Tweet
Cihan News Agency (CNA) - Turkey
January 12, 2013 Saturday
Supreme Court head prosecutor: Dink killed by an organization
ISTANBUL (CIHAN)- The moment people heard that journalist Hrant Dink
had been murdered, on Jan. 19, 2007, many people across Turkey felt
the same thing: "This was a deep murder, and behind it stands the deep
state." The public was well aware of the lynch campaign that had
surrounded Dink in the time before his death. In fact, in his final
two columns for Agos, a newspaper of which he was one of the founders,
he had literally described why he would be murdered, and who would
commit the act. Most of the defendants in the Ergenekon case today are
those who kept a close eye on Hrant Dink. It was as though a button
had been pressed.
All of sudden, one sentence was plucked out of a series of columns
that criticized the Armenian Diaspora; this sentence was brought to
the top of the agenda, carefully removed from its larger context to
make Dink appear to be an enemy of the Turks. And that was not all
that was done; what followed were accusations of guilt, and a legal
case was taken out against Dink, asserting that he had "belittled
Turkishness." In the meantime, Hrant Dink himself was so sure of his
own innocence that on one television program, he asked "How could I
look at the faces of those I had belittled; how could I live with
them? I am sure I will be acquitted, but if I am not, I will leave
this country." He was that honest and sincere of a person.
But what was at hand was neither justice, nor reality. There was an
inauspicious plan already underway against Dink, and the justice
system actually played an important role in this plan. The 301st
article of the Penal Code was then used to convict Dink. Despite three
expert witnesses telling the court, "There are no elements of
criminality in his writings," certain circles pressed for Dink's
imprisonment, since this would cause him to lose esteem, and make it
easy to simply eliminate him then. In short, an atmosphere ripe for
murder was being prepared. At each hearing for this case, Dink was
painted as being an enemy of the Turks by some of the same people who
today are Ergenekon suspects; he was even pushed around at the
hearings. The sentencing itself as well as all the propaganda that
took place during his trial wound up carrying Dink step by step
towards death.
The case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court head prosecutor,
in a notification he prepared with regards to the decision, noted that
words written by Dink in fact did not constitute the alleged crimes.
But the Supreme Court went ahead and approved of the proposed
punishment. And one of those who approved of the punishment has just
begun his job as Turkey's first ombudsman. And another who signed off
on the punishment is also a member of the the Parliamentary Joint
Commission. Unfortunately, Turkey experienced this shame.
Consequences of the court's ruling
In referring to this court decision, Hrant called it "My death edict."
In his final column for Agos, entitled "Why I was targeted," he talked
about some of the strange things that had happened in the past few
years, about the threats received by him and his family, how he felt
the walls closing around him. At the same time though, he still
thought that this country would protect him, and that this whole
lynching process was not going to end in death. And the truth is, as
someone who was writing supportive columns for Agos at the time, I
also -- clearly mistakenly -- believed that no one would really hurt
such a person of peace and love as Hrant Dink. I still do not
understand how we were so mistaken in this belief, or how we could
have been so naive. In fact, all of Dink's friends share this same
sense of regret. We will always live out the regret that we didn't
send him away, somewhere far away, during that time when he was made
into a symbol of hatred with his Armenian identity. This despite that
we all know this country so well and we were all so aware of all the
unsolved murders from the past.
And so, the assassination that occurred that Jan. 19 was carried out
by one 18 year old Ogün Samast, who came from the poor Trabzon
neighborhood of Pelitli. Yasin Hayal, who pushed Samast to carry out
the murder, as well as Samast himself and Erhan Tuncel, the man who
completed the links between Hayal and the state, were all captured. As
for the case itself, which went on for nearly five years, it was an
absolute comedy. What we witnessed over the five years it lasted was
that these suspects would sometimes threaten the Dink family, and
other times mock them. At each hearing, thousand of people would
gather in front of the courthouse to shout slogans about justice. But
from the very beginning, the court gave off signals about how it was
intent on putting this case firmly on the shoulders of these three
young men, and that despite all the glaring evidence, it would ignore
the deep darkness behind it all. There was much evidence which was
simply destroyed. A resistance of a level I won't even bother to
explain here was shown. It was impossible to include certain pertinent
state officials in the trial. In fact, most of those whose testimonies
were relevant were promoted during the period of the trial, moving on
to higher positions.
