspora"-Ahmet Önal
Ahmet Önal was indicted for the book of Hejare Şamil "Historical and Contemporary Study on Kurds in the Soviet-Union: Kurds Diaspora" under Article 7 of the ATL.

top

Hindered Activities
The "Armenian Conference"
Following a speech of Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek the administration of Boğaziçi (Bosphorous) University postponed the Conference on "Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy" to be held between 25 and 27 May. The details of what triggered the decision of the administration can be summarized as such:
On 24 May CHP deputy from İstanbul, Şükrü Elekdağ, took the floor in the GNAT to speak outside the agenda. He stated that the aim of the Conference was to accuse Turkey of having committed genocide and asked whether nobody at the University were able to stop this. AKP deputy for Aksaray, Ramazan Toprak, stated that if anybody would conduct a conference in Armenia and defend the Turkish thesis s/he would end up in jails. He added that the Turkish nation would not pardon those who lied about the past.
After the speeches of the deputies Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek took the floor and said that it was unacceptable to have such a conference. He added that the attempt was to stab Turkey in the back. Although the universities were autonomous they could not be irresponsible. He called on the Council for Higher Education to take action in order to prevent 'treason'.
Following the decision of the Dean of Bosphorous University to postpone the Conference 109 staff members at the university issued a declaration stating that the decision was a restriction of the freedom of expression. On questions of journalists Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül claimed that there had been no pressure or invitation of the government to postpone the Conference.
It was planned to hold the Conference in September. However, Mustafa Özkurt, lawyer and chair of the Union of Jurists called on İstanbul Administrative Court No. 4 to stop the Conference claiming that it was no scientific and legal. The Court accepted the subject as being administrative and on 19 September decided to stop the implementation of the decision to hold such a conference. The Court asked questions such as the procedure under which the decision had been taken; the criteria for electing the participants; the question whether it was open to the public and how the costs would be met. Until these questions received a satisfactory answer the conference should not be held.
Reportedly İstanbul Governor Muammer Güler informed Prof. Dr. Ayşe Soysal, the Dean of Bosphorous University of the decision over the phone.
After the court's decision the Conference was held at Bilgi University (İstanbul) on 24 and 25 September. During both days members of the Workers' Party (IP) and right-wing groups staged demonstrations in front of Bilgi University and threw tomatoes and eggs at the participants.
On 26 September the Regional Administrative Court cancelled the decision of İstanbul Administrative Court stating that the court was not entitled to decide on such an issue. The verdict was handed over to the parties n 12 October,
Several journalists who had criticized the postponement of the Conference were indicted (see the Chapter on Prosecuted Journalists).
Other Hindrances
In January the district governor in Selçuk (İzmir) prohibited the theater play "Daddies" written by Can Yücel and performed by the theater group Efes on the grounds that it would create a divergence of opinion among the spectators.
The district governor of Bakırköy (İstanbul) prohibited the action of Bakırköy municipality to be held in commemoration of Uğur Mumcu (journalist with Cumhuriyet) on 26 January.
No permission was given to perform the single person play of Murat Batgi under the title of "Zimandirej" at a primary school in Cizre (Şırnak) at the end of January. The school administration argued that at an official school play in the Kurdish language could not be performed.
The dean of İstanbul University did not allow the "15 Years' Activities" of Halkbilim Club to he held at the end of April. Rukiye Ilgın said in the name of the Club that the decision had been taken because the picture of Zehra Kulaksız (died during a death fast action against isolation in prison) had been on one poster and a panel had been planned on Alevites and Minorities.
In May the staging of the play "Antediluvian" written by Metin Balay based on the play of Moliere "Tartuffe" was banned in Şırnak and Cizre and Silopi districts (Şırnak). It was argued that the play exploited religious feelings, was obscene and insulted the people of the region.
The administration of Marmara University did not allow the students to hold a summer festival on 27 April. Although the students got permission from the municipality in Kadıköy the police prevented them from holding the festival on the square of the pier in Kadıköy.
In May it was reported that the teacher Sakıp Yaşar was "exiled" from Araban district (Gaziantep) to Burunsuzlar village in İslahiye district (Gaziantep) because he attended a play of Aziz Nesin during a festival of Viranşehir municipality (Urfa). Mehmet Bozgeyik, chair of the teachers' union in Gaziantep said that Sakıp Yaşar had been "exiled" without taking his statement. Another 10 teachers had been appointed to other places although they had not asked for it.
In İstanbul the teacher Mustafa Cemil Kılıç was appointed to a different lyceum because he had used the book "Alevites on the Rise" during lessons on religion.
In İzmir the governor prohibited the Seminar for Physicians and Jurists on Ill-treatment and Torture to be held on 25 May by the Forensic Institute with support from the European Commission was cancelled without any reason (see the chapter on Personal Security).
Hulusi Doğan, governor of Milas district (Muğla) ordered the detention of the student Çağdaş Cengiz (17) because he had read the poem of Nazım Hikmet "Traitor" during a poems reading at the Anatolian Lyceum on 25 May. The student was released after three hours. The prosecutor Fikret Yılmaz maintained that the detention was related to some disturbing movements among the students.
