Federation of Armenian Organisations in The Netherlands (FAON)
Address: Weesperstraat 91
2574 VS The Hague, The Netherlands
Telephone: +31704490209
Email: [email protected]
Website:
Contact: M. Hakhverdian
PRESS RELEASE
Dutch Foreign Minister Verhagen: Condemnation of Zarakolu not in line with
EU norms
The Hague, 20 June 2008 – The Federation of Armenian Organisations of the
Netherlands (FAON) was informed that Dutch Foreign Minister Verhagen, also
on behalf of the Secretary of State for European Affairs in his answers on
written questions that Members of four factions in Dutch Parliament, namely
the Christian Union, the SGP (Political Reformed Party), the VVD (Liberal
Party) and the CDA (Christian Democrats), had submitted about the five month
sentence of Turkish publisher Ragip Zarakolu for publishing a book about the
Armenian Genocide, indicated that this condemnation is not in line with the
norms that the EU stipulates with regard to the freedom of expression. The
Dutch government will continue, bilaterally as well as in the EU contaxt, to
press for the removal of all obstacles that prevent a free discussion on
this issue, as this is of eminent importance to face the past. A definite
conclusion on whether further amendments of the Turkish penal code will be
necessary, only after the verdict of the Court, where the appeal of Mr
Zarakolu is still pending.
The litteral text of the Minister’s answers are as follows:
Hereby, I submit to you, also on behalf of the State Secretary for European
Affairs, the answers to the written questions by the Members Van der Staaij,
Voordewind, Van Baalen and Ormel on condemnation of a Turkish writer because
of publication of a book on the Armenian Genocide. The questions were sent
on 24 June 2008 with reference number 2070823460.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Drs. M.J.M. Verhagen
Answers by Mr. Verhagen, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Timmermans,
State Secretary for European Affairs on the questions submitted by
parliament members: Van der Staaij, SGP, (Political Reformed Party),
Voordewind, CU (Christian Union), Van Baalen, VVD (Liberal Party) and Ormel,
CDA (Christian Democrats) on the condemnation of a Turkish writer because of
publication of a book on Armenian Genocide.
Question 1. Have you been noticed that a Turkish publisher has been
sentenced to five months in prison for publishing a book about the Armenian
Genocide of 1915?
Answer to question 1: Yes
Question 2. What is your opinion on this conviction, which is based on the
controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code?
Question 5. To what extent is this Turkish sentence in defiance of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the European
Convention on Human Rights?
Answer on questions 2 and 5: This conviction is not in line with the norms
that the EU stipulates with regard to the freedom of expression.
Question 3. The respective controversial Articles in the Turkish Penal Code
have been adapted quite recently under pressure of the EU to be better able
to garantuee the freedom of speech in Turkey, especially in relation to the
Armenian Genocide. Does this conviction mean that these amendment has been
just cosmetic? What can be concluded about the scope and the meaning of
Article 301 after this conviction?
Question 4. What are the steps that the Minister intends to take bilaterally
and in the EU context to address the Turkish government on this sentence?
Question 6. What are the consequences of this conviction, according to the
Minister, for the EU accession negotiations with Turkey, bearing in mind the
Motion 21501-20, Nr. 270 by former MP Mr. Rouvoet and associates, adopted by
this Chamber?
Answer op the questions 3, 4 and 6: Mr. Zarakolu is going to appeal against
the decision with the Court of Cassation both procedurally and
substantially. Because the case is still pending, it can as yet not be
determined whether the recent amendment of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal
Code has produced the expected result.
The case against Mr. Zarakolu has been filed in December 2004 on the ground
of Article 159 of the old Turkish penal code. The Minister of Justice of the
time has then agreed with the lodging of this complaint. In June 2005,
Article 159 has been abolished and replaced by Article 301, which was later,
on 29 April inst., amended. Also, on the ground of the amended Article 301,
complaints can be lodged with the permission of the Turkish Minister of
Justice. Because, already in 2004 the permission of the Minister of Justice
of the time for filing of the complaint had been obtained, the judge has
opined that there is no need to request anew the permission of the present
Minister of Justice for this.
One of the questions which lies with the Court of Cassation at this time is
whether for this new complaint permission of the present Minister of Justice
had to be obtained. The judgment of the Court of Cassation will be binding
for all going matters for which permission had been given. This is of
importance, because the first set of complaints, which have been filed after
the amendment of Article 301, have in the meantime been rejected by the
present Minister of Justice. This refers to the fact that a restrictive
policy is pursued as regards granting of permission to bring such cases
before the courts.
Only after the verdict of the Court of Cassation can a definitive conclusion
be drawn on whether further amendment of the Turkish penal code concerning
freedom of expression is necessary.
Needless to say, the Dutch government will continue, bilaterally and in the
EU context, to press for the removal of all obstacles that prevent a free
discussion of the Armenian question. This is of paramount importance for
acknowledging and getting over with the horrible events which have taken
place around 1915.