A graffiti of Berkin Elvan in Athens (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Between November 6 and 12, one journalist received a deferred prison sentence for "insulting the president," two TV channels were fined over comments on the government, one journalist was released from remand after spending 155 days behind bars, and a case against three journalists for "marking a counterterrorism officer as a target" continued, according to bianet's Media Monitoring Database.
Here is this week's summary:
"Marking state officials as a target for terrorist groups"
Last December, a lawsuit was filed against three journalists from BirGün and Cumhuriyet newspapers regarding news articles about the killing of Berkin Elvan (15), who was shot with a tear gas canister in İstanbul during the 2013 Gezi Park protests.
Both newspapers obtained the testimony of E.Y., a police officer involved in the incident, and reported on it on March 11, 2016, with BirGün noting that a confidentiality order was issued regarding the investigation "to protect the reputation" of the police officer who shot Berkin Elvan.
After the reports were published, Canan Coşkun and Ali Açar from Cumhuriyet and Can Uğur from BirGün were indicted for "marking a counter-terrorism officer as a target" as per Article 6 of the anti-terror law.
Article 6 of the Law on Fight Against TerrorismThose who announce or publish that a crime will be committed by terrorist organizations against persons, in a way that makes possible that these persons can be identified, whether or not by specifying their names and identities, or those who disclose or publish the identities of state officials that were assigned in the fight against terrorism or those who mark persons as targets, in the same manner, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years. |
By disclosing the identity of a suspect police officer, the reporters caused him to become a target for "leftist terror groups," which had "exploited" Berkin Elvan, according to the indictment.
The indictment also linked the news reports to the 2015 killing of Public Prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz, who headed the investigation about Elvan at the time.
Two members of the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP-C) had taken Kiraz hostage in his courthouse room, demanding the name of the police officer who shot Elvan be disclosed. All three people had been killed during a police operation after hours of negotiations.
Releasing a statement after the incident, the DHKP-C also revealed the name of the police officer and threatened him with death, the indictment noted.
After the lawsuit was opened, police officer F.D., the suspect of Elvan's killing, became a plaintiff.
In the second hearing of the case on November 10, the court ruled that F.D. was not "aggrieved" by the reporters and removed his plaintiff status.
Berkin Elvan's killing and the trial of its suspectsOn June 16, 2013, Berkin Elvan was hospitalized due to grave head injuries after the police intervention in the district of Okmeydanı in İstanbul. When he was admitted to the Okmeydanı Research Hospital, his heart had reportedly stopped already. Suffering from a brain hemorrhage, Elvan went through at least five surgeries. On January 5, 2014, Elvan turned 15 in his coma. He died on March 11, 269 days after being shot. While the prosecutor investigating the incident was changed six times, the investigation was completed on December 7, 2016. Prepared by the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the indictment demanded that police officer F.D., who was referred to as the only defendant, be penalized on the charge of "killing with eventual intent." The 11-page indictment sent to the İstanbul 17th Heavy Penal Court was accepted. A verdict of non-prosecution was given for 42 police officers, who previously made their depositions as part of the investigation into the death of Elvan. Oya Aslan, one of the attorneys for the Elvan family, had told bianet that a lawsuit was filed only against a single police officer who was on the scene of incident and added that since the lawsuit was filed for "killing with eventual intent", rather than for "wilful murder", it has reduced the foreseen prison sentence to 20 years. The case still continues. |
Click for the related articles on MMD (1) (2) (3)
The "military espionage" case over a tapped phone conversation
Spending 155 days on remand over two articles and a tapped phone conversation, journalist Müyesser Yıldız was released after the first hearing of the case against her and two other people on November 9.
Yıldız, the Ankara news director of OdaTV news site, İsmail Dükel, the Ankara representative of TELE1 TV, and Noncommissioned Officer Erdal Baran were detained on June 8 as part of an investigation about "military espionage."
While Dükel was released four days later, Yıldız and Baran were remanded in custody. The charge against the three people was changed to "disclosing confidential information."
Yıldız was sent behind bars over two articles about Turkey's military and intelligence operations in Libya, which was also the subject of the tapped phone conversation between her and the officer.
However, she said in the hearing that the articles had been online for nearly six months and were based on not her conversation with Baran but on open sources.
This case was a plot against her, she said. "The target is clear: Me... But, what do you want from a valuable journalist, İsmail Dükel, whom I haven't seen in years, what do you want from a poor noncommissioned officer who has an illness?"
Handing down its judgment, the court ruled for the release of Yıldız and the continuation of the remand of Baran.
Click for the related articles on MMD (1) (2) (3)
Penalties on TV channels
The Radio and Television Supreme Council imposed administrative fines on Halk TV and TELE1, broadcasters known for their critical stance towards government, due to comments about the government and the army.
The presenter of a news program on TELE1 had said, "The officers of the [police] organization headed by [President] Erdoğan and Minister of Interior Süleyman Soylu can comfortably enter into cemevis [Alevi place of worship] and pee there."
The RTÜK found that those remarks were not based on any evidence, information, or documents and brought the police organization under suspicion and fined the channel for "derogatory, insulting or defamatory expressions beyond the limits of criticism."
A guest said during a program on Halk TV that "The army, the police are almost purged now. We don't have a very strong state. Currently, we neither have an army nor a police force that can wage a land war. The state doesn't have an army to react in the field apart from UAVs and UCAVs."
The council ruled that his remarks could harm the security institutions' morale and fined the channel.
Click for the related articles on MMD (1) (2)
Insulting the president
An investigation was launched against Ali Ergin Demirhan, an editor for the sendika.org news website, over his six tweets from the year 2018 for insulting the president.
Demirhan had his second hearing at the İstanbul 22nd Penal Court of First Instance on November 6.
He explained each tweet in question, rejected the offense charged and requested his acquittal at the hearing.
Handing down its judgment, the court sentenced Demirhan to 1 year, 2 months, 17 days in prison and deferred the pronouncement of the verdict.
Turkish Penal Code Article 299 - Insulting the President(1) Any person who insults the President of the Republic shall be sentenced to a penalty of (2) Where the offence is committed in public, the sentence to be imposed shall be increased by one sixth. (3) The initiation of a prosecution for such offence shall be subject to the permission of the |
Click for the related article on MMD
Click for all weekly MMD reports
About the Media Monitoring DatabaseThe Media Monitoring Database is based on BİA Media Monitoring Reports, which have provided a dependable and concise account of rights violations concerning freedom of expression in Turkey since 2001. The Database aims to create an information center through which the cases and intervention against the media employees and organizations can be monitored. With the database, we have brought together lawsuits and other legislative, judicial or administrative interferences to the right to freedom of expression of journalists and media organizations that have been reported by Media Monitoring Reports since 2017. |
(VK)