The The government compromised regarding Amnesty Law and pardoned the perpetrators who are public officials, involved in gang’s organization within the state and the crimes they committed; pardoned their negligence in their duties. For example, regarding the recent earthquake, many public officials who are from Reconstruction and Housing Directorates and many members of Municipality Assemblies will not be investigated for the crimes (being negligent in their duties and not carrying out their task of inspection) they committed until the date of 23 April 1999 because articles 230 and 240 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) are part of the Amnesty Law. Likewise, those who did not apply the decisions taken by the judiciary concerning the actions of public officials that are not in compliance with the Reconstruction Law and thus violated the articles 230 and 240 of the TPC will be pardoned by the Amnesty Law.
In terms of the status of freedom of expression in Turkey; Akin Birdal, former president of the Human Rights Association, was sentenced to a prison term under article 312 of the TPC. He serves his prison term since 3 June 1999. While Birdal’s imprisonment has brought many reactions worldwide and this issue is addressed in many platforms worldwide, the name of Akin Birdal is not mentioned at all because of some media circles’ embargo against the Human Rights Association.
Turkey is the only country which keeps the country‘s largest and leading human rights organization’s president in jail, because of his opinions. This shows the standards of human rights and derpocratisation in Turkey.
Those who committed crimes by violating article 312 of TPC through the press are subject to heavier sentences. According to the Amnesty Law these heavier sentences are part of the amnesty while the sentences of people (for example, Akin Birdal, Recep Tayyip Erdogan) who expressed their opinion in a meeting are not subject to amnesty. This is in contradiction with the principle of equality under the Constitution.
The government has not dealt with the amnesty issue in a social peace perspective. The government has chosen a political preference and has pardoned those public officials who committed crimes, those who act together with these criminal public officials and also organized gangs.
To set some common criminals free is a positive development. However, unless the economic and social conditions that lead to committing crimes are changed, similar crimes will continue to be committed. When some reforms are not made in the judiciary execution system, many people will be imprisoned with unjust prosecution.
The Human Rights Association defends a general amnesty without making discrimination between judicial and political inmates. HRA demands a general amnesty which would lead to establish social peace and would be a step to democratize the constitutional and legal structure. HRA does not accept the term of thought crimes and therefore, the state should apologies to the people who are in prison for the reason of having expressed their opinion and should set them free unconditionally.
Postponement of sentences and other similar practices are not acceptable. Sentencing people because of their opinion is not under the authorization of states. People decide on their own thoughts. States do not have the authority or the duty to decide how people should think.
People who are sent to prison for having expressed their opinion under article 312 of TPC are facing also political bans. They can either be deprived of being a founder and/or executive of any association or be banned regarding any political activity. Thus, a person’s right to participate and to make a contribution to the political life of the country is being violated. A country, where the right to express one’s opinion is under such a heavy law sanction, cannot be considered as a democratic country.
Hüsnü Ondül
President