AMED - The prison sentence of 3 years and 15 days given to journalist Ismail Eskin, who criticized the attacks during the curfew period, on the grounds of "making propaganda for a terrorist organization" was overturned.

 

The prison sentence given to journalist Ismail Eskin, who criticized the destruction caused by the military operations initiated with the curfews declared after the self-government declared in Kurdistan in 2015, was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeals. The 3 years and 15 days prison sentence given to Eskin by the Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court in 2017 on the charge of "making propaganda for a chain organization through the press" for 8 of his posts was approved by the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice in the same year. The decision was taken to the Supreme Court by Eskin's lawyer Resul Temur.

 

'DRAWED TO ATTENTION FREEDOM OF PRESS AND EXPRESSION'

 

The 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals found the prison sentence given to Eskin unlawful. The Supreme Court pointed out that the crime of "making propaganda for a terrorist organization" is regulated in Article 7 of Law No. 3713 (TCK). The Supreme Court stated that in Article 7 of the Turkish Penal Code, Law No. 3713, in order for a crime to occur, It reminded that “the crime should be encouraged in a way that legitimizes or praises methods involving force, violence or threats, or encourages the use of these methods of the organization" and that "if the crime is committed through the press, the penalty will be increased by half". Pointing out that the said article of the Turkish Penal Code was given its final form in 2013 in order to comply with the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Supreme Court said that with the amendment made in