4
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the office of Hrant Dink in İstanbul to protest the court’s verdict in the murder trial in January 2012. (Photo: Today's Zaman)
16 May 2013 /MUSTAFA GÜRLEK/HASAN KARALI/YAVUZ AKENGİN, İSTANBUL
The Supreme Court of Appeals' recent ruling that there is indeed an organizational connection behind the 2007 murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, as opposed to the lower court decision that found that the hit man acted alone in the crime, might contribute to a better and more fair retrial process, say lawyers and jurists who are following the Dink trial.
The 9th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a lower court ruling in the Dink murder trial which dismissed the existence of an organized criminal network in the case, but it also failed to find a terrorist organization, which is not exactly good news. However, the fact that there will be retrial could turn out to be a positive development.
Former Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals Ahmet Gündel said the lower court holding the retrial should take the prosecution's initial argument that there is a terrorist organization behind the murder seriously. Gündel said: “Although it appears to be a positive ruling [by the high court], there are serious problems. This ruling is strongly at odds with the opinion of the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals, who said the murder was linked to Ergenekon,” referring to a terrorist organization whose suspected members are charged with plotting to overthrow the government.
The lower court prosecutor and the Supreme Court of Appeals prosecutor both said evidence showed clear links to Ergenekon involvement. They link it to a coup plot devised by Ergenekon's military members called the Cage Action Plan, which was based on targeting minorities and community leaders of non-Muslim groups. “If the high court ruling is used during an evaluation, it will only be treated like the job of an ordinary gang.”
Caner Yenidünya, an associate professor of criminal law, said the Supreme Court of Appeals still opened a door, making it possible to have a better trial. “In organized crime, Article 220 of the Turkish Criminal Code related to criminal organizations is a general provision. If the local court goes ahead with a retrial, it still has a chance of deepening the investigation.”
Ufuk Uras, a former parliamentarian, said it was very strange that the organization behind Dink's assassination was being presented by the court as a neighborhood gang. “Certainly it is positive that the lower's court ruling saying that there is no organizational link at all is overturned. At the end of the day, they say there is an organization, but it describes this group as an “organization formed with the intent of committing a crime;” the content of that crime is not described. We have known all along that Ergenekon is behind the Dink murder. This trial will not end until that connection is made legally.” However, he also said he agreed that this time there could be the chance for a more thorough investigation.
Journalist and writer Alper Görmüş agreed that the ruling is not satisfactory. “This decision was presented as if it is a positive ruling, but I don't agree. I am convinced that this murder couldn't have possibly been committed without the support of individuals/groups inside the state mechanism. This ruling is a diversion from the real essence of the problem. I also don't think it is convincing at all. It doesn't address concerns that emerged in the public regarding the Dink trial. I can't really make a legal assessment but I don't think that the lower court will issue a ruling that radically goes against its initial ruling. Knowing Turkey's crime practices, nobody in the world can convince me that three people got together and said ‘Let's kill an Armenian.' Such comments only aim at covering up the issue. They will satisfy nobody.”
Cavit Tatlı, head of the Jurists' Association, said, like the other commentators, the “deeper” connections in the case are yet to be brought to light. “I think that the involvement of the police force wasn't investigated thoroughly in this case. What happens in Turkey is that in most cases there are some facts that come out during a trial, but somehow, somebody always manages to cover up that trial. I really don't know how many trials like the Susurluk case [inconclusive trials about state gangs] we have had. The picture can only be seen when those behind the hit man are found. There is a state connection in this business and that should not be ignored.”
Cahit Özkan, head of the Supremacy of Law Platform said, “As a rule, none of the political murders are individual crimes, they are always connected to a larger organization.” He said that the prosecutor has to be well prepared with good evidence in the retrial phase.
Meanwhile, sources close to the Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals say that the prosecutor is not planning to file an objection to the 9th Chamber ruling.
Former Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals Ahmet Gündel said the lower court holding the retrial should take the prosecution's initial argument that there is a terrorist organization behind the murder seriously. Gündel said: “Although it appears to be a positive ruling [by the high court], there are serious problems. This ruling is strongly at odds with the opinion of the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals, who said the murder was linked to Ergenekon,” referring to a terrorist organization whose suspected members are charged with plotting to overthrow the government.
The lower court prosecutor and the Supreme Court of Appeals prosecutor both said evidence showed clear links to Ergenekon involvement. They link it to a coup plot devised by Ergenekon's military members called the Cage Action Plan, which was based on targeting minorities and community leaders of non-Muslim groups. “If the high court ruling is used during an evaluation, it will only be treated like the job of an ordinary gang.”
Caner Yenidünya, an associate professor of criminal law, said the Supreme Court of Appeals still opened a door, making it possible to have a better trial. “In organized crime, Article 220 of the Turkish Criminal Code related to criminal organizations is a general provision. If the local court goes ahead with a retrial, it still has a chance of deepening the investigation.”
Ufuk Uras, a former parliamentarian, said it was very strange that the organization behind Dink's assassination was being presented by the court as a neighborhood gang. “Certainly it is positive that the lower's court ruling saying that there is no organizational link at all is overturned. At the end of the day, they say there is an organization, but it describes this group as an “organization formed with the intent of committing a crime;” the content of that crime is not described. We have known all along that Ergenekon is behind the Dink murder. This trial will not end until that connection is made legally.” However, he also said he agreed that this time there could be the chance for a more thorough investigation.
Journalist and writer Alper Görmüş agreed that the ruling is not satisfactory. “This decision was presented as if it is a positive ruling, but I don't agree. I am convinced that this murder couldn't have possibly been committed without the support of individuals/groups inside the state mechanism. This ruling is a diversion from the real essence of the problem. I also don't think it is convincing at all. It doesn't address concerns that emerged in the public regarding the Dink trial. I can't really make a legal assessment but I don't think that the lower court will issue a ruling that radically goes against its initial ruling. Knowing Turkey's crime practices, nobody in the world can convince me that three people got together and said ‘Let's kill an Armenian.' Such comments only aim at covering up the issue. They will satisfy nobody.”
Cavit Tatlı, head of the Jurists' Association, said, like the other commentators, the “deeper” connections in the case are yet to be brought to light. “I think that the involvement of the police force wasn't investigated thoroughly in this case. What happens in Turkey is that in most cases there are some facts that come out during a trial, but somehow, somebody always manages to cover up that trial. I really don't know how many trials like the Susurluk case [inconclusive trials about state gangs] we have had. The picture can only be seen when those behind the hit man are found. There is a state connection in this business and that should not be ignored.”
Cahit Özkan, head of the Supremacy of Law Platform said, “As a rule, none of the political murders are individual crimes, they are always connected to a larger organization.” He said that the prosecutor has to be well prepared with good evidence in the retrial phase.
Meanwhile, sources close to the Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals say that the prosecutor is not planning to file an objection to the 9th Chamber ruling.