Resource guide of turkish high court judgments on freedom of expression
PROOF OF FACTS AND VALUE JUDGMENTS
Yüklə 152,29 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- CONSIDERING PUBLIC BENEFIT
- PROTECTION OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE IMMUNITIES
- CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT OF DEFAMATION
- TERRORISM INCITING RESENTMENT AND ENMITY AMONG PEOPLE
- ENDORSING THE CRIME AND CRIMINAL
- TERRORIST PROPAGANDA MUST BE PUBLIC
- INTENTION OF TERRORIST PROPAGANDA WHEN A STATEMENT IS CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE
- PROPAGANDA THAT ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE OR ENDORSE COERCIVE, VIOLENT OR THREATENING METHODS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
- OPEN, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
- THE DUTY OF THE PRESS TO INFORM
- PROTECTION OF DEFENSE IMMUNITY
| PROOF OF FACTS AND VALUE JUDGMENTS
Constitutional Court (Emin Aydın Application: 2013/2602, Judgment Date: 23/1/2014; Abdullah Öcalan Application: 2013/409, Judgment Date: 25/06/2014) "With respect to the content of the expression, there must be an assessment of whether the words, writings, pictures and other elements were factual claims or value judgments; value judgments and interpretations cannot be proven with facts. When claiming facts that constitute attacks against the personal rights of others, journalists must provide reliable evidence and act in line with press ethics and in good faith, observing their duty and responsibility to provide accurate and reliable information. As a principle, public authorities may interfere with the freedoms of expression and press in the presence of hateful or violent discourse provided that such interference is proportionate to the legitimate purpose. It must be noted that interference in and even prevention of any expression that provokes or endorses hate including intolerance are necessary." CONSIDERING PUBLIC BENEFIT Council of State (13th Chamber, E:2014/3811-Dissenting opinion) "In the case of reading and commenting on a news article where the subject matter is a politician, there may be a conflict between freedom of expression and publishing principles versus the protection of the rights of individuals (protection of dignity, honor and reputation or rights), where the resolution must take into consideration an assessment of the situation from the perspective of public benefit." PROTECTION OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE IMMUNITIES Court of Cassation (4th Criminal Chamber, 20.3.2014 - 2013/3949 - 2014/8597) "During trial at the 5th Criminal Court of First Instance of Karşıyaka, while the parties made depositions regarding the expert's report issued for the CDs that contained images pertaining to the event in trial, the defendant said 'stop lying, can't you get it in your thick head?' in response to the counterparty attorney's statement that 'the file in the 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance as claimed by the defendants concerns another case; this is an attempt at misleading the court'; this statement is not of a nature that is injurious to the honor, dignity and reputation of the intervening attorney, remains within the immunity of prosecution and defense explained in Article 128 of the Turkish Criminal Code, and is limited to an impolite manner of conduct; therefore, the elements of a defamation offense are not present…" Court of Cassation (4th Criminal Chamber, 21.1.2014 - 2012/24806 - 2014/1336) "Upon rejection of the case tried in the 1st Civil Court of First Instance of Izmir, the defendant sent a petition to the court via parcel service, stating the following about civil court of first instance judge E.İ., the intervening party: "...all of our pleas and objections were quashed. We believe that our Nation State is robbing us foresters of our land without paying anything in return, all due to the exercisers of judicial power...", "...it is a fact that the survey was deliberately not repeated, an unfair decision was made to save experts who submitted false reports, and these were violations of the legal procedure. This is not an allegation but a challenge...", "... I do not believe that a fair judgment will be passed, as it was the case in the past. There will be attempts at suppressing the forest zoning scandal...", "The Judge of the 1st Civil Court of First Instance has deliberately refrained from serving me the reasoned judgment of the file number 2008/488 E. for 4 months. This is a fact and he has committed an offense. Swayed by the influence of our previous encounter, he was unable to make an unbiased decision. And I challenge him with this’; these statements are not of a nature that is detrimental to judicial authority or injurious to the honor, dignity and reputation of the addressee, and remain within the immunity of prosecution and defense explained in Article 128 of the Turkish Criminal Code; therefore, the elements of a defamation offense are not present..." Court of Cassation (4th Criminal Chamber, 13.1.2015 - 2014/5950 2015/985) "The intervening party is the former building manager and the defendant is the current building manager, who filed a complaint and initiated a lawsuit against the intervener upon discovering irregularities in records and financial accounts. In the intervention plea of the defendant in the lawsuit, the defendant's statements are: 'he paid his secretary Şermin's salary out of our money - such audacity and shamelessness! Is this the way a man of the law acts? Do you really