TWO YEARS ON: LAWYERS SUMMARISE DINK TRIAL
BIA Magazine
Jan 19 2009
Turkey
The trial of the murder of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink
started on 2 July 2007 in Istanbul. In the following, lawyers Fethiye
Cetin and Deniz Tuna summarise events of the trial.
Two years have passed since Hrant Dink’s murder. In a report a year
ago we evaluated the trial so far thus:
*The murder of Hrant Dink, preparations for his murder, making him
a public target, encouraging his murder, the involvement of security
forces, the preparation of a hitman and the carrying out of the murder
are all part of the same process. However, although this sequence
of events needs to be looked at as a whole, it has been separated
into parts. Thus, the organs investigating the events are blind to
the whole sequence. If the period before and after the murder is
not considered together with the murder, then the Hrant Dink murder
investigation will not reach any conclusions.
*Security forces and all intelligence units had determined that Hrant
Dink’s life was under serious and imminent threat. Intelligence units
had even been informed of all the details concerning the murder
plan. Nevertheless, no precautions were taken. On the contrary,
some public officers tried to cover up evidence and hid information
about the gravity of the situation from each other. The gendarmerie,
the police force and MIT (Turkish secret service) did not share any
information about Hrant Dink’s murder. On the contrary, we have seen
that they kept information from each other and, after the murder,
accused each other.
*During the investigation, those public officers being investigated
continued on active duty. These were people in leading positions,
and they were involved in handing in documents for the investigation
themselves. That is, the investigation was based on the evidence
handed in by those under investigation. This alone shows that the
investigation cannot have been independent or reliable.
*Those public officers being investigated did not only offer documents
to the administrative investigation, but also to the Istanbul Chief
Public Prosecutor’s Office investigating the murder of Hrant Dink. Some
of them are even today giving evidence and documents in the court
case running at the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court. It is clear that
Hrant Dink’s murder will not be solved as long as these officers
continue on active duty and are allowed to hand over information,
documents and evidence.
Unfortunately, two years after the murder, the above statements still
hold true. There have been no positive developments. […]
Main Court Case The main development in this case, where a total
of 19 suspects were on trial last year (8 of them in detention),
is that another suspect is on trial. Osman Hayal, the elder brother
of suspect Yasin Hayal, has been found to have been in Istanbul on
the day of the murder. Initially a witness in the case, he has now
been added to the trial as a defendant.
Case No. 2007/428 of the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court is still
continuing in the same building because no more suitable building
has been found. However, the location has been technically equipped
to record the hearings.
In June 2008, following the 18th birthday of the man accused of
carrying out the shooting, the court hearings were opened to the
public. Since then, the court hearings have been attended by as many
members of the public and the press as the location permits.
Demands from our side to combine the separate investigations in
Istanbul (where the murder took place), Trabzon (where the hitman
and other accused lived) and Samsun (where the hitman was caught)
because there have been legal connections and shared activities have
been rejected continuously. It is noteworthy that the reasons given
for these rejections have not been satisfactory or legal.
Many times, joint attorneys have filed complaints against security
forces at the Trabzon and Istanbul Prosecutor’s Offices, the Trabzon
Criminal Court of Peace as well as the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court
under Article 83 of the Turkish Criminal Law, arguing that members of
the security forces knew about plans to kill Hrant Dink, but neither
prevented the murder nor protected him. However, after each complaint,
both prosecutors and courts ignored the obligations of the law and
rejected these complaints with legally unconvincing arguments.
Istanbul Police Force Following Law 4483, three preliminary
investigations against Istanbul police officers were initiated
immediately after the murder. However, the regional administrative
court put an end to these three investigations with an uncalled for
and openly illegal decree.
Investigators commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior sent the
case file to experts twice. These expert intelligence officers were
asked to write a report on whether Istanbul police officers acted
negligently after receiving information sent from Trabzon. Based
on the expert opinion, the investigators prepared a report in which
they held the whole Istanbul police force, including chief of police
Celalettin Cerrah, guilty of negligence.
