Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06ANKARA2667
2006-05-11 15:28:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Ankara
Cable title:
TURKISH COURT ACQUITS PROFESSORS ON SPEECH CHARGES
how-toVZCZCXRO1611 PP RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR DE RUEHAK #2667 1311528 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 111528Z MAY 06 FM AMEMBASSY ANKARA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5531 INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J-3/J-5// RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC RUEUITH/ODC ANKARA TU//TCH// RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC RUEUITH/TLO ANKARA TU RUEHAK/TSR ANKARA TU RUEHAK/USDAO ANKARA TU
C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 002667
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/11/2026
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM OSCE TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH COURT ACQUITS PROFESSORS ON SPEECH CHARGES
REF: ANKARA 786
Classified by Polcouns Janice G. Weiner; reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d).
C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 002667
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/11/2026
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM OSCE TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH COURT ACQUITS PROFESSORS ON SPEECH CHARGES
REF: ANKARA 786
Classified by Polcouns Janice G. Weiner; reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d).
1. (U) An Ankara court on May 10 acquitted professors Baskin
Oran and Ibrahim Kaboglu on charges of "inciting hatred and
animosity" in a 2004 report on minorities in Turkey (reftel).
The prosecutor at the May 10 hearing, the trial's third
session, surprised the defense by stating that no crime had
been committed and calling for acquittal.
2. (U) Oran responded by reminding the court that at the
first hearing he had announced his intention to launch a
counter indictment for abuse of authority against the
prosecutor who charged him (who was not the same prosecutor
who called for acquittal). He averred that the acquittal
announcement constituted a "second counter indictment."
3. (U) The professors prepared a report on minorities as part
of their work as members of the GOT's Human Rights
Consultation Board. The report states that Turkey continues
to apply a narrow, legalistic definition of "minority",
rooted in a misinterpretation of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty.
It states that non-Muslims have second-class status in
Turkey, and are effectively barred from careers in state
institutions.
4. (U) FM Gul and other high-level GOT officials angrily
denounced the report when it was released, and Turkish
nationalists ripped the document out of Kaboglu's hands and
tore it up on live TV when the report was officially released
at an October 2004 press conference.
5. (U) The professors were charged under Penal Code articles
216 (inciting hatred and enmity) and 301 (denigrating
"Turkish identity"). The court acquitted the defendants on
the article 216 charges, but dropped the article 301 charges
on a technicality. At the trial's opening session, the court
decided to seek permission from the Justice Ministry to try
the defendants on article 301, because the Penal Code in
effect at the time of the alleged crime required such
permission. The Justice Ministry, however, replied that it
is not responsible for authorizing article 301 cases, leading
the court to drop the charges. It was the same legal logic
used by an Istanbul court to drop the high-profile charges
against novelist Orhan Pamuk in January.
6. (U) Attorneys for the defendants told us they plan to
appeal the article 301 ruling in order to win an acquittal on
that as well.
--------------
Comment
--------------
7. (C) As with many recent rulings in speech-related cases,
this decision is positive, but not completely satisfying.
Though the defendants in theory faced possible jail terms for
their "crimes," it is extremely unlikely they would have been
imprisoned even if the court had ruled for conviction. In
most cases, the effective punishment for controversial speech
these days is the process itself, which for the defendants in
this case constituted three months of legal wrangling. GOT
officials tell us that, over time, the courts will establish
jurisprudence that will discourage prosecutors from opening
such cases. It is not clear what impact these types of
narrowly defined rulings will have on future prosecutions.
Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/
WILSON
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/11/2026
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM OSCE TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH COURT ACQUITS PROFESSORS ON SPEECH CHARGES
REF: ANKARA 786
Classified by Polcouns Janice G. Weiner; reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d).
1. (U) An Ankara court on May 10 acquitted professors Baskin
Oran and Ibrahim Kaboglu on charges of "inciting hatred and
animosity" in a 2004 report on minorities in Turkey (reftel).
The prosecutor at the May 10 hearing, the trial's third
session, surprised the defense by stating that no crime had
been committed and calling for acquittal.
2. (U) Oran responded by reminding the court that at the
first hearing he had announced his intention to launch a
counter indictment for abuse of authority against the
prosecutor who charged him (who was not the same prosecutor
who called for acquittal). He averred that the acquittal
announcement constituted a "second counter indictment."
3. (U) The professors prepared a report on minorities as part
of their work as members of the GOT's Human Rights
Consultation Board. The report states that Turkey continues
to apply a narrow, legalistic definition of "minority",
rooted in a misinterpretation of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty.
It states that non-Muslims have second-class status in
Turkey, and are effectively barred from careers in state
institutions.
4. (U) FM Gul and other high-level GOT officials angrily
denounced the report when it was released, and Turkish
nationalists ripped the document out of Kaboglu's hands and
tore it up on live TV when the report was officially released
at an October 2004 press conference.
5. (U) The professors were charged under Penal Code articles
216 (inciting hatred and enmity) and 301 (denigrating
"Turkish identity"). The court acquitted the defendants on
the article 216 charges, but dropped the article 301 charges
on a technicality. At the trial's opening session, the court
decided to seek permission from the Justice Ministry to try
the defendants on article 301, because the Penal Code in
effect at the time of the alleged crime required such
permission. The Justice Ministry, however, replied that it
is not responsible for authorizing article 301 cases, leading
the court to drop the charges. It was the same legal logic
used by an Istanbul court to drop the high-profile charges
against novelist Orhan Pamuk in January.
6. (U) Attorneys for the defendants told us they plan to
appeal the article 301 ruling in order to win an acquittal on
that as well.
--------------
Comment
--------------
7. (C) As with many recent rulings in speech-related cases,
this decision is positive, but not completely satisfying.
Though the defendants in theory faced possible jail terms for
their "crimes," it is extremely unlikely they would have been
imprisoned even if the court had ruled for conviction. In
most cases, the effective punishment for controversial speech
these days is the process itself, which for the defendants in
this case constituted three months of legal wrangling. GOT
officials tell us that, over time, the courts will establish
jurisprudence that will discourage prosecutors from opening
such cases. It is not clear what impact these types of
narrowly defined rulings will have on future prosecutions.
Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/
WILSON