In Aydınlı town, Tuzla district (İstanbul) soldiers of the gendarmerie intervened when students gathered in May. They had invited the singer Ferhat Tunç. Teacher Kubilay Uzunyayla said that they had been able to begin the concert, but after three songs the gendarmerie had cut the electricity.
In May Mahmut Büyükbayram, Hacı Şirin, Necla Akkaya, Mehmet Tali, Eylem Dilan Polat, Nejla Akat and Ayşe Akbaş were detained in connection with the 5th Culture and Art Festival of Diyarbakır municipality on the allegation that in the exhibition on "Witnesses of the War Speak" photographs of PKK militants had been displayed. In November they were indicted for having disseminated propaganda of an illegal organization.
In Adapazarı five teachers were subjected to an investigation because they had asked the military for uniforms to be used during a theater play. The military commander had asked for the script and then filed a complaint. Besides the teachers Hasan Yolcu, Faik Kestane and Leyla Eker the directors Talha Yaycı and Nilgün Uygur were also subjected to a disciplinary investigation.
In June Okan Leblebeciler, governor in Güroymak district (Bitlis) did not allow that a play of Aziz Nesin was performed by the Culture and Art Association, since it was "dangerous and problematic".
At a primary school in Mudanya district (Bursa) it was not allowed to stage a play that had been written based on a novel by Yaşar Kemal. The show should have taken place at the end of the year.
The Council for Cinema and Videos prohibited the film of Swedish film director Lukas Moodysson "A Hole in My Heart" on 13 June. The decision was based on Article 11 of Law 5224 that prevents films to be shown that are against the public order, the general moral and wants to protect the mental and physical health of minors.
The governor in Tunceli postponed the 6th Munzur Nature and Culture Festival to be held between 28 and 31 July for 45 days because of reasons of security. On 27 July two women were detained when they distributed leaflets in connection with the festival. In the evening Mustafa Yıldırım, Nihat Akgün and Mehmet Şarman were detained. On 28 July a person that wanted to participate in the festival was detained in Pertek on the allegation that he was a deserter.
In August the governor in Erzincan banned a traditional festival to be held in Kılıçkaya village.
On 6 September an exhibition organized by the History Foundation, the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly and the Association of Helsinki Human Settlements under the title "The Events of 6 and 7 September in its 50th Year" was attacked. Members of right-wing groups destroyed some photographs and damaged others by throwing eggs at them.
On 13 October Beyoğlu Peace Court No. 2 ordered the confiscation of a catalogue for an exhibition of photographs to be displaced during the 9th International Biennale in İstanbul on the allegation that it insulted the army. However, there were no copies of the catalogue left when the police came on 14 October to collect them. On objection of lawyer Murat Altındere Beyoğlu Peace Court No. 3 lifted the decision of confiscation pointing at Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Yet, the public prosecutor in Beyoğlu indicted the organizer of the exhibition, Halil Altındere under Article 301 new TPC. The first hearing was to be held at Beyoğlu Penal Court on 13 April 2006.
In Diyarbakır the police tried to prevent an exhibition by TUHAD-DER on the anniversary of the prison operation on 19 December 2000. The photographs showed prisoners who had been killed during the operation. The police demanded that minors were not allowed entry and that nobody could look at the exhibition from outside. On 20 August the police raided the exhibition and confiscated 44 photographs.

top

Freedom of Communication

Some provisions relating to freedom of communication in the new penal code that entered force on 1 June are:
Section 9: Offences against Privacy
Violation of privacy of communication
Article 132 - (1) Anyone who violates the privacy of communication between persons shall be punished by imprisonment of between six months and two years, or with a judicial fine. If the violation is committed by recording the contents of communication, a sentence of between one year and three years' imprisonment may be imposed.
(2) Anyone who unlawfully discloses the contents of communication between persons will be punished by imprisonment of between one and three years.
(3) Anyone who discloses a communication with someone else in public without the consent of the other person will be punished by imprisonment of between six months and two years or a judicial fine.
(4) If the contents of communication between persons are published via press and publications, the sentence will be increased by one half.
Wiretapping and recording of communications
ARTICLE 133 - (1) Anyone who monitors private conversations between persons, without the consent of either of the parties, by means of a tapping device, or who records such conversations by means of a sound recording device, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from two to six months.
(2) Anyone who records a public conversation without the consent of the other participating speakers by means of a sound recording device shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to six months or a judicial fine.
(3) Anyone who profits from information which he is known to have obtained or which he may be deemed to have obtained by committing an act referred to in the above paragraphs or who supplies that information to other persons or who enables other persons to obtain information shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from six months to two years and a judicial fine of up to one thousand days. Where such a conversation is published through the medium of the press and publications, the penalty to be imposed shall be the same.
Violation of Privacy
ARTICLE 134 - (1) Anyone who violates the privacy of others' personal lives shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of from six months to two years or an administrative fine. Where the violation of privacy occurs as a result of recording of images or voice/sound, the minimum penalty shall be not less than one year.
