Author: Tatoyan Vazgen

OSCE chief, Azeri leaders discuss Karabakh, parliamentary polls
Space TV, Baku
2 Apr 05
[Presenter] Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Speaker Murtuz
Alasgarov have met the OSCE chairman-in-office, Dimitrij Rupel, who is
visiting Azerbaijan. Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and the head
of the Azerbaijani community of Karabakh, Nizami Bahmanov, also had a
meeting with Rupel this morning.
[Correspondent over video of a news conference] Following the meeting,
Elmar Mammadyarov and Dimitrij Rupel held a briefing. The Slovenian
guest said that although the visit was short, the talks touched on the
main issues.
[Rupel speaking with Azeri voice-over] Our main goal is to cooperate
with each other peacefully. The main issues discussed at the meeting
with Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov were the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict and parliamentary elections to be held in autumn.
The negotiations should be continued to settle the conflict peacefully.
I have heard some interesting things here, which could help us with
the peaceful settlement of the conflict.
[Correspondent] Asked by journalists whether he said that Nagornyy
Karabakh was a disputed territory between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
Rupel declined to give a precise answer, neither confirming nor
denying it.
As for the fact that the Armenian community of Karabakh is not taking
part in the talks, Rupel said that he had already met both the
Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of Karabakh. Quote, we should
listen to various views and opinions. But we cannot change the format
of the peace process, end quote.
Mr Rupel also talked about the parliamentary elections to be held in
autumn. Quote, we should make sure that transparency and democracy are
observed in the elections. It is interesting that there are powerful
authorities and weak opposition in the country. But despite this, we
do not support any side unilaterally. We are trying to help, end
quote.
After this, the OSCE chairman-in office said that while in Armenia, he
discussed the handover of the three soldiers of our national army
taken captive by the Armenian side. He said that the Armenian
authorities promised to return them within a short period of time. But
Rupel could not say the exact time of the handover.
As for the truce violations on the front line, Mr Rupel said that this
situation was due to the lengthy peace process. This is connected with
the peace process. If the negotiating process does yield any results,
this might lead to more incidents. That’s why, meetings to achieve
peace should be continued, end quote.
Asif Aliyev, Rovsan Valiyev, Space.

Peace talks will cease if ‘Prague meetings’ fruitless – President
Nation
30 March 05

Peace talks with Armenia will be halted if the Prague process yields
no results, President Ilham Aliyev told the third congress of the
ruling New Azerbaijan Party on Saturday. “If the Prague talks turn out
fruitless, we will face a different situation. There will be no longer
any need for negotiations and Azerbaijan will have to make major
changes to its strategy and political approaches.”
Aliyev said that international legal norms, economic and military
potential and justice are in favour of Azerbaijan. The Azeri people
will never accept losing their native land and will liberate the
territories by all means, hesaid.
The President noted that the tendencies observed in the talks are also
in favour of Azerbaijan.
Armenia’s non-constructive position is impeding the conflict
resolution, he added.
The Armenian government says the resumption of hostilities is not
likely.
“The chances for resuming the Armenia-Azerbaijan war are slim. Yerevan
has no plans to resume military action”, says Armenian Prime Minister
Andranik Margarian.
Margarian said Armenia does not recognize the independence of the
“Upper Garabagh Republic” to avoid negatively affecting the ongoing
talks.
The Armenian official said Armenia disburses loans to the separatist
regime to ensure acceptable social conditions for the population in
Garabagh.
Allocation of loans is legalized by the Armenian government, which
means that Armenia de-facto recognizes the independence of Upper
Garabagh.
The Armenian President’s national security adviser Garnik Isagulian
told Interfax news agency that the positions of Armenia and Azerbaijan
on the Upper Garabagh conflict have not drawn closer thus far and
major results should not be expected in this area soon. Azerbaijan
sees the conflict resolution within its territorial integrity, while
Armenia insists on Upper Garabagh’s gaining independence, he said.
“The truce agreement was signed by three parties: Azerbaijan, Garabagh
and Armenia, with the latter signing the document as a guarantor of
Garabagh’s security”, the Armenian official added.
The next meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers
within the “Prague talks” on the conflict settlement, which started in
2004, is scheduled for mid – April.

