The 21st hearing of the trial on the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was held before the Istanbul 14th High Criminal Court on Monday (14 November). Dink, founder and editor-in-chief of the Armenian Agos newspaper at the time, was gunned down in front of his office in central Istanbul on 19 January 2007.
Yesterday's session was chaired by Judge Rüstem Eryılmaz. The hearing started at 11.00 am and was attended by detained defendants Yasin Hayal and Erhan Tuncel. The main suspects are charged with "joining and assisting a terrorist organization" according to Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law (TMK), "membership in an armed organization" (Article 314/2) and "premeditated murder" according to Article 82/1 of the Turkish Criminal Law (TCK).
Mentally healthy
In the beginning of the hearing, a report concerned with the mental health condition of prime suspect Yasin Hayal was read out. A mental health check had been requested from the Forensic Medicine in the previous session.
The report of the Forensic Medicine Institute determined that Yasin Hayal did not suffer from any mental illness that would acquit him from the responsibility of the murder.
Also in the previous hearing, the joint attorneys of the Dink Family had requested to compare a biometric photograph of suspect Osman Hayal with a person identified on the footage of a security camera at the scene of crime from the day of the murder.
In response, President Judge Eryılmaz refereed to the report of the Physical Specialization on Audio and Video Branch Directorate as part of the Forensic Medicine Institute Presidency. Eryılmaz quoted, "A determination could not be made due to the insufficient quality of the photographs from the video recordings".
The statement of Sinan Rağşitoğlu was read out. He was alleged to have been involved in the murder later on and gave his statement to the police upon a correspondent directive.
Rağşitoğlu said in his statement, "I got to know about the incident from the press. I do not know why I was heard as a witness. I was not informed about the house Yasin took cover in when he was in Istanbul. I did not work as a member of the intelligence. I did not have any meeting or conversation on the incident. I had a flower shop in Trabzon. Yasin and a few friends came to the shop quite frequently for about one month. Then he changed his job and stopped coming".
The plaintiff lawyers deemed Rağşitoğlu's statement a lie and claimed that the witnesses who gave their statements to the police should duly make their statements face to face at court. The lawyers requested to summon them to court accordingly.
Who protects TİB?
The Dink family lawyers emphasized that the Telecommunication Communication Presidency (TİB) had been requested by court several times to provide footage that was important for the determination of certain persons and for the identification of other perpetrators of the criminal organization. TİB has not yet provided any of the information requested by court which, according to the plaintiff lawyers, was an obstruction of justice. They reiterated the request for the records. "The final opinion as to the accusation cannot be presented as long as the evidence is incomplete", the lawyers said.
The plaintiff lawyers referred to conversations of suspicious individuals made at 11.10 and 11.25 am and at 2.45 and 3.00 pm as shown on the footage of the camera installed at the Akbank Branch in Pangaltı. They requested TİB to draw up a writ on the determination of the identity of these people, information on the place, who they called and by whom they were called without giving attention to the content of the conversations.
There are 63 days left before TİB is going to officially erase these telephone records. If TİB erased the requested records, the most crucial evidence related to the murder of Hrant Dink would be lost.
Therefore, the lawyers demanded to have the records protected by a precautionary measure imposed on TİB.
However, the court board decided to conclude the preliminary injunction on the erasure of the records and of information related to TİB and other telephone operators only after having received a reply from the TİB Presidency. Hence, the plaintiff lawyers' demand was dismissed.
The trial was postponed to 5 December. (IC/VK)
