Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
HRANT DINK V TURKEY (2010)
Transcript of HRANT DINK V TURKEY (2010)
Denigrating the Turkish Nation, the State of the Turkish Republic,
the Institutions and Organs of the State
1. A person who publicly denigrates Turkish Nation, the State
of the Republic of Turkey, the Grand National Assembly of
Turkey, the Government of the Republic of Turkey or the
judicial bodies of the State, shall be sentenced a penalty of
imprisonment for a term of six months and two years.
2. A person who publicly denigrates the military or security
structures shall be punishable according to the first
3. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not
constitute a crime.
4. The prosecution under this article shall be subject to the
approval of the Minister of Justice.
February 2004: a criminal complaint against Fırat Dink, for his phrase “the purified blood that will replace the blood poisoned by the ‘Turk’ can be found in the noble vein linking Armenians to Armenia”, in one his articles.
October 2005: Şişli Criminal Court found Dink guilty of denigrating Turkish identity and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, suspended. The court held that the public could not be expected to read the whole series of articles in order to grasp the real meaning of his remarks.
European Convention of Human Rights
Art. 10, Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
much debated both in Turkey and internationally. Amended lastly in 2008 to avert more distressing cases related to the freedom of expression and to make its definition more clear, namely making it foreseeable
The concern in any breach should be “protection of democratic institutions” and “maintaining public peace and security”
July 2006: Court of Cassation ruled against Dink, despite report by an expert council saying Dink’s remarks had been incorrectly construed and that his freedom of expression should be protected.
March 2007: Criminal Court to which the case had been remitted discontinued the proceedings on account of the death of Fırat Dink.
State negligence: An informant warned Trabzon gendarmerie officers before. They passed the info. to their superiors. They told they ordered by superiors to deny having received the information.
No effective investigation: Neglecting authorities not prosecuted
The court says analysis of articles showed clearly that what he described as “poison” had not been “Turkish blood”.
Dink's words was not in violation with Art. 301, as expert council also said. Court's uphold of the guilty verdict is in violation with Dink's "freedom of expression."State did not provide Dink with necessary protection. (substantive aspect)
Ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation (procedural aspect)
lack of an in-depth and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and encompassing effective access for the family to the investigation