Turkish authorities did not do enough to protect rights of murdered journalist, says European Court

14 September 2010 by

Dink v. Turkey (applications no. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09) – This summary is based on the European Court of Human Rights press release.

In the case of Dink v. Turkey the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the authorities failed in their duty to protect the life and freedom of expression of the journalist Firat (Hrant) Dink, a prominent member of the Armenian minority in Turkey who was murdered in 2007.

Dink was a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin, and the publication director and editor-in-chief of Agos, a Turkish-Armenian weekly newspaper.

Between November 2003 and February 2004 Fırat Dink published eight articles in Agos in which he expressed his views on the identity of Turkish citizens of Armenian origin. In particular, in the sixth and seventh articles of the series, he wrote that Armenians’ obsession with having their status as victims of genocide recognised had become their raison d’être, that this need on their part was treated with indifference by Turkish people and that this explained why the traumas suffered by the Armenians remained a live issue. In his view, the Turkish element in Armenian identity was both a poison and an antidote.

On 19 January 2007 Fırat Dink was killed by three bullets to the head. The suspected perpetrator was arrested in Samsun (Turkey). In April 2007 the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against 18 accused. The proceedings are still pending.

Relying in particular on Article 2, the applicants other than Fırat Dink complained that the State had failed in its obligation to protect the life of Fırat Dink. Under the same provision, they alleged that the criminal proceedings brought against the State agents concerned for failing to protect the journalist’s life had been ineffective. On the latter point they also relied on Article 13. Under Article 10 in particular, they further alleged that the fact that Fırat Dink had been found guilty of denigrating Turkish identity had infringed his freedom of expression and made him a target for nationalist extremists.

Violation of Article 2 (right to life)

The Court took the view that the Turkish security forces could reasonably be considered to have been aware of the intense hostility towards Fırat Dink in nationalist circles. The investigations carried out by the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office and the Interior Ministry investigators had highlighted the fact that the police in both Trabzon and Istanbul, and the Trabzon gendarmerie, had been informed of the likelihood of an assassination attempt and even of the identity of the suspected instigators. In view of the circumstances, the threat of an assassination could be said to have been real and imminent.

There had also been a breach of Article 2 (in its “procedural aspect”), as no effective investigation had been carried out into the failures which occurred in protecting the life of Fırat Dink.

Violation of Article 10 (right of freedom of expression)

The Court shared the view of Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation that an analysis of the full series of articles in which Fırat Dink used the impugned expression showed clearly that what he described as “poison” had not been “Turkish blood”, as held by the Court of Cassation, but the “perception of Turkish people” by Armenians and the obsessive nature of the Armenian diaspora’s campaign to have Turkey recognise the events of 1915 as genocide.

After analysing the manner in which the Court of Cassation had interpreted and given practical expression to the notion of Turkish identity, the Court concluded that, in reality, it had indirectly punished Fırat Dink for criticising the State institutions’ denial of the view that the events of 1915 amounted to genocide.

The Court reiterated that Article 10 of the Convention prohibited restrictions on freedom of expression in the sphere of political debate and issues of public interest, and that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for the Government than for a private individual. It further observed that the author had been writing in his capacity as a journalist on an issue of public concern. Lastly, it reiterated that it was an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth. The Court therefore concluded that Fırat Dink’s conviction for denigrating Turkish identity had not answered any “pressing social need”.

The Court also stressed that States were required to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear. In a case like the present one, the State must not just refrain from any interference with the individual’s freedom of expression, but was also under a “positive obligation” to protect his or her right to freedom of expression against attack, including by private individuals. In view of its findings concerning the authorities’ failure to protect Fırat Dink against the attack by members of an extreme nationalist group and concerning the guilty verdict handed down in the absence of a “pressing social need”, the Court concluded that Turkey’s “positive obligations” with regard to Fırat Dink’s freedom of expression had not been complied with.

There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.


The Court held, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, that Turkey was to pay 100,000 euros (EUR) jointly to Fırat Dink’s wife and children and EUR 5,000 to his brother. It was also to pay EUR 28,595 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: