A 17-year-old secondary school graduate, unemployed Ogün Samast confessed to the murder and said he killed Dink due to his humiliating remarks about Turks. Dink had been previously tried for "insulting Turkishness" in the scope of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. It is evident that nationalist feelings prompted the killer and his masterminds, if there are any, to murder an Armenian known for his public statements, particularly his labeling the 1915 incidents as genocide. There is a commonly held view that if Dink had not appeared in court due to Article 301, he might still be alive today, but according to another view, such explanations are simply choosing the easy way out.Vatan's Okay Gönensin blames Article 301 for playing a major role in Dink's murder. He thinks some circles forced Dink's trial under the article and that they wanted to make him a victim of such an assassination. Gönensin explains that it is necessary to consider the chain of actors leading up to Dink's murder such as the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government, which failed to save Turkey from the calamity of Article 301, the Republican People's Party (CHP) opposition, the judiciary system that apparently forgot their purpose and members of judiciary who are prone to act with the provocations of street nationalists. He claims that all these people or institutions owe an account to society due to Dink's murder.
Posta's Mehmet Ali Birand asserts that the killer of Dink is Article 301. He says that the police may have managed to capture the killer who pulled the trigger, but the real killer would not be found. "Because we are the real killers of Dink," urges Birand. "We have nourished our murderers in a mindset and against a backdrop shaped by Article 301. We have handed them guns," he claims. Just like Gönensin, Birand criticizes defenders of Article 301, the members of the judiciary and the public prosecutor who said," I would like to get rid of the responsibility so I will file a lawsuit and let the court decide." He also recalls the public reaction at the time of the Armenian Conference. Birand admits that we have to change our mindset. He thinks that urgently changing Article 301 is necessary if we want to evolve as a society. "Only this way can we earn the forgiveness of Dink," adds Birand.
Milliyet's Fikret Bila's views differ from other columnists about holding Article 301 as the reason of Dink's murder. He thinks allegations such "defenders of Article 301 are responsible for this tragic event" are cheap and simple. "If one of the defenders of Article 301 is killed, who would be the killer then? Is it the defenders of the abolishment of Article 301?" he asks. Bila also directs criticism toward those who claim this murder was organized by the "deep state." He calls such allegations conspiracy theories and thinks that instead of making easy explanations by resorting to big conspiracies, it is necessary to ponder the reasons and atmosphere that resulted in murderers like Ogün Samast. Bila urges that it is necessary to go beneath the surface and try to eradicate the problems at its roots.