The case ended even worse than some had expected. The court was
literally mocking the public with these results. The court delegation
rendered the decision of a life sentence in the case of Hayal,
convicting him of, "Encouraging the pre-conceived murder of Hrant
Dink." As for Erhan Tuncel, the key assistant in the deep state ties
with Yasin and Ogün, he was acquitted, and discharged because he had
already been imprisoned for awhile.
Samast's fate
As for Samast, who actually pulled the trigger and killed Hrant Dink,
he was convicted on charges of "pre-conceived murder" and "possessing
an unregistered gun," and sentenced thus to 22 years and 10 months of
prison time. All other suspects were acquitted. The court lacked such
seriousness that it even forgot to issue any decision in regards to
Hayal's brother-in-law, Coskun Igci, who had also been a suspect!
Later, it added this decision, and as it turned out, he too was
acquitted.
The court also decided that there was no organized murder of Dink that
occurred. After this decision was made public, there was a
full-fledged debate that broke out between the court judge and the
prosecutor over the "organization." This was the first time in Turkish
history that such a prominent judge and prosecutor were fighting
before the public. The prosecutor, for his part, asserted that Dink
was the victim of a political and organized murder, and that all the
available signs pointed to this being a murder carried out by the
Ergenekon organization, which was intent on breaking down the
political system.
For awhile, the case waited for approval from the Supreme Court. And
the Supreme Court head prosecutor last Thursday shared its analysis of
the decision. The head prosecutor said the murder had been carried out
by an organization. In short, he said: "The Dink murder was not any
ordinary murder; it is clear that some of the aims involved were to
destroy the unity of the state, to weaken authority, to cause chaos
and confusion throughout the country, to lay the groundwork for
clashes, and to push our country into the middle of the international
stage."
Because, he said, no one could come together out of the blue simply to
have others praise them for forming an organization. There is no need
to search far to determine the types of activities the said
organization, to which the defendants belonged, was involved in across
the country. For disrupting the unity of the state is a dangerous
crime and with this last act that was carried out, this danger was
realized.
When the personal attributes of the defendants, their pasts, and the
ethnic and religious make up of the those who were targeted, as well
as the profile of the people who live in our country are taken into
consideration; even though it was not possible to determine the goals
of the accused, the defendants acted in accordance with the intention
of article 302/1 (disrupting political order and the unity of the
state) of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).
In other words, like the prosecutor for the original case, the Supreme
Court head prosecutor also examined the available evidence, and in a
very level-headed and conscientious manner, said "Hrant Dink was not
murdered by a handful of youth, but by a deeply rooted organization."
As it is, this case caused Turkey to go before the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR).
I am not sure what final decision the Supreme Court will make. Because
throughout history, justice has been used in Turkey like an
ideologically created crime tool. The reforms that have been passed
over the last decade make it possible to now try the deep state and
coups, though at the same time, embarrassing cases like the Hrant Dink
case continue. It is not easy to get the thousands of prosecutors and
judges that fill the giant justice system to change gears in one day,
getting them to render a freedom-supporting decision now after they
convicted Dink when he was innocent.
That is why we said and continue to maintain that it is an absolute
must that we see political resolution and support during cases
involving the deep state and coups. In the Hrant Dink case, for as
long as we do not see more political resolution and determination, the
justice system will continue getting the message that it is "without
ownership," and it will thus continue rendering the decisions we are
all used to. I do hope that this is not what happens this time.
Because illuminating what really happened in the Hrant Dink case means
revealing the deep state for all to plainly see.
