The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Turkey violated the freedom of expression of Kurdish musician Hozan Canê, also known as Saide İnaç, after she was convicted of insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a Facebook post. The court ordered Turkey to pay compensation for the violation.
Hozan Canê was sentenced to 1 year, 5 months, and 15 days in prison in 2019 by the Edirne 6th Criminal Court of First Instance for allegedly insulting Erdoğan through a caricature shared on her Facebook page. The court suspended the announcement of the verdict (HAGB), placing Canê under a five-year probation period. During this period, the conviction would be erased if she committed no further offenses.
Veysel Ok, co-director of the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), which represented Canê, highlighted the significance of the ECHR's decision, explaining: "This ruling is crucial for two main reasons. First, it affirms that harsh and provocative criticisms of President Erdoğan fall within the scope of freedom of expression. It underscores that the threshold for criticism of heads of state is high. Second, the court found that the practice of suspending verdicts for five years effectively acts as a form of censorship, violating Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights."
Legal background and ECHR ruling
Canê’s defense team, led by MLSA, had appealed the local court’s decision, but their requests were rejected by the upper courts. When the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal as “unfounded,” MLSA took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the conviction and the suspended sentence violated Canê’s right to freedom of expression.
In its October 7, 2024 decision, the ECHR’s Second Chamber grouped Canê’s case with three others under the "Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey" ruling. The court unanimously found that Turkey had violated the applicants' freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered the state to pay compensation.
The ECHR specifically addressed the practice of suspending the announcement of verdicts (HAGB), which is widely used in Turkish courts. The court stated that this legal practice, as regulated by Article 231 of Turkey’s Criminal Procedure Code, does not offer adequate protection against arbitrary interference with rights guaranteed by the European Convention. The court concluded that the suspended sentences imposed on the applicants represented an unlawful restriction on their freedom of expression.
Ok: HAGB is a form of censorship
Veysel Ok emphasized that the ECHR ruling sets an important precedent by recognizing that the HAGB system itself can function as a form of censorship. "The decision shows that suspending the announcement of sentences for five years is not just a legal formality but a way to pressure individuals into self-censorship," he said.
He further added that this ruling will have broader implications for other cases involving freedom of expression in Turkey, where such legal practices are frequently employed against journalists, artists, and political critics.
The ECHR's decision is seen as a significant victory for freedom of expression advocates in Turkey, where laws criminalizing insults against public officials, particularly the president, have been widely criticized as tools to suppress disse