(2) Anyone who discloses images or sounds of others' private lives shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of from one to three years. Where the offence is committed through the press or media, the penalty shall be increased by one half.
Recording of personal data
ARTICLE 135 - (1) Anyone who illegally records personal data shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of from six months to three years.
(2) Anyone who illegally records personal information data concerning others' political, philosophical or religious opinions, their racial origins, their unlawful moral tendencies, sexual lives, their health problems or their relations with trade unions shall be punished by imprisonment in accordance with the above provision.
Violation of Confidentiality
Article 285 - (1) Anyone who publicly breaches the confidentiality of an investigation shall be sentenced to imprisonment of from one to three years. In the case of breaches of confidentiality with respect to decisions taken during investigation that are confidential by law, and for procedures carried out in accordance with such decisions, the offence shall be deemed to have occurred even where it was not committed publicly.
(2) Anyone who publicly breaches the confidentiality of declarations or images produced in hearings that according to the law had to be held or had been decided to be held in closed session shall be sentenced according to the provision in paragraph 1. Where the protection of a witness is an issue, the offence shall be deemed to have occurred even where it was not committed publicly.
(3) The sentence shall be increased by one half if the offences are committed by means of the press or publication.
(4) If, during the investigation and prosecution stages, images are published that label persons as guilty, a sentence of imprisonment of from six months to two years shall be imposed.
Audiovisual recording
Article 286 - (1) Anyone who, without authorization, records or transmits sound or images during an investigation or prosecution shall be sentenced to up to six months' imprisonment.
Attempt to Influence Fair Trial
Article 288 - (1) Anyone who makes verbal or written statements in public in order to influence a prosecutor, judge, court, expert or witnesses before an investigation and prosecution has concluded with a legally binding verdict shall be sentenced to imprisonment for from six months to three years.
(2) (Removed by Law 5377 of 29 June 2005)

The Trial of Birol Duru
On 10 August Birol Duru, reporter with the news agency DİHA, the HRA member Daimi Açık and Kemal Özen were detained in Yedisu district (Bingöl). Duru and Açık were remanded on 11 August on charges of having supported an illegal organization. Kemal Özen was released.
Birol Duru had gone to research allegations that the gendarmerie commander in Yedisu, Captain Ahmet Yanaral grew cannabis with some villagers. In Dinarbey village a cassette containing propaganda for the PKK had allegedly been found in his bag. Birol Duru, Daimi Açık and Kemal Özen were later charged under Article 314 in conjunction with Article 220 new TPC with supporting an armed organization. The first hearing was held at Diyarbakır Heavy Penal Court No. 4 on 8 December.
Defense lawyer Servet Özen stated that the video-cassette did not belong to his client. Demands for the release of Duru and Açık were rejected. During the following hearing on 29 December the Court lifted the arrest warrants against both defendants.
Confiscation of Journals and Newspapers
On 17 January Diyarbakır Peace Court No. 1 sentenced Ramazan Pekgöz, representative of the distribution company Fırat to 3 months' imprisonment and a fine because he had been found in possession of publications that had been confiscated on order of İstanbul SSC. The sentence was commuted to a fine totaling TL 779 million. Ramazan Pekgöz had been detained on 11 May 2004 but was tried without being remanded.
The public prosecutor ordered the confiscation of edition 8 of the Islamic journal "Fundamental Change" on the allegation that some articles had incited to hatred and enmity (Article 312 old TPC).
On 19 March İstanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 12 ordered the confiscation of the daily Ülkede Özgür Gündem for 20 March while it was being printed. The incriminated article was the announcement that Öcalan would declare his democratic project at Newroz. Allegedly the article carried propaganda for an illegal organization.
The local newspaper Mavi ve Kent, published in Nusaybin (Mardin) was confiscated on 13 September because it had published declarations of the PKK.
The edition of 18 November of the daily Evrensel was confiscated because the Republic had been belittled, crimes had been praised and racial hatred had been incited. The decision of Şişli Peace Court No. 1 did not specify the article(s) that contained the alleged offences.
Beyoğlu Peace Court No. 1 ordered the confiscation of the daily Birgün of 29 December. The article on the trial on the Egyptian Bazaar allegedly tried to influence the judiciary (Article 227 TPC).
Diyarbakır Heavy Penal Court No. 6 ordered the confiscation of the music album "Keçe Kurdan" of Aynur Doğan in February. Allegedly the songs contained propaganda for an illegal organization. In January and February the 13 albums of 12 different singers were also confiscated on the allegation that they contained propaganda for an illegal organization.
The Trial of Sandra Bakutz
Austrian journalist, Sandra Bakutz was arrested upon arrival at Atatürk airport on 10 February, and held at İstanbul Police HQ. According to reports, she was detained because of an arrest warrant issued in 2001.