Turkish Press
March 30 2005
Press Scan
HERE IS DOCUMENT OF ARMENIAN CONFESSION
TURKIYE- Armenian Dashnak Party said, ”we formed gangs after the
Russians came, and we massacred 30,000 Turks in (eastern city of)
Van.” Here are some highlights of the report submitted by this party
to the Socialist International: ”We tried to kill Sultan Abdulhamid
II on June 8th, 1905. 40 people died but we could not reach him. We
killed Van Governor as a retaliation. We achieved to gather the
Armenians in all villages under a single flag. We formed gangs in
villages of Bitlis and Van. The Armenians rebelled after the Russians
attacked on Van in 1915. Our rebellion reached its peak in April. We
killed 30,000 Muslims in Van in a few days. Russian Czar Nikolai II
sent us a ‘thank you’ message.”

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
March 29, 2005 Tuesday 9:02 AM Eastern Time
Armenia should join Europe without conflicts – speaker
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
Armenian parliament speaker Artur Bagdasaryan said the country
“should join the family of European states without conflicts.” He
made the statement as he opened a parliamentary hearing on Tuesday
over the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
“The Karabakh conflict should be settled on the basis of mutual
compromises, the safety of Nagorno Karabakh being the main issue,”
Bagdasaryan said.
The problem should have such a solution as to ensure dignity of our
people and free self-determination of Karabakh residents on the basis
of the principles of international law,” the speaker said underlining
that political speculations in this issue will avail nothing.
Taking part in the hearing was Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanyan who said there can be no military solution of the Nagorno
Karabakh problem.
“The Karabakh conflict cannot be settled under coercion, by a third
state or by adopting a document by an international organization,”
Oskanyan emphasized.
Armenia’s main approach envisions the right for Karabakh Armenians
for self-determination and its international acknowledgement, the
minister noted.
A settlement – including the elimination of consequences of military
actions, i.e. the liberation of the occupied territories – is only
possible if Azerbaijan recognizes this right which then should be
officially committed to record.
A new meeting between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan –
Robert Kocharyan and Ilkham Aliyev – will take place in May,
according to the minister.

