Tweet
HRANT DINK TRIAL: DECISION ON 17 JANUARY?
BIAnet.org
http://www.bianet.org/english/minorities/135349-decision-on-17-january
Jan 11 2012
Turkey
The 24th hearing of the Hrant Dink murder trial was held on 10
January. The court president announced to possibly give a decision at
the coming hearing on 17 January, two days prior to the 5th anniversary
of the journalist's assassination.
IÅ~_ıl CÄ°NMEN [email protected] Istanbul - BÄ°A News
Center11 January 2012, Wednesday The trial related to the murder
of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was continued before the
BeÅ~_iktaÅ~_ (Istanbul) 14th High Criminal Court on Tuesday (10
January). Dink was gunned down on 19 January 2007 in front of his
office at the Armenian Agos newspaper in Å~^iÅ~_li (Istanbul).
The next hearing is scheduled for 17 January.
Court President Rustem Eryılmaz announced, "All defence lawyers should
be present at the 17 January hearing. I want to give a decision".
12.15 Prime suspect Yasin Hayal requested to speak while the lawyers
were holding their final speeches. He claimed to have been attacked
and threatened by prison guards.
"While the press is here I want the whole world to know that the
Turkish state is trying to eliminate me. (...) Please note down this
date, I am starting a revolt". Hayal stated and handed a piece of
paper to the judge.
He explained, "I do not want the court to read this paper, it is
confidential. But I am starting a revolt against the Turkish state
until these conditions will have been fulfilled. The Turkish state
benefited from my poverty and my inexperience. And now they are trying
to eliminate me".
13.00 The plaintiff lawyers at the hearing emphasized that the
Trabzon Gendarmerie, the Trabzon Police, the Istanbul Police and
the General Presidency of the Intelligence Department handled the
murder with negligence and that they were responsible for the crime
of intentional homicide.
Fethiye Cetin, joint attorney of the Dink family, asked Hayal, "Who is
threatening you? What do they say? You say the Turkish state used you.
Who used you? Give us a name eventually".
The suspect replied, "Everybody who was mentioned in your final
speech used me, from Erhan Tuncel to Ramazan Akyurek. Now they are
threatening me; my life is under threat. I would be able to identify
the guards if you made an identity parade".
Cetin wondered what made Hayal change his attitude and he responded,
"We have been here together for five years. You know that I am
respectful and I usually speak little. But at the time I was a
25-year-old very destitute child. They gave me any kind of help. Food,
clothes, money... I got all this from Erhan Tuncel. Back then Tuncel
was the head of the [Islamic Turkish-nationalist] Alperen Ocakları
in Trabzon. I felt great respect for him, I was loyal to them. That
is why I had none of them interrogated".
Lawyer Bahri Belen questioned, "Engin Yılmaz said that 'Hayal, Tuncel
and Samast met with people who had come from Istanbul. It was decided
at that meeting that Samast was going to be the triggerman' he said.
Who was at that meeting?"
The lawyers addressed Hayal to say what he knew in order to protect
himself.
Hayal answered, "I went there on invitation of Erhan Tuncel. I met
a number of people but I do not know their names. Ask Tuncel".
Erhan Tuncel's lawyer requested to speak and asked, "Everybody puts the
blame on Erhan Tuncel again. But did Yasin Hayal not know that Tuncel
was in fact talking to these people as a member of the intelligence?"
13:30 The joint attorneys of the Dink family submitted a petition
to court regarding the records obtained from the Telecommunication
Communication Presidency (TÄ°B). The attorneys noted that five people
who were present at the scene of crime and who had connections to
the defendants could be easily identified from the footage. Moreover,
14 people who were not at the scene of incident but were phoned from
there again had connections with the defendants and suspects.
"It was determined that some conversations were made via certain
phone numbers on the day and time of the offence and at the scene of
incident. These phone numbers were used very frequently and have a
direct connection to defendants Mustafa Ozturk and Salih Hacisalihoglu.
15.20 The joint attorneys of the Dink family finished their final
speeches and prosecutor Hikmet Usta who had presented his final
plea on 19.09.2011 was asked if he wanted to make any changes in his
final opinion.
Usta criticized the Dink lawyers for saying that "the time before and
after the murder should be considered as a whole". In his opinion, it
was not correct to see the Dink murder in the context of the killing
of Priest Andrea Santoro and the killing of three people at the Zirve
Publishing House in Malatya and to evaluate these incidents over all
as an action done by the state.
"Because this would declare the state a murderer, this would be an
oddity", Usta said and reiterated his opinion that a cell of the
Ergenekon Terrorist Organization active in Trabzon committed the
murder of journalist Dink.
The prosecutor announced that he was not going to change his final
plea. "Hrant is not a political dissident, he is just a journalist. It
is actually not important in this murder if he was Armenian or not.
Terror does not make ethnic distinctions, terror is terror. The
state does not want terror, just the terrorists want it. The involved
parties are not able to see the whole picture. In their final speeches
they examined irrelevant issues such as if the police behaved with
negligence" Usta remarked.
