PRESIDENTIAL REPORT BACKS PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR ROLE IN DINK MURDER
Today’s Zaman
Feb 21 2012
Turkey
A new report from the country’s top office is expected to put much
needed support behind judges and prosecutors who are currently
conducting investigations into several public officials for their
role in the murder of Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos’ editor Hrant Dink.
The State Audit Institution (DDK), which started the investigation
into the issue last year in January and posted it on the website of
the presidential office on Monday, has stated that a threat against
Dink’s life was known by the police and gendarmerie officials who
failed to take the necessary measures in light of early warnings and
tips about the plot to kill Dink.
The report also noted that the seriousness of the actions of public
officials in the run up to the murder has not been understood and the
link between their actions and the murder could not be established,
leading to the failure of all of the investigations into public
officials.
The DDK report came out at a time when there is a secret investigation
into some public officials who allegedly had roles in preventing the
murder of Dink, who was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager in
broad daylight. Dink was convicted in 2005 for “insulting Turkishness”
in a newspaper article, despite an expert report that he had not
committed the said charge. He received threats from extremist rightist
groups and ultranationalist circles until he was murdered, causing
outrage among many Turks who joined a massive demonstration on the
day of his funeral.
The 650-page report stated that the DDK’s authority is limited in
conducting such an investigation, and it should avoid influencing
the judiciary, but it evaluates the situation in the face of the
ECtHR ruling, which declared in September 2010 that Turkey failed to
fulfill its duty to protect the life of Dink and included a reference
to possible links between the 2007 murder of Dink and Ergenekon,
a clandestine terrorist group accused of plotting a military coup
against the government.
“In that context, there is a decision to evaluate laws and regulations
criticized in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling in
relation to the prosecution of the public officials,” the report
stated, adding that only a part of the report — the conclusion with
some parts covered with black — was made public because of an ongoing
investigation by the prosecution into some public officials. “The
first point is that it is understood that there are structural problems
in the security sector related to the failure to protect the life of
Hrant Dink.
In this framework, in the murder of Hrant Dink and in similar
events (murder in the Council of State, murders of intellectuals
and journalists, Sivas and MaraÅ~_ events), there were problems in
institutional structures and practices in relation to the collection
and evaluation of intelligence and providing individual security;
therefore, there is a need to touch on the ‘need for reform’,” the
report stated.
Cem Halavurt, a co-plaintiff lawyer for the Dink family, told Today’s
Zaman that there are several positive elements in the DDK report,
and there are some unknowns due to the secrecy of some parts.
“The report made the point that we have long been making in regards
to Law 4483, which protects public officials,” he said. “It also
makes another point that we have long been making, and it is that
public officials who are suspects can be tried in accordance with
the Turkish Penal Code’s related articles.”
Co-plaintiff lawyers for the Dink family have been defending the
view that in order to solve the murder of Dink, the whole picture
should be seen, and this cannot be done with one separate case in
Trabzon, another in Samsun and yet another in Ä°stanbul; therefore,
all the separate cases should be combined. One example of that is in
a separate case in Trabzon in which a public official was punished
with a prison sentence of six months for dereliction of duty. However,
the lawyers of the Dink family say if that case was part of the main
murder trial, then it would be possible to ask for this official’s
punishment under Articles 83 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code [TCK].
Article 83 relates to malicious murder by dereliction of duty. And
Article 220 clearly states that if someone contributes to organized
crimes intentionally, then that person needs to be tried and punished
accordingly.
“We don’t know yet if the DDK report goes further to reveal
organizational links of the public officials in the murder,” Halavurt
said. “The team from the DDK worked well. They called us for submission
of many documents. But we don’t know yet how far they went.
We expect to receive the full report from them. And as this report
comes from the top office of the Turkish state, judges and prosecutors
should feel the courage to reveal all the facts, all of the wrongful
acts of public officials.”
The Dink case was closed last month in the five-year-long murder
trial with a verdict saying that the suspects had no ties to a larger
crime network but acted alone — even though government officials,
politicians and commentators have asserted that this cannot be true.
Even Judge Rustem Eryılmaz, who delivered the verdict, said —
amid growing outrage over the trial that many feel has failed to
shed light on alleged official negligence or even collaboration —
that while he personally cannot deny the murder was the work of
an organized network, the evidence submitted to the court was not
sufficient to issue such a ruling.
The trial ended with conviction of the hitman and his instigator. The
ruling was appealed as both the prosecution and lawyers on behalf of
the Dink family believe the killers are affiliated with the Ergenekon
network, whose suspected members currently stand trial on charges of
plotting to overthrow the government.
The gunman, Ogun Samast, and 18 others were brought to trial. During
the process, lawyers for the Dink family and the co-plaintiffs in the
case presented evidence indicating that Samast was not acting alone.
Samast stood trial in a juvenile court because he was a minor at
the time of the murder, and he was sentenced to 22 years 10 months
in prison.
The report by the DDK made a reference to Samast — who was
photographed after being captured, posing in front of a Turkish flag
and holding another flag next to security officials, indicating that
he was given the hero treatment — saying that it is necessary “to
confront with marginal understandings that gave a flag to the killer
of Hrant Dink.”
In a separate trial, two gendarmerie officers were convicted on
charges of “dereliction of duty” in the run-up to the Dink murder.
Another suspect, Yasin Hayal, was given life in prison for inciting
Samast to murder.
“The DDK report presents new opportunities,” said law professor
Hakan Hakeri.
Since opinions in the Turkish press indicate that a new investigation
should be started into the murder of Dink, he added that it is not
technically possible to start another investigation into the suspects
because the case is under review by the Supreme Court of Appeals.
“However, if the top court overrules the verdict, then a new
investigation can be possible. Additionally, with the DDK report,
investigations can be started against people who have never been
investigated before,” he said.
In late January, a group of people who identify themselves as “Hrant’s
Friends” released a press statement pointing out “untouchable”
officials allegedly responsible for Dink’s murder. The list included
Muammer Guler, who was the governor of Ä°stanbul at the time and
currently a lawmaker. Guler was listed as being responsible because
Dink was threatened by two MİT officials, Ozel Yılmaz and Handan
Selcuk, at the office of Deputy Governor Ergun Gungör.
Other individuals listed as being responsible for Dink’s assassination
include Osmaniye Governor Celalettin Cerrah, who was the Ä°stanbul
chief of police at the time of the murder; Ahmet Ä°lhan Guler,
then head of intelligence at the Ä°stanbul Police Department;
ReÅ~_at Altay, then Trabzon police chief; Engin Dinc, then head of
intelligence at the Trabzon Police Department and the man who told
the Ä°stanbul Police Department that Dink was going to be killed;
and Ali Oz, the then commander of the Trabzon Gendarmerie Command,
who covered up information regarding plans to murder Dink.