Human Rights Watch was concerned to learn that the prosecution of Fatih Taş, owner of the Aram publishing house, is to continue at the Istanbul Primary Court on December 2, 2005.
Human Rights Watch was concerned to learn that the prosecution of Fatih Taş, owner of the Aram publishing house, is to continue at the Istanbul Primary Court on December 2, 2005. Mr. Taş is on trial for publishing a Turkish translation of “Spoils of War: Human Cost of America’s Arms Trade” by John Tirman, executive director of the Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Taş is charged with “insulting Turkishness” and “insulting the security forces” under article 301 of the Turkish criminal code, and with “insulting the memory of Kemal Atatürk” under Statute 5816, the Law to protect Atatürk. The book in question contains no advocacy of violence but is, as the title suggests, an evaluation of the U.S. arms industry and its effects worldwide—including in Turkey. If convicted Fatih Taş faces up to six years of imprisonment.
In 2004, by a change to article 90 of its constitution, a majority of the Turkish parliament voted to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights (and similar international treaties) into Turkish law, and thereby make it applicable in Turkish courts. Most member states of the Council of Europe have also incorporated the convention into their domestic law.
Training has been provided by the Council of Europe and others to equip Turkish judges and prosecutors to carry out their responsibilities in a manner consistent with the provisions of the convention and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Human Rights Watch observes with regret that prosecutors continue to prosecute speech that is clearly protected under the Convention, and, by extension, under Turkish law.
ECtHR judgments Lingens v Austria and Castells v Spain make it clear that article 10 of the Convention will normally protect strong, even offensive, criticism of politicians and political institutions. In Handyside v the United Kingdom, the Court stresses that the protection of article 10 “is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.’”
We urge you to ensure that judges and prosecutors are fully aware of the international law standards and precedents applicable to cases involving peaceful expression of opinion. Human Rights Watch calls for the immediate abolition of article 301 and similar provisions concerning criminal insult, and hopes that the prosecution of Fatih Taş will be dropped immediately.
Sincerely,
Holly Cartner
Executive Director
Europe and Central Asia division