Unsilencing the Past: A book on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation efforts
Turkish Daily News
March 28 2005
Monday, March 28, 2005
Book Review
ANKARA – Turkish Daily News
Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation by David L. Phillips (Berghahn Books, New York/Oxford)
describes efforts to promote contact, dialogue, and cooperation
between Turks and Armenians. Established in 2001, the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) broke a taboo about
Armenian issues in Turkey and spawned many civil society projects
involving business leaders, women’s associations, youth groups,
cultural activities, parliamentarians, and local government
officials.
Track two diplomacy brings together non-governmental
representatives to develop ideas informing official diplomacy and
building grass-roots support for policy initiatives. The goal is to
creatively explore the underlying conditions that give rise to
conflict and develop joint strategies for addressing shared problems
through reciprocal efforts. As a result, conflict comes to be seen as
a shared problem requiring cooperation of both sides. Track Two is
not a substitute for official diplomatic efforts. However, its
flexibility helps compensate for the inherent constraints on
officials.
According to Phillips, TARC’s primary goal was to open the border
between Turkey and Armenia as a first step towards establishing
diplomatic relations between the two countries. The initiative faced
serious problems.
Before TARC was established, Turkish-Armenian relations were marred
by deep distrust, a closed border and dramatically different
perceptions of history. Phillips explains that Armenians and many
international historians describe pogroms in the late 19th century
that killed one quarter million ethnic Armenians in eastern Anatolia.
On April 24, 1915, 800 Armenian community leaders were executed and
the subsequent deportation of Armenians resulted in massive
sufferings by Armenians (1915-23). Many Turks emphasize the war
context in which the events occurred. The deportation of Armenians
was in response to security concerns arising from the rebellion of
Armenians during which hundreds of thousands of Turks died in the
Caucasus as well as the Balkans and the Black Sea region. Turkey
rejects use of the term genocide and resents efforts by Armenians to
gain international recognition. Reconciliation is further complicated
by Armenian Diaspora politics and the occupation of Azeri territories
by Armenians.
Unsilencing the Past describes in vivid detail the exchange of
views between Turks and Armenians. It brings the reader behind the
scenes giving a glimpse of the difficult and sometimes acrimonious
discussions. The genocide issue cast a long shadow over TARC’s
efforts.
To address this problem, Turks and Armenians jointly agreed to seek
a non-binding legal opinion facilitated by the well-respected
International Center for Transitional Justice on the ~Sapplicability
of the Genocide Convention to events in the early Twentieth Century.~T
To the satisfaction of the Turks, the analysis concluded: ~SThe
Genocide Convention contains no provisions mandating its retroactive
application. Therefore, no legal, financial or territorial claim
arising out of the events could successfully be made against any
individual or state under the Convention.~T It also examined the
definition of genocide in international law and found that (i) one or
more persons were killed, (ii) such persons belonged to a particular
ethnic, racial, or religious group, (iii) the action took place as
part of a pattern of conduct against the group, and, (iv) no matter
how many Armenians died, at least some of the Ottoman rulers knew
that the consequence of the deportation orders would result in many
deaths. To the satisfaction of Armenians, it concluded that the
events include all the elements of the crime of genocide.
Though the legal analysis offered something to both sides, Phillips
acknowledges that it did little to advance the practical goal of
opening the Turkish-Armenian border. In this regard, he is critical
of the Armenian government for failing to clearly state that it has
no claim on Turkey’s territory. He criticizes the Turkish government
for not acting in its own national interest to open the border, which
would have a huge economic impact on the Turkish provinces bordering
Armenia while reducing the transportation cost of Turkish goods to
Central Asia and beyond. He is also critical of the Bush
administration for shifting its priorities and neglecting
Turkish-Armenian issues after September 11 and with the Iraq War.
In conclusion, Phillips asks ~SWas the effort worthwhile?~T He
laments that TARC’s goals were not met. He notes, however, that TARC
did succeed in establishing a structured dialogue and opening the
door for civil society contacts; helping catalyze diplomatic
activity; laying the foundation for addressing the genocide issue;
and bringing a principled treaty based approach to opening the
border. Though TARC was established for one year, it worked for
three. Pointing out that reconciliation is a process not an event,
Phillips concludes optimistically stating his belief that the border
will open someday soon. (Note: The Armenian government has publicly
recognized the 1921 Kars Treaty demarcating today’s border between
Turkey and Armenia.)
Phillips is director of the Program on Conflict Prevention and
Peacebuilding at American University. He is also a visiting scholar
at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations of New York.
(For more information see ).

The Herald – Everett, Wash. –
Published: Friday, March 25, 2005
Documentary recounts Kasparov-IBM matches
By Robert Horton
Herald Movie Critic
The chess world has always been full of paranoiacs and palace
intrigue, so it should come as no surprise that a new documentary,
“Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine,” would have the trappings of a
thriller: dramatic music, moody lighting, and hints of conspiracies.
Still, it surprised me. This account of the 1996 and 1997 matches
between world chess champion Garry Kasparov and the IBM computer
“Deep Blue” serves up new information for the layperson.
Kasparov won the first match, in ’96. (He got a memorable Pepsi
commercial out of it.) But a year later, in New York, he was beaten
in a six-game series by a new, improved Deep Blue, a devastating loss
that still haunts the once-invincible, now-shaky player.
Although Kasparov won the first game of the ’97 series, he got
pole-axed in the second game, as Deep Blue suddenly began making
intuitive, uncomputer-like moves. Immediately, Kasparov was
suspicious – in the footage of the press conference after the game,
he all but accuses the IBM team of cheating. He never won another
game against the machine.
In new footage of Kasparov wandering around the hotel where the games
were played, he unrolls his theory that Deep Blue may have been aided
by a human element. IBM didn’t allow any access to the rooms that
housed the machine, and denied inspection of the inner workings
behind each chess move.
Filmmaker Vikram Jayanti seems on Kasparov’s side. He weaves in
footage from a 1927 silent film about a famous 19th-century
contraption that purported to be a chess-playing machine (it beat
Napoleon once), although the machine was actually a trick that relied
on human influence.
Jayanti also points out that IBM had millions, if not billions, to
gain in public relations, as the company had been lagging in the tech
world. Its stock went up 15 percent the day after Deep Blue won.
Oh, and IBM refused a rematch, quickly dismantling the machine. It
sits in a warehouse now, its circuits dreaming of a crack at Bobby
Fischer.
Although it may be in his camp, “Game Over” does a nice job of
capturing Kasparov’s eccentricities. Considered by many to be the
greatest chess player ever, Kasparov first came to fame as the
underdog – young, half-Armenian, half-Jewish – against the poster boy
of Soviet chess, Anatoly Karpov. It was almost impossible not to root
for Kasparov in the 1980s.
When he’s talking about the Deep Blue loss, Kasparov begins talking
about telescopes looking into his hotel room, and he compares IBM
with Enron, implying that crooked corporations will stop at nothing
to win.
He comes off a little cracked, but he’s a champion chess player. He’s
supposed to be goofy. All things said and done, though, at least
Kasparov still has a wicked sense of humor and a passion for the
game, which is more than you can say for a machine.
“Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine” HHH
Thriller: A chess documentary that plays like a conspiracy thriller,
about the 1997 match between champ Garry Kasparov at the IBM computer
Deep Blue, and Kasparov’s suspicious theories about the outcome.
Rated: PG rating is for language.
Now showing: Varsity.
“Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine” HHH
Thriller: A chess documentary that plays like a conspiracy thriller,
about the 1997 match between champ Garry Kasparov at the IBM computer
Deep Blue, and Kasparov’s suspicious theories about the outcome.
Rated: PG rating is for language.
Now showing: Varsity.
The Daily Herald Co.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