need such small change? Greedy as the defendant is, TL 50,000 has been concealed and embezzled, everyone's playing along'; these statements are not of a nature that is injurious to the honor, dignity and reputation of the intervener, remain within the immunity of prosecution and defense explained in Article 128 of the Turkish Criminal Code, are limited to an impolite manner of conduct; therefore, the elements of a defamation offense are not present." Court of Cassation (4th Criminal Chamber, 20.1.2015 - 2014/5857 - 2015/1626) “The defendant's statements in the appeal submitted against the sentence passed by the 1st Criminal Court of First Instance of Silivri for violation of the Attorneys Law numbered 1136 read: "The judge must maintain equal distance from both parties and act in an independent and impartial way; however, the judge acted in complete disregard of these principles, assumed the capacity of a military court so to speak, deprived me of the right to make my defense when and where required, prevented me from defending myself. The judge pressured me all the time, depriving me of the right to defend myself. These events show that the judge violated the principles of fair trial and impartiality. Without any consideration for the evidence, findings and witness statements I submitted, he took out a piece of scrap paper from his notebook and read the sentence he had decided and prepared in advance. The judge went as far as to act as both a judge and a prosecutor: After making depositions in the first two hearings as a witness, M.A. was abruptly made a defendant because he spoke the truth and nothing but the truth in court to shed light on the matter and ensure justice, and an indictment was hastily prepared against him'; these statements remain within the immunity of prosecution and defense explained in Article 128 of the Turkish Commercial Code; therefore, the elements of a defamation offense are not present..." CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT OF DEFAMATION Constitutional Court (Emin Aydın Application: 2013/2602, Judgment Date: 23/1/2014; Adnan Oktar Application: 2013/1123, Judgment Date: 2/10/2013) "The State's positive obligation to build effective mechanisms against attacks by third parties on the tangible and spiritual existence of individuals does not necessarily require criminal investigations and proceedings. It is also possible to protect an individual against unlawful interference by third parties through civil procedure. Turkish law offers both criminal and civil protection to individuals in cases of attacks against dignity and reputation. Defamation is classified as a crime in criminal law and an unlawful act in private law, and may be subject to claims for damages. Therefore, an individual can seek civil recourse against an alleged act of interference in the individual's dignity and reputation by third parties." CHILLING EFFECT Constitutional Court (Mehmet Ali Aydın Application: 2013/9343, Judgment Date: 04/06/2015) In its judgments, the Constitutional Court frequently refers to the "chilling effect" as used by the ECHR. According to the Court, "The fear of sanction has a chilling effect on people, and even if there is a possibility that the individual will be vindicated at the end of the process, the chilling effect may prevent the exercise of freedom of expression or engagement in printing activities." TERRORISM INCITING RESENTMENT AND ENMITY AMONG PEOPLE Court of Cassation (Criminal General Council, File Number: 2007/8-244, Judgment Number: 2008/92) "Referring to the explanations above and as pointed out in the precedents of the Criminal General Council of the Court of Cassation, the following are required for an act to be considered criminal pursuant to Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 765: 1. The act must be committed in public; 2. Incitement must target one or more of social status, race, religion, sect or region differences and bring two groups against each other; 3. It must be clearly identifiable and considered that, pursuant to the principle of prescription in law, the provocation of people of differing opinions within the same social status, same race, same religion, same sect or same region against each other would not constitute the criminal act in question; 4. The incitement must provoke different peoples to harbor enmity or resentment against each other; yet this must occur at a level of intensity and effectiveness that threatens "public order" and be adequate to achieve the outcome and, as duly referred to in many judgments by the ECHR and the Criminal General Council and 8th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the incitement must contain a call to violence at an effective level; 5. As set forth in the explanation of Law numbered 4744, the opinions, interactions and movements within the masses must be observed and assessed to ensure that the danger is not abstract, but rather a clear and present threat; 6. Nevertheless, it must be accepted that calls for violence inciting resentment or enmity that are committed under exceptional secrecy while being perceptible by the target group will constitute the crime, even if not discovered earlier, in the event that these constitute a clear danger against public order; 7. A series of actions, while not severe enough on their own, may certainly lead to an accumulation of resentment and hate among people due to addressing the same target audience over a period of time and may constitute a criminal act when taken as a whole; in this case, however, the parts