04.08.2008 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Dailymotion ist bereits zweite führende Website, die verboten wird ("Turkish stubbornness condemned after Dailymotion becomes second leading video site to be blocked") [ID 24256]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

30.07.2008 - Quelle: EurasiaNet

Polarisierung zwischen regierungstreuen und säkularen Medien führt zu verzerrter Berichterstattung auf beiden Seiten ("The Truth is "Missing" in Media Coverage of Domestic Politics") [ID 24258]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

21.07.2008 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Sendebetrieb eines Fernsehsenders ohne vorherige Warnung behördlich verboten ("TV station’s broadcasts suspended without warning") [ID 24080]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

09.06.2008 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

YouTube seit über einem Monat gesperrt ("YouTube blocked for more than a month is an “unacceptable” act of censorship") [ID 23432]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

28.05.2008 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Meinungsfreiheit ("Jahresbericht 2008") [ID 23433]

"The peaceful expression of opinion continued to be restricted in law and practice. Lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders and others were harassed, threatened, unjustly prosecuted and physically attacked. An increased number of cases were brought under Article 301 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “denigration of Turkishness”, despite national and international opposition to the Article.

 * On 19 January, journalist and human rights defender Hrant Dink was shot dead. He had previously been prosecuted under Article 301. The suspected gunman allegedly stated that he shot Hrant Dink because he “denigrated Turkishness”. An estimated 100,000 people attended Hrant Dink’s funeral in an unprecedented display of solidarity. While a police investigation into the murder resulted in a number of suspects being brought to trial, the full culpability of the security services was not examined. In October, Hrant Dink’s son, Arat Dink, and Sarkis Seropyan, respectively assistant editor and owner of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, were convicted under Article 301 and each received a one-year suspended sentence.
    * In April, two Turkish nationals and a German citizen who all worked for a Christian publishing house in Malatya were killed. The three reportedly had their hands and feet bound together and their throats cut. The trial of people charged in connection with the murders began in November.

Article 216 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “inciting enmity or hatred among the population”, was applied in an arbitrary and overly restrictive manner.

    * In November, lawyer Eren Keskin received a one-year prison sentence for her use of the word “Kurdistan”. The sentence was later commuted to a fine of 3,300 liras (approximately US$2,800).

Prosecutions were also brought under Article 7(2) of the anti-terrorism law that criminalizes “making propaganda for a terrorist organization or for its aims”.

    * In November, Gülcihan ªimºek, a DTP member and mayor of the city of Van, received a one-year prison sentence for referring to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan as “Mr”."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen
Dokument öffnen

13.05.2008 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Behörden aufgefordert, restriktive Gesetze zu ändern, nachdem YouTube zum 3. Mal in 2 Monaten gesperrt wurde ("Authorities urged to amend restrictive laws after YouTube blocked for third time in two months") [ID 23220]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

05.05.2008 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Meinungsfreiheit trotz Reform des Artikels 301 weiterhin in Gefahr ("Freedom of expression still in danger in Turkey despite article 301 reform") [ID 23217]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

11.03.2008 - Quelle: US Department of State

Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22809]

"The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government continued to limit these freedoms in occasional cases.

The government intimidated journalists into practicing self‑censorship. The government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the penal code prohibiting insults to the government, the state, "Turkishness," Ataturk, or the institutions and symbols of the republic. Other laws, such as the Antiterror Law and laws governing the press and elections, also restricted speech.

Individuals could not criticize the state or government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. In some cases government officials prosecuted individuals who had displayed no intention of criticizing or insulting the government or Turkish state. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's EU membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, the question of Turks of Kurdish and other ethnic or religious origins as "minorities," and the history of the Turkish-Armenian conflict at the end of the Ottoman Empire. However, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics, particularly on the Armenian issue, risked prosecution.

The TPA reported that serious restrictions on freedom of expression continued despite legal reforms related to the country's EU candidacy. The TPA reported that the most serious problem during the year remained the large number of complaints filed by ideologically motivated attorneys, subsequently accepted by the courts, on grounds such as insulting Turkishness or the memory of Ataturk. According to a November European Commission report, the number of persons prosecuted for the expression of non-violent opinions almost doubled in 2006 compared with 2005, and there was a further increase in the number of prosecutions during the year. More than half of the charges were brought under the Penal Code, and in particular under Article 301, which criminalizes insulting "Turkishness.""

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

11.03.2008 - Quelle: US Department of State

Schikanen gegen Schriftsteller, Journalisten und Politiker ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22890]

"Prosecutors harassed writers, journalists, and political figures by bringing dozens of cases to court each year under various laws that restrict media freedom; however, judges dismissed many of these charges. Police harassed and beat journalists during at least one demonstration. Authorities ordered raids of newspaper offices, closed newspapers temporarily, issued fines, or confiscated newspapers for violating speech codes. Despite government restrictions, the media criticized government leaders and policies daily and in many cases adopted an adversarial role with respect to the government."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

11.03.2008 - Quelle: US Department of State

Einschränkungen der Medien unter Berufung auf das Antiterror-Gesetz ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22894]

"During the summer of 2006, the parliament placed further restrictions on the media by adopting amendments to the Antiterror Law. Under the amendments, editors at media organizations that disclose the identities of public personnel fighting terrorism may be fined, and a judge may order the closure for up to one month of a publication that "makes propaganda for terrorist organizations." Former president Ahmet Necdet Sezer challenged these amendments in the Constitutional Court, arguing that such restrictions violate the constitution. At year's end, the Constitutional Court had not ruled on the case, and the laws remained in suspension.

During the year cases against the press under the Antiterror Law continued. The TPA and human right's groups reported that the law contains an overly broad definition of offenses that allows ideologically and politically motivated prosecutions. The TPA reported that the Kurdish newspapers and radio stations were closed down periodically and in some cases were raided by security forces. According to TPA, the total cases against pro-Kurdish daily Ozgur Gundem under the Antiterror law reached 550, and its editor-in-chief Hasan Bayar was sentenced to a total of five years and 10 months' imprisonment."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

11.03.2008 - Quelle: US Department of State

Freier Zugang zum Internet ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22895]

"The Internet was widely available in the country. It is used in schools, libraries, private internet cafes and other public locations, and the government encouraged its use. There were some restrictions on Internet access.

On May 4, the government adopted a new Internet law governing criminal and civil law violations. The law allows the government to ban a Web site if there is sufficient suspicion that one of eight crimes is being committed via the site: encouraging suicide; sexual abuse of children; facilitation of drug abuse; provision of dangerous substances for health care; obscenity; prostitution; gambling; or crimes regulated in Turkish Code 5816 (crimes against Ataturk). Upon receiving a complaint or as a result of personal observations, a prosecutor may file an application for a ban on access to the offending site, or in an urgent situation, the prosecutor or the Telecommunication Presidency may impose a ban. In either case, a judge must rule on the matter within 24 hours. Following a judicial ban order, the Internet service provider (ISP) must block access within 24 hours. If the judge does not approve the block, the prosecutor must ensure access is restored. The ISP may face a penalty ranging from six months' to two years' imprisonment for failing to comply with a judicial order. The law also allows individuals who believe a Web site violates his or her personal rights to request the ISP to remove the offensive content.

On March 7, an Istanbul court banned access to the "YouTube" Web site to block a cartoon video that lampooned Turkey's founding father, Ataturk, as gay. The court ruled that the ban was necessary because "Ataturk and Turkey were insulted with swear words written in English on Ataturk's photos and to protect freedom of expression." On March 8, the court ruled in a new decision that it would lift its prior order if YouTube removed the offensive video. On March 9, after YouTube removed the video, the ban was lifted and users were again able to access the site.

On August 17, a court prohibited all postings on the wordpress.com Web site in response to a petition filed by lawyers for Adnan Oktar, a controversial Turkish Muslim author best known as an ardent antievolutionist who authored the book Atlas of Creation. Letters from Oktar's lawyers claimed that Edip Yuksel, a popular Turkish Muslim author who has defended evolution and criticized Oktar, posted offensive and illegal content on his wordpress sites. Oktar's lawyers initially applied to have only several postings blocked but later applied for a blanket prohibition after authors moved the allegedly defamatory content to other sites hosted on the wordpress.com domain. The government said that, pursuant to the court order, all wordpress sites were blocked because it did not possess the technology to block just one site. All wordpress sites remained blocked at year's end.

Earlier, on April 17, an Istanbul court granted Oktar's petition to block access to the electronic dictionary Web site Eksi Sozluk for allegedly insulting him; access to the site was restored one week later without the offensive links.

On September 17, a Sivas court issued an order to block access to YouTube after the court determined content on the site insulted Ataturk and the leaders of the government. Reporters Without Borders issued a statement calling the blocking of the entire Web site a disproportionate measure and urged the government to reverse the decision. YouTube removed the offensive content and the government did not block access.

Government authorities have on rare occasions accessed Internet user records to protect "national security, public order, health, and decency" or to prevent a crime. Police must obtain authorization from a judge or, in emergencies, the highest administrative authority before taking such action."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

04.02.2008 - Quelle: Committee to Protect Journalists

Jahresbericht zur Pressefreiheit im Jahr 2007 ("Attacks on the Press in 2007") [ID 22210]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

31.01.2008 - Quelle: Human Rights Watch

Einschränkung der freien Meinungsäußerung (2007) ("World Report 2008") [ID 23467]

"After its electoral victory in July, the new AKP government failed to take immediate steps to restart the stalled reform process by lifting restrictions on freedom of expression such as article 301, and elements of the legal establishment opposed to reform continued to prosecute and convict individuals for speech-related offences, as well as for staging unauthorized demonstrations. Over 2007 hundreds of individuals, among them journalists, writers, publishers, academics, human rights defenders, and, above all, officials of Kurdish political parties and associations, were prosecuted. Some were convicted."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

23.11.2007 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Tageszeitung Gerçek Demokrasi ist 7. kurdische Zeitung, die auf Anweisung eines türkischen Gerichts wegen "Propaganda" zugunsten der verbotenen kurdischen Arbeiterpartei PKK vorübergehend geschlossen wird ("Seven newspapers closed in the past two months") [ID 21932]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.11.2007 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Freie Meinungsäußerung und Strafgesetzbuch ("Turkey 2007 Progress Report [SEC(2007) 1436]") [ID 22361]

"Insgesamt zeigen die Strafverfahren und Verurteilungen wegen friedlicher Meinungsäußerung und das Vorgehen gegen die Presse, dass das türkische Rechtssystem die Meinungsfreiheit nicht in vollem Umfang gemäß den europäischen Standards garantiert. Artikel 301 und andere Bestimmungen des türkischen Strafgesetzbuches, die die Meinungsfreiheit beschneiden, müssen mit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention und der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte in Einklang gebracht werden."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen
Dokument öffnen

08.04.2007 - Quelle: Guardian

5 Mitglieder einer Punkrock-Band und ihr Agent von 18-monatiger Gefängnisstrafe bedroht; Regierungsbeamter fühlt sich von Songtext beleidigt, der unpopuläre Aufnahmeprüfung für Universität kritisiert ("Turkish band faces jail for exam protest") [ID 19663]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

07.04.2007 - Quelle: Guardian

Sicherheitsbeamte bieten ungefähr 20 Journalisten, Schriftstellern und Intellektuellen Schutz nach Mord an armenisch-türkischem Journalisten Hrant Dink an; Aktivisten fordern Aufhebung des Verbots "Beleidigung des Türkentums" ("Why Turkish intellectuals need armed guards") [ID 19664]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

27.03.2007 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Meinungsfreiheit im Jahr 2006 (rechtliches Vorgehen gegen über 100 Schriftsteller und Journalisten; Strafgesetz, Art. 216, 301, 305; Tötung von Hrant Dink) ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2007 (Events of 2006)") [ID 19387]

"According to the HRFT, the authorities initiated legal proceedings against more than 100 writers and journalists who had merely exercised their internationally protected right to freedom of expression by engaging in debates about and challenging current and past official policies.