Although Istanbul police officers claimed they had acted appropriately
after the Trabzon police force sent them information on 17 February
2006 (that is, previous to the murder), the expert report and
preliminary investigation showed that this was not the case. Measures
against Yasin and Osman Hayal were only taken after the murder had
been committed. In addition, the experts and investigators expressed
their suspicion that fake documents were created to cover up the fact
that this only happened after the murder.
Despite these three preliminary investigations and two expert
reports, as well as permission for investigation given by the
Istanbul governor’s office three times, six police officers, including
Istanbul head of intelligence Ahmet Ä°lhan Guler, were exempted from
investigation by the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court. The
court ignored five folders with thousands of pages of documents, as
well as the reports. This court decision forced the joint attorneys
to apply to the European Court of Human Rights, as well as to file
a complaint against the judges of the administrative court with the
Council of Judges and Prosecutors.
Trabzon Police Force While the Istanbul police force is suspected of
knowing all the details of the planned murder and not doing anything
to prevent it, and then of obscuring and destroying evidence after
the murder, members of the Trabzon police force have also escaped
any attribution of blame in the investigations.
The preliminary report prepared under Law 4483, as well as a decree by
the Governor’s Province Administrative Council, have found the Trabzon
police force to be blameless. Permission to investigate any officer
was not given. The objection of the joint attorneys was rejected
by the Trabzon Regional Administrative Court in a two-line decree,
thus leaving no other options in domestic law.
The Trabzon Chief Prosecutor’s Office decided after its
investigation of the Trabzon police force that there was no need for
prosecution. When the joint attorneys filed an objection at the Rize
Heavy Penal Court, it was rejected. Again, there are no other options
in domestic law for the joint attorneys to explore, so they have taken
the two cases against the Trabzon police force to the European Court
of Human Rights.
Trabzon Gendarmerie Officers Following a preliminary investigation
of officers at the Trabzon gendamerie, two gendarmerie officers,
Okan Å~^imÅ~_ek and Veysel Å~^ahin, were taken to the Trabzon
2nd Criminal Court of Peace, charged with negligence. In their
statements in court on 20 March 2008, the two officers said that
they had received intelligence that Yasin Hayal’s brother-in-law
CoÅ~_kun Ä°gci was going to kill Hrant Dink. They said that they
informed their superiors, but that their commander Ali Oz changed
the topic, saying, "We will talk about this later"; the topic was
never discussed again. Following their statement, other gendarmerie
officers were questioned and supported the statement.
The Trabzon 2nd Criminal Court of Peace then sent the file to the
Trabzon Prosecution in order to file a complaint against Trabzon
Gendarmerie Commander Colonel Ali Oz and other officers. The
prosecution combined this file with the complaint filed by the joint
attorneys and applied for a preliminary investigation to the Ministry
of the Interior. Investigators commissioned by the Ministry decided
to initiate an investigation against these officers. The Trabzon
Prosecution then prepared an indictment against Ali Oz, Metin Yıldız,
Huseyin Yılmaz, H. Omer Unalır, Gazi Gunay, Okan Å~^imÅ~_ek, Veysel
Å~^ahin and Onder Araz and decided to start a trial.
Although the trial of Å~^imÅ~_ek and Å~^ahin had raised expectations,
it looks as if the state will respond in its usual manner. The
Trabzon 2nd Criminal Court of Peace came to the conclusion that the
crime could not be considered a simple neglect of duty, and thus sent
the file to the Heavy Penal Court to open a trial under Article 83
of Turkish Criminal Law (see above). However, the Criminal Court of
First Instance charged with decreeing on this change of courts decided,
without offering satisfactory arguments, that the case should continue
to be heard at the Criminal Court of Peace.