Bakutz, who produces the programme "Anatolien Radio" for Radio Orange 94.0 based in Vienna, Austria, and who has written articles for newspapers and magazines such as Junge Welt ("Young World") in Germany, was taken straight into custody under an order apparently issued by Ankara's No 2. State Security Court and transported to a prison.
The Austrian journalist had traveled to Istanbul to attend the trial of 64 prisoners arrested on 1 April 2004 in a police operation against the DHKP/C. Bakutz was accused of being a member of the organization.
On 30 March, Ankara Heavy Penal Court No. 11 decided to provisionally release Sandra Bakutz, before her 1 June trial. Bakutz was acquitted due to a lack of evidence by the court in Ankara on 1 June.
Other Incidents and Persecution
Reşat Ok, reporter for DİHA, was detained on 27 October 2004, when he wanted to cross into Iraq at Habur Border Station. He was later remanded and indicted with supporting an illegal organization. His trial started at Diyarbakır Heavy Penal Court No. 6 on 3 February. The court acquitted him for a lack of evidence.
On 10 January three people beat Ömer Taşlı, editing director of the local newspaper Zirve published in Zonguldak. After the incident M.S., M.S. and İ.E. were detained.
On 12 January the police in İstanbul detained Gülsen Salman and Murat Doğan, when they distributed a special edition of the journal Ülkemizde Gençlik Gelecektir.
On 12 January Naciye Kaynak, reporter with the daily Yeni Asya, was not allowed entry to the conference on Implementing an Independent, Democratic and Respectful Media organized by the TGC and The Association of Research into Communication because she was wearing a headscarf. The organizers of the conference stated that the decision had been taken by Galatasaray University where the conference was held.
In January the Administrative Council of the governor in Van decided not to bring charges against the police officer İsmail Yendi. DİHA reporter Ubeydullah Hakan had complained that this police officer was frequently threatening him.
In January unidentified men beat Ali Öztürk, editing director of the local newspaper Günebakış, published in Trabzon.
During the 29th Extraordinary Congress of the CHP the reporters of the daily Zaman, Mehmet Kaman, Remzi Doğan and Bülent Yılmaz were injured when a fight broke out.
The district governor in Pertek and Mazgirt (Tunceli) did not grant permission to investigate against soldiers in connection with the detention of Evrensel reporter Cemir and the DİHA reporters Burhan Ekinci and Mücahit Yalçın on 6 October 2004. The governors stated that the reporters had not been hindered in their work. In May Malatya Regional Administrative Court rejected the objection of the journalists. The journalists had been detained when they followed a group of people that called themselves "Living Shields".
Sadık Aydoğmuş, distributor of the journal Özgür Halk and the daily Özgür Gündem, alleged that he had been detained in Van on 5 January and at İstasyon Police Station they had been beaten. "We were stopped by three police cars. The police officers who I know by their first names of Fatih and Tayfun ordered me to stand against a wall and brutally beat me. Later we were taken to İstasyon Police Station. One of the police officers said that we should be treated as animals and they started to beat us again." Sadık Aydoğmuş added that the physician they were taken to did not give them a report and that the officers threatened them not to talk about the incident.
On 17 February the police in Mersin intervened in a demonstration protesting the killing of Ümit Gönültaş on 15 February. Reportedly the police confiscated the camera of Evrensel reporter Ferhat Uyar and beat DİHA reporter Nesrin Yazar.
During another demonstration in Mersin a few days later the local reporter Aslı Saliha Açıkkar was reportedly beaten and her camera was confiscated. During the demonstration several people were detained. Among them eight were remanded on 22 February.
During the Newroz celebrations in Eskişehir DİHA reporter Erkan Şahin was detained on 20 March. He was later released but his camera and cassettes remained with the police.
On 22 March Eyüp Çimşit, Ufuk Çimşit and Bülent Karaçay, relatives of Nemli Çimşit, headman in Akçakale village (Ardahan) beat the DİHA reporter Ümit Kılıç heavily. He was taken to Kars State Hospital and said to have a concussion and a broken arm. He suspected that the attack might be related to an article on wrongful distribution of aid to the villagers or the fact that he took photos of Arif Senal, chief of police in Çıldır district, hunting at a time when it was forbidden.
On 2 Minister Interior Minister Abdülkadir Aksu answered a question tabled by CHP deputy for Ardahan, Ensar Öğüt and stated that an investigation against the local chief of police had been initiated.
On 6 April Zeynep Ertuğrul from the journal Ekmek ve Adalet, Nurgül Acar, Emre Batur (Bakır), İhsan Özdil and Çetin Güven were attacked by a group of people in Trabzon when they distributed leaflets. Some people were remanded in connection with the incident (see the chapter on Civilian Clashes).
On 9 April Hüsna Yakut from the journal Genç Bakış was detained during a press statement of the Independent Youth Movement (BAGEH) in Van. She was remanded and alleged that she had been sexually assaulted in custody. She was released on 26 April.
On 22 April Veli Ay, reporter of DİHA, was detained when he applied for a passport at Ankara Police HQ. He was interrogated in connection with an ongoing investigation and later released.