THE RUSSIAN YEAR STARTED IN ARMENIA
A1+
25-03-2005
Today Vladimir Putin and Robert Kocharyan officially opened the Russian
year in Armenia. The official ceremony started with the Russian anthem,
after which the Armenian anthem sounded. Robert Kocharyan mentioned
in his speech that the Armenian and Russian nations are tied together
not only with culture and history but also with relations in many
different areas – power, industry, business, bank system, as well as
in the investment field at large.
Vladimir Putin noted that Moscow cannot be imagined without the
Armenian alley, neither the Russian culture without Ayvazovski,
Toukhmanov, Aram Khachatryan and Vakhtangovâ’s theater.
He said that the Armenian nation connects the future of its children
with the Armenian-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin claimed that
Russia would do everything possible to settle the Karabakh conflict.
He announced that there are 3000 Armenian students in Moscow, 2000 of
which study free of charge, while 175 get stipend. The RF President
mentioned the fact that in Yerevan there are 50 Russian schools and
he promised to open Armenian schools in Moscow.
The concert was conducted by the famous announcer of the Russian TV
company “Culture” Svyateslav Belza. And the concert was opened by
the Dance Ensemble conducted by Igor Mayeseev.
And although the Russian year in Armenia could be opened by a
more representative group of musicians, the end of the ceremony
was impressive: the famous song “Day of Victory” was sung by RF
National artist Lev Leshchenko and Tigran Heqeqyan’s choir “Little
singers”. And Svyateslav Belza, noticing the symbolizing detail –
“the legend of the Russian song and the future of the Armenian art –
the marvelous children, sing together”, announced that next year they
will expect the bodies of Armenian art in Moscow during the events
of the Armenian year in Russia.
–Boundary_(ID_sI2Vi+Sno8gK8g3/xYpCNQ)–

NKR MFA CALLED INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO FOLLOW EXAMPLE OF ARMENIA AND US
A1+
24-03-2005
March 17, in Vienna, the report of the Fact-Finding mission was
presented at the sitting of the OSCE Permanent Council during which
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs proposed their recommendations to the
conflicting parties and the international community.
It should be noted that though the NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs
received the Mission and rendered the essential technical assistance
its representatives were not allowed to take part in the hearings on
the report. As response to the formal inquiry the NKR MFA received
the documents presented during the sitting.
On the basis of the documents received the NKR Foreign Ministry noted
the objectivity of the report. However, it should be noted that the
Mission visited the regions controlled by Karabakh and that is why
the missionaries did not get the complete picture of the humanitarian
catastrophe caused by the war that was waged by Azerbaijan. At that
time over 500 000 Armenian were exiled from their home and lost
their property.
The NKR MFA called the international community to follow the example
of the governments of Armenia and the US and help the refugees,
who found shelter on the territory of Nagorno Karabakh.
The NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms its adherence to the
peaceful settlement of all the conflicts and highly appreciated
the efforts exerted by the OSCE Minsk Group and the international
community.