Lawyer Erdogan Soruluk, legal advisor of defendant Erhan Tuncel,
claimed that organizations with the aim to commit crimes were
established within the state. Ergenekon, according to Soruluk, tried
to fray out the Justice and Development Party (AKP) by creating chaos
in the country.
In his opinion, Priest Santoro and the three employees of the Zirve
Publishing House were killed for that reason. Soruluk reminded that
the European Union (EU) held the Turkish government responsible for
these murders and intended to withdraw subsidies in this context. The
Council of State had claimed that the murders were committed in order
to mobilize the secular section of society and to establish a public
opinion in opposition to the government, the lawyer said.
He continued, "The Dink murder was also one element connected
to Ergenekon. As a member of the intelligence Tuncel informed the
official authorities about Hayal and about everything related to the
murder. He could have followed Hayal and prevent the murder. Tuncel
fulfilled his duty and did not take any precautions. Therefore, this
is a murder that requires the investigation into connections that reach
inside the state. But the court did not investigate this until now".
16.00 Lawyer Sorukly emphasized the importance of the footage provided
by TÄ°B and its investigation.
He claimed that the Dink murder was related to Ergenekon but that
Erhan Tuncel could not be seen as a member of the Ergenekon terrorist
organization since he fulfilled his duty. Related to Yasin Hayal's
statement made in the morning, Soruklu said, "He blames Erhan Tuncel
all the time. When he is asked to give names he says 'from Erhan
Tuncel to Ramazan Akyurek'. Ramazan Akyurek was the person who
introduced Tuncel to the police. Also Akyurek fulfilled his duty;
we cannot blame him".
Soruklu went on, "There are state officers who abuse their position
but it is wrong to accuse the institutions because of these people.
Yasin Hayal gave a message and we have to give attention to
this message. He constantly tries to relate the incident to the
[nationalist] Great Union Party (BBP). This is a diversion (...)".
Lawyer Soruklu submitted his 17-page defence speech to court and
requested Tuncel's acquittal.
Eda Salman, lawyer of defendants Yasin Hayal and Osman Hayal, rejected
allegations related to a criminal organization. She expounded,
"The prosecutor connects the trial to Ergenekon in his indictment
but he does not merge the trials. If you continue to relate this
trial to Ergenekon, the court should keep in mind that that trial is
heard somewhere else. If he mentions a different organization that
organization has to be defined once more".
After that, the lawyer of un-detained defendant Mustafa Ozturk
delivered his speech of defence. (IC/NV/CT/VK)
BIAnet.org
http://www.bianet.org/english/minorities/135349-decision-on-17-january
Jan 11 2012
Turkey
The 24th hearing of the Hrant Dink murder trial was held on 10
January. The court president announced to possibly give a decision at
the coming hearing on 17 January, two days prior to the 5th anniversary
of the journalist's assassination.
IÅ~_ıl CÄ°NMEN [email protected] Istanbul - BÄ°A News
Center11 January 2012, Wednesday The trial related to the murder
of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was continued before the
BeÅ~_iktaÅ~_ (Istanbul) 14th High Criminal Court on Tuesday (10
January). Dink was gunned down on 19 January 2007 in front of his
office at the Armenian Agos newspaper in Å~^iÅ~_li (Istanbul).
The next hearing is scheduled for 17 January.
Court President Rustem Eryılmaz announced, "All defence lawyers should
be present at the 17 January hearing. I want to give a decision".
12.15 Prime suspect Yasin Hayal requested to speak while the lawyers
were holding their final speeches. He claimed to have been attacked
and threatened by prison guards.
"While the press is here I want the whole world to know that the
Turkish state is trying to eliminate me. (...) Please note down this
date, I am starting a revolt". Hayal stated and handed a piece of
paper to the judge.
He explained, "I do not want the court to read this paper, it is
confidential. But I am starting a revolt against the Turkish state
until these conditions will have been fulfilled. The Turkish state
benefited from my poverty and my inexperience. And now they are trying
to eliminate me".
13.00 The plaintiff lawyers at the hearing emphasized that the
Trabzon Gendarmerie, the Trabzon Police, the Istanbul Police and
the General Presidency of the Intelligence Department handled the
murder with negligence and that they were responsible for the crime
of intentional homicide.
Fethiye Cetin, joint attorney of the Dink family, asked Hayal, "Who is
threatening you? What do they say? You say the Turkish state used you.
Who used you? Give us a name eventually".
The suspect replied, "Everybody who was mentioned in your final
speech used me, from Erhan Tuncel to Ramazan Akyurek. Now they are
threatening me; my life is under threat. I would be able to identify
the guards if you made an identity parade".
Cetin wondered what made Hayal change his attitude and he responded,
"We have been here together for five years. You know that I am
respectful and I usually speak little. But at the time I was a
25-year-old very destitute child. They gave me any kind of help. Food,
clothes, money... I got all this from Erhan Tuncel. Back then Tuncel
was the head of the [Islamic Turkish-nationalist] Alperen Ocakları
in Trabzon. I felt great respect for him, I was loyal to them. That
is why I had none of them interrogated".
