Çandar’s trial will be heard at the Bakırköy Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction in İstanbul, where he will face a prison term of up to three years for “insulting a state official’s duty.” The trial was adjourned to Dec. 13 at the first hearing because the judge, Vasfi Uğurer, was on leave.
In his column published in the Referans daily on Feb. 9 of this year, Çandar criticized the lack of seriousness in the way the case is being heard. He also accused the judge presiding over the case of giving the impression that he had a connection with the defendants’ attorneys.
He wrote that the Dink case was heard with “frivolity,” so much so that it is impossible for justice to prevail. “He gave the impression that he is secretly collaborating with the defense attorneys rather than that he is an impartial judge who is making an effort to make sure justice is done,” he added. Human Rights Agenda Association President Orhan Kemal Cengiz criticized the case against Çandar and said it runs completely contrary to the idea of freedom of expression. He told Today’s Zaman that Turkey has a serious problem when it comes to freedom of expression and cited two reasons: the law itself and the judges’ restrictive interpretation of it. “Çandar’s words can at most be taken to be strong criticism and should actually be tolerated in any democracy. I think the judge should engage in self-criticism here rather than going after Çandar,” he argued. Cengiz also said that “Çandar’s freedom of expression will be restricted even if he is acquitted in the end” because the trials will put him in a hot spot in which he will no longer feel comfortable expressing his ideas on the matter.
In 2007, Dink was shot dead by a teenager outside the headquarters of the Agos weekly, where he was editor-in-chief. Dink’s friends, his family and rights groups have complained that although the suspected perpetrator and his immediate accomplices have been arrested and put on trial, those who masterminded the plot to kill him have yet to be identified. In his article Çandar based his criticism on the fact that the court forgot to bring a secret witness to the hearing he attended the day before his piece was published and also that the judge did not realize that the witnesses and defendants were sitting next to each other in the courtroom, which he termed too small for such a significant case.