Reuters AlertNet, UK
March 23 2005
CRISIS PROFILE – What’s going on in Nagorno-Karabakh?
23 Mar 2005
Source: AlertNet
By Theresa Freese
Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer (R) accompanied by Azerbaijan
President Haydar Aliyev (rear) meets Azeri refugees from
Nagorno-Karabak in Baku in 2000.
Photo by STRINGER
TBILISI (AlertNet) – With over a million people displaced and about
30,000 killed, conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the
disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh remains one of the most
intractable problems unleashed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Today Nagorno-Karabakh, a large chunk of the southwestern part of
Azerbaijan, is controlled by neighbouring Armenia, which seized the
territory by force in 1992.
Armenia has ignored numerous U.N. resolutions calling for the
withdrawal troops, and a peace settlement between Armenia and
Azerbaijan remains elusive. The conflict stands at a stalemate,
broken only by occasional cross-border incidents.
Numbers are uncertain, but according to the United Nations, more than
500,000 displaced Azerbaijanis live in squalid refugee camps around
Azerbaijan, more than 200,000 Armenians live in similar conditions in
Armenia and a dangerous no man~Rs land full of mines and snipers
separates Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.
Where exactly is Nagorno-Karabakh?
Nagorno-Karabakh, located in Azerbaijan, is in the South Caucasus, a
region consisting of three states — Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
— nestled between the oil-rich Caspian Sea and the Black Sea.
Only a six-mile strip of land called the Lachin corridor, controlled
by Armenian troops, connects Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.
What sparked the conflict?
The roots of the conflict pre-date the creation of the Soviet Union.
Violent clashes in 1905 and 1918 evolved into fighting between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over three contested border areas,
Nagorno-Karabakh, Nakhichevan and Zangezur.
In 1921, Nagorno-Karabakh was incorporated into Soviet Azerbaijan as
the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Province, leaving tension over the
territory to simmer throughout the Soviet period.
As both Soviet republics embraced nationalism and political
demonstrations turned violent, minority populations within each
republic fled ethnic discrimination. Armenia and Azerbaijan witnessed
a total population swap of some 1,000,000 inhabitants.
Nagorno-Karabakh saw most of its minority Azerbaijani inhabitants —
around 25 percent of its total population — flee to other parts of
Azerbaijan.
In 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians voted to secede and join
Armenia. Azerbaijan attempted to prevent Nagorno-Karabakh~Rs secession
by force, and when Armenia and Azerbaijan proclaimed independence
from the Soviet Union in 1991, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh~Rs
future escalated into a war between the two states.
Armenian forces invaded Nagorno-Karabakh in 1992 and occupied seven
adjoining districts in Azerbaijan, creating a corridor — the Lachin
corridor — connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia proper. Armenia
renamed the province the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and declared it
independent on January 6, 1992.
Nevertheless, the international community, including Armenia, does
not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state.
Through Russian mediation, in 1994 Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a
cease-fire agreement. Azerbaijan, by that point, had lost some 15
percent of its territory.
What is Nagorno-Karabakh like today?
Politically, socially, and economically Nagorno-Karabakh behaves like
an autonomous Armenian province.
With a growing population of approximately 200,000, Nagorno-Karabakh
has become ethnically homogenous: 95 percent of residents are
Armenian, and Assyrians, Greeks, and Kurds constitute the remaining 5
percent.
Armenians rely on free movement and trade between Nagorno-Karabakh
and Armenia proper, and Nagorno-Karabakh~Rs first elected leader,
Robert Kocharian, is now Armenia~Rs president.
Is there a solution to the conflict?
In 1993, the U.N. Security Council adopted four resolutions calling
for the withdrawal of Armenian occupying forces and reaffirming the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, with Nagorno-Karabakh as an
integral part of the country.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) Minsk Group, an
ad hoc body co-chaired by Russia, the U.S. and France is responsible
for negotiating a final peace settlement.
To date, however, no peace agreement has been achieved, and the U.N.
resolutions have not been implemented. There are no international
peacekeepers on the ground; instead, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces
maintain a heavy presence along the front line. Finally, with no
political solution in sight, internally displaced people and refugees
are unable to return to their homes.

Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Azerbaijan
March 23 2005
IPI concerned by introduction of new Turkish Penal Code
Published: 23.03.2005
CASCFEN, Baku, 23.03.2005 — Johann P. Fritz, the Director of the
Vienna based International Press Institute (IPI) has addressed to
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey in regard to Turkish
Penal Code’s introduction. Following is the text of the letter sent
on 23 March 2005:
“The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of
editors, media executives and leading journalists, is deeply
concerned about the introduction of a new Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
and the continued criminal prosecution of a number of journalists.
The new TCK was adopted last year and will come into force on 1
April. According to reports, the new TCK contains provisions to
punish journalists with prison sentences for their work, as well as
vague wording that could make it easier for the authorities to
suppress the media. The new TCK is the first change to the Penal Code
in 78 years and it revamps Turkey’s criminal laws.
According to information before IPI, the new penal code has 30
articles that threaten press freedom. In the face of these changes,
the Turkish Journalists Association and the Turkish Press Council
have heavily criticised the new TCK.
On 14 March, the Turkish Journalists Association sent a letter
criticising the new TCK to the Minister of Justice, Cemil Cicek. The
minister has promised to consider the complaints and make the
necessary changes.
The Journalists Association maintains that certain articles must be
changed because they prevent journalists from writing about on-going
police investigations. Furthermore, article 125 on “insult” states
that any criticism of a political figure might be interpreted as a
personal insult and could lead to the journalist being imprisoned.
The minimum sentence for committing a crime “against a state official
because of his or her post” is one year in prison.
In addition, the new TCK increases prison sentences where the media
are involved and is in stark contrast to the Press Law. As an
example, where journalists write about an on-going police
investigation, the current Press Law (article 19) provides for large
fines, while the new TCK (article 288) carries prison sentences from
six months to three years.
In this connection, two journalists for the Milliyet daily, Tolga
Sardan and Gokser Tahincioglu, face charges for writing articles
about alleged links between Turkish mafia boss Alaattin Cakici, the
National Information Agency (MYT) and the Court of Appeals.
Hürriyet reporters Toygun Atilla and Cetin Aydin, as well as editor
Necdet Tatlican, are also on trial for allegedly violating the
secrecy of an on-going police investigation in a separate case
involving alleged links between state institutions and the mafia.
The journalists were prosecuted because they published tapes of
telephone conversations that reveal this relationship. They are
accused of breaching article 4422 of the Penal Code that is related
to the fight against organised crime. While they have cited facts in
their articles that shed light on the investigation, they are liable
for breaking the law because the police investigation had not been
concluded. Now the journalists face imprisonment. The case is the
first time that journalists have been prosecuted under the Penal Code
and not sued according to the Press Law.
The new TCK also contains clauses for acting against the “basic
national interest” in return for material benefits from foreigners.
Under article 220, individuals found guilty of setting up an
organisation that aims to commit crimes, or disseminating propaganda
for such an organisation, are given prison sentences, which are
increased by half, if the propaganda is disseminated by media
outlets.
Many other articles also increase the prison sentence by half if the
offence was committed through the media. Thus, article 305 can be
used to charge people who write about controversial issues, such as
Turkish troops in Cyprus or the Armenian genocide; article 318 can be
used to charge individuals, who write critical pieces about the
military.
IPI calls on Your Excellency to take into account the demands of the
Turkish journalists and to amend the Penal Code to decriminalise
defamation. IPI believes criminal insult laws to be an anachronism
that should be removed from every legal system. They should not exist
in a country seeking to join the European Union and no journalist
should have the stigma of a criminal record for merely expressing his
or her opinions.
By keeping defamation as a criminal offence, journalists are forced
to weigh up the public interest of publishing against the fear of
criminal prosecution. This will only encourage greater
self-censorship in Turkey and this is to the detriment of not only
the journalism profession, but also the country’s readership which
will be deprived of valuable information.
IPI would also like to remind Your Excellency that Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the
right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.””
–Boundary_(ID_1ZLRMFd3d750OhsgzJppvA)–