Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)

July 7 2005

OSCE Media Representative praises Turkey for changing penal code, but
remains concerned

VIENNA, 7 July 2005 – The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the
Media, Miklos Haraszti, today praised the Turkish authorities for
introducing important changes to the new Penal Code, following a
legal review his Office produced last May listing 23 provisions that
needed to be revoked.

However, “despite some improvements, the amendments do not
sufficiently eliminate threats to freedom of expression and to a free
press,” Mr Haraszti said.

The revised Turkish Penal Code was finally approved by parliament on
Wednesday, 29 June. It now has to be published in the Official
Gazette in order to enter into force.

Out of the 23 changes the OSCE Representative suggested in May, seven
provisions have been brought into line with media freedom principles.

A welcome improvement is the deletion of most of the provisions which
assumed stronger sanctions when the media was involved. Turkish
lawmakers acknowledged that information about crimes could be in the
interest of free discussion of public affairs.

Relating to Article 305 on “offences against fundamental national
interests”, the Representative noted with satisfaction that two
examples in the explanatory “Reasoning Document” – making it a crime
to demand the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus or to claim
that Armenians were exposed to genocide – have been removed.

On a negative note, however, Mr Haraszti observed three major areas
where media freedom remains endangered:

* the right of journalists to report and discuss on public-interest
issues is not secured;
* restrictions on access and disclosure of information have not been
lifted;
* defamation and insult provisions remain a criminal rather than a
civil offence, thereby leaving the free discussion of public affairs
at risk.

The Representative expressed his hope that modernisation of the
Turkish Penal Code would continue in the spirit of improving the
freedom of public scrutiny, while the provisions promoting
self-censorship would all be removed.

The original legal review can be found at