Lawyer Bahri Belen questioned, "Engin Yılmaz said that 'Hayal, Tuncel
and Samast met with people who had come from Istanbul. It was decided
at that meeting that Samast was going to be the triggerman' he said.
Who was at that meeting?"
The lawyers addressed Hayal to say what he knew in order to protect
himself.
Hayal answered, "I went there on invitation of Erhan Tuncel. I met
a number of people but I do not know their names. Ask Tuncel".
Erhan Tuncel's lawyer requested to speak and asked, "Everybody puts the
blame on Erhan Tuncel again. But did Yasin Hayal not know that Tuncel
was in fact talking to these people as a member of the intelligence?"
13:30 The joint attorneys of the Dink family submitted a petition
to court regarding the records obtained from the Telecommunication
Communication Presidency (TÄ°B). The attorneys noted that five people
who were present at the scene of crime and who had connections to
the defendants could be easily identified from the footage. Moreover,
14 people who were not at the scene of incident but were phoned from
there again had connections with the defendants and suspects.
"It was determined that some conversations were made via certain
phone numbers on the day and time of the offence and at the scene of
incident. These phone numbers were used very frequently and have a
direct connection to defendants Mustafa Ozturk and Salih Hacisalihoglu.
15.20 The joint attorneys of the Dink family finished their final
speeches and prosecutor Hikmet Usta who had presented his final
plea on 19.09.2011 was asked if he wanted to make any changes in his
final opinion.
Usta criticized the Dink lawyers for saying that "the time before and
after the murder should be considered as a whole". In his opinion, it
was not correct to see the Dink murder in the context of the killing
of Priest Andrea Santoro and the killing of three people at the Zirve
Publishing House in Malatya and to evaluate these incidents over all
as an action done by the state.
"Because this would declare the state a murderer, this would be an
oddity", Usta said and reiterated his opinion that a cell of the
Ergenekon Terrorist Organization active in Trabzon committed the
murder of journalist Dink.
The prosecutor announced that he was not going to change his final
plea. "Hrant is not a political dissident, he is just a journalist. It
is actually not important in this murder if he was Armenian or not.
Terror does not make ethnic distinctions, terror is terror. The
state does not want terror, just the terrorists want it. The involved
parties are not able to see the whole picture. In their final speeches
they examined irrelevant issues such as if the police behaved with
negligence" Usta remarked.
Lawyer Erdogan Soruluk, legal advisor of defendant Erhan Tuncel,
claimed that organizations with the aim to commit crimes were
established within the state. Ergenekon, according to Soruluk, tried
to fray out the Justice and Development Party (AKP) by creating chaos
in the country.
In his opinion, Priest Santoro and the three employees of the Zirve
Publishing House were killed for that reason. Soruluk reminded that
the European Union (EU) held the Turkish government responsible for
these murders and intended to withdraw subsidies in this context. The
Council of State had claimed that the murders were committed in order
to mobilize the secular section of society and to establish a public
opinion in opposition to the government, the lawyer said.
He continued, "The Dink murder was also one element connected
to Ergenekon. As a member of the intelligence Tuncel informed the
official authorities about Hayal and about everything related to the
murder. He could have followed Hayal and prevent the murder. Tuncel
fulfilled his duty and did not take any precautions. Therefore, this
is a murder that requires the investigation into connections that reach
inside the state. But the court did not investigate this until now".
16.00 Lawyer Sorukly emphasized the importance of the footage provided
by TÄ°B and its investigation.
He claimed that the Dink murder was related to Ergenekon but that
Erhan Tuncel could not be seen as a member of the Ergenekon terrorist
organization since he fulfilled his duty. Related to Yasin Hayal's
statement made in the morning, Soruklu said, "He blames Erhan Tuncel
all the time. When he is asked to give names he says 'from Erhan
Tuncel to Ramazan Akyurek'. Ramazan Akyurek was the person who
introduced Tuncel to the police. Also Akyurek fulfilled his duty;
we cannot blame him".
Soruklu went on, "There are state officers who abuse their position
but it is wrong to accuse the institutions because of these people.
Yasin Hayal gave a message and we have to give attention to
this message. He constantly tries to relate the incident to the
[nationalist] Great Union Party (BBP). This is a diversion (...)".
Lawyer Soruklu submitted his 17-page defence speech to court and
requested Tuncel's acquittal.
Eda Salman, lawyer of defendants Yasin Hayal and Osman Hayal, rejected
allegations related to a criminal organization. She expounded,
"The prosecutor connects the trial to Ergenekon in his indictment
but he does not merge the trials. If you continue to relate this
trial to Ergenekon, the court should keep in mind that that trial is
heard somewhere else. If he mentions a different organization that
organization has to be defined once more".
After that, the lawyer of un-detained defendant Mustafa Ozturk
delivered his speech of defence. (IC/NV/CT/VK)