Prosecution was facilitated by a number of problematic provisions of the penal code, which courts readily interpreted so as to punish legitimate criticism. These provisions included in particular article 301, which criminalized “defamation” of “Turkishness,” the Turkish Republic, and government institutions and branches; article 305, which criminalized activities considered to undermine the integrity of the state, national security, fundamental principles of the Turkish Republic and other fundamental national interests.

Journalists, writers and others criticizing official views and policies were also the targets of defamatory media campaigns as well as physical attacks typically perpetrated with impunity by nationalist groups, such as groups affiliated with the Nationalist Action Party.

- In September, a new criminal proceeding was launched against prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on charges of “insulting Turkishness” after he used the term “genocide” to describe the massacres of Armenians that took place in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 in an interview for Reuters. It was the third time he was prosecuted on the same charges, and in October 2005 he was given a six-month suspended prison sentence, which was upheld on appeal in June 2006. On 19 January 2007, Dink was shot dead in Istanbul, outside the office of the Agos newspaper, for which he was an editor. It was believed that he was murdered because of his work as a journalist, in particular his outspokenness regarding the mass killing of Armenians. A few days after the murder, seven suspects were arrested.

Criminal code provisions on hate speech (article 216) remained of concern, as hate speech motivated by nationality, sexual orientation, and political, philosophical or religious conviction was excluded from its scope."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

12.01.2007 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Verbot einer Ausgabe eines französischen Geschichtsmagazins zu Fundamentalismus ("Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey ban issue of French history magazine on fundamentalism") [ID 19118]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

01.2007 - Quelle: Human Rights Watch

Über 50 Personen wegen kritischer Äußerungen hinsichtlich staatlicher Politik zu unter anderem Religion, Ethnizität und der Rolle des Militärs angeklagt ("World Report 2007") [ID 19011]

"More than 50 individuals were indicted for statements or speeches that questioned state policy on controversial topics such as religion, ethnicity, and the role of the army. The government failed to abolish laws that restrict speech.

In April an Adana court sentenced broadcaster Sabri Ejder Öziç to six months of imprisonment under article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code for “insulting parliament” by describing a decision to allow foreign troops on Turkish territory as a “terrorist act”. Öziç is at liberty pending appeal. In July the Supreme Court upheld a six-month prison sentence against Hrant Dink, editor of the newspaper Agos (Furrow), under article 301 for “insulting Turkishness” in an editorial concerning the 1915 massacres of Armenians in Anatolia. The sentence was suspended, but other speech-related charges against Dink are pending. In September British artist Michael Dickinson was imprisoned for two weeks and subsequently deported for publishing a collage showing Prime Minister Erdoğan as US President Bush’s poodle.

İpek Çalışlar, biographer of Latife Uşaklıgıl, first wife of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Turkish republic, is on trial under the Law to Protect Atatürk. In a newspaper interview, Çalışlar had related an anecdote, supposedly shameful, that Kemal had donned his wife’s hijab once in 1923 to escape an armed rival."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

08.11.2006 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Meinungsfreiheit (im Bereich Rundfunksendungen in anderen Sprachen als Türkisch sind auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene Fortschritte zu verzeichnen; Strafverfahren und Verurteilungen auf Grund Strafgesetzbuch, Par. 301) ("Turkey 2006 Progress Report") [ID 19391]

"Im Zusammenhang mit der Meinungsfreiheit (einschließlich der Medienfreiheit) veröffentlichte das Justizministerium im Januar 2006 ein Rundschreiben zur Meinungsfreiheit in Printmedien und visuellen Medien. Darin wurden die Staatsanwaltschaften angewiesen, sowohl die türkischen Rechtsvorschriften als auch die EGMR-Rechtssprechung zu beachten. In dem Rundschreiben wurde auch ein monatliches Monitoring der gegen Presse und Medien laufenden strafrechtlichen Ermittlungen und Gerichtsverfahren eingeführt.

Im Bereich der Rundfunksendungen in anderen Sprachen als Türkisch sind auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene einige Fortschritte zu verzeichnen [...].

Anlass zu ernster Besorgnis geben jedoch die auf bestimmten Vorschriften des neuen Strafgesetzbuches basierenden Strafverfahren und Verurteilungen im Falle friedlicher Meinungsäußerungen, die zudem ein Klima der Selbstzensur schaffen könnten. Dies gilt insbesondere für Artikel 301, der die Beleidigung des Türkentums, der türkischen Republik sowie ihrer Organe und Institutionen unter Strafe stellt. Obwohl der Artikel die Einschränkung enthält, dass Meinungsäußerungen, die lediglich Kritik beinhalten, keinen Straftatbestand darstellen, wurde er wiederholt herangezogen, um Journalisten, Schriftsteller, Verleger, Wissenschaftler und Menschenrechtsaktivisten für friedliche Meinungsäußerungen strafrechtlich zu belangen.

Im Juli legte das Plenum der Zivil- und Strafrechtskammern des Kassationshofs Artikel 301 restriktiv aus. Der Kassationshof bestätigte eine zunächst ausgesetzte sechsmonatige Gefängnisstrafe gegen Hrant Dink, der auf der Grundlage von Artikel 301 des türkischen Strafgesetzbuches verurteilt worden war, da er in einer Reihe von Artikel über die armenische Identität das "Türkentum" öffentlich herabgesetzt habe.

Dies verdeutlicht, dass Artikel 301 mit den einschlägigen europäischen Standards in Einklang gebracht werden muss. Das Gleiche gilt auch für andere Bestimmungen des Strafgesetzbuches, die ebenfalls zur strafrechtlichen Verfolgung im Falle friedlicher Meinungsäußerungen herangezogen wurden und daher die Meinungsfreiheit einschränken könnten. Anlass zur Sorge im Bereich der Meinungsfreiheit bieten auch die möglichen diesbezüglichen Folgen des Antiterrorgesetzes [...].

Die jüngsten Beschlüsse der Regierung zu den Verfahren für die Ernennung der Mitglieder des Hohen Rundfunk- und Fernsehrats (RTÜK) geben insofern Anlass zur Besorgnis als sie die Unabhängigkeit der Medienaufsichtsbehörde schwächen könnten.

Insgesamt ist festzustellen, dass in der türkischen Gesellschaft der offene Meinungsaustausch zu einem breiten Spektrum von Themen zugenommen hat. Trotz dieser Entwicklung gewährleistet der geltende Rechtsrahmen noch keinen Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit nach europäischen Standards."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen
Dokument öffnen

10.10.2006 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Meinungsfreiheit und Strafgesetz ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18287]

"Turkey has in recent years amended several provisions under the penal code or other laws that used to lead to numerous prosecutions in the 1990s and nominally brought most of them inline with international standards on freedom of expression – an effort which led to a significant decrease in prosecutions under legislation restricting freedom of expression. Nevertheless, persons and groups expressing their views publicly on controversial issues such as minorities, the Kurdish question, Islam and other religions, the genocide of Armenians, and human rights violations continue to be prosecuted and are under threat of conviction.

Judicial harassment of outspoken individuals has increased dramatically in the past year: according to PEN American Center, recent developments are increasingly reminiscent of the 1990s when hundreds of writers and journalists were imprisoned for what they had written. In many cases new provisions such as article 301 of the penal code (“denigration of Turkishness, the Republic, and the foundation and institutions of the State”) have come to serve the same purpose as the laws that were eliminated.

According to PEN American Center, at least 15 journalists, editors, and publishers were standing trial as of July 2006, or have recently stood trial, under the insulting or denigrating Turkishness provision."

Dokument(e): Report
Press Release

10.10.2006 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Meinungsfreiheit und Anti-Terror-Gesetz ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18289]

"[...] the freedom of expression of minority groups is impeded with the Anti-Terror Law, a controversial law that was initially established in 1991. Following an increase in violence by the PKK in the past two years, an additional bill was passed by parliament (amendments to the 1991 Law on the Fight against Terrorism (Act 3713) on 29 June 2006. Among other things, it provides prison sentences for the dissemination of statements and propaganda by “terrorist organisations.” It is feared that vague wordings of the new provisions may lead to arbitrary prosecutions of journalists covering issues related to Kurdish organizations and against pro-Kurdish media, and further hinder discussion on minority issues."

Dokument(e): Report
Press Release

10.10.2006 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

3 kurdische Aktivisten bei Vorbereitung auf friedlichen Protestmarsch gegen Tötung von Zivilisten durch Sicherheitskräfte und wegen geplanter Meinungsäußerung hinsichtlich Spannungen zwischen Regierung und von Kurden geführter Verwaltung im Nordirak festgenommen ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18292]

"On 2 May 2006, three Kurdish activists, Ibrahim Guclu, Zeynel Ozalp, and Sedat Ogur, were arrested as they prepared to walk to the border of Iraq to peacefully protest the recent killings of civilians by security forces in southeastern Turkey and express their concern about tensions between the Turkish government and the Kurdish-led administration in northern Iraq. The men were charged under the Anti-Terror Law for “making propaganda for the PKK,” a charge that is all the more ironic in light of the fact that Guclu has repeatedly and publicly condemned violence by the PKK."

Dokument(e): Report
Press Release

10.10.2006 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Chef eines Verlagshauses wegen Veröffentlichung der türkischen Version der Novelle einer griechischen Autorin angeklagt ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18299]

"Abdullah Yilmaz, editor in chief of a publishing house, was charged for issuing a Turkish edition of Greek writer Mara Meimaridi's best-selling novel The Witches of Smyrna."