Samsun Police and Gendarmerie Officers One development which has shaken
people’s trust in the justice system is the acquittal of Samsun police
officers. Everyone knows that when Ogun Samast, the man accused of
shooting Hrant Dink, was caught in Samsun, he was taken to the police
station. Perhaps because he was under 18 years old, he was not taken
to the cells, but kept in the tea room. He was with police officers
and gendarmerie officers. They queued up to have their photos taken
with Samast, posing with a Turkish flag. Special care was also taken
to include a calendar with the slogan "The soil of the motherland
is holy, and it will not be abandoned" in the pictures. Although
these officers treated a murder suspect not like a suspect but like
a hero, although they took photos in their official uniforms, and
although their identities were known, only two officers were taken to
trial. What were they accused of? Of not preventing the pictures from
being leaked to the press and of holding the accused in the tea room.
Apart from these two officers, the Samsun Chief Public Prosecutor’s
Office has decided that there is no reason for prosecution. Joint
attorneys objected to the CarÅ~_amba Heavy Penal Court. Following a
rejection of the objection, they were forced to appeal to the European
Court of Human Rights.
The two police officers on trial were acquitted by the Samsun 4th
Criminal Court of First Instance. The joint attorneys have lodged
an appeal.
Report of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee The Parliamentary
Human Rights Committee has published its report on the Hrant Dink
murder. On page 183 of the report, the committee comes to the following
conclusions:
"Police and gendarmerie officers knew of a threat to Hrant Dink. He
died because notes on this threat were not researched fully and
necessary action was not taken. Despite the fact that CoÅ~_kun Ä°gci
was a registered informant of the Province Gendarmerie Command,
information and intelligence coming from him was insufficiently
investigated and evaluated. Despite the fact that the administrative
units knew about the threat, there was neglect at each stage, and
nothing done to prevent the murder.
Article 17 of our constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention
on Human Rights states that everyone has a right to life. The state
did not fulfill its duty of protecting this right to life."
This report thus reiterates what all previous investigations found:
that all security forces knew about a planned murder of Hrant Dink
but did nothing to prevent it.
Prime Ministerial Review Committee On 2 December 2008, the Prime
Ministerial Review Committee prepared a report confirming the
findings about the security forces in previous reports. In addition,
new information was unearthed. While such new information may seem
like a ray of hope, at the same time this information did not come
out during the countless previous investigations, and it has not
reached the courts dealing with the trials.
In part of the report, it says:
"The Trabzon Province Police Force received intelligence about a
planned murder of Hrant Dink around a year before. It did not fulfill
its duty of investigating the intelligence and planning an operation
and of informing the Istanbul Police Force and the Intelligence
Department.
Similarly, following a letter from the Trabzon Intelligence Unit to the
Istanbul Intelligence Unit on 17 February 2006, in which it said that
"work on the person are continuing", as well as a phone conversation
between officers of the branches talking about this letter, in
which it was said that Istanbul was to be informed of developments,
and following a report of 7 April 2006 with additional information,
the necessary institutions were not informed."
"…Despite intelligence information frmo Yasin Hayal that there was
a plan to murder Hrant Dink, a letter from Armenian Patriarch Mesrob
Mutafyan, death threats made to Hrant Dink, as well as other events
during the period that Hrant Dink was on trial, the Istanbul Police
Force did nothing towards protecting Hrant Dink and did not show the
necessary sensitivity in carrying out its duties."
Thus, according to the findings of the Review Committee, the Trabzon
and Istanbul Police failed to do their duty. The committee also found:
"Despite the fact that, following the letter by the Trabzon
Intelligence Unit from 17 February 2006, there was enough information
(particularly after the dismissal of informant Erhan Tuncel) to
coordinate between the units towards a possible operation, to follow
events and to take measures to protect Hrant Dink, we have concluded
that C Branch Chief Ali Fuat Yılmazer, who neglected to carry out the
necessary evaluations and protective measures outlined in the circular
concerning the Programme of Targeted Persons, as well as Ramazan
Akyurek and other officers, who acted negligently, despite acting as
Central Intelligence Unit deputy chiefs and as Intelligence Unit chief
(Akyurek), should be investigated in a preliminary investigation of
the Ministry of the Interior, following Law No. 4483.
This report is signed by the Prime Minister, and it remains to be
seen what will happen.
