The Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) submitted a notification to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers regarding the ongoing Dink v. Turkey case, set to be discussed at the Committee’s December meeting. The notification emphasizes that, 17 years after the assassination of journalist Hrant Dink, the case remains unresolved, the true perpetrators have not been identified, and the issues that led to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling on violations persist. Additionally, the MLSA pointed out that Turkey has failed to establish an effective protection mechanism for journalists facing threats.
In its 9.2 notification, MLSA criticized the Turkish government's action plan for portraying Dink's murder as an isolated incident, arguing that the threats against journalists continue and that existing protection mechanisms are inadequate. The organization called for the creation of independent monitoring bodies and urged Turkey to fully comply with the ECHR ruling.
Journalists feel unsafe in Turkey
The MLSA referred to its 2023 report “Journalism in Turkey: I Don’t Feel Safe”, underscoring that journalists in Turkey continue to work under constant threat and do not feel secure. The report provides data reflecting the lack of safety and ongoing harassment faced by journalists, a situation MLSA believes needs urgent attention.
The Dink v. Turkey case returns to the agenda
The Dink v. Turkey case, which concerns the 2007 murder of Agos editor Hrant Dink, holds the Turkish state responsible for failing to protect Dink's life and freedom of expression. The case was last discussed by the Committee of Ministers in 2018. In their submission, MLSA highlights that the failure to address the shortcomings raised in the ECHR ruling continues to threaten the safety and rights of journalists in Turkey.
What is a 9.2 notification?
A 9.2 notification allows civil society organizations to inform the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe about the implementation of ECHR rulings. These notifications assess whether the necessary steps have been taken by a country to address a ruling, and help determine if the implementation process should continue. The mechanism is seen as a crucial tool for reporting human rights violations in Turkey.
