| FOREWORD
On 16 March 2000 the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey, a ground-breaking case in which it found Turkey to have violated freedom of expression. The case related to a sustained and deliberate campaign against Ozgur Giindem, a daily Turkish language newspaper reflecting Turkish Kurdish opinion, and many people associated with it. The brutal campaign included killings, violent attacks, raids on the office and criminal prosecutions of the newspaper and its employees, and eventually resulted in the closure of the newspaper April 1994.
For KHRP, the judgment represents the culmination of many years of work on press freedom in Turkey in general, and for Ozgiir Giindem in particular. We have brought a number of applications related to the persecution of Ozgiir Giindem to the European Court of Human Rights, including the one that is the subject of this Case Report. We have also sent delegations to observe the trials that resulted from the criminal prosecutions of those involved in Ozgiir Giindem, published several reports on violations of press freedom and Ozgiir Giindem and carried out other public awareness activities aimed at drawing attention to the issue of freedom of expression in Turkey.1
Ozgiir Giindem v. Turkey was brought to the European Court of Human Rights as part of the ongoing Litigation Programme of the Kurdish Human Rights Project. KHRP works for the protection of human rights of all persons living within the Kurdish areas and since 1992 has assisted in numerous cases before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, many of which have created new precedents for the Court.2
The co-operation of many individuals and organisations is essential for the effective conduct of litigation before the Strasbourg organs, and KHRP works closely with human rights organisations both in Turkey ' and elsewhere? We have assisted more than 400 individuals with their complaints before the European human rights system, thereby obtaining some form of justice for the individuals concerned and building up pressure on Turkey to reform. A case like Ozgiir Giindem, which involves a large number of individuals and a wide range of incidents, and in which the Court condemned a whole pattern of behaviour, has a wider significance and sends a strong signal that Turkey’s behaviour towards its Kurdish population is unacceptable. In addition to assisting applicants to bring their cases, KHRP follows up the enforcement of judgments and monitors their effect in bringing about change in Government policy and practice in Turkey.
Closely linked to the Litigation Programme are KHRP’s training projects which are aimed at transferring information, experience and skills to lawyers and human rights organisations in the Kurdish regions. Making available legal texts and materials in languages used in the Kurdish regions is an important part of these projects. We are delighted that, for the first time, this case report will be published in Turkish as well as in English. Our plan is that this will be the first of many translations of KHRP case reports into Turkish and other languages.
In addition to litigation and training, KHRP also works to raise awareness of the human rights violations directed against Kurds in all the Kurdish regions, primarily Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of the former Soviet Union. We do this through fact-finding and trial observation missions, research and publications, and other public awareness and communications strategies.
This Case Report includes the Report of the Commission and the Judgment of the Court in the case of Ozgiir Gundem. It also contains an introduction outlining the facts, the legal proceedings and the applicant’s complaints under the Convention. This is intended to provide a convenient summary and brief analysis of the main issues arising in the case.
Finally, we would like to thank Nusrat Chagtai who drafted this report while interning at KHRP during this year, together with Bill Bowring and Osman Ergin who represented the applicants with us.
Kerim Yildiz
Executive Director
Kurdish Human Rights Project
London
December 2000
1 See for instance. Freedom of the Press in Turkey: the case of Ozgiir Giindem, by KHRP, Article 19, International Centre on Censorship and Medico International, 1993 and Censorship and the Rule of Law: Violations of press and attacks on Ozgiir Giindem, by KHRP in conjunction with Article 19, International Centre on Censorship, Medico International, and the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, 1994, Yasa v. Turkey and Tekin v. Turkey: Torture, Extra-Judicial Killing and Freedom of Expression in Turkey, A Case Report, April 1999.
