Öz’s spirit lives on in the government’s Ahmet Şık defence to the ECHR

The government has cited the example while defending Şık’s detention for eleven months of an ECHR ruling deeming detention of two years and eight months to be reasonable in a trial in Italy in which some forty mafia members were prosecuted.
 
 
The government, which has submitted its defence in relation to the application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by our reporter Ahmet Şık, who has been detained for 348 days as part of the Cumhuriyet trial, has made recourse to scandalous examples to “defend” Şık’s detention. The government, making recourse to the OdaTV trial of which Ahmet Şık was also a victim while describing FETO, “clings onto” the FETO conspiracy Ergenekon trial in seeking the dismissal of Şık’s application. The government, alleging that Ahmet Şık has not been detained “for journalistic activities,” asserts that Şık’s eleven months in detention at the time was reasonable. The government cites as an example in support of its case an ECHR ruling deeming detention of two years and eight months to be reasonable in a trial heard in Italy in which some forty mafia members were prosecuted. Ergenekon prosecutor Zekeriya Öz, who is still on the run as a FETO suspect, also claimed that Ahmet Şık’s detention in 2011 as part of the OdaTV trial was “not for journalism.”
 
Ministry of Justice Human Rights Bureau Chair Hacı Ali Açıkgül has submitted two defence texts to the ECHR of 48 and 17 pages. These two defences by the government, which had proved incapable of submitting a defence for a lengthy period and requested extensions, bears a remarkable similarity to the defence it previously submitted on 2 May 2017 to the Constitutional Court over Turhan Günay’s application. This invites the conclusion that the government delayed the defence it submitted in the Ahmet Şık case despite it having been ready earlier.
 
Explaining FETO with recourse to Şık
 
On page 16 of the defence dated 27 November 2017, there is a rundown of the terrorist attacks that have taken place in Turkey since 20 July 2015 and information is given about the PKK, FETO and the 15 July coup attempt. In the discussion in the section on FETO, it is stated that the organisation used the Ergenekon, Şemdinli, Sledgehammer, Military Espionage, Revolutionary Headquarters, OdaTV and Matchfixing trials for its purposes.
 
For calling them “mafioso”
 
In the defence, in which it is recalled that Ahmet Şık was detained on the charge of “making the PKK, DHKP/C and FETO terrorist organisations’ propaganda” on 30 December 2016, numbering among the grounds for Şık’s detention are certain Tweets that he posted, the interview with Cemil Bayık and the intelligence agency trucks reports. The government, asserting that Şık had used such expressions as “murderer, mafioso and violence” with reference to the state and law enforcement forces, alleges that there has been no violation of the right to liberty and security of Şık, who has been in detention for 348 days, and his detention is reasonable. The government has cited as an example to justify Şık’s detention the ECHR deeming detention of two years and eight months to be reasonable in a mafia trial in Italy: “The court has previously, especially in the context of combatting organised crime, deemed periods of detention in excess of three years and even up to four years and three days to be reasonable and has ruled that there has been no violation of the convention. The court ruled in its decision on the Pantano case that the time in detention of two years eight months and fourteen days was reasonable in view of the existence of more than sixty charges, the 44 mafia members who were on trial and the multifariously complex structure of the matter.”
 
The government, arguing that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and hence the application warrants dismissal, cited similar dismissal rulings that the ECHR had passed in the FETO conspiracy Ergenekon trial. The government, arguing that Ahmet Şık, who had the right to demand compensation from the state pursuant to Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had not exercised this right and had thus not exhausted domestic remedies, states that the application warrants dismissal.
 
Same old arguments
 
The government, not accepting that Ahmet Şık’s freedom of expression has been violated, resorts to comments redolent of Zekeriya Öz in its defence:
 
“The government wishes to underline that what is under investigation bears no relation to the applicant’s claim that as a journalist he was ‘engaging in journalistic activity.’ When account is taken of the information and documents, articles and social media posts in the file, the applicant has portrayed the Republic of Turkey and its institutions to be a state that supports terrorist organisations and has depicted the state’s activities aimed at preventing terrorism and restoring public order as being the source of violence despite the terrorist organisation’s actions incorporating violence especially in Turkey’s eastern and south-eastern regions. Hence, the applicant has engaged in the acts of praising terrorism and legitimising violence.”
 
In the indictment, in which it is alleged that Ahmet Şık made publications that served to support the acts of terrorist organisations and, in his posts on social media sites, portrayed the state as being a “murderer” and the legitimate operations of the security forces as if it were terrorist activity, it was asserted that in this manner Şık “aimed to create an atmosphere of chaos.” The government is only able to cite Ahmet Şık’s news reports as evidence for its defence on the basis that his prosecution is not for journalistic activity.
 
Government has not learnt the lesson
 
The government, while citing numerous decisions as precedent, nevertheless makes absolutely no mention of the ECHR’s 8 July 2014 ruling on the violation of Ahmet Şık’s rights in the OdaTV trial. Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener, who were detained as part of the OdaTV trial on 6 March 2011, were released on 12 March 2012. The ECHR convicted Turkey of having violated Ahmet Şık’s rights to liberty and security of person and to freedom of expression for having detained him. The Ergenekon prosecutor of the day, Zekeriya Öz, responded to outrage over Şık’s detention by commenting, “They have not been detained for journalism.”