that comprise the whole may not be prosecuted separately, and the action must be prosecuted as a whole; 8. The criminal act will not have been committed in the absence of any of the elements of the offense, or if any of the elements are not at an adequate level of severity; 9. In criminal procedure, a criminal act cannot be ascertained through extrapolated or comparative interpretations; therefore, calls which do not seek to provoke differences prescribed in law, do not contain calls for violence, and are not severe enough to be considered clear and present danger cannot be attributed inferential or unacceptably abstract properties to be ascertained as criminal pursuant to Article 312/2 of the Turkish Criminal Code since ascertaining a crime by way of comparison is never acceptable in criminal law; 10. In accordance with the "benefit of the doubt" principle, if there is any doubt as to whether the act is public, the provocation targets differences prescribed in law, different segments of the public are provoked to resentment and enmity against each other, the act is sufficient to achieve its desired outcome, the act is effective enough to be considered a threat to “public order based on the coexistence of differences”, the act is no longer abstract and has become a specific and present danger, and finally, whether the act contains a call for violence, the doubt must be eliminated first, and if the doubt cannot be eliminated, it must be interpreted to the benefit of the defendant and freedom of expression must be extended. It is clear and mandatory that criminal judges evaluate each and every incident brought to their court in the light of these principles."
"In the specific case, a petition written by the defendant mentions concerns regarding the health of a convicted prisoner and makes demands about this situation. The action of the defendant does not contain statements that incite violence, armed resistance or uprising; there is no endorsement of a criminal act or its perpetrator, and the use of the honorific ‘mister’ with reference to another convict is a value judgment of the defendant regarding that convict's well-being; therefore, the action in question does not contain the legal elements of the alleged criminal act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights which is applicable pursuant to Article 90/5 of the Constitution, and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Skaka v. Poland – 27 May 2003 and Korku v. Turkey – 23 September 2003…” Court of Cassation (8th Criminal Chamber, 11.10.2010 - 2008/6651 - 2010/11387) "On the day of the incident, the defendant read a declaration titled 'To the People' which contained statements '...there has been an environment of peace for seven years but its benefits have not been reaped ... the establishment and the current government persisted in their wrong policies and expanded military operations ... Despite all, Mr. Abdullah Öcalan is being condemned to solitary confinement in spite of the Kurds in particular and all democratic forces in general...' to a group of 70-80 people in the street, through which he referred to counterterrorism operations as war, attributed leadership and reverence to a person who committed criminal acts on behalf of the illegal terrorist organization PKK. These actions constitute the legal elements of the criminal act of endorsing the crime or criminal..." DISSENTING OPINION: "When considered as a whole, the press statement in question serves the purpose being a commentary and critique on the current political environment; therefore, I dissent to the majority opinion that the action is criminal.” Court of Cassation (8th Criminal Chamber, 24.2.2010 - 2008/2871 - 2010/2681) "The defendant's act of having 'Heroes Will Live On, The People Will Prevail' engraved on the tombstone of his daughter, who died as a result of hunger strike, to honor her will does not contain the legal elements of the criminal act of endorsing the crime or criminal..."
"When considering the statements on the document submitted by the defendant to the province office of a party, it is understood that the document was written to provide information to the party members and submitted with the nomination letter for city council membership. The letter summarizes the acts committed for a terrorist organization in the past and the challenges faced during those acts, serving the purpose of praising them. Endorsing and accepting the actions of an illegal terrorist organization are an act of viewing the crimes committed by that organization in a positive light. It is obligatory to regard a statement written to inform party members and submitted to the party management as "public”, since numerous individuals registered to the party can have the opportunity to view and read such statement.” Court of Cassation (9th Criminal Chamber, 30.1.2007 - 2006/345 - 2007/13) “In order for the criminal act specified in Article 312/1 of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 765 to have occurred, an act that is regarded criminal in law must be praised or endorsed or the people must be incited to disobeying the law, and this must be done publicly. "Court of Cassation (9th Criminal Chamber, 2.1.2012 - 2009/22624 - 2012/36) "The petition written by convicted prisoners and confiscated by the prison management before reaching its addressee is not terrorist organization propaganda by content, and the legal elements of the criminal act specified in Article 215 of the Turkish Criminal Code are not present since the act did not occur publicly."