The TV station Flash TV presented a series under the title "Camp of Opinions" between 6 March and 27 April. After the program of 27 April Şahin Ayaz, founder of Kürt-Der and Hak-Par, was detained in the hotel that he was staying in. In the same night the moderator of the program, Yılmaz Tuncer, was also interrogated.
Naci Aslan, employed at the distribution company Fırat in Hakkari, filed an official complaint with the public prosecutor in Hakkari stating that he had been threatened over the phone on 3 June.
On 4 May DİHA reporter Rüştü Demirkaya was detained in Hakkari. Reportedly he was detained because he published an article on fraud of the gendarmerie commander in Hakkari, Major Namık Dursun. Demirkaya was released after testifying.
Prisoners in Tekirdağ F-type Prison were not given the posters that the daily Evrensel had published as a supplement to the edition of 7 May. The posters showed the students' leaders Deniz Gezmiş, Yusuf Aslan and Hüseyin İnan. There was no official order of confiscation but the prison administration ruled that these people had worked against the indivisible unity of the State and the posters could be used for separatist propaganda.
On 10 May the gendarmerie intervened in the "alternative spring festival" organized by students from Van 100 Year University. The soldiers tried to detain some students that had gathered at Van Lake. The students tried to prevent this and were beaten. The gendarmerie made some 60 detentions. DİHA reporter Sıddık Güler was beaten.
Musa Aşkara, distributor of Özgür Gündem in Siirt, complained that police officers had beaten and insulted him on 18 May. A civilian dress police officer had slapped him in his face three times. Earlier he had received threats over the phone.
On 21 May civil servants of Etimesgut municipality and body guards of Mayor Serhat Kemal Yılmaz beat Mehmet Öz, editing director of the local newspaper Öz Sakarya, published in Ankara. He also alleged that all pictures he had taken with his digital camera had been deleted.
On 8 June the DİHA reporters Sedat Suna and Ertuş Bozkurt observed a fight between left and right-wingers at İstanbul University. Right-wingers attacked them in front of Beyazıt Police Station with chains and sticks.
In the night of 15 June Halit Demirhan, editing director of the local newspaper Orhangazi Lider, published in Orhangazi district (Bursa) was attacked by five people. He was certified 10 days' sick leave. He suspected that an article of fraud in the municipality might have been the reason for the attack.
The central building of Flash TV in İstanbul-Beyoğlu was the target of an attack with Molotov cocktails in the morning of 28 June. The attack caused material damage.
On 26 July a group of people who wanted to observe a trial against DHKP-C defendants and waited in front of İstanbul Courthouse was attacked by members of Sarıyer Idealists Union. The right-wingers also beat Milliyet reporter Musa Kesler.
On 2 August houses that had been built illegally in Tokatköy quarter of Beykoz district (İstanbul) were pulled down. The inhabitants tried to resist. In the incident Vatan reporter Bülent Aydoğdu and Milliyet reporter Gökhan Karakaş were beaten by the police.
On 4 August the police in Narlı town (Maraş) detained Elif Akmakça, Cüneyt Tışkaya and two persons with the first name of Mehmet and Mustafa, when they distributed the local journal Azadi.
On 16 August Pınar Çalışır, Mehmet Gökmen and Mahmut İlhan were detained when they distributed the weekly Yürüyüş in Adana.
Servet Alçınkaya, reporter with Cumhuriyet, alleged that police officers beat him on 23 August (see the Chapter on Personal Security).
The reporter of Atılım in Adana and four members of the ESP were detained in Adana on 26 August on charges of having illegally distributed leaflets. They were released in the evening.
During clashes near Tepecik village in Beşiri district (Batman) that started on 25 August six HPG militants were killed. Orhan Turan, from Batman Kanal 72 TV, Medeni Akba, from Cihan news agency and Reşat Yiğit, from DHA went to the place on 26 August and were detained. They were released shortly afterwards.
During the funeral of HPG militant Mesut İsa who had been killed in Maçka (Trabzon) on 21 August and was buried in Nusaybin district (Mardin) the DEHAP officials and members Nazım Kök, Azize Yağız, Azize Yağız, Hülya Kök, Seyithan Kaya, Ahmet Çağın, Murat Bal, the editing director of Mavi ve Kent, Süleyman Tekin and the Özgür Gündem staff member Engin Tokay were detained and remanded on 31 August on charges of having staged an illegal demonstration. Süleyman Tekin was released on 2 November.
In various cities incidents broke out after a demonstration of DEHAP and the Confederation of Association for Solidarity with Prisoners to be held in Gemlik district (Bursa) on 4 September in protest at the prison conditions of Abdullah Öcalan had not been permitted. During the demonstration in Van on 5 September, Ahmet İzgi, reporter with the Anatolian News Agency was beaten by demonstrators. Similarly, demonstrators in Siirt beat the reporter of İhlas News Agency, Senar Yıldız on 6 September.
FESK claimed responsibility for a bomb attack on the right-wing paper Ortadoğu in Ankara on 8 September.
