Three years before his violent death, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was allegedly threatened by two officers of the National Intelligence Agency (MİT) at the Istanbul Governor's Office on 24 February 2004. After five years, the related investigation and the according charges reached the statute of limitation now.
Yet, in a notification sent to the journalist's widow Rakel Dink, the Ankara Public Chief Prosecution agreed on "negligence of duty and misconduct in office" of MİT officials Özel Yılmaz and Handan Selçuk.
Lawyers Fethiye Çetin and Hasan Ürel, joint attorneys of the Dink Family, appealed the decision of the prosecution that there was "no grounds for a prosecution" of the MİT officials and claimed that the date of the offence was not in 2004 but on 19 January 2007, the day Dink was assassinated.
The lawyers submitted their appeal to the Sincan (Ankara) High Criminal Court and put forward that the action of MİT officials was "negligent homicide".
"Operation to teach him his place"
Dink was called to the Istanbul Governorship on 24 February 2004. The meeting took place at the office of the Deputy Governor at the time, Ergun Güngör, and was attended by two MİT officials. Dink had subsequently assessed the meeting as "a part of the operation to teach me my place" and wrote "I am a target now".
Yılmaz was one of the two persons who attended the meeting. It turned out that he was one of the two high-rank intelligence officials and a defendant of the Ergenekon trial regarding the clandestine Ergenekon organization charged with the attempt to topple the government. The MİT Undersecretaryship confirmed in a letter sent to the Istanbul 14th High Criminal Court on 19 July 2010, three and a half years after the murder, that the persons who attended the meeting with Dink at the time were MİT members.
Regardless of the reason for the meeting with Dink, this way it also turned out that MİT knew since after the meeting in February 2004 that the journalist's life was in serious danger.
Knowing this, the joint attorneys applied to the Prime Ministry which issued permission for a probe on 21 January 2011. Hence, the Ankara Public Chief Prosecution launched an investigation.
Not "negligence of duty" but murder
In the application of the Dink lawyers it was stated that Yılmaz and Selçuk threatened Dink even though they had actually been on duty to protect him. It was said in the application that "they committed the crime of intentional killing by negligent behaviour". Thus, the joint attorneys requested the prosecution of the MİT members under Article 83 of the Turkish Criminal Law.
They also demanded to investigate the decision for the meeting with Dink at the Governor's Office with regard to the authority and legal background it was based on.
On 29 September, prosecutor Murat Demir announced in writing that there were "no grounds for a prosecution of Yılmaz and Selçuk. Demir also mentioned that the issue became time-barred since five years had passed.
The Dink family lawyers appealed the decision of prescription referring to the date of the murder (19 January 2007) as the date of crime instead of February 2004 when the meeting at the Governor's Office took place. They claimed, "The negligence that constituted the offence of the suspects was being continued until the murder of Dink in January 2007".
The appeal emphasized that the date of crime and the statute of limitation was the initial mistake of the prosecution and that the action of the MİT officials should be evaluated in context with the result.
Furthermore, the Dink family lawyers underlined that the offence was not a simple "negligence of duty": "Yılmaz and Selçuk were members of the Istanbul Provincial Protection Commission but did not take any measures. With their negligent behaviour they committed intentional homicide", the joint attorneys stressed. (AS/VK)