MARKAR ESAYAN
January 12, 2013 Saturday
Supreme Court head prosecutor: Dink killed by an organization
ISTANBUL (CIHAN)- The moment people heard that journalist Hrant Dink
had been murdered, on Jan. 19, 2007, many people across Turkey felt
the same thing: "This was a deep murder, and behind it stands the deep
state." The public was well aware of the lynch campaign that had
surrounded Dink in the time before his death. In fact, in his final
two columns for Agos, a newspaper of which he was one of the founders,
he had literally described why he would be murdered, and who would
commit the act. Most of the defendants in the Ergenekon case today are
those who kept a close eye on Hrant Dink. It was as though a button
had been pressed.
All of sudden, one sentence was plucked out of a series of columns
that criticized the Armenian Diaspora; this sentence was brought to
the top of the agenda, carefully removed from its larger context to
make Dink appear to be an enemy of the Turks. And that was not all
that was done; what followed were accusations of guilt, and a legal
case was taken out against Dink, asserting that he had "belittled
Turkishness." In the meantime, Hrant Dink himself was so sure of his
own innocence that on one television program, he asked "How could I
look at the faces of those I had belittled; how could I live with
them? I am sure I will be acquitted, but if I am not, I will leave
this country." He was that honest and sincere of a person.
But what was at hand was neither justice, nor reality. There was an
inauspicious plan already underway against Dink, and the justice
system actually played an important role in this plan. The 301st
article of the Penal Code was then used to convict Dink. Despite three
expert witnesses telling the court, "There are no elements of
criminality in his writings," certain circles pressed for Dink's
imprisonment, since this would cause him to lose esteem, and make it
easy to simply eliminate him then. In short, an atmosphere ripe for
murder was being prepared. At each hearing for this case, Dink was
painted as being an enemy of the Turks by some of the same people who
today are Ergenekon suspects; he was even pushed around at the
hearings. The sentencing itself as well as all the propaganda that
took place during his trial wound up carrying Dink step by step
towards death.
The case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court head prosecutor,
in a notification he prepared with regards to the decision, noted that
words written by Dink in fact did not constitute the alleged crimes.
But the Supreme Court went ahead and approved of the proposed
punishment. And one of those who approved of the punishment has just
begun his job as Turkey's first ombudsman. And another who signed off
on the punishment is also a member of the the Parliamentary Joint
Commission. Unfortunately, Turkey experienced this shame.
Consequences of the court's ruling
In referring to this court decision, Hrant called it "My death edict."
In his final column for Agos, entitled "Why I was targeted," he talked
about some of the strange things that had happened in the past few
years, about the threats received by him and his family, how he felt
the walls closing around him. At the same time though, he still
thought that this country would protect him, and that this whole
lynching process was not going to end in death. And the truth is, as
someone who was writing supportive columns for Agos at the time, I
also -- clearly mistakenly -- believed that no one would really hurt
such a person of peace and love as Hrant Dink. I still do not
understand how we were so mistaken in this belief, or how we could
have been so naive. In fact, all of Dink's friends share this same
sense of regret. We will always live out the regret that we didn't
send him away, somewhere far away, during that time when he was made
into a symbol of hatred with his Armenian identity. This despite that
we all know this country so well and we were all so aware of all the
unsolved murders from the past.
And so, the assassination that occurred that Jan. 19 was carried out
by one 18 year old Ogün Samast, who came from the poor Trabzon
neighborhood of Pelitli. Yasin Hayal, who pushed Samast to carry out
the murder, as well as Samast himself and Erhan Tuncel, the man who
completed the links between Hayal and the state, were all captured. As
for the case itself, which went on for nearly five years, it was an
absolute comedy. What we witnessed over the five years it lasted was
that these suspects would sometimes threaten the Dink family, and
other times mock them. At each hearing, thousand of people would
gather in front of the courthouse to shout slogans about justice. But
from the very beginning, the court gave off signals about how it was
intent on putting this case firmly on the shoulders of these three
young men, and that despite all the glaring evidence, it would ignore
the deep darkness behind it all. There was much evidence which was
simply destroyed. A resistance of a level I won't even bother to
explain here was shown. It was impossible to include certain pertinent
state officials in the trial. In fact, most of those whose testimonies
were relevant were promoted during the period of the trial, moving on
to higher positions.