On 23 September some 10 masked men beat the owner of the local newspaper Yüksekova Haber, Necip Çapraz in Yüksekova (Hakkari). Allegedly Çapraz was attacked because he researched on a radical Islamic organization in town.
Hamdiye Erbek, distributor of Özgür Gündem in Batman, was arrested on 23 September, because she had participated in a demonstration in August.
On 3 October a hearing was held in Adana in connection with a press statement that had been made after the killing of 17 MKP members in Tunceli. In solidarity with the five defendants a group had gathered outside the courthouse. Many people were detained including the Atılım report in Adana, Seda Aktepe, in İskenderun, Zahide Bektaşlı, the Devrimci Demokrasi reporter Nihal Gül and the representative of Kızıl Bayrak in Adana, Zemin Demirel.
On 6 October Adem Sarı, distributing Özgür Gündem in Ağrı, was remanded on charges of supporting an illegal organization.
On the same day Aysun Güven, Alev Oral, Kenan Koncuk and three persons with the first names of Sevda, Mehmet and Erdoğan were detained at Taksim Square (İstanbul) when they sold the journal Mücadele Birliği.
On 7 October police officers of the Anti-Riot Squad beat the reporter of Anatolian News Agency, Gürser Eser, when he was following the Friday prayers of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
On 10 October, Fehmiye Baskın, distributor of Atılım in Batman, was detained by soldiers of the gendarmerie. She was released soon afterwards.
A reporter of Samanyolu TV was beaten when he followed the occupation of the AKP office in Beşiktaş (İstanbul) by three members of the ESP on 18 October. Their action was a protest against the draft ATL.
On 27 October the crew of the program Arena broadcasted on Kanal D and CNN Türk was detained in Kumbağ town (Tekirdağ) where they were filming employment of children from East and Southeastern Anatolia. The film material was seized and they were released after 2.5 hours.
On 27 October the Atılım representative Belgin Kayabaşı and the reporter Ecevit Uğur were detained during raids of their houses in Adana on charges of having participated in the funeral of Özlem Eker, one of the MKP militants who had been killed in Tunceli on 6 July.
In mid-November the office of Devrimci Demokrasi in Elazığ was raided. Books and journals were confiscated and staff member Özdal Kayaoğlu and a visitor called Fırat were detained.
In the night of 19 November a bomb attack was carried out on the printing house Odak in Afyon. The attack caused material damage. Reportedly 10 local newspapers were printed here.
DİHA reporter Nesrin Yazar was detained after a demonstration in Çilek quarter (Mersin) on 20 November in protest at the incidents in Şemdinli.
On 4 December the Democracy Platform in Antalya held a press conference in protest at the incidents in Şemdinli. A civilian dressed police officer beat Evrensel reporter Çağrı Yağar.
On 12 December Atılım reporter Mehmet Güzel, ESP representative Devrim Özgür Köse and Zeynel Lüle were detained in Gaziantep.
On 13 December a group of people attacked four persons who were distributing the journal of the Federation of Association for Basic Rights and Freedoms in Samsun. The Federation announced that some 15 people had carried out the attack.
Fanatics of the football team Karşıyaka raided the offices of local TV station Ege TV (İzmır) on 13 December. After the incident H.G., M.E.Y., M.Ş., F.H. and D.E. were detained.
On 14 December the police in İstanbul raided the offices of Ülkede Özgür Gündem and the printing houses Etik Ajans and Gün. The raids were justified with an investigation of the prosecutor in Van. After searches of 2.5 hours the police confiscated many documents and computers.
Decisions of the High Council for Radio and TV (RTÜK)
Compared to earlier years the High Council for Radio and TV (RTÜK) passed less decisions on closure (ban on broadcasting) in 2005. The discussion focused on the possibility for local TV and radio station to broadcast in local dialects and tongues.
A. Zahid Akman, who had taken over the chair of RTÜK from Fatih Karaca, stated on 18 July that nobody wanted to pass decisions on closure of stations but the Council was obliged to act according to the law and regulations.
The regulation on broadcasting in different dialect and tongues had been passed on 25 January 2004 by its publication in the Official Gazette; yet local radio and TV stations did not get permission for programs in different languages (mainly Kurdish). In August Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reminded RTÜK to take the necessary steps stating that the government and parliament had cared for the legal framework.
On 26 August the daily Radikal reported on a meeting chaired by the State Minister responsible for State TV and radio (TRT), Beşir Atalay. The secret service MİT and other related institutions had participated and it had been decided that MİT should prepare a report on the nine local TV and radio stations that had applied for the right to broadcast in tongues other than Turkish. The report should be sent to the Prime Ministry.
On the same day RTÜK issued a statement saying that it was solely up to the Council to decide whether certain TV and radio stations would get permission to broadcast in non-Turkish tongues. Other institutions had been consulted for information. As soon as the applying local radio and TV stations had fulfilled the conditions they would get permission.
