This is an excerpt from the executive summary of the report that was recently publicized by the State Audit Institution (DDK), triggered to act on the matter by President Abdullah Gül following the ECtHR ruling.
The DDK agrees with the ECtHR in its findings. The DDK report goes on to say: “Based on the review of all relevant information and documents from the investigations and inspections performed with respect to the public servants involved in the matter, the police and the gendarmerie were aware of a potential threat against Hrant Dink; intelligence units failed to take the necessary measures to effectively protect Hrant Dink; despite being aware of the threats against Hrant Dink, the relevant authorities failed to take the necessary precautions, and as a result of this failure, Hrant Dink was murdered.”
In this way, they came to the same conclusion the Dink family’s lawyers and I have been talking about for five years. The Dink family’s lawyers made a similar comment on the DDK report, stating, “It is constructive, but we have been trying to explain this to the court for years.”
What is going on? Despite the reports prepared for the ECtHR, the panel of judges and prosecutors reviewing the Dink case and 26 separate reports pertaining to the case, why has this case not been solved?
The DDK gave a detailed answer to this question. It has not been solved because of a century-old state preference. Turkey is still unable to deal with the mentality of this preference. The Dink murder case has been a mirror that proves this fact. It’s not me who is saying this but the DDK inspectors. They say that in this country you cannot bring those who acted on behalf of the state to trial.
The concluding part of the report offers a manifesto-like historical projection on the matter. It says members of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) raided the seat of government, known as the raid of Bab-ı Ali, in January 1913. On Feb. 13, 1913, they bypassed Parliament to adopt an interim law on the trying of civil servants, exempting civil servants from being tried for offenses they had committed.
The cases or allegations against civil servants or the state were referred to administrative courts; but because no time limit was prescribed for this referral, most of these cases failed due to the statute of limitations, even if the relevant authorization for an investigation had been obtained from their superiors. Over time, the offenders were protected.
The state loved this piece of legislation so much that it has remained in effect for 86 years, despite the fact that it was created by the coup stagers who bypassed the parliamentary process. In 1999, it was converted into the Immunity of Government Officials Law 4483. In fact, this was a slightly revised version of the former one. The immunity of civil servants was preserved. The DDK makes another important statement, arguing that immunity is actually spelled out in a much stronger piece of legislation, the Constitution.
It is true that if immunity as prescribed in Law 4483 is skipped or overlooked, Article 129 of the Constitution would offer effective protection. The report indicates that the administrative safeguards introduced by the interim law were further backed by the constitutional provision in Article 129, stating, “The prosecution of public servants and other public employees for alleged offenses shall be subject, except in cases prescribed by law, to the permission of the administrative authority designated by law.”
This all means that a board authorized by the top leader of the country is offering strong criticism of the state. In other words, it is saying that the 1980 coup stagers introduced constitutional safeguards for the darkness that the coup stagers of 1913 created.
In fact, we are a point where words are useless, and we need to take action. Let us wait and see what the state will do vis-à-vis this century-old vicious practice since it has become evident that the emperor has no clothes.