“When considered in its entirety, the speech made by the defendant who is the vice chairperson of a political party at the funeral of a former mayor who died of cancer is within the use of freedom of expression and disseminating political opinion as set forth in Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as upheld in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In the absence of certain and convincing evidence which shows beyond doubt that the defendant has acted with the intent of spreading propaganda for an armed terrorist organization, convicting the defendant, rather than acquitting the him, is unlawful and this judgment shall be OVERTURNED…” Court of Cassation (9th Criminal Chamber, 21.3.2012 - -2010/5039 - 201/3760) “When considered in its entirety, the speech made by the defendant, the province director of an association, during live news broadcast on Roj TV station is within the use of freedom of expression as set forth in Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as upheld in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; it does not constitute the offense of spreading propaganda for an armed terrorist organization or the offense of inciting criminal activity considering the nature of the speech and the medium in which it was made.” Court of Cassation (16th Criminal Chamber, 10.6.2015 - 2015/1752 - 1779) “The incident involves the defendants tried for membership to an armed terrorist organization in the 8th High Criminal Court of Izmir; the defendants were ordered out of the courtroom for disrupting the order of the court and responded by shouting slogans praising the founder of the terrorist organization of which they are members. Considering the location of the incident, the circumstances and addressees, the audience and whether the slogans had any possibility for provoking this audience, the act does not constitute the alleged offense of propaganda…” PROPAGANDA THAT ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE OR ENDORSE COERCIVE, VIOLENT OR THREATENING METHODS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS Court of Cassation (9th Criminal Chamber, 10.3.2014 - 2013/14927 - 2605) “The defendants were arrested while posting banners that contained statements such as 'freedom or freedom, Happy Nevruz, organization committee, Democratic Society Congress' in Turkish and Kurdish, and that were banned and confiscated for constituting propaganda of an armed terrorist organization. The alleged and admitted acts of the defendants are not of a nature that attempts to legitimize or endorse coercive, violent or threatening methods of terrorist organizations pursuant to the amendment of Article 7 Paragraph 2 of the Law numbered 3713 made by Article 8 of the Law numbered 6459 that came into force after the conviction of the defendants, in the Official Gazette dated 30.04.2013. Therefore, the defendants must be acquitted of the alleged criminal act.” Court of Cassation (16th Criminal Chamber, 1.4.2015 - 2015/194 - 510) “The elements of the criminal act of terrorist organization propaganda specified in Article 7 Paragraph 2 of the Law numbered 3713 were amended by Article 8 of the Law numbered 6459 and dated 11.4.2013, which imposes sanctions on propaganda that 'attempts to legitimize or endorse coercive, violent or threatening methods of terrorist organizations.' “In order for the offense of propaganda to have occurred, the statement must be made with the intent of promoting, disseminating or persuading others to a doctrine, thought or belief pertaining to the terrorist organization, and must also attempt to legitimize or endorse coercive, violent or threatening methods of the terrorist organization or encourage participation in such methods. ”
“When considered in its entirety, the written press statement made by the defendant, who is the province director of a political party, at the headquarters of the party is not of a nature that attempts to legitimize or endorse coercive, violent or threatening methods of terrorist organizations..." OPEN, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER Constitutional Court (Fatih Taş Application: 2013/1461, Judgment Date: 12/11/2014) "In individual applications regarding freedom of expression, analyzing statements by pulling them out of context may lead to errors in the application of Articles 13 and 26 of the Constitution, and hamper the ability to reach an acceptable conclusion from the findings. As an example, if a statement is considered a threat to 'national security' when taken out of its medium or context, this will not be sufficient for interference in the statement on its own. Therefore, in the case at hand, the statements regarding the PKK terrorist organization must be taken as a whole within the context in which they are expressed, the medium being poetry books, the identity of the author, the time of writing, the target audience, its possible effects, and other statements contained in the book. Furthermore, the content and context of the statements in the poems must be considered for