On 27 August RTÜK held another meeting on the application of local radio and TV stations. After the meeting Zahit Akman said that it had been agreed that the programs should not be of a separatist nature, not educate in language and follow a cultural aim. He promised that the stations that had applied would be informed of a decision by the end of January. The local radio and TV stations that had applied for a special permission were:
"Siirt Metropol Radyo ve TV, Reha Radyo ve TV (Şanlıurfa), Polo TV Radyo (İstanbul), Söz Radyo ve TV (Diyarbakır), Aktüel Radyo TV (Diyarbakır), Gün Radyo ve TV (Diyarbakır), Patnos Çağrı (Ağrı), Batman Çağrı TV, Genç İmparator (Malatya), Mina Basın (Ağrı), Emtaş (Ağrı), Günışığı (İstanbul)."
On 23 March RTÜK called on all TV stations to show the Turkish flag on the screen in protest at the attempted burning of a Turkish flag in Mersin on 20 March. In an announcement of 25 March RTÜK stated that all national, regional and local channels had followed the call.

Most decisions of RTÜK are based on Article 4 of the Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts Law No. 3984 of 20 April 1994 and later amendments. Article 4 (as amended by the Law No. 4756 on May 21, 2002 and by the Law No.4771 on 9 August, 2002) reads:
Radio, television and data broadcasts shall be conducted within a spirit of public service, in compliance with the supremacy of the law, the general principles of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedom, national security and general moral values. The broadcasts shall be in Turkish language. However, it may also be broadcast for the purpose of teaching foreign languages, which may have contribution to the formation of universal culture and scientific works or transmitting music or news in those languages.
Furthermore, there may be broadcasts in the different languages and dialects used traditionally by Turkish citizens in their daily lives. Such broadcasts shall not contradict the fundamental principles of the Turkish Republic enshrined in the Constitution and the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation. The principles and procedures for these broadcasts and the supervision of these broadcasts shall be determined through a regulation to be issued by the Supreme Board.
The broadcasting standards in radio, television and data broadcasts are as follows:
a) Broadcasts shall not violate the existence and independence of the Turkish Republic, the territorial and national integrity of the State, the reforms and principles of Atatürk.
b) Broadcasts shall not instigate the community to violence, terror, ethnical discrimination or shall not incite hate and hostility by making discrimination in the community in terms of the diversities of the social class, race, language, religion, sect and territory or shall not give rise to feelings of hatred in the community.
c) Broadcasting shall not be exercised in a manner that serves to the unfair interests of broadcasting enterprises, shareholders and their relatives by blood or by marriage, up to and including those of third degree or of any other real or legal persons.
d) Broadcasts shall not, in any manner, humiliate or insult people for their language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect, and any such considerations.
e) Broadcasts shall not violate the national and moral values of the community and Turkish family structure.
f) The privacy of private life shall be respected.
g) Broadcasts shall serve for the improvement of the general objectives and basic principles of the Turkish national education system and the national culture.
h) Broadcasts shall use the Turkish language in its spoken form without destroying its characteristics and rules; shall ensure its development in the form of a modern cultural, educational and scientific language as a basic element of national unity and integrity.
i) Broadcasts shall not offend the personality of individuals beyond the limits of criticism, shall respect the right of reply and rectification; the news, which the investigation of their accuracy is possible within the framework of code of conduct of media, shall not be broadcast without proper investigation or without being sure of their truthfulness; the given information, provided that it be kept confident, shall not be broadcast unless there is a serious necessity for public interest.
j) Broadcasts shall not serve to an unfair aim and interest and shall not lead to unfair competition, broadcasts qualified as proclamation and advertising shall be announced clearly without leading to any suspicion; a product promotion created by one agency with its own efforts shall not be broadcast by an other agency as if it belongs to itself; source of the news which are provided by agencies or another media source shall be indicated with particular importance,
k) Broadcasts shall not present or declare no one as guilty unless there is a court decision; any programme item that leads people to commit a crime or raise the feeling of fear shall not be broadcast.
l) Broadcasters shall respect the principles of impartiality, conformity and reliability in news programmes; broadcasts shall not prevent free formation of opinions; the secrecy of the source of information shall be preserved unless there is an intention for misleading the public.
m) The advertisements which are deceptive, misleading or that would lead to unfair competition shall not be broadcast.
n) The equality of opportunity shall be established among the political parties and democratic groups; the broadcasts shall not be biased or partial; the broadcasts shall not be violating the principles on the election bans which are determined at election times.
o) Broadcasts shall not violate the rights of the right holders stipulated by law.
p) Broadcasts shall not resort to contests or similar methods via information communication telephone lines, and no prizes shall be awarded to listeners or viewers or no mediation is provided for awarding prize; lotteries shall not be made, questionnaire and opinion polls via telephone shall be realised before the notary from the preparatory stage to announcement of the results.
r) Broadcasts on subjects which includes information related or unrelated to the main programme, shall not be made via split-screen; continuous broadcasting by using frames or scrolling band technique shall not be done; scenes which are not related to the subject shall not be broadcast in news, scenes which show similarity with the content of the news should be identified as archive.
s) All the items of the program services shall respect to human dignity and fundamental human rights.
t) Broadcasts shall not be obscene.
u) Broadcasts shall not encourage violence and discrimination against women, weak and minors.
v) The broadcasts shall not encourage the use of violence or incite feelings of racial hatred,
y) Broadcasts shall not reflect the fearful and intimidate features of crime organizations.
z) Programmes, which could impair the physical, mental, and moral development of young people and children shall not be broadcast within the time intervals that they may be viewing.