Dokument(e): Report
Press Release

12.07.2006 - Quelle: Armenialiberty

Gerichtsurteil gegen Journalisten armenischer Herkunft wegen "Verunglimpfung der türkischen nationalen Identität" beschränkt Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung und könnte Weg des Landes in Europäische Union erschweren ("EU Warns Ankara Over Ruling On Armenian Journalist") [ID 17631]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

24.03.2006 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Artikel 301 des Strafgesetzbuches untersagt es, öffentlich die "offizielle" Version der Landesgeschichte oder die Rolle der Armee in Frage zu stellen ("In support of freedom of expression [EUR 44/004/2006]") [#47402],  [ID 15521]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

16.03.2006 - Quelle: Committee to Protect Journalists

Bericht zu strafrechtlicher Verfolgung von Journalisten, Schriftstellern und Akademikern, die sich für EU-Mitgliedschaft aussprechen ("Nationalism and the press: Free expression is a victim as Turkish nationalists resist European tilt") [#46879],  [ID 15515]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

08.03.2006 - Quelle: US Department of State

Bericht zur Lage der Meinungsfreiheit ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46152],  [ID 15862]

"The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government continued to limit these freedoms in some cases. Journalists practiced self‑censorship.  The government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the penal code prohibiting insults to the government, the state, "Turkish identity," or the institutions and symbols of the republic. Other laws, such as the Anti-Terror Law and laws governing the press and elections, also restrict speech. Individuals could not criticize the state or government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's European Union (EU) membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, and the question of Turks of Kurdish origin as "minorities"; however, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics risked prosecution. The Turkish Publishers Association (TPA) reported that serious restrictions on freedom of expression continued despite legal reforms related to the country's EU candidacy"

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

16.02.2006 - Quelle: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Bericht zu Medienfreiheit (Kontroverse um Mohammed-Karikaturen, Fälle von Verstößen gegen Meinungsfreiheit) ("Report to the Permanent Council by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media") [#44347],  [ID 13449]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

28.12.2005 - Quelle: BBC News

Laut Vorschlägen des Außenministers sollte umstrittenes Gesetz, das Beleidigung des Staats oder seiner Institutionen unter Strafe stellt, geändert werden ("Turkey insult law 'may be dumped'") [#40999],  [ID 13450]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

26.12.2005 - Quelle: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Intelektuelle fordern Regierung auf, Einschränkungen des Rechts auf Meinungsfreiheit zu beenden ("Turkish Intellectuals Urge End To Limits On Freedom") [#40961],  [ID 13451]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

01.12.2005 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Anwendung von Art. 301 StGB (Verunglimpfung »des Türkentums« oder staatlicher türkischer Institutionen) lässt auf anhaltende Gefährdung der Meinungsfreiheit schließen ("Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now!") [#40035],  [ID 13452]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

10.2005 - Quelle: UK Border Agency (Home Office)

Pressefreiheit ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 13453]

für detailliertere Informationen siehe Originaldokument Seite 90

"6.82 As outlined in the European Commission 2005 report:

“As regards freedom of the press, there have been some positive developments, such as acquittals and a number of releases, as a result of the adoption of the new Press Law and the new Penal Code, although, as indicated above, journalists continue to face prosecution and are sometimes convicted for the expression of non-violent opinion. According to the Turkish Press Council there are no journalists currently imprisoned in relation to their work. In addition to the abovementioned problematic articles in the new Penal Code, a number of other articles are retained which are of specific concern to journalists and which could, in particular, create a climate of self-censorship damaging to freedom of the press, information and expression. Several of these articles seem to contradict the new Press Law, which had aimed at ‘avoiding prison sentences in cases of offences committed through the press’.” [71e] (p26)

6.83 The EC 2005 also noted that:

“In response to fears about restrictions on freedom of the press in the new Penal Code, the Press Council established a new Legal Assistance and Support Service in June 2005. This Service will reportedly provide a lawyer free of charge to journalists facing charges brought against them under provisions of the new Code. The Service will also designate an observer to follow court cases involving journalists. According to International PEN, there are currently an estimated 60 writers, publishers and journalists under judicial process in Turkey.” [71e] (p26)

6.84 The Freedom House report ‘Freedom of the press 2005’ (released on 25 August 2005) noted:

“Constitutional provisions for freedom of the press and of expression are only partially upheld. As part of its ongoing reforms to prepare for membership in the European Union, Turkey passed another series of reforms in 2004 that affected press freedom. A new press code was adopted in June that includes heavy fines instead of prison sentences for some press crimes, permits noncitizens to own periodicals and serve as editors, protects against disclosure of sources, and prevents authorities from closing publications or hindering distribution. The new code, which was due to take effect in April 2005, reduced the minimum sentence for defamation. However, prison sentences remain in place for crimes such as stating that genocide was committed against the Armenians in 1915, instigating hatred in one part of the population against another (used against journalists who write about the Kurdish population), or calling for the removal of Turkish troops from Cyprus. Criminal defamation laws for insult against institutions such as the president, the military, and Turkish national identity stand as well, and sentences are in fact longer for members of the media than for others.” [62e] (p204)

6.85 The Freedom House ‘Freedom of the press 2005’ continued:

“Censorship is not explicit, but content censorship and self-censorship occur among editors and journalists, who are concerned about violating the many legal restrictions. Often, the courts side against journalists, who continue to be jailed and face huge fines for various press offenses…Despite overt government restrictions, independent domestic and foreign print media provide diverse views, including criticism of the government and its policies. Turkey’s broadcast media are well developed, with hundreds of private television channels, including cable and satellite, as well as commercial radio stations. Media are highly concentrated in a few private conglomerates, which subtly pressure their editors and journalists to refrain from reporting that will harm their business interests. This could include avoiding criticism of the government, which often has contracts with other arms of the companies and advertisers.” [62e] (p205)

6.86 Turkey ranked 105 (out of 194 countries) in the Freedom House Table of Global Press Freedom Rankings and the status of its press was considered ‘partly free’. In 2004 the ranking for Turkey was 107. [62e] (Table of Global Press Freedom Rankings)"

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

10.2005 - Quelle: UK Border Agency (Home Office)

Meinungsfreiheit ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 13454]

für detailliertere Informationen siehe Originaldokument Seite 86

"6.69 As noted in the European Commission 2005 report:

“With regard to freedom of expression, the situation of people sentenced for the expression of non-violent opinion continues to be addressed. The Turkish authorities have reported that a significant number of persons serving prison sentences under articles of the old Penal Code have been set free. Both the authorities and a number of NGOs report that there has been a continued reduction in the number of prosecutions and particularly convictions in cases related to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, there are a number of new cases where individuals expressing non-violent opinions have been prosecuted and convicted, including under provisions of the new Penal Code.” [71e] (p25)

6.70 The EC 2005 report continued:

“In May 2005 several amendments to the new Penal Code were adopted, which improved certain provisions related to freedom of expression…However, a number of articles which have been used to restrict freedom of expression in the past, and remained virtually unchanged in the new Code, were not addressed in the context of the May 2005 amendments. These and other articles still constitute a potential threat to freedom of expression given their broad margin of appreciation. This is particularly the case with regard to a number of vaguely worded articles which refer to offences against symbols of state sovereignty, the reputation of state organs and national security… In assessing whether to bring cases which impinge on the right to freedom of expression, the judiciary should consider whether the expression incites violence, armed rebellion or enmity, what the capacity of the individual or group is to influence the public and what kind of opportunity the target of the expression has to respond.” [71e] (p25-26)

6.71 The EC 2005 report further noted that:

“There has been some progress on open and free debate in general… According to the Turkish Publishers Association, the publication of books related to sensitive issues, such as the Kurdish and Armenian questions, is reportedly easier than in the past and when cases are brought against authors or publishers acquittals are more common. However, books focusing on these issues are in some cases still banned and individuals are occasionally convicted. Recourse to legal action against cartoonists and satirists, including by the Prime Minister, is of concern. In June 2005, in such case, a journalist was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.” [71e] (p25)

6.72 As noted in the Amnesty International Turkey Memorandum of August 2005:

“Amnesty International has previously welcomed some of the changes made to the Turkish Constitution and legislation since 2001 in order to improve standards related to the right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International considers that the amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution by the government – which gives priority to international treaties on fundamental rights and freedoms to which Turkey is a state party over Turkish domestic legislation – is a key development. However, the organization is nevertheless still aware of numerous cases in which individuals are being prosecuted or have received monetary fines or custodial sentences for the peaceful expression of non-violent opinion. While courts have handed down some landmark judgments which have cited international standards, there are also several examples of important cases where the decisions of the Court of Appeals appear to be in contravention of international standards.” [12s] (Section on Freedom of expression)

6.73 The AI Turkey memorandum continued:

“The restrictions provided for in the new TPC [Turkish Penal Code] appear to be considerably broader than this and are not limited to those instances which are demonstrably necessary on one of the permissible grounds. As such, the law could be used to penalize individuals exercising their human right to freedom of expression on matters of political opinion. For example, Section 3 of Part 4 of the new TPC entitled ‘Crimes against signs of the state’s sovereignty and the honour of its organs’ (Articles 299 – 301) could be used to penalize individuals who exercise their right to freedom of expression by expressing political views. In particular, Amnesty International is disturbed that this section of the new TPC criminalizes offences such as ‘insulting’ the President (Article 299), or ‘denigrating’ the Turkish flag or anything carrying its replica and the national anthem (Article 300), Turkishness, the Republic, the Parliament, the government, the judiciary, the military and security forces (Article 301)… Moreover, Section 3 carries over aspects of Article 159 of the previous TPC, which criminalized insults against or denigration of various state institutions… We recognize that Paragraph (4) of Article 301 states that ‘any expression of thought which is made with the intention of criticism does not constitute a crime’. However, Amnesty International recalls that a similar amendment was made in August 2002 to this provision in the previous TPC, under Article 159, yet this did not prevent prosecutions of statements by individuals who had exercised their right to freedom of expression.” [12s] (Section on Freedom of expression)"

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

23.09.2005 - Quelle: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Istanbul court banned conference of academics and intellectuals on massacre of Armenians in Ottoman Empire in 1915 ("Turkey: Court Bans Conference On Armenian Massacre") [#37044],  [ID 13455]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

22.09.2005 - Quelle: BBC News

Controversial conference on mass killing of Armenians living under Ottoman Empire, banned by court; prime minister called the decision undemocratic ("Turkey bans 'genocide' conference") [#36965],  [ID 13456]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

08.2005 - Quelle: Amnesty International

AI: Anhaltende Muster schwerwiegender Menschenrechtsverletzungen; Reaktion der Behörden auf Berichte von Folter und Misshandlungen ist noch immer unzureichend; Einschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit durch Verfassung und neues Strafgesetzbuch ("Memorandum on AI's recommendations to the government to address human rights violations") [#38256],  [ID 13457]

"FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Amnesty International has previously welcomed some of the changes made to the Turkish Constitution and legislation since 2001 in order to improve standards related to the right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International considers that the amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution by the government – which gives priority to international treaties on fundamental rights and freedoms to which Turkey is a state party over Turkish domestic legislation – is a key development.

