951st meeting – 14 December 2005

Item 3.2b

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

b.         Written Question No. 478 by Mr Salles: “Interference with freedom of expression in Turkey”

The Representative of Armenia made the following statement:

“Our consideration of Mr Rudy Salles’ written question on interference with freedom of expression in Turkey is very timely given the seriousness of the cases mentioned and also because the emergence of fresh cases – in particular, the recent charges brought by the Istanbul Public Prosecutor against five Turkish journalists for criticising the decision by a Turkish court to stop a conference on the massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire – demonstrates the topical relevance of the issue raised.

We would also point out that our committee already considered the issue in May in connection with a written question by the Armenian parliamentarian, Mr Armen Rustamyan, on bringing the Turkish Criminal Code into line with European standards.

The concerns expressed by the Armenian parliamentarian related to a provision in the Criminal Code and the relevant explanatory memorandum which allowed the criminal prosecution of anyone who mentioned the Armenian genocide or the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Cyprus.  The same criticisms were voiced by the European Commission and the OSCE.

Unfortunately, the consultations which the Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies held at the time with the delegations concerned did not produce agreement on a reply.  The reasons for the disagreement were set out in a letter from the Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly.  Two main reasons were put forward: firstly, the Armenian Delegation refused to accept any reference to the Armenian parliamentarian’s fears being unfounded.  Secondly, the other delegation concerned refused to give a commitment that comments on the Armenian genocide or the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Cyprus would no longer lead to criminal prosecution in future.

The written question we are considering today proves that the fears voiced by the Armenian parliamentarian were indeed well-founded; it also enables us to understand the other delegation’s refusal here.

The repressive use made by the Turkish justice system of the new Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 June, is to be regretted; as Mr Rudy Salles clearly indicates in his written question, there has recently been an increase in cases of interference with freedom of expression in Turkey, mainly with regard to the issue of the Armenian genocide.  In particular, this has affected:

- Mr Orhan Pamuk, an internationally renowned Turkish writer, who is facing legal proceedings under Article 301 of the revised Criminal Code (insulting the state) for having stated that “30 000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians had been killed in Turkey”; his trial will begin on 16 December and he could receive a lengthy prison sentence;

- Mr Ragip Zarakolu, a Turkish publisher, who is being prosecuted under the same Article 301 (which replaced Article 159/1) of the Criminal Code for having published books on the Armenian genocide.  The last hearing in his case was on 22 November 2005. The prosecutor called for a six-year prison sentence.  The next hearing will be on 16 February 2006;

- Mr Hrant Dink, editor of a bilingual Armenian/Turkish newspaper published in Turkey, who was sentenced to a six-month suspended prison sentence last October for writing an article on the Armenian diaspora; a ruling against which he is to appeal.  In the near future, he will also face other proceedings for a speech he made on similar issues at a conference in 2002.

Each of the above cases constitutes a flagrant violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  These violations of freedom of expression are so serious that on 23 November the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement raised the possibility of the suspension of the negotiations on accession to the European Union if no progress was made here.

All of the above demonstrates the urgent need to amend the revised Criminal Code, especially Article 301, so that the restrictive interpretation given by the courts and prosecutors is no longer possible and freedom of expression is guaranteed.

Lastly, it is to be regretted that the legal proceedings brought by the Turkish authorities and the prison sentences sought against Turkish intellectuals, journalists and academics who take a stance on the Armenian genocide prevent the issue being freely debated within Turkish society and are aimed at silencing any challenges to the official line on the events of 1915.

On this point, too, the Committee of Ministers must adopt a clear stance and call on the Turkish authorities to make sure that the freedom to affirm that the Armenian genocide took place is guaranteed in full.”