Istanbul Chief of Police Celalettin Cerrah’s statement to the Parliamentary Investigatory Commission that they had no warning of a threat at the life of murdered journalist Hrant Dink is “unreliable" conclude Ministry of Interior inspectors. Cerrah has acted in a grossly negligent manner in the Hrant Dink murder, they believe.
According to an article by Milliyet newspaper’s Önder Yilmaz, both the expert witnesses and the inspectors attached to the ministry have found Cerrah’s statement incredible.
Cerrah: "No concrete danger to Dink's life
According to the inspectors, Cerrah did not carry out his duty of control. The report says:
“According to Cerrah, this letter (a warning sent from Trabzon on 17 February 2006, that is a year before the actual murder) did not mention any concrete danger to Dink’s life. It only, so Cerrah, spoke about an action planned to get political reactions. However, the intelligence sent by Trabzon contained a concrete and clear conviction.”
"Letter should have been taken very seriously"
“The target and the attacker had been chosen. Dink had been chosen as a target. His life was in danger. The reasons for an attack were clearly laid out. The letter also argued that the structure and determination to carry out such an attack were present in the attacker, as shown by the previous attack on McDonald’s (in Trabzon). That letter should have been taken very seriously.”
“When you speak about an action targeting Dink which “was planned to get political reactions,” then that also means that Dink’s life was in danger. It is clear that this concerned Dink’s right to life, the integrity of his life and other fundamental rights and freedoms which needed to be protected. This evaluation shows that the Istanbul Police did not take the necessary steps and did not follow the prescribed procedure.”
Premature claims that murder was carried out by individuals
Shortly after Dink’s death, Cerrah said publicly that there was no political dimension or link to any organisation behind the murder. In his statement to the Parliamentary Investigating Commission he had argued that the intelligence coming from Trabzon was low-level and vague.
Responding to the accusation of the expert witnesses that there had been negligence in the case, Cerrah had launched a counter-attack: “Those expert witnesses are staff from the Ankara Intelligence Department. They are biased. They are against us.” (KM/TK/AG)
