Top court upholds Dinks sentence
Turkish Daily News
Jul 13, 2006
The Supreme Court of Appeals General Council on Wednesday agreed to
approve Agos daily Editor in Chief Hrant Dink’s six-month suspended
sentence for "insulting Turkishness" despite the fact that the Supreme
Court of Appeals Prosecutor’s Office argued that Dink was not guilty
of any crime.
The Sisli Second Criminal Court had found Dink guilty of insulting
Turkishness and sentenced him to a six-month suspended sentence. The
Supreme Court of Appeals Ninth Bureau had reversed the suspension,
arguing there was no doubt Dink was guilty of committing the crime.
The decision to suspend the sentence by the Sisli Second Criminal Court
was appealed by Dink, who is seeking acquittal rather than suspension,
and the complainants.
The Supreme Court of Appeals Prosecutor’s Office had sought annulment
of the sentence, arguing that the material and emotional elements of
the crime "insulting Turkishness" had not taken place. The Ninth Bureau
said there was no doubt Dink’s statement, "The clean blood that will
replace the poisoned blood of the Turk is present in the honored veins
that will be established between the Armenian and Armenia," insulted
Turkishness. "It is impossible to justify belittling a society while
praising another with the freedom of expression as defined by the
European Convention on Human Rights," the bureau said.
Dink had argued that what he meant by the statement was that Armenians
had the strength to overcome their destructive hatred of Turks. The
prosecutor’s office can appeal the bureau’s decision, and if it
doesn’t, Dink will be retried by the Sisli Second Criminal Court in
accordance with the Supreme Court of Appeals’ pronouncement.
The prosecutor’s office noted its objection to the bureau’s decision,
arguing that according to the Turkish Penal Code (TSK) all critical
opinions voiced without insult would not require a jail sentence. The
office also argued that Dink’s article should be analyzed in its
entirety, not by analyzing words or sentences. The controversial
sentence Dink used could have two meanings, argued the office, adding,
"One can read the sentence alone and decide it is insulting, or read
the entire article and come to another conclusion." The office argued,
"While the words used may create controversy, disturb people and
create misunderstandings among those who failed to see the article
in its entirety, the author’s intentions should be taken into account."
The office also said Dink’s previous articles in the series should
also be read to understand his stance. Prosecutors said the poisoned
blood cited in the article did not belong to Turks but was the way
Armenians viewed Turks, which poisoned their identity. "That’s why
one needs to understand the fact that the article does not insult
Turks but rather warns Armenians about their attitude, which poisons
their blood. The office also noted that according to the Constitution,
"Turks" meant all citizens of Turkey, without discrimination between
religion or ethnicity, and that as a result the article could only
be viewed as a criticism of Turkish citizens of Armenian origin