[…] BBP and Nationalist Organisations Another issue that has to
be considered is the suspects on trial are either members of the BBP
(Great Unity Party) and the nationalist Alperen Hearths, or, if they
are not members, they had a lot of contact with them.
Since 2002, suspect Yasin Hayal always had relations with the
Nizam-ı-Alem Hearths, an organisaiton with ideological and political
connections to the BBP; he attended meetings and worked there as a
teamaker. When the Nizam-ı-Alem Hearths changed their name to Alperen
Hearths, this relation continued. When Yasin Hayal beat up the priest
of the Santa Maria church, faked bomb alarms, bombed McDonald’s and
took part in the planning of Hrant Dink’s murder, he was a member of
the BBP.
Suspect Erhan Tuncel was in similar intensive contact with the BBP and
the Alperen Hearths; this is where he met Yasin Hayal. Erhan fought
for the leadership of the hearth with Mustafa Ozturk. The BBP was
also important to him. When the chair of the BBP came to Trabzon,
Erhan Tuncel was one of those accompanying him around the city. He
was on sufficiently intimate friendly terms with the chair to talk to
him about Yasin. According to Erhan’s statements in court, he still
has the key to the hearth meeting place.
Mustafa Ozturk was the leader of the Alperen Hearth when the murder
was being planned. It is said that the prospective murderers were
brought to the hearth and introduced to him, and that details of the
plan were discussed there.
When YaÅ~_ar Cihan was BBP Trabzon Province party chair, he supported
Yasin in prison, both materially and morally. Similarly, Halis Egemen,
then BBP central party officer, supported Yasin Hayal and his family
after the latter went to prison for bombing McDonald’s.
A recent television programme broadcast on TRT, entitled "The
Labyrinth of Shahs", shows what Hrant Dink represented to the BBP
and its supporters. One of the programme advisors appearing on the
programme as a witness to the MaraÅ~_ massacre (1978, over 100 people
were killed), OkkeÅ~_ Å~^endiller, is a founder and member of the
BBP. He made untruthful and criminal statements, insulting Hrant Dink
and, with the party’s racist views, made Armenians a public target
yet again. The BBP, with its openly racist and xenophobic ideology,
needs to be watched carefully.
As long as politics, language and culture are not cleansed of this
racist hatred and violent discourses, and as long as the propagators of
such discourses do not face sanctions, there is no guarantee against
more such murders being carried out.
Conclusions *The following question still remains unanswered: Why,
despite the findings of the reports of the Parliamentary Human Rights
Committee and the Prime Ministerial Review Committee, have those
security units who neglected to act on the grave and imminent threat
that Hrant Dink was under and did not provide security not been put
on trial?
*At this point it has become clear that MIT (secret service),
gendarmerie and police did not fulfill their responsibilities,
did not cooperate and coordinate, kept information and intelligence
from each other, and started to accuse each other in order to shift
blame. Although these three organisations are clashing, they are
surprisingly united on two issues:
Despite knowing that Hrant Dink would be killed, they were decisive
not to do anything to protect him.
They were determined to treat Hrant Dink’s murder suspect(s) as heroes.
*As was pointed out above, investigations carried out in this way
will not solve the murder. It is clear, once again, that the time
before and after the murder have to be investigated together, and
that court cases have to be merged.
*According to information emerging during the trial, Yasin Hayal
(involved in planning in the murder), his brother Osman Hayal (who
is strongly suspected of being at the crime scene during the murder)
and Hrant Dink were all under police surveillance. Similarly, murdered
priest Andrea Santoro (killed in Trabzon in 2006) and the three men
killed in Malatya in 2007 were all under police surveillance at the
time of their murders. It is highly though provoking that the state is
able to let people under surveillance be killed, and that the murder
suspects, also under surveillance, are not pursued.
*If the state wants to rid itself of responsibility of this murder,
it must at least prosecute those in its institutions who have found
to be responsible. The justice system must treat all the court cases
and investigations as a whole.
–Boundary_(ID_stDgevNT/pxRnRTuiIICEg)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