2 Other KHRP cases which have been decided by the Court to date arc. Akdivar v. Turkey, (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 143, see KHRP Case Report: Akdivar v. Turkey: The Story of Kurdish Villagers Seeking Justice in Europe (London 1996); Aksoy v. Turkey (1996) 23 E.H.R.R. 553; Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of 25 September 1997, see KHRP Case Report: Aksoy v. Turkey; Aydin v. Turkey: A Case Report on the Practice of Torture in Turkey (London 1997); Mentes and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 November 1997, see KHRP Case Report: Mentes and Others v. Turkey: A KHRP Case Report on Village Destruction in Turkey (London 1998); Gundem v. Turkey, Judgment of 25 May 1998, Selcuk and Asker v. Turkey, Judgment of 24 April 1998, see KHRP Case Report: Gundem v. Turkey; Selcuk and Asker v. Turkey: A Case Report (London 1998); Kurt v. Turkey, Judgment of 25 May 1998; Kaya v. Turkey, Judgment of 19 February 1998, see KHRP Case Report: Kurt v. Turkey; Kaya v. Turkey: A Case Report (London 1999); Yasa v. Turkey, Judgment of 2 September 1998; Tekin v. Turkey, Judgment of 9 June 1998, see KHRP Case Report: Yasa v. Turkey and Tekin v. Turkey: Torture, Extra-Judicial Killing and Freedom of Expression in Turkey - A Case Report (London 1999); Ergi v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 July 1998, Aytekin v. Turkey, Judgment of 23 September 1998, see KHRP Case Report: Ergi v. Turkey; Aytekin v. Turkey: Human Rights and Armed Conflict in Turkey (London 1999), Cakici v. Turkey (23657/94) and Tanrikulu v. Turkey (23763/94) both decided on 8 July 1999, see KHRP Case Report: Tanrikulu v. Turkey, Cakici v. Turkey: Violations of the Right to Life (London May 2000); Kaya v. Turkey and Kilic v. Turkey, both decided on 28 March 2000; Ertak v. Turkey, Judgment of 9 May 2000; Timurtas v. Turkey, Judgment of 13 June 2000; Salman v. Turkey and Ilhan v. Turkey, both decided on 26 June 2000; Aksoy v. Turkey anAAkkoc v. Turkey, both decided on 10 October 2000; Tas v. Turkey, Judgment of 14 November 2000; Bilgin v. Turkey, Judgment of 16 November 2000.
3 For example, the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD) and the Bar Associations in Turkey.
4 For example, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, and the Human Rights Committee of the Norwegian Bar Association.
Introduction
Focused as it was on the right to freedom of expression as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the case of Ozgiir Giindem v. Turkey serves to highlight the problem of media repression in Turkey and demonstrates the extreme measures which the Turkish Government is prepared to take in order to ensure that the freedom of the Kurdish population to impart and receive information is severely restricted.
The Kurds of Turkey, now numbering more than 15 million, have long been denied basic political, cultural and linguistic rights and their status as a national minority in Turkey has not been recognised. On the contrary, Turkey’s constitution and law are based on the idea that all identities must be subsumed under a single Turkish identity. Official policy denies the separate identity of the Kurds and expressions of Kurdish identity are severely restricted. Anyone who calls for democratic and constitutional rights for Kurds or even raises the Kurdish issue in public is liable to be labelled as separatist and prosecuted under the draconian Anti-Terror Law and other legislation. The media is a particular target for such persecution, and the campaign against Ozgiir Giindem must be viewed in this context.
This persecution and other official acts against the Kurds clearly violate international human rights standards. The feet that Turkey is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights has given victims of these violations an avenue for redress in a situation where they are unable to obtain an effective remedy domestically. To date, the European Court of Human Rights has handed down more than 50 judgments against Turkey, the majority of which have involved violations against Kurdish people or those sympathetic towards them, including political parties and the media. The catalogue of European Court of Human Rights judgments against Turkey in relation to its treatment of Kurds covers disappearance, state responsibility for killings, village destruction, torture and ill treatment, inadequate investigations and violations of freedom of expression and association.
The Ozgiir Giindem case highlights the great lengths to which the Turkish Government has gone in order to ensure that the current situation in Southeast Turkey is not brought to light. Not only were legal proceedings instigated which resulted in prosecutions, seizures of documents and publications, and finally the closing down of Ozgiir Giindem, but a large number of individuals associated with Ozgiir Giindem were subjected to acts of brutal violence including attacks, threats of violence, arson attacks and the unlawful killing of many journalists.
Ozgiir Giindem, a major newspaper published in Istanbul, sought to reflect the opinions of the Kurdish people in Turkey. The first issue of Ozgiir Giindem, “Free Agenda” in Turkish, was published on 31 May
1992. It was Kurdish owned and written in the Turkish language. It had a predominantly left-wing orientation and was pro-Kurdish in its cultural and political outlook. From the outset the authorities’ attitude towards the newspaper was hostile, and the legal proceedings and violence against those connected with it began immediately and were unremitting. For instance, during a period of 68 days from 26 April
1993, 41 issues of the newspaper were ordered to be seized. For the preceding four and a half months, it was forced to cease production altogether. Seven people connected with the newspaper were unlawfully killed and dozens were detained and tortured. Production and distribution were prevented by arson attacks, threats and intimidation, raids and. confiscation, directed against many including newsagents and distributors. This sustained campaign is described in the Report of the Commission, which is appended to this Case Report.
|
