Istanbul police knew of murder plans
The Dink family has thus filed a complaint against Istanbul Chief of Police Celalettin Cerrah and the officers of the Istanbul Police Department for “negligence in the murder”.The complaint argues that those mentioned in the text are suspects in the murder of Hrant Dink. “Even if they were not part of the organizational hierarchy, they aided and abetted the organization knowingly and willingly.” The complaint also asks for the accused to be punished for “committing a crime in the name of an illegal organization and being members of such an organization.”
The lawyers have accused Chief of Police Cerrah of making conflicting statements to the expert witness. The Istanbul police force in general is accused of not carrying out necessary investigations or providing precautionary protection despite being warned about the planned murder.
Trabzon gendarme withheld evidence
The complaint, which the Dink family’s lawyers filed with the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecution on 17 January, further demands the prosecution of the officers of the Trabzon Gendarmerie for “holding back evidence, tampering with evidence, abusing their position and failing to do their duty.”
The family is asking for the prosecution of Trabzon Province Gendarmerie Commander Ali Öz, Intelligence Unit Gendarmerie Captain Metin Yildiz, Central Gendarmerie Company Commander Lieutenant Murat Akce, Central Gendarmerie Police Station Commander Sergeant Major Cevat Eser, as well as officers Veysel Sahin and Okan Simsek, both of whom are already on trial.
Citing Article 8/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with “related crimes”, the family is asking for the prosecution of the officers at the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court.
Prosecution not informed of phonecall
The complaint pointed to the fact that apart from Ahmet Samast, the father of the suspected triggerman O.S., someone else informed the Trabzon gendarmerie of the identity of the suspect. It has recently emerged that the Trabzon gendarmerie received a phone call at 3:05 a day after the murder, on 20 January, in which the anonymous informant told an officer that the pictures broadcast on television were of O.S.. The informant further gave the address of the suspect, the name of his father and his father’s workplace. He said: “Tell Istanbul, he ran away from here. He went to Istanbul with his friends, it was done there.”
The lawyers said, “Despite the denunciation, the Trabzon Gendarmerie Command only transcribed this conversation nine days later, did not try to find out the identity or address of the informant, and did not inform the prosecution of the denunciation and its content.”
Expert report convinced of negligence
The complaint further cited the investigation of expert witnesses as coming to the following conclusions:
- The Istanbul Police did not act on the written report which the Trabzon Intelligence Unit sent to the Istanbul Intelligence Unit on 17 February 2006, a year before the murder, informing the latter about a planned attack on Dink.
- The Istanbul did not fulfill its duties according to the secret regulations concerning intelligence.
- The officers and their superiors in the Istanbul Police Force, from the lowest to the highest level, may be responsible, according to penal and discipline law, for not fulfilling their duty of control. (EÖ/TK/AG)
