 |
European court to release Dink ruling next Tuesday
In its complaint, the Dink family’s arguments relied, in particular, on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights -- which emphasizes an individual’s right to life -- and alleged that the state had failed in its obligation to protect Hrant Dink’s life and to further conduct an effective investigation to determine the culpability of state agents.
Regarding the latter point the family’s arguments relied on Article 13, which emphasizes a right to effective remedy. Under Article 10 -- which emphasizes an individual’s right to freedom of expression -- they criticized Dink’s being found guilty in 2006 of “denigrating Turkish identity,” under Article 301 of the Turkish Penalty Code. They claimed this verdict made him a target of extremist nationalist groups. Dink, who was shot dead by a teenage assailant in January 2007, had filed a case at the ECtHR seeking the 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 fact that the gendarmerie and police had been informed about threats and murder plans against Dink, they failed to take action to prevent the murder. The two cases were then combined by the ECtHR. The ECtHR said it will release the related chamber judgment on Sept. 14.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry has recently come under fire over its defense at the ECtHR regarding the Dink case. In the case, Turkey claimed that Dink insulted Turkishness and used hate speech, that his articles provoked people and constituted a delictum publicum. The Turkish government also claimed that “if Dink had been genuinely and imminently threatened, he would have approached local authorities and asked for protection.”
Furthermore, the Turkish government drew a parallel between Dink and a neo-Nazi leader, likening Dink’s trial to the trial of neo-Nazi leader Michael Kühnen, in Kühnen v. Federal Republic of Germany.
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who was constantly annoyed by this line of defense, sought an amicable settlement with the Dink family; however, it was not accepted.
Eventually, the Turkish government decided not to defend itself in cases concerning freedom of expression that have been filed against it at ECtHR. It decided, instead, to seek amicable settlement in those cases. Furthermore, related ministries have been working in coordination to find out what laws lead to cases being filed against Turkey at the European court so that suggestions can be made for their change.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BÜLENT KENEŞ |  |
||
| What befell Niyazi-i Misri in the past is happening to Fethullah Gülen now | |||
| EKREM DUMANLI |  |
||
| When a call for fairness and reason finds acceptance | |||
| ŞAHİN ALPAY |  |
||
| Uludere, test case for democracy in Turkey | |||
| EMRE USLU |  |
||
| Are the Kurds mentally divorced from Turkey? | |||
| GÖKHAN BACIK |  |
||
| Erdoğan, Gül and Davutoğlu: the inner bargain on Turkish foreign policy | |||
| MARKAR ESAYAN |  |
||
| Taking lessons from previous experiences with the military | |||
| YAVUZ BAYDAR |  |
||
| Qualm | |||
| ÖMER TAŞPINAR |  |
||
| A new phase in Syria? | |||
| İHSAN DAĞI |  |
||
| Turkish foreign policy: Time for a re-evaluation | |||
| SEYFETTİN GÜRSEL |  |
||
| Poor-friendly economic growth and the AK Party | |||
| CHARLOTTE MCPHERSON |  |
||
| Missing women, missing opportunities | |||
| BERK ÇEKTİR |  |
||
| Changes to incentives for investment in Turkey | |||
| MERVE BÜŞRA ÖZTÜRK |  |
||
| The 1960 coup: a final test for democracy | |||
| AMANDA PAUL |  |
||
| Ukraine: a lost country | |||
| MÜMTAZER TÜRKÖNE |  |
||
| The 52nd anniversary of May 27 | |||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