The radio station Dünya (World)
In the session of 7 and 8 March RTÜK decided on a 30-day-ban of broadcasting for Radyo Dünya, based on Article 4(b) of Law 3984, because on 9 July 2004 the radio station had introduced the book "Memoirs of a Guerilla".
The ban started on 4 April. Meanwhile the radio station had appealed to Ankara Administrative Court on 22 March to stop the Council's decision from being implemented. In May Ankara Administrative Court decided to stop the decision from being implemented until the radio station had provided the necessary documents. The radio station was informed of this decision on 18 May.
In April Ankara Administrative Court decided to cancel the warning issued by RTÜK on Radyo Dünya for a program on 13 September 2001 during which Kurdish music was played. The warning had been issued on 25 September 2002. RTÜK appealed against this decision but the Supreme Administrative Court turned the appeal down.
The radio station İmaj (Image)
The public prosecutor ordered the closure of Radyo İmaj since it had been broadcasting without permission. Police officers transmitted the decision on 21 September. Under the same charges the executives of the radio station, İsmail Yüce, Adnan Yüce, İrem Belek, Gıyasettin Vargün, Ferhat Yıldız and Gözde Erözgün were put on trial. The indictment argued that without information of the channel for broadcast the station had broadcasted on 3 and 4 February. The first hearing was held at Ankara Penal Court No. 19 on 17 October. The trial did not conclude in 2005.
Despite the fact that the radio station had already been closed RTÜK ordered a one month's ban of broadcasting for Radyo İmaj in December for a program on the massacre in Sivas that had been broadcasted on 1 July 2004. The decision was based on Article 4(b) of Law 3984.
Adult Channel, Exotica TV, Playboy TV, Rouge TV
On 6 May RTÜK announced that the channels Adult Channel, Exotica TV, Playboy TV and Rouge TV that were being broadcasted by pay TV channel Digitürk had been taken off the program. The decision was based on the European Convention on Transfrontier TV providing that the programs should not be indecent and in particular contain pornography.
Other Warnings and Penalties
During its meetings on January, February and March RTÜK issued the followings bans on broadcasting: Star TV 4 times, Kanal D 2 times, CNBC-e, NTV, Akra Fm, Best FM, Radyo Shema (Ankara) one tome each.
Warning were issued for: Show TV (10 times), Kanal D (12 times), ATV (13 times), Haber Türk (3 times), Kanal 6 (3 times), NTV (2 times), Flash TV (2 times), TGRT (2 times), Kanal Türk (2 times), Star TV (2 times), Meltem TV, Başkent TV, Sinema Türk, Radyo Ekin, X TV, Lig TV, Kanal 7, TGRT Haber, NR+, Memleketim TV, TSES TV, TV 8, Cine-5, Radyo Tatlıses, Gün FM (Diyarbakır), Can Radyo (İzmir), ERT TV (Zonguldak-Ereğli), Radyo Karadeniz (İzmir) one time each.
During the Council's meetings on 7, 13, 20, 26 April, 4, 10, 18, 26, 31 May and 8, 15, 16, 23 Haziran various bans and warnings were issued. Moviemax 2, Show TV and CNBC-e were punished with administrative fines and bans were issued for Kanal D 9 times, Show TV 4 times, Star TV and Radyo Ekin (Ankara) three times each, ATV, NTV, Kanal 7, Cine-5 and Arifan Radyo (Ankara) one time each.
RTÜK issued warnings for: Kanal D (9 times), Show TV (4 times), Star TV (4 times), ATV (3 times), Haber Türk (3 times), TGRT (3 times), Flash TV (2 times), Kanal Türk (2 times), ORT TV (Ordu-2 times), STV (2 times), TV 5, Ulusal Kanal, Meltem TV, Mesaj TV (Ankara), Başkent TV (Ankara), CNN Türk, TV8, A TV (Alanya) one time each.
In July RTÜK banned Kanal D eight times from broadcasting, plus one time for advertising. TGRT, NTV, STV and Olay TV were also banned one time each for advertising. For a news program Star TV was given an administrative fine.
In November RTÜK punished Show TV with three days' ban on broadcasting for the news on the allegation of singer Bülent Ersoy who had accused Deniz Baykal, President of CHP of having asked for a bribe, if the ban on his activities should be lifted. Kanal D and Flash TV were punished with three days' bans for other reasons. TGRT and Diyarbakır Gün TV received bans for one day each.

top

Support the work of the HRFT with a donation to DTF(Link under the image)

Sitemap

Impressum

Webmaster

You've got something to say? Try the Forum.