The case ended even worse than some had expected. The court was
literally mocking the public with these results. The court delegation
rendered the decision of a life sentence in the case of Hayal,
convicting him of, "Encouraging the pre-conceived murder of Hrant
Dink." As for Erhan Tuncel, the key assistant in the deep state ties
with Yasin and Ogün, he was acquitted, and discharged because he had
already been imprisoned for awhile.
Samast's fate
As for Samast, who actually pulled the trigger and killed Hrant Dink,
he was convicted on charges of "pre-conceived murder" and "possessing
an unregistered gun," and sentenced thus to 22 years and 10 months of
prison time. All other suspects were acquitted. The court lacked such
seriousness that it even forgot to issue any decision in regards to
Hayal's brother-in-law, Coskun Igci, who had also been a suspect!
Later, it added this decision, and as it turned out, he too was
acquitted.
The court also decided that there was no organized murder of Dink that
occurred. After this decision was made public, there was a
full-fledged debate that broke out between the court judge and the
prosecutor over the "organization." This was the first time in Turkish
history that such a prominent judge and prosecutor were fighting
before the public. The prosecutor, for his part, asserted that Dink
was the victim of a political and organized murder, and that all the
available signs pointed to this being a murder carried out by the
Ergenekon organization, which was intent on breaking down the
political system.
For awhile, the case waited for approval from the Supreme Court. And
the Supreme Court head prosecutor last Thursday shared its analysis of
the decision. The head prosecutor said the murder had been carried out
by an organization. In short, he said: "The Dink murder was not any
ordinary murder; it is clear that some of the aims involved were to
destroy the unity of the state, to weaken authority, to cause chaos
and confusion throughout the country, to lay the groundwork for
clashes, and to push our country into the middle of the international
stage."
Because, he said, no one could come together out of the blue simply to
have others praise them for forming an organization. There is no need
to search far to determine the types of activities the said
organization, to which the defendants belonged, was involved in across
the country. For disrupting the unity of the state is a dangerous
crime and with this last act that was carried out, this danger was
realized.
When the personal attributes of the defendants, their pasts, and the
ethnic and religious make up of the those who were targeted, as well
as the profile of the people who live in our country are taken into
consideration; even though it was not possible to determine the goals
of the accused, the defendants acted in accordance with the intention
of article 302/1 (disrupting political order and the unity of the
state) of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK).
In other words, like the prosecutor for the original case, the Supreme
Court head prosecutor also examined the available evidence, and in a
very level-headed and conscientious manner, said "Hrant Dink was not
murdered by a handful of youth, but by a deeply rooted organization."
As it is, this case caused Turkey to go before the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR).
I am not sure what final decision the Supreme Court will make. Because
throughout history, justice has been used in Turkey like an
ideologically created crime tool. The reforms that have been passed
over the last decade make it possible to now try the deep state and
coups, though at the same time, embarrassing cases like the Hrant Dink
case continue. It is not easy to get the thousands of prosecutors and
judges that fill the giant justice system to change gears in one day,
getting them to render a freedom-supporting decision now after they
convicted Dink when he was innocent.
That is why we said and continue to maintain that it is an absolute
must that we see political resolution and support during cases
involving the deep state and coups. In the Hrant Dink case, for as
long as we do not see more political resolution and determination, the
justice system will continue getting the message that it is "without
ownership," and it will thus continue rendering the decisions we are
all used to. I do hope that this is not what happens this time.
Because illuminating what really happened in the Hrant Dink case means
revealing the deep state for all to plainly see.
MARKAR ESAYAN