However, the organization is nevertheless still aware of numerous cases in which individuals are being prosecuted or have received monetary fines or custodial sentences for the peaceful expression of non-violent opinion. While courts have handed down some landmark judgments which have cited international standards, there are also several examples of important cases where the decisions of the Court of Appeals appear to be in contravention of international standards.15 Such problems seem to derive from an apparent resistance by prosecutors and members of the judiciary to the reforms. Indeed the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders has drawn attention to the fact that “prosecutors have not actively engaged in the implementation of the reform” and that “Some judges have also shown reluctance to implement the reforms” concluding that attitudes on the part of “some within the judiciary is hampering concrete change at the local level”. Amnesty International therefore fully supports the call of the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders for “monitoring of the implementation of the new laws by the judiciary at the local level, in particular with regard to cases involving freedom of expression”.

However, the organization notes that the government has previously required that prosecutors receive permission from the Ministry of Justice in order to open cases under the notorious Article 159 of the previous TPC (which criminalizes “insults” to various state entities). Despite such monitoring of cases by the Ministry of Justice, cases in violation of international standards on free speech continued to be opened under Article 159. Therefore, closer monitoring which takes into account Turkey’s obligations under international law need to be implemented. In this connection, steps should be taken to implement Hina Jilani’s recommendation for “increased training of the judiciary, security forces and governorship on the aims and intents of the new laws”.

· Constitutional restrictions on the right to freedom of expression Apart from the failure to implement the new laws in relation to freedom of expression, it is clear that the law in Turkey still places unnecessary and abusive restrictions to this right. We therefore urge the government to take steps to address these existing legal and constitutional restrictions on the right to freedom of expression as a priority.

Many of these aspects derive from provisions found in the Constitution on the right to freedom of expression. Although restrictions and prohibitions of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms (Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution) were reworded to a large extent in 2001, numerous articles of the Turkish Constitution still retain restrictions which are not compatible with Turkey’s obligations under international law.16 Amnesty International is also concerned that the amendment of Article 26 in 2001 introduced further restrictions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression: “…for the purposes of protecting national security, public order and public safety, the basic characteristics of the Republic and safeguarding the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory and nation, preventing crime, punishing offenders, withholding information duly classified as a state secret, protecting the reputation and rights and private and family life of others, or protecting professional secrets as prescribed by law, or ensuring the proper functioning of the judiciary”.
Such wording can be - and has been in the past - used to penalize peaceful statements, for example, on the Kurdish issue or the role of Islam in politics and society. Amnesty International urges the Turkish authorities to ensure that the restrictions in the Constitution do not go beyond the margins allowed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to which Turkey is a state party.

· Problems with the new TPC As stated above, Amnesty International considers that the new TPC contains measures which may be significant obstacles to the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression in Turkey and appear to be a step back in the reform process. Some provisions – in the use of which the European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey to have been in breach of the ECHR – have apparently been carried over directly from its predecessor. International human rights law on freedom of expression, as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the ECHR as elaborated in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, provides that any limitations on the right to freedom of expression must be narrowly drawn and only such as are necessary in a democratic society for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals, or for the prohibition of war propaganda and advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The restrictions provided for in the new TPC appear to be considerably broader than this and are not limited to those instances which are demonstrably necessary on one of the permissible grounds. As such, the law could be used to penalize individuals exercising their human right to freedom of expression on matters of political opinion.

For example, Section 3 of Part 4 of the new TPC entitled “Crimes against signs of the state’s sovereignty and the honour of its organs” (Articles 299 – 301) could be used to penalize individuals who exercise their right to freedom of expression by expressing political views. In particular, Amnesty International is disturbed that this section of the new TPC criminalizes offences such as “insulting” the President (Article 299), or “denigrating” the Turkish flag or anything carrying its replica and the national anthem (Article 300), Turkishness, the Republic, the Parliament, the government, the judiciary, the military and security forces (Article 301). There is no clear reason provided why, as the law states, such acts should be aggravated and provided with heavier sentences when perpetrated abroad by a citizen of Turkey. Moreover, Section 3 carries over aspects of Article 159 of the previous TPC, which criminalized insults against or denigration of various state institutions. In the light of the way that this provision has been used to unnecessarily restrict the right to freedom of expression, Amnesty International has called for it to be repealed.
We recognize that Paragraph (4) of Article 301 states that “any expression of thought which is made with the intention of criticism does not constitute a crime”. However, Amnesty International recalls that a similar amendment was made in August 2002 to this provision in the previous TPC, under Article 159, yet this did not prevent prosecutions of statements by individuals who had exercised their right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International therefore urges the government to repeal this section in order to bring the legislation into line with international standards on freedom of expression.

Some of the articles found within Section 4 of Part 4 of the new TPC (Articles 302 – 308) entitled “Crimes against State Security” also appear to be in contravention of Turkey’s obligations to comply with human rights standards. Amnesty International views with particular concern Article 305 which criminalizes “acts against the fundamental national interest”, especially in the light of the written explanation attached to the draft when the law passed through Parliament. The explanation provided as examples of crimes such acts as “making propaganda for the withdrawal of Turkish soldiers from Cyprus or for the acceptance of a settlement in this issue detrimental to Turkey… or, contrary to historical truths, that the Armenians suffered a genocide after the First World War”. Amnesty International considers that the imposition of a criminal penalty for any such statements – unless they demonstrably amount to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence – would be a clear breach of international standards related to freedom of expression.

Amnesty International is additionally concerned by Section 5 of Part 3 of the new TPC entitled “Laws against the Public Order” (Articles 213 – 222). Amnesty International notes that Article 312 of the previous TPC – which criminalized incitement of people to enmity on the basis of social, regional, ethnic or religious difference – has been carried over into the new TPC as Article 216. In the past, the Turkish state has been found to have been in breach of the right to freedom of expression by the European Court of Human Rights in its use of this provision. While such legislation is necessary to criminalize advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, it has rarely been used as such. In the past, peaceful statements related to religious or minority rights have been prosecuted under this Article – Amnesty International has repeatedly raised its concerns about the use of this provision. Amnesty International urges that particular care be paid in the use of this Article and supports the recent recommendation of the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance which urged the Turkish authorities “to continue their efforts to ensure that Article 312 of the Criminal Code prohibiting incitement to hatred is applied for the purpose of punishing racist statements in compliance with the letter and spirit of this provision [Article 312]”.

Furthermore, Amnesty International notes the concern articulated by human rights organizations and press groups related to Article 220 (8) – which criminalizes the making of propaganda for criminal organizations, as well as Article 226 – which criminalizes obscenity, that these may be used to restrict the right to freedom of expression. Article 318 which criminalizes “alienating the people from the army” also appears to offer possibilities to restrict the right to freedom of expression in a way not permitted by international standards.

Paragraph 1 of Article 298 of the new TPC introduces sanctions against individuals who may try to prevent prisoners from exercising their full rights. While legislation protecting the rights of prisoners is welcome, this provision is framed in such a way as to suggest that the focus of the law is prisoners who, for example, may engage in a boycott of a prison facility. Paragraphs 2 and 3 lay down penalties for those who encourage or persuade prisoners to take part in hunger strikes. Amnesty International is concerned that Article 298 may be used to curtail non-violent protests such as boycotts or hunger strikes and thus may violate the right to freedom of expression.

While some changes were made to the draft of the law after its entry into force was delayed, these must be considered insufficient. Most obviously, the possibility of aggravated sentences when the offences are perpetrated through the press was removed in some crimes. However, the problems in the law remained unaddressed. In at least one instance, a change made the TPC even more restrictive. For example, Article 305 of the draft, which criminalized “acts against the fundamental national interest”, was altered to explicitly allow for the prosecution of “foreigners” as well as Turkish citizens who engage in such acts.

Amnesty International considers that legal and constitutional guarantees for the right to freedom of expression must be further strengthened so that they are compatible with international legal provisions, such as those of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The European Court has interpreted restrictions to Article 10 very narrowly. Amnesty International will closely monitor the implementation of the new TPC but asks for further steps to be taken to amend the law and constitution in order to fully ensure freedom of expression in Turkey."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

31.07.2005 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Zur aktuellen Menschenrechtslage vor dem Hintergrund des Reformprozesses; Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit auch durch neues türkisches StGB eingeschränkt; Folter weiterhin weit verbreitet; Gesundheitsversorgung; Gewalt gegen Frauen ("Länderkurzinfo der Koordinationsgruppe Türkei der deutschen Sektion") [#34626],  [ID 13458]

