TURKISH COURT ACQUITS PROFESSORS ON SPEECH CHARGES

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