İsa Dalgıç, the public prosecutor of the 2^nd Criminal Court of First Instance of İstanbul demanded punishment of Sarkis Seropyan, the license holder for the Agos newspaper, an Armenian/Turkish weekly, and Aris Nalcı, the editor of the same newspaper, for “attempting to influence the judiciary.”

Following the decision by the 3^rd High Criminal Court of İstanbul,  the 4^th High Criminal Court, which is one level above the previous one, had also denied the request of recusation asked by the lawyers of the defendants on April 7. The lawyers had claimed that the judges Metin Aydın and Hakkı Yalçınkaya could not be objective.

The Agos lawyers refused to present a defense; they criticized the decision

In yesterday’s (May 26) hearing, in which the defendants did not take part, the lawyers reacted to the judge’s decision to pass them over and move directly to the public prosecutor. Criticizing that both courts denied their request of recusation without giving a reason, Bahri Bayram Belen, one of the Agos lawyers, said that if they could have spoken they would have said that they did not want to present a defense.”

Çetin replies: “Professional judges are not influenced by publications”

Indicating that the 288^th article of the Penal Code (TCK) should really be implemented to protect the right to a defense and the defendant, Fethiye Çetin, one of the Agos lawyers, pointed out to the Baader-Germany decision by the European Human Rights Court (EHRC) stating that “professional judges are not influenced by publications”.      

Further more, Çetin said that the prosecutor Dalgıç did not clarify through which expressions the article that was on trial influenced the judges. She reminded that the decision by EHRC, mentioned above, stated that “the objectionable behavior arise when those who govern the state attempt to influence the judge and that the publications regarding the subjects that serve the public interest should be evaluated within the context of the freedom of expression even in countries where the jury system prevail.  

Doğan reminded the previous two 301 sentences: “The outcome is very obvious”

The defense lawyer Erdal Doğan reminded that the same court, to which the judges Aydın and Yalçınkaya belong, sentenced both Hrant Dink in one case and his son Arat Dink and Sarkis Seropyan in another case for violating article 301. Furthermore, he said that the court incorporated the thoughts and feelings of the group that created an atmosphere of lynch and destruction around the defendants, presenting it as the legal ground of its decision. He concluded by stating that this legal ground was in the present indictment.

Doğan said, “The court made two mistakes and since two wrongs do not make one right, there is no need to present a defense. For the decision is already known.” The lawyer Kemal Aytaç concurred too.

The court adjourned until June 18, at 14:30. It is expected that the court will present its final decision on this day.

The legal proceedings about Nalcı and Seropyan for “obstructing proceedings for fair trial” are continuing. They are on trial for their article titled “Akıllı Tahta” (The Smart Board) that was published on the November 9, 2007 issue of Agos, in which they critiqued the decision that was reached regarding Hrant Dink’s Article 301 case.  (EÖ/TB)