"Das am 1. Juni 2005 in Kraft getretene neue Strafgesetzbuch wird von türkischer Seite als zentrale Reformmaßnahme zur Verbesserung des Menschenrechtsschutzes präsentiert. Zwar enthält die Gesetzesnovelle viele positive Änderungen, gleichwohl birgt das Gesetz die Möglichkeit, das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung einzuschränken und Personen als gewaltlose politische Gefangene zu inhaftieren. Strafrechtsartikel, die in der Vergangenheit der Verfolgung von Meinungsäußerungen dienten, wurden in inhaltlich identischer Form in das neue Strafgesetzbuch übernommen. So taucht beispielsweise Art. 159 des alten Strafgesetzbuches, der die „Beleidigung oder Verunglimpfung“ verschiedener staatlicher Institutionen unter Strafe stellte, in Form von Art. 301 im Abschnitt „Verbrechen gegen Symbole der staatlichen Souveränität und die Ehrung ihrer Organe“ wieder auf. Darüber hinaus wurden neue restriktive Artikel aufgenommen, wie z. B. Art. 305 tStGB, nach dem Handlungen gegen die grundlegenden nationalen Interessen der Türkei mit drei bis zehn Jahren Haft bestraft werden können. In der Begründung für diesen Artikel wurden als Beispiele für eine mögliche Tatbestandserfüllung die Forderung nach einem Abzug der türkischen Truppen aus Zypern oder die Verbreitung der These vom Völkermord an den Armeniern angeführt [1]. Weiterhin bestehen bleibt auch das Gesetz zum Schutz des Andenkens an Atatürk, nach dem ein breites Spektrum von Meinungsäußerungen bzw. kritischer Auseinandersetzung mit der türkischen Geschichte sanktioniert werden kann. In Bezug auf exilpolitische Tätigkeiten ist insbesondere darauf hinzuweisen, dass auch nach dem neuen Art. 301 tStGB die „Beleidigung des Türkentums“ mit einem um ein Drittel erhöhten Strafmaß belegt ist, wenn sie von einem türkischen Staatsangehörigen im Ausland begangen wird. Die massive Kritik am Gesetzentwurf durch türkische Journalistenverbände und Menschenrechtsorganisationen hat bezüglich der Inhalte so gut wie keinen Eingang in das aktuelle Gesetz gefunden. Lediglich die Strafverschärfung bei Verbreitung von Äußerungen durch die Presse wurde weitgehend zurückgenommen; dieser Strafverschärfungsgrund behält dennoch bei mehreren Artikeln Gültigkeit, indem er durch den Tatbestand „öffentliche Begehung“ oder durch das Pressegesetz erfasst ist [2] . Vor der jüngsten Strafrechtsreform hatte es von 2002 bis 2004 Gesetzesreformen gegeben, die zu Änderungen in den Artikeln 159, 169 und 312 tStGB a. F. und zur Abschaffung von Art. 8 Anti-Terror-Gesetz (ATG) führten. Auch wenn Strafverfahren und vor allem Verurteilungen nach den genannten Artikeln abgenommen haben, wurden seitdem die Artikel 159, 169 und 312 tStGB a. F. sowie Art. 7 des Anti-Terror-Gesetzes (ATG) weiter häufig angewandt, um unliebsame Meinungsäußerungen und Kritik von Menschenrechtsverteidigern, Journalisten und Vertretern oppositioneller Parteien juristisch zu verfolgen. Gründe sind neben der mangelhaften Annahme durch die türkischen Justizorgane auch strukturelle Umstände. So wurde in der Begründung zur Abschaffung von Art. 8 ATG darauf hingewiesen, dass Art. 312 II tStGB stattdessen bei separatistischen Äußerungen angewendet werden kann. Vor allem Menschenrechtrechtler werden nach wie vor wegen „Beleidigung der Sicherheitskräfte angeklagt“, wenn sie Menschenrechtsverletzungen öffentlich anprangern, obwohl dem hier relevanten Art. 159 a. F. der Zusatz beigefügt wurde, dass bloße Kritik nicht strafbar sei. Auch die Sonderberichterstatterin des Generalsekretärs der Vereinten Nationen für Menschenrechtsverteidiger, Hina Jilani, berichtete im Anschluss an ihre Türkei-Mission vom 11. bis 20. Oktober 2004 über andauernde gravierende Repressionen gegen Menschenrechtler in der Türkei. Gegen den Vorsitzenden der IHD-Zweigstelle Diyarbakır sind 56, gegen die stellvertretende IHD-Vorsitzende und Leiterin eines Rechtshilfezentrums für sexuell misshandelte Frauen, Eren Keskin, sind 87 Strafverfahren anhängig. Viele derartige Verfahren enden zwar inzwischen mit Freisprüchen, es kommt aber nach wie vor zu Verurteilungen zu Geld- oder sogar Haftstrafen. Eren Keskin und weitere Vorstandsmitglieder der Zweigstelle Istanbul des IHD haben im Frühjahr 2005 – nach zahlreichen ähnlichen Vorfällen und auch physischen Angriffen in der Vergangenheit – erneut schriftliche Morddrohungen von den so genannten „Türkischen Rachebrigaden“ erhalten, die sich dabei ausdrücklich auf ihren Mordanschlag auf den IHD-Vorsitzenden Akin Birdal im Mai 1998 bezogen [3] . Auch türkische Politiker, darunter auch Ministerpräsident Erdoğan, haben die Menschenrechtler in der Türkei wiederholt als Sympathisanten von Terrororganisationen diffamiert."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

13.07.2005 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Istanbul: Der türkisch-armenische Journalist Hrant Dink nach Art. 301 des geänderten türkischen StGB wegen »Beleidigung der türkischen Identität« angeklagt; Staatsanwalt fordert drei Jahre Haft ("Armenian journalist faces three years jail for "insulting Turkish identity"") [#33973],  [ID 13459]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.2005 - Quelle: Freedom House

Jahresbericht zur Pressefreiheit (Berichtszeitraum 2004) ("Freedom of the Press 2005") [#42060],  [ID 13460]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

25.05.2005 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Verfolgungen bei friedlicher Meinungsäußerung ("Jahresbericht 2005") [#32304],  [ID 13461]

"People were prosecuted for the peaceful expression of their opinions, although the Court of Appeal and some lower courts issued landmark judgements upholding the right to freedom of expression. Cases and investigations were opened against individuals because of their peaceful opinions and activities. Such prosecutions constituted a form of judicial harassment; they rarely ended in custodial sentences, but often resulted in heavy fines. Such trials were opened under various articles of the Turkish Penal Code, for example, those which criminalize “insults” to different state bodies or “incitement to enmity and hatred”. However, trials were opened under many other laws as well – these included the Anti-Terror Law, the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations, as well as laws on public order and on associations and foundations. Politicians were prosecuted for making election propaganda in languages other than Turkish. Severe fines were handed down under both the old and new press laws to newspapers and journalists.
Journalist Hakan Albayrak was released from prison in Ankara province in November having served six months of a 15-month prison sentence for an article in which he commented on the funeral rites of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.
On 30 December a court in Ankara continued to hear the case opened against the writer Fikret Başkaya for having intentionally “insulted or derided the Turkish state” in his book Against the Current. He faced a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment if convicted."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen
Dokument öffnen

19.05.2005 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Meinungsfreiheit und freie Medien ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2005 (Events of 2004)") [#32120],  [ID 13462]

"Human rights organizations reported a significant decrease in prosecutions under legislation restricting freedom of expression. While the government amended several provisions under the Penal Code or other laws, persons expressing their views publicly on controversial issues such as minorities, the Kurdish question, Islam and other religions, and human rights violations were still under threat of prosecution and conviction.

Whereas the state security courts were abolished in May 2004, the new regional aggravated penal courts replaced them. Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorist Legislation that criminalized propaganda against the unity of the state was repealed and sentences under article 159 of the Penal Code were decreased. By April 2004, over 2,200 persons were acquitted under these provisions. The number of cases under other provisions – article 7 of the Anti-Terrorist Legislation criminalizing propaganda in connection with outlawed organizations, article 169 of the Penal Code criminalizing assistance to outlawed organizations and article 312 criminalizing expression considered to be inciting to hatred based on racial, religious or ethnic enmity – also decreased.

Prosecutions against persons expressing their opinions or reporting on controversial issues, including on minorities or Armenian or Kurdish issues and human rights violations, remained a state policy. According to HRA, 693 persons were sentenced to prison terms and fines for expressing their views, compared to 454 in 2003, while new cases were launched against 467 persons out of 2,488 persons subject to investigations for the same reason in 2004, compared to 1,706 persons in 2003. The government prohibited or confiscated nine books or publications in 2004, compared to 285 in 2003.
The government enacted a new Press Law. The new law replaces prison terms with fines for those who violate the law. However, human rights organizations and journalists noted that journalists will face prosecution under 25 articles of the new law for legitimate reporting.
The press was largely monopolized by holding companies, which had economic and financial dealings with various state agencies, including the military. Most Turkish media outlets imposed self-censorship and displayed a pro-government, especially pro-military, attitude, criticizing even the elected government and NGOs when they challenged “state policies” guarded by the military.

• Former Democracy Party (DEP) parliamentarians Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were released upon an order of the 9th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals on 9 June on the basis of a law allowing retrials according to European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments. The retrial continued at the year’s end. Upon a statement by the military criticizing their release, the Ministry of Interior filed a series of complaints against the former deputies for their speeches after they were released.

• In a case against Turkey’s largest teacher’s union, Egitim-Sen, initiated upon a complaint by the chief of general staff for closure of the union for defending the right to education in children’s mother tongues, the Ankara Labor Court decided against the indictment on the basis of the case-law of the ECtHR regarding freedom of expression and of association. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the court’s decision in November, arguing that freedom of association could be restricted by considerations of territorial integrity and national security. The case was pending at the year’s end. The union’s leaders and several unionists were prosecuted for protesting the case."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

05.2005 - Quelle: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Kritik an Formulierungen des geänderten türkischen Strafgesetzbuchs, die zur Einschränkung der Pressefreiheit führen können ("Review of the Draft Turkish Penal Code: Freedom of Media Concerns") [#33760],  [ID 13463]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

23.03.2005 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Kritik am neuen Strafgesetzbuch, das am 1.4.2005 in Kraft treten soll; einige Paragraphen, die in der Vergangenheit zur Unterdrückung der Meinungsfreiheit eingesetzt wurden, tauchen an anderen Stellen im neuen StGB wieder auf, zusätzlich sollen künftig "Aktionen gegen das fundamentale nationale Interesse" strafbar sein ("Concerns about new Penal Code should be addressed") [#30535],  [ID 13464]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

02.03.2005 - Quelle: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Herausgeber wegen Veröffentlichung eines Buchs über Regierungspolitik auf kurdisch angeklagt; Begnadigung eines Schriftsteller, der wegen Beleidigung des Militärs und der staatlichen Sicherheitskräfte angeklagt worden war; es besteht Zweifel über legale Gründe für ihre Gerichtsprozesse ("OSCE media freedom representative concerned over legal grounds for trials of publisher and writer in Turkey") [#29587],  [ID 13465]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

03.2005 - Quelle: Amnesty International

Artikel zur Meinungsfreiheit ("Anliegen in Europa und Zentralasien Juli-Dezember 2004: Türkei") [#32532],  [ID 13466]

"Friedlicher Ausdruck einer nicht-gewalttätigen Meinung führte weiterhin zu Ermittlungen und Gerichtsverfahren, obwohl der Kassationshof und einige unterinterstanzliche Gerichte richtungweisende Urteile erließen, die das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung unterstützten. Gerichtsverfahren wurden eröffnet nach Artikel 159 TStG, der “Beleidigung” verschiedener Staatsorgane unter Strafe stellt, Artikel 312 TStG, der Aufstachelung zu Feindschaft und Hass bestraft, und Artikel 7 des Anti-Terror- Gesetzes. Viele dieser Gesetze wurden angewendet, um eine Meinung unter verschiedenen Vorwänden zu bestrafen. In manchen Fällen führte dies zu Haftstrafen. Sehr schwere Geldstrafen wurden nach dem alten Pressegesetz und seinem Folgegesetz gegen Zeitungen und Journalisten verhängt. Politiker wurden verfolgt, weil sie ihren Wahlkampf in einer anderen Sprache als Türkisch geführt hatten.

Der Journalist Hakan Albayrak wurde aus dem Gefängnis in der Provinz Ankara im November entlassen, nachdem er sechs Monate einer 15-jährigen Haftstrafe wegen Verstoßes gegen das Gesetz Nr. 5816 über Verbrechen gegen Atatürk abgebüßt hatte. Seine Verurteilung beruhte auf einem Artikel, der die Beerdingungsriten von Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, dem Gründer der Republik Türkei, kommentierte.

Ein Gericht in Ankara setzte am 30. Dezember 2004 ein Verfahren gegen den Schriftsteller Fikret Başkaya wegen vorsätzlicher “Beleidigung oder Verächtlichmachung des türkischen Staates” in seinem Buch “Gegen den Strom” fort. Im Falle einer Verurteilung droht ihm eine Haftstrafe bis zu drei Jahren."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

28.02.2005 - Quelle: US Department of State

Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit durch Strafrechts-Aritikel, der Beschimpfen der Regierung verbietet ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 13467]

"The Government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the Penal Code prohibiting insults to the Government, the State, or the institutions and symbols of the Republic. Other laws, such as those governing the press and elections, also restrict speech. In September, Parliament adopted legislation prohibiting imams, priests, rabbis, and other religious leaders from "reproaching or vilifying" the Government or the laws of the State while performing their duties (see Section 2.c.). The "reasoning" attached to the Penal Code states that persons could be found in violation for accepting payment from foreign sources for the purpose of conducting propaganda in favor of withdrawing troops from Cyprus or (quoting from the text of the "reasoning") "saying that Armenians were subject to a genocide at the end of the First World War." The reasoning is not law, but serves as guidance to judges and prosecutors on how to apply the law.

According to HRA, in the first 9 months of the year, courts tried 416 persons on charges relating to spoken or written expression.

Individuals could not criticize the State or Government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the Government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's EU membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, and the question of Turks of Kurdish origin as "minorities"; however, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics risked prosecution."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

28.02.2005 - Quelle: US Department of State

Pressefreiheit eingeschränkt; Regierung unternimmt Schritte zur Lockerung der Restriktionen ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 13468]

"Freedom of the press was restricted; however, the Government took a number of steps during the year to ease some of the restrictions. In June, Parliament adopted a law to expand press freedom. The new law replaces prison sentences with fines for a number of crimes, reduces fines, permits noncitizens to own periodicals and serve as responsible editors, protects editors and reporters from being forced to disclose sources, provides punishment for preventing the distribution of a publication, allows law enforcement authorities to confiscate a maximum of three copies of a publication under investigation, generally prohibits courts from converting fines to prison sentences in press-related cases, and prohibits authorities from closing publications or preventing their distribution due to violations of the Press Law.

In May, Parliament amended the Constitution so that it no longer authorizes law enforcement authorities to seize printing presses or other publishing equipment.

Independent domestic and foreign periodicals that provided a broad spectrum of views and opinions, including intense criticism of the Government, were widely available, and the newspaper business was extremely competitive. However, news items reflected a proauthority bias.

The Government owned and operated the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT). According to the High Board of Radio and Television (RTUK), there were 226 local, 15 regional, and 16 national officially registered television stations, and 959 local, 104 regional, and 36 national radio stations. Other television and radio stations broadcast without an official license. The wide availability of satellite dishes and cable television allowed access to foreign broadcasts, including several Kurdish-language private channels. Most media were privately owned by large holding companies that had a wide range of outside business interests; the concentration of media ownership influenced the content of reporting and limited the scope of debate.

The RTUK monitored broadcasters and sanctioned them if they were not in compliance with relevant laws. Parliament elected the RTUK Council members, who were divided between ruling and opposition parties. In July, Parliament revised the RTUK law to eliminate the NSC-nominated member from the Council, reducing Council membership from nine to eight. Although nominally independent, the RTUK was subject to political pressures. The RTUK penalized private radio and television stations for the use of offensive language, libel, obscenity, instigating separatist propaganda, or broadcasting programs in Kurdish. RTUK decisions could be appealed to the Provincial Administrative Court and then to the Council of State (Danistay). The RTUK reported that, in the first 9 months of the year, it closed 4 television stations and 6 radio stations for periods of 30 days each.

In March, the RTUK ordered Ozgur Radio and Serhat Television to cease broadcasting for 30 days for inciting people to hatred and violence. Ozgur was sanctioned in connection with an August 2003 broadcast during which articles from the newspaper Evrensel were read on the air; Serhat was sanctioned due to a July 2003 program titled "Isildak." In April, the RTUK ordered ART Television of Diyarbakir to cease broadcasting for 30 days on the grounds that an August 2003 broadcast featuring Kurdish music constituted separatist propaganda. In June, the RTUK banned one broadcast of the Show TV program "Valley of Wolves" for encouraging violence and inciting racial hatred. In September, RTUK ordered Gun TV of Diyarbakir to cease broadcasting for 30 days as punishment for a December 2003 broadcast that authorities deemeded to be "against the values of Ataturk, against the unity of the State." The sanction stemmed from Gun TV's live broadcast of a symposium on local administration, human rights, and the media. In October, the RTUK ordered Imaj Radyo to cease broadcasting for 30 days for playing a song that it considered incited hatred and violence.

Prosecutors harassed writers, journalists, and political figures by bringing dozens of cases to court each year under various laws that restrict media freedom; however, judges dismissed many of these charges. Authorities often closed periodicals temporarily, issued fines, or confiscated periodicals for violating speech codes. Despite government restrictions, the media criticized government leaders and policies daily and adopted an adversarial role with respect to the Government.

In May, an Ankara court ordered three journalists of the Islamist-oriented Vakit newspaper--owner Nuri Aykon, editor Harum Aksoy, and writer Mehmet Dogan--to pay $408,000 (551 billion lira) to 312 generals for insulting them. The charges stemmed from an article published in August 2003 titled, "The Country Where a Soldier Who Does Not Deserve to be Sergeant Becomes a General." An appeals court upheld the ruling.

In October, a Bursa court convicted Genc Party leader Cem Uzan, sentenced him to 8 months in prison, and fined him $462 (623 million lira) for insulting the Government in a 2003 speech in which he called Prime Minister Erdogan "godless." The case was under appeal at year's end.

There were no new developments in the case of Sabri Ejder Ozic, who appealed his December 2003 conviction for insulting and mocking Parliament in a radio broadcast.

At year's end, writer and scholar Fikret Baskaya continued to face charges involving the 2003 republishing of an article he wrote in 1993.

According to the Government, there were no journalists held on speech violations during the year; however, at year's end, there were 43 prisoners claiming to be journalists who were charged with a variety of crimes."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

28.02.2005 - Quelle: US Department of State

Fälle von Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 13469]

"In January, prosecutors opened a case against Vetha Aydin, chairman of the HRA Siirt branch, for distributing posters featuring slogans in both Turkish and Kurdish. Aydin was charged with hanging posters without permission and was later acquitted.

In February, an Ankara prosecutor indicted Fusun Sayek, president of the Turkish Medical Association, and Metin Bakkalci, Association vice president, on charges of insulting the Health Minister. The two were charged for public comments made in response to the Minister's criticism of a stop-work action by physicians. According to the indictment, Sayek said the Minister "has a problem understanding" and Bakkalci said, "Not seeing the greatness of this action is a kind of pathological case." In June, a court acquitted the defendants on criminal charges. Civil charges were also filed against the Medical Association officials; a civil court acquitted Sayek but fined Bakkalci, whose appeal of the ruling continued at year's end.

In May, a prosecutor in Marmaris indicted Mehmet Yurek, editor of the newspaper Degisim, for insulting former President Evren in an article published in April.

In June, police detained and released DEHAP official Nedim Bicer for using the expression "sayin" ("esteemed") in reference to Abdullah Ocalan during a May press conference.

In September, an Istanbul prosecutor opened a case against journalist Mehmet Ali Birand and three attorneys for jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in connection with an April CNN Turk broadcast during which Birand interviewed the attorneys. Birand and the attorneys--Irfan Dundar, Mahmut Sakar, and Dogan Erbas--were charged with aiding the PKK.

During the year, there were indications that some judges in speech-related cases were conforming their rulings to recent, EU-related legal reforms. In May, SSCs in Van and Erzurum acquitted DEHAP President Tuncer Bakirhan on charges of separatism and spreading terrorist propaganda in public speeches. The courts determined that Bakirhan's comments did not encourage violence and were within the realm of legally protected speech. In August, a Van court acquitted Selahattin Demirtas, president of the HRA Diyarbakir branch, on charges of making terrorist propaganda, reportedly basing its ruling on the European Convention on Human Rights.

There were no new developments in the appeal of DEHAP parliamentary candidate Ruknettin Hakan's 2003 conviction and 6-month suspended prison sentence for "making propaganda in a language other than Turkish."

In January, an Istanbul SSC sentenced Sefika Gurbuz, chairwoman of the Social Support and Culture Association of Migrants, to 10 months imprisonment in connection with the organization's 1999 2001 report on forced displacement. The court converted the sentence to a fine of $1,430 (1.9 billion lira)."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

16.12.2004 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Journalisten Berichten zu Folge weiterhin unter Druck ("Turkey still far from European standards of press freedom") [#27671],  [ID 13470]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.10.2004 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Strafverfolgung und Verurteilungen in Zusammenhang mit Meinungsfreiheit seltener; nach wie vor eine bedeutende Zahl von Fällen, in denen die friedliche Meinungsäußerung verfolgt und bestraft wird. ("Regelmäßiger Bericht 2004 über die Fortschritte der Türkei auf dem Weg zum Beitritt") [#26161],  [ID 13471]

"Was die Meinungsfreiheit anbelangt, so kümmert man sich inzwischen um der Situation von Personen, die wegen friedlicher Meinungsäußerung verurteilt wurden. Seit 2002 wurden durch Änderungen des Strafgesetzbuchs, des Antiterrorgesetzes und des Pressegesetzes Beschränkungen aufgehoben, so dass es im Zusammenhang mit der Meinungsfreiheit seltener zu Strafverfolgung und Verurteilungen kommt. Dennoch gibt es nach wie vor eine bedeutende Zahl von Fällen, in denen die friedliche Meinungsäußerung verfolgt und bestraft wird. Im Rundfunkbereich hat die Ausstrahlung von Radio- und Fernsehsendungen in anderen Sprachen und Dialekten als Türkisch begonnen, darunter auch in Kurdisch.

Offiziellen Angaben zufolge sank zwischen 2001 und 2003 die Zahl der bei der Staatsanwaltschaft anhängigen Fälle ebenso wie die Anzahl der Verurteilungen im Zusammenhang mit Verstößen gegen die reformierten Artikel 159 Strafgesetzbuch („Verunglimpfung des Staates und staatlicher Institutionen“), Artikel 169 Strafgesetzbuch („Unterstützung und Begünstigung terroristischer Organisationen“) und 312 Strafgesetzbuch („Aufstachelung zu rassistischem, ethnischem oder religiösem Hass) und mit Artikel 7 Antiterrorgesetz („Propaganda in Verbindung mit (terroristischen) Organisationen, die zum Rückgriff auf terroristische Methoden ermuntern“). Darüber hinaus wurden alle gemäß Artikel 8 Antiterrorgesetz („Propaganda gegen die unteilbare Einheit des Staates“) Verurteilten aus dem Gefängnis entlassen und nach der Änderung von Artikel 159 wurden Gefängnisstrafen gegebenenfalls verkürzt. Offiziellen Zahlen zufolge wurden bis April 2004 im Zuge der Umsetzung der geänderten Bestimmungen durch die Staatssicherheitsgerichte 2 204 Personen freigesprochen. Im Mai 2004 saßen 5 809 Personen wegen Vergehen im Zusammenhang mit Terrorismus in Haft, gegenüber 8 657 im Jahr 2000 bzw. 8 298 (2001) 7 745 (2002) und 6 137 (2003)."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.10.2004 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Geänderte Artikel des Strafgesetzbuches und des Antiterrorgesetzes immer noch zur Verfolgung und Verurteilung von Personen, die ihr Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit wahrnehmen, herangezogen ("Regelmäßiger Bericht 2004 über die Fortschritte der Türkei auf dem Weg zum Beitritt") [#26161],  [ID 13472]

"Die geänderten Artikel des Strafgesetzbuches und des Antiterrorgesetzes sowie andere Bestimmungen werden immer noch herangezogen, um Personen, die ihr Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit wahrnehmen, zu verfolgen und zu verurteilen. In einigen Fällen hat die Staatsanwaltschaft Verurteilungen auf Grundlage des abgeschafften Artikels 8 Antiterrorgesetz im Hinblick darauf überprüft, ob sich im Urteil Gründe für eine erneute Verurteilung aufgrund alternativer Bestimmungen finden lassen. Darüber hinaus können nach wie vor zahlreiche rechtliche und administrative Bestimmungen aus der Zeit vor dem laufenden Reformprozess für Verurteilungen wegen friedlicher Meinungsäußerung herangezogen werden.

Der geänderte Artikel 159 wird weiterhin in einer nicht mit dem Konzept des EGMR zu vereinbaren Art und Weise zur Verfolgung von Kritikern der staatlichen Institutionen herangezogen. Bei der Bewertung von Fällen im Zusammenhang mit der freien Meinungsäußerung sollte die Justiz prüfen, ob diese Äußerungen zu Gewalt, bewaffneter Rebellion oder Feindseeligkeit aufrufen, inwiefern die Einzelperson oder Gruppe in der Lage ist, die Öffentlichkeit zu beeinflussen und welche Antwortmöglichkeiten für die Adressaten der Meinungsäußerung bestehen."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.10.2004 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Beträchtliche Fortschritte bei Pressefreiheit; unverhältnismäßige Belastung durch Bußgelder; Rückgang der Verurteilungen, aber nach wie vor Verurteilungen von Journalisten, Schriftstellern und Verlegern ("Regelmäßiger Bericht 2004 über die Fortschritte der Türkei auf dem Weg zum Beitritt") [#26161],  [ID 13473]

"Im Hinblick auf die Pressefreiheit wurden beträchtliche Fortschritte erzielt, wenngleich zur Lösung der noch offenen Fragen weitere Anstrengungen notwendig sind. Durch die Änderung von Artikel 30 der Verfassung über den Schutz von Druckereien ist es nicht mehr unter allen Umständen gestattet, die Druckausrüstung von Verlagen zu konfiszieren oder zu beschlagnahmen. Das im Juni 2004 verabschiedete neue Pressegesetz stellt einen bedeutenden Schritt in Richtung zu mehr Pressefreiheit dar. Darin wird das Recht auf journalistischen Quellenschutz gestärkt, das Recht auf Antwort und Richtigstellung ausgebaut, Haftstrafen werden weitestgehend durch Geldbußen ersetzt, Sanktionen wie die Einstellung von Veröffentlichungen, die Unterbindung des Vertriebs und das Konfiszieren von Druckmaschinen aufgehoben und die Möglichkeit, Druckerzeugnisse wie Bücher und Zeitschriften zu beschlagnahmen, eingeschränkt. Darüber hinaus dürfen Ausländer von nun an türkische Veröffentlichungen verlegen oder besitzen. Artikel 19 jedoch, in dem schwere Bußgelder für diejenigen vorgesehen sind, die Informationen über laufende Gerichtsverfahren veröffentlichen, wird als unverhältnismäßig kritisiert.

Selbst wenn es nach dem neuen Gesetz weniger Sanktionen gibt, stellen die Bußgelder insbesondere für die lokalen Medien immer noch eine unverhältnismäßige Belastung dar. Bußgelder dieser Art können zur Einstellung von Veröffentlichungen oder zur Fortsetzung der insbesondere auf regionaler und lokaler Ebene weit verbreiteten Selbstzensur führen. Neben Einschränkungen der in Artikel 10 der EMRK vorgesehenen Meinungsfreiheit enthält das Gesetz auch ein Hinweis auf „Staatsgeheimnisse“.

Neueren Berichten zufolge stützen sich die meisten Anklagen gegen Journalisten nicht auf das Pressegesetz. Die am häufigsten zur Verfolgung der Medien genutzten Rechtsvorschriften sind nach wie vor Artikel 159, 169 und 302 Strafgesetzbuch sowie Artikel 6 und 7 Antiterrorgesetz. Offizielle Quellen heben hervor, dass in immer weniger Fällen Sanktionen verhängt wurden. Unabhängig von der Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Verurteilung jedoch ist die Regelmäßigkeit, mit der rechtliche Schritte gegen Pressevertreter eingeleitet werden, für die Medien ein wichtiger Grund, von der Meinungsfreiheit keinen Gebrauch zumachen.

Trotz des Rückgangs der Anzahl der Verurteilungen werden nach wie vor Journalisten, Schriftsteller und Verleger aus Gründen verurteilt, die gegen die Standards der EMRK verstoßen. Im Juni 2004 brachte der türkische Presserat seine Sorge zum Ausdruck, dass gegen Journalisten in jüngerer Zeit unverhältnismäßige Bußgelder verhängt wurden. Darüber hinaus wurden unlängst Personen inhaftiert, nachdem sie in der Presse ihre Meinung geäußert hatten. So wurde im Mai 2004 ein Journalist auf Grundlage des Gesetzes über Verbrechen gegen Atatürk aus dem Jahr 1951 inhaftiert.

Nach Angaben des türkischen Verlegerverbandes, wurden im Jahr 2003 43 Bücher verboten und 37 Schriftsteller sowie 17 Verleger vor Gericht gestellt. Im ersten Halbjahr 2004 wurden mindestens 18 Bücher verboten."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.10.2004 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Neues Strafgesetzbuch bringt nur begrenzte Fortschritte für die Meinungsfreiheit mit sich; in der begleitenden Begründung aufgeführten Beispiele besorgniserregend ("Regelmäßiger Bericht 2004 über die Fortschritte der Türkei auf dem Weg zum Beitritt") [#26161],  [ID 13474]

"Eine erste Analyse des im September 2004 verabschiedeten neuen Strafgesetzbuchs zeigt, dass der Geltungsbereich einiger Artikel beschnitten wurde, die vormals für die Verurteilung von Personen, die friedlich ihre Meinung äußerten, herangezogen wurden. Im neuen Artikel 216 (der weitgehend dem geltenden Artikel 312 entspricht) heißt es, dass Personen nur dann aufgrund dieses Artikels verurteilt werden können, wenn ihre „Aufstachelung zu Feindseeligkeit und Hass“ eine „eindeutige und unmittelbare Gefahr“ darstellt. Auch Artikel 305, nach dem sich strafbar macht, wer aus dem Ausland aufgrund von „gegen die grundlegenden nationalen Interessen verstoßenden Aktivitäten" finanzielle Vorteile bezieht, wurde in seinem Geltungsbereich im Vergleich zum derzeitigen Artikel 127 Strafbesetzbuch beschnitten. Besorgniserregend ist jedoch, dass die in der begleitenden Begründung aufgeführten Beispiele für solche Aktivitäten, die als dem nationalen Interesse zuwider laufend betrachtet werden könnten, weit über das hinausgehen, was im Rahmen der EMRK tragbar wäre. Die Mindeststrafe für Verleumdung wird im neuen Strafgesetzbuch gesenkt. Andere einschlägige Artikel wie der derzeitige Artikel 159 und eine Bestimmung, die die Kritik Geistlicher am Staat strafbar macht, scheinen im neuen Gesetzbuch praktisch unverändert geblieben zu sein und das Strafmaß für den Aufruf zur Wehrdienstverweigerung wurde erhöht.

Insgesamt bringt das neue Strafgesetzbuch nur begrenzte Fortschritte für die Meinungsfreiheit mit sich. Artikel, die häufig zur Beschneidung der Meinungsfreiheit herangezogen wurden und bei denen ein möglicher Konflikt mit Artikel 10 EMRK festgestellt wurde, wurden beibehalten oder nur wenig verändert. Die Umsetzung des neuen Strafgesetzbuchs muss genau beobachtet werden, um die Auswirkungen in der Praxis bewerten zu können."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

06.10.2004 - Quelle: Europäische Kommission

Verordnung ermöglicht privaten Fernseh- und Radiosendern unter Einhaltung strenger zeitlicher Grenzen in anderen Sprachen als Türkisch auszustrahlen ("Regelmäßiger Bericht 2004 über die Fortschritte der Türkei auf dem Weg zum Beitritt") [#26161],  [ID 13475]

"Im Januar 2004 wurde eine neue Verordnung erlassen, die es privaten nationalen Fernseh- und Radiosendern ermöglicht, neben der staatlichen Rundfunkgesellschaft TRT in anderen Sprachen als Türkisch auszustrahlen. Ferner wird mit dieser Verordnung eine Berufungsmöglichkeit gegen Beschlüsse des Hohen Rundfunk- und Fernsehrates (RTÜK) eröffnet und die Auflage, wonach Fernseheransager „moderne“ Kleidung tragen müssen, aufgehoben. Trotz dieser Verbesserungen ist die Verordnung immer noch recht restriktiv gehalten. Den Ausstrahlungen in anderen Sprachen werden strenge zeitliche Grenzen gesetzt (im Fernsehen vier Stunden pro Woche und höchstens 45 Minuten täglich und im Rundfunk fünf Stunden pro Woche sowie höchstens 60 Minuten täglich). Voraussetzung für den Rundfunk auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene ist die Erstellung eines Hörer/Zuschauerprofils durch den RTÜK. Ältere Auflagen für Fernseh- und Radiobetreiber einschließlich des Erfordernisses der Achtung des Grundsatzes der „unteilbaren Einheit des Staates“ bleiben unverändert. Auch das Verbot für Kinderprogramme besteht fort.

