Epress.am News from Armenia
Under fire for its
controversial defense in a high-profile freedom of speech case at the European
Court of Human Rights, Turkey will reportedly stop trying to defend itself in
such cases and seek friendly settlements instead, reports Hurriyet.
“When there
is a contradiction with universal or [European court] principles, [Turkey] does
not necessarily give a defense. We are working on this issue to clarify what
kind of precautions we can take in order to deal with these cases without going
through the judicial process,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Tuesday in
a televised interview with the private channel NTV.
Davutoglu was careful
not to confirm or deny the claim made by daily Radikal columnist Murat Yetkin
that the Interior, Foreign and Justice ministries had agreed that Turkey would
no longer defend itself in freedom of speech cases. But the foreign minister’s
remarks indicated that the country might be considering a change in tactics
after its much-criticized European court defense drawing parallels between
Neo-Nazism and the perspectives of murdered journalist Hrant Dink.
When asked
about Yetkin’s claim, Davutoglu told NTV that he has been personally examining
Turkey’s defenses in critical cases since September 2009 and that the country
has asked for a friendly settlement in many of them on his recommendation.
Davutoglu
also said he has asked the country’s permanent representative to the European
court to supply a classification of the cases opened against Turkey.
Turkey has
some 13,000 cases pending in the European court.
In his
column Tuesday, Yetkin wrote that the three ministries decided at a August 25
meeting that Turkey would give executive power to a Friendly Settlement
Commission to take action in cases of freedom of speech. This would mean that
Turkey would automatically look for an amicable settlement rather than mounting
a defense in such cases.
The Turkey
vs. Dink case at the European court is the merger of two civil cases; one was
filed with the European court as a challenge to the journalist being charged
with “insulting Turkishness” under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code, while the second alleges Turkey failed to adequately protect the
life of Dink, who received repeated death threats before his assassination on
January 19, 2007.
The Dink
case made headlines earlier this month when Turkey cited in its defense a case
against a leader of a Nazi organization in Europe as an example supporting its
prosecution of Dink. In an early reaction, Davutoglu expressed regret and said,
“As an intellectual and a minister, I could not digest this.”
Following
this defense, Turkey asked for a friendly settlement, but the Dink family did
not accept the request.
“There are
two issues in the Dink case; one is about protecting the right to life and the
other is [about] freedom of expression,” Davutoglu said, adding that by
offering the friendly settlement, Turkey has accepted that it has “some
deficiencies on these two issues and agrees to do what is necessary.”
Hasip
Kaplan, a Sirnak deputy from the Peace and Democracy Party, or BDP, told the
Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review that the government should remove
Article 301 altogether — along with articles 215, 216 and 220 of the Law to Fight
against Terror — in order to make progress in the pending cases.
“It is in
the government’s hands to make amendments to these articles, which will be the
certain solution,” Kaplan said.
Kamil
Tekinsürek, a lawyer following cases on behalf of complainants in the European
court, said he does not believe the decision — if it indeed has been made — was
made sincerely and said it was only done for the Dink case.
“Even
if Turkey was to look for a friendly settlement in these cases, a majority of
the complainants would not accept because they do not apply to [the European
court] only for compensation but primarily to prove that Turkey is guilty,” he
said.