Government seeks new strategy after Dink defense scandal

The disclosure of the Turkish state’s defense of Dink’s infamous trial for “insulting Turkishness” has caused embarrassment to the government, which says expanding rights and freedoms is a priority. The official defense, which was presented to the European court in November 2009 and whose content was revealed in the media earlier this month, cited the case of a leader of a neo-Nazi organization in Europe while defending the trial of Dink under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).

The Foreign Ministry has said the Turkish statement to the court was simply based on “legal and technical elements” and that it repeated the legal arguments contained in the laws that were enforced at the time of the ruling, dismissing comments that Turkey attempted to legitimize Dink’s murder. But Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu later said he regrets the defense, while Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin said Dink’s case cannot be compared to that of Michael Kühnen, the leader of a German neo-Nazi movement who was convicted of denying the Holocaust and who threatened to eliminate those who tried to stop him.

Officials are now expected to meet at the Foreign Ministry this week to discuss both the Dink case, reviewing options to see if the defense scandal could still be reversed, and ways to prevent similar scandals in the future. Ever since the content of Turkey’s defense became public, the government has faced calls to withdraw it. Another option could be to offer a friendly settlement for Dink’s family, since the case at the European Court of Human Rights is still ongoing.

Officials from foreign, interior, justice and finance ministries will be involved in the talks, which are expected to be chaired by Foreign Minister Davutoğlu, sources told Today’s Zaman. Davutoğlu said last week that he had not signed the document because he was abroad when the defense was filed at the European court. This week’s meeting is expected to tackle, among other things, the coordination among state institutions in similar cases.

A former Turkish judge at the European Court of Human Rights, Rıza Türmen, is also expected to attend the talks at Davutoğlu’s invitation. Commenting on the case, Türmen said earlier that a friendly settlement with Dink’s family could be sought without withdrawing the official defense.

Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian descent who was shot to death by a teenage assailant in January 2007, had filed a case at the European Court of Human Rights seeking annulment of his conviction for insulting Turkishness under Article 301.

Following his assassination, his family filed another complaint at the European court against Turkey, saying that despite the gendarmerie and police having been informed about threats and murder plans against Dink, they had failed to take action to prevent the murder.

The two cases were then combined by the European court. In the defense, Turkey’s lawyers also dismissed charges that it failed to protect Dink, saying he would have asked for protection had there been serious threats to his life.

On Friday, President Abdullah Gül hosted Dink’s brother, Hosrof Dink -- in İstanbul. Dink, speaking to reporters after the one-hour meeting, said he and Gül discussed only private issues. “It was a sharing of pain, that’s all,” he said.

In an apparent rejection of the official defense of the Turkish state in the Dink case, President Gül earlier said that Dink was killed because of a lack of precautionary measures to ensure his safety.

On the third anniversary of his assassination his family, friends and human rights organizations complain that light has still not been shed on the details surrounding his murder, which triggered widespread anger and shock in Turkey and caused massive crowds to take to the streets, chanting “We are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink.”

There is a lengthy list of suspicious irregularities in the investigation into Dink’s murder, including deleted records and hidden files suggestive of an attempted police cover-up. Dink family lawyers have said that much of the evidence indicates that the murder could have been prevented.