HRANT DINK MURDER

The Court of Appeals 4^th Law Office overruled a decision concerning a compensation claim lodged against NTV. The Turkish news channel had been convicted for publishing a telephone conversation between intelligence police officer Muhittin Zenit and defendant Erhan Tuncel, suspect in the murder trial of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink.

The Ankara 1^st Criminal Court of First Instance had partly accepted a 90,000 TL (approx. € 41,000) compensation claim in a previous decision. The Court of Appeals Law office overruled the decision emphasizing the media's "duty to inform".

"Within the boundaries of the right to inform"

"The complainant's freedom of communication has not been violated by the publication of the conversation. The issue of the case is a news item which is related to the development regarding the Dink murder, which induced a large echo in public, and to the significance of the case. This kind of news ranges within the boundaries of the right to inform and is accordant to the law".

Intelligence police officer Zenit had filed a 90,000 TL compensation claim against NTV based on several news items published on 28, 29 and 30 September 2007. The news channel had reported about a telephone conversation the police officer had with defendant and gendarmerie informant Tuncel half an hour after the murder of journalist Hrant Dink on19 January 2007. Zenit opened the case because of an alleged attack on his personal rights by the news.

In the referring telephone conversation Zenit said, "What, they shot him directly in the head... This is the only difference. He was not going to run away, but this one did". Zenit also sues bianet for publishing news about the content of the phone talk, the compensation case is pending while the penal proceedings entered an order of nolle prosequi in November.

After the publications, Zenit opened a case for damages at the Ankara 1^st Criminal Court of First Instance claiming an 'attack on his personal rights'. Zenit also put forward that the record of the conversation was published while the Dink murder case was still pending and that the rules of secrecy had been violated.

The joint attorneys representing NTV emphasized in their defence that the news items were published in the scope of the public's right to be informed and the media's duty to inform. Additionally, the lawyers drew attention freedom of the press. (EÖ/VK)