an assessment of whether the interference is 'proportionate to the desired objective' and whether the reasons put forth by national authorities are 'relevant and adequate' (for similar observations, cf. Application No: 2013/409, 25/6/2014, § 100). ECHR case law always emphasizes that one must take into consideration the words used and the context in which they were written, with a view to determining whether the texts taken as a whole can be considered as inciting to violence. (Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, Application No: 23144/93, 16/3/2000 § 63; Sürek v. Turkey, Application No: 24762/94, 8/7/1999 § 12, 58) Meanwhile, in deciding whether the statements in the book incite people to violence and hatred, one must keep in mind that the medium was a book, a form of expression that appeals to a relatively narrow public compared to the mass media (for similar ECHR judgments, cf. Alınak v. Turkey, Application No: 40287/98, 29/3/2005, § 41) and that they were poetry books with the objective of indoctrinating the ideology of the PKK terrorist organization (for a similar judgment, cf. Application No: 2013/409, 25/6/2014, § 106).” Constitutional Court (Emin Aydın Application: 2013/409, Judgment Date: 23/1/2014 - DISSENTING OPINION) “With reference to international law and human rights standards, the Turkish Constitution and positive law, when considered as a whole under the specific circumstances and facts, a book that praises violence, endorses violence and force as a means of politics and rights activism, and threatens to use violence and terrorism to achieve political objectives cannot be regarded within freedom of expression.” Constitutional Court (Emin Aydın Application: 2013/409, Judgment Date: 23/1/2014 - DIFFERENT REASON) “When examining allegations about freedom of expression violations, ECHR requires that whether the statements incite violence or revolt and whether they contain hate discourse be established. When assessing statements, the present circumstances must be considered as well.” Constitutional Court (Fatih Taş Application: 2013/1461, Judgment Date: 12/11/2014) "It must be observed that the poems are published in a book which would necessarily reach a smaller audience than that afforded by the mass media. This limited its potential impact on “public order” to a substantial degree. Thus, even though some of the passages from the book seem very hostile in tone, it must be considered that their artistic nature and limited impact reduced them to an expression of deep distress in the face of tragic events, rather than a call to violence (Mutatis mutandis, cf. Alınak v. Turkey, Application No: 40287/98, 29/3/2005, § 45). It must be pointed out that public authorities have a very narrow window of interpretation when limiting forms of artistic expression such as the books the applicant published. Statements that are disturbing for public authorities or a part of the society cannot be limited unless they incite violence, endorse terrorist activities or support the building of hatred (see § 96).”
"In deciding whether the statements in the book incite people to violence and hatred, it must be borne in mind that the medium was a book, a form of expression that appeals to a relatively narrow public compared to the mass media, and that they were poetry books with an objective of indoctrinating the 'changing' ideology of the PKK terrorist organization." Court of Cassation (8th Criminal Chamber, 28.12.2011 - 2011/14850 - 2011/18205) “The act of the defendant, who is a folk singer working in a wedding hall, involves singing a song in Kurdish during a wedding on the evening of the incident, with lyrics that mean ‘o Kurdistan, Kurdistan such a sweet name, the world over knows, we are at war for you.’ Considering the environment in which this song was sang, the activity of the defendant who is a singer by profession, and the fact that the wedding ended without incident, it is not possible to establish an open, specific and present danger against public order, the elements of the offense are not present, and with reference to Article 10 of the Convention and case law of the ECHR, the incident must be considered within freedom of expression..." Court of Cassation (8th Criminal Chamber, 6.10.2011 - 2009/8117 - 2011/11026) "The examination of the defendant's appeal against the sentence of inciting people to resentment and enmity resolved that: Considering the entirety of the speech made by the defendant to commemorate the anniversary of the Sivas incident on 02.07.1993, where the defendant argued that the Sivas incident targeted the Alevis and intellectuals, similar incidents had occurred in other provinces before, and perpetrators were never punished, thus protesting such incidents and associated negligence and making a call to never repeat such incidents in the future, the speech is an expression of opinions regarding past events and future probabilities; there were no incidents following the speech and it is not possible to speak of present danger..." Court of Cassation (8th Criminal Chamber, 20.6.2011 - 2008/17975 - 2011/5214) “The defendant's statements 'the political achievements of Kurds living in Kirkuk must be protected, an intervention in the region will be interference with Iraq's internal affairs and negatively impact the sensitivities of Kurds living in Turkey with respect to their democratic demands for rights' first posted on a website followed by print in a daily newspaper are expressions of opinion made within freedom of expression. Since the alleged offense involves specific threat and the statements or acts of the defendant cannot be determined to have created an open and specific threat against public order, the elements of the offense are not present...” Court of Cassation (8th Criminal Chamber, 29.2.2012 - 2010/7607 - 2012/6296) "When considering the defendant's press statement titled 'To the Press and People' as a whole, the statement is a critique of the practices and statements of some public authorities, it is an expression of opinions regarding past events and future probabilities; there were no incidents following the speech and it is not possible to speak of present danger. With reference to Article 10 of the Convention and the case law of the ECHR, the defendant's actions do not contain violence and remain within freedom of expression; therefore, the elements of the offense are not present..." THE DUTY OF THE PRESS TO INFORM Court of Cassation (9th Criminal Chamber, 29.3.2012 - 2011/8432 - 2012/4230) “When considering the content of the writing in question as a whole with the theme and photographs that support the theme, the article cannot be regarded propaganda for a terrorist organization as specified in Article 7/2 of the Law numbered 3713; it falls within the duty of the press to inform, criticize and interpret as one of the prerequisites of a democratic society and within freedom of expression as specified in Article 26 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights…” Court of Cassation (16th Criminal Chamber, 8.4.2015 - 2015/423 - 179) “It is observed from the proceeding of the local court that, upon a call from the publications affiliated with the armed terrorist organization PKK/KCK and the arrangements of the Bitlis Provincial Division of the Peace and Democracy Party, a group of approximately 230 individuals assembled in front of the Party building and started to walk towards Ulucami in order to support the hunger strike that the organization members held in prisons as detainees and convicts started and to protest the prison conditions. Some members of the group chanted slogans praising the armed terrorist organization and its leader. When police warned the group to disperse, the demonstrators sat on the ground, read a press release while a group of demonstrators including the defendant sang the 'Guerrilla' march, and then dispersed. “The elements of the criminal act of terrorist organization propaganda specified in Article 7 Paragraph 2 of the Law numbered 3713 were amended by Article 8 of the Law numbered 6459 and dated 11.4.2013, which imposes sanctions on propaganda that 'attempts to legitimize or endorse coercive, violent or threatening methods of terrorist organizations.' “In order for the offense to have occurred, the statement must be made with an intent of promoting, disseminating or persuading others to a doctrine, thought or belief pertaining to the terrorist organization and must also attempt to legitimize or endorse coercive, violent or threatening methods of the terrorist organization or encourage participation in such methods. “On the other hand, the following limited acts - even when not committed during an assembly or demonstration - will constitute said offense even if there are no other elements of the offense when carried out in a way to express membership or support of the terrorist organization:
“In the case at hand, since it is not possible to establish that the defendant chanted slogans which reveal that the defendant is a member or supporter of the terrorist organization, the 'Guerrilla March” cannot be considered within the scope of the provisions of Article 7.2 of the above Law..." Court of Cassation (16th Criminal Chamber, 13.5.2015 - 2015/1972 - 1370) “Since the slogan 'Şehit Namırın' chanted during the funeral on the day of the incident is not an expression showing that the defendant is a member or supporter of a terrorist organization, the elements of the alleged offense are not present...” PROTECTION OF DEFENSE IMMUNITY Court of Cassation (16th Criminal Chamber, 11.5.2015 - 2015/327 - 1277) “When convicted of membership to an armed terrorist organization by the 6th High Criminal Court of Adana on the hearing of the file numbered 2011/172 on 25.12.2012, the defendants chanted the slogan ‘Biji Serok Apo’ repeatedly. Considering the place in which the act took place, the circumstances and target audience, this must be regarded within the right to defense and cannot constitute the criminal act of propaganda…” Yüklə 152,29 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|