Einige private Fernseh- und Radiobetreiber auf lokaler Ebene haben beim RTÜK Sendungen in Kurdisch beantragt. Wenngleich sie bislang noch keine Genehmigung erhalten haben, wird berichtet, dass diese Anträge befürwortet werden. Berichten zufolge hat keiner der nationalen privaten Fernsehsender beim RTÜK Sendungen in anderen Sprachen als Türkisch beantragt."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

09.06.2004 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Anti-Terror-Einheiten verhaften 25 Menschen bei Angriff auf zwei pro-kurdische Publikationen und eine Presseagentur in Istanbul ("Mass arrests of pro-Kurdish journalists ahead of Nato summit") [#23127],  [ID 13476]

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

30.09.2003 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Report focused on latest human rights developments in the member states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) ("Interventions and Recommendations by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) on the Occasion of the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting Warsaw, 6-17 October 2003") [#16408],  [ID 13480]

"While Turkey’s new “harmonization legislation” has brought about important formal improvements also in the field in freedom of expression and the media, a lot remains to be done in order to ensure free speech and reporting in practice. There is still a myriad of laws that restrict freedom of expression and courts continue to punish criticism of government policies and the publication of information on human rights and other delicate issues. There remains strong resistance of the state bureaucracy, civil and military, which recently has started to come out more openly. As several human rights organizations report, malpractice and oppression by the local administrative agencies such as governor offices and police, have rather increased than decreased lately. For example, the figures from the first quarterly report in 2003 of the Human Rights Association indicate that in that period 50 people were prosecuted for expressing their thoughts.

The 19 June 2003 “sixth reform package” abolished the notorious article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, which has been frequently used to curb freedom of expression. Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer vetoed this abolishment, arguing that removing the article would create a legal void, encourage terrorism and endanger the indivisible unity of the state. The adjustment package was re-approved by the parliament without any modifications on 16 July 2003. While the abolishment of article 8 is seen as an important step in order to enhance freedom of expression, there is still article 312 of the Penal Code that can be used for the same purpose. Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek told a journalist, that by abolishing article 8 “we do not mean that the related offenses should be left without punishment. These crimes may already be recompensed through the article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code.”

The June reform package also expanded freedom of broadcasting “in languages and dialects used by the Turkish citizens in their daily lives” to private TV channels, but it can only be hoped that this reform will not have the same fate as the one on the same issue, approved in August last year as part of the third Adjustment Law. The following decree had then not only acknowledged that right solely for the Turkish Public Television (TRT), but also determined the aim of such programs as “enhancing and developing the use of Turkish as a spoken language.” TRT announced at the end of February that they could not start the Kurdish broadcasting as there was no announcer that spoke the Kirmanc and/or Zaza dialects.
The High Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK) is still suspending the operation of several radio or television stations, newspapers and journals. In addition, books, journals, newspapers and posters have been confiscated and banned."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

30.09.2003 - Quelle: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Report focused on latest human rights developments in the member states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) ("Interventions and Recommendations by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) on the Occasion of the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting Warsaw, 6-17 October 2003") [#16408],  [ID 13481]

"In Turkey, legal reforms introduced since 2002 in order to bring national legislation in line with the EU Copenhagen criteria have formally included improvements also for minorities. However, while many restrictions on the use of minority languages in different sectors of life have been relaxed, little has been implemented in practice and new regulations have been adopted which, again, restrict free use of, for example, the Kurdish language.

The August 2002 reform package lifted some restrictions on broadcasting and education in minority languages, but regulations enacted by parliament to implement these reforms reduced the width implicitly attributed to the changes. Moreover, the Law on the Establishment and Broadcasting of Radio Stations and Television Channels was amended in 2002 to allow broadcasting in the “different languages and dialects used traditionally by Turkish citizens” if the programs do not “contradict the fundamental principles of the Turkish Republic enshrined in the Constitution and the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation” or “encourage the use of violence or incite feelings of racial hatred.” However, these limitations can still be interpreted in a highly restrictive manner, and the December regulations drafted by the highest broadcasting authority RTÜK limits the broadcasting to state channels and only for a few hours a week, requires mandatory complete translation of all programs into Turkish, and restricts the nature of programs. Hence, in practice, Kurdish language broadcasting was still on hold as of the summer of 2003.

On the basis of the August 2002 reforms, instruction of languages “used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives” was formally allowed in private educational institutions if such courses, again, do not threaten “national integrity.” However, regulations adopted in December to implement this reform exemplified a marked retreat from the original amendment, restricting the minority language instruction to weekends or holidays for students between twelve and eighteen years of age who have completed primary education. Moreover, minority language instruction can only be given in private schools and not as part of the public educational system. It cannot constitute the language of instruction -- even in private schools.

While there are no longer legal obstacles to publishing newspapers and magazines in Kurdish, pro-Kurdish newspapers continue to face serious harassment. Newspapers cannot be sold freely, Kurdish journalists are obstructed in their work, and legal suits have been filed against newspapers. For example, as of July 2003, the daily Yediden Ozgur Gundem was on the verge of closing down because of massive punitive pressure obviously aimed at destroying its financial basis. Between September 2002 and July 2003, 215 criminal proceedings were initiated against daily, including 184 cases by the State Security Court and 31 cases by the local court in Beyogly, Istanbul. The paper has been charged with crimes such as “supporting an armed organization,” “incitement to hatred,” and “separatism.” A number of additional lawsuits are pending without official notification. In addition, the radio station Radyo Dunya received on 10 July 2003 a one-month broadcasting ban for airing Kurdish songs during a program on the history of the Kurdish language and literature more than half a year earlier -- when this was already legally allowed. The biggest Kurdish TV station, Medya TV, could no longer be viewed as of mid-2003."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

11.08.2003 - Quelle: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung

Artikel 8 des Türkischen Strafgesetzbuches aufgehoben; trotzdem Fälle, in denen Redakteure und Journalisten weiterhin aufgrund ihrer Artikel zu Freiheits- oder Geldstrafen verurteilt werden ("Das 7. EU-Anpassungspaket") [#15747],  [ID 13482]

"Bei den Umsetzungen vorhergehender EU-Anpassungsgesetze herrscht eine durchwachsene Situation. Im 6. Reformpaket wurde Artikel 8 des Türkischen Strafgesetzbuches betreffend dem Kampf gegen den Terror aufgehoben, wonach künftig niemand mehr aufgrund mündlicher oder schriftlicher Meinungsäußerung oder Propaganda verurteilt werden kann. Mittlerweile sind jedoch mehrere Fälle bekannt geworden, in denen Redakteure und Journalisten weiterhin aufgrund ihrer Artikel zu Freiheits- oder Geldstrafen verurteilt wurden."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen
OSC_39448_0_.txt

31.03.2003 - Quelle: Reporters Sans Frontières

Trotz Gesetzesreformen bleibt Medienfreiheit weiterhin eingeschränkt ("Turkey - 2003 Annual Report") [#11823],  [ID 13484]

"The legal provisions most often used against journalists - punishing "insults to the state and its institutions and threats against the indivisible unity of the republic … incitement to hatred on the basis of class, race, religion, sect or region … making propaganda for a terrorist organisation … separatist propaganda" or supporting an illegal organisation - were amended. But the changes left much to the whim of judges and only when they are applied will the true impact of the amendments on freedom of expression be seen. Several trials of journalists have already taken place under the new provisions.

The revision of the media law strengthened its more repressive aspects, allowing for tighter government control of the National Broadcasting Council (RTÜK), heavier fines than ever for the media, a challenge to freedom of expression on the Internet and further narrowing of media ownership. Journalists daring to criticise state institutions or tackle taboo subjects, such as the Kurdish problem and the part played by the army in political life, are still censored, fined heavily and prosecuted without good reason.

A European Commission report on progress made by Turkey in 2002 in its efforts to win membership of the European Union said that despite the legal reforms, there were still major restrictions, especially of freedom of expression in both the written and broadcast media.

But the pro-Islamic government that came to power at the end of the year said it would push new laws promoting democracy and bringing the country in line with European standards, so as to bring forward the December 2004 date set by the EU to examine Turkey's candidacy."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen

04.03.2002 - Quelle: US Department of State

Rede- und Pressefreiheit durch Regierung eingeschränkt ("Jahresbericht 2001") [#5813],  [ID 13489]

"The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the Government continued to limit these freedoms. The Government, particularly the police and judiciary, limits freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws including: Article 8 of the 1991 Anti-Terror Law (disseminating separatist propaganda); Penal Code Articles 312 (incitement to racial, ethnic, or religious enmity); 159 (insulting Parliament, the army, republic, or judiciary); 160 (insulting the Turkish Republic); 169 (aiding an illegal organization); the Law to Protect Ataturk; and over 150 articles of the Press Law (including a provision against commenting on ongoing trials). While prosecutors bring dozens of such cases to court each year, which constitute a form of harassment against writers, journalists, and political figures, judges dismiss many charges brought under these laws.

The Government continued to restrict the free expression of ideas by individuals sympathetic to some Islamist, leftist, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's EU membership process; the role of the military; political Islam; and the question of ethnic Kurds as "minorities;" however, persons who wrote or spoke out on such highly sensitive topics risked prosecution. Many individuals and groups who voiced opposition to the new "F-type" prison regime faced charges, as did a group of women who publicly accused security forces of rape (see Section 1.c.). In September a court convicted 16 trade unionists of "aiding and abetting an illegal organization" for their statements protesting the new F-style prisons. Officials of the teacher's trade union face charges of "insulting the army and judiciary" for statements made during a December 2000 labor rally. On several occasions in October, police prevented the reading of public statements in protest against U.S.-UK military actions in Afghanistan.

In October Parliament passed amendments to the Constitution which expanded freedom of expression; however, the amendments had not been implemented by year's end. For example, previously the Constitution prohibited the manifestation of an intent or willingness to abuse to criticize fundamental principles such as national security or the secular, unitary state. Under the amendments, only actions against fundamental principles are prohibited. However, the Penal Code and the Anti-Terror Law, which codified the pre-amendment constitutional provisions, remained on the books in contradiction to the new constitutional provisions.

In January the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a letter to the judiciary noting the large number of cases at the ECHR involving free expression, and urged that judges take the country's international obligations into account. The chairman of the Court of Cassation, Sami Selcuk, responded that the judiciary is following the law and that Parliament has the responsibility for changing these laws. In July the Council of Europe adopted an Interim Resolution regarding a number of judgements before the ECHR regarding violations of free expression. The resolution urges the Turkish authorities to erase the criminal records and end restrictions on the civil and political rights, of successful applicants to the courts; the ECHR further urged the Government to bring Turkish law into conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights."

Dokument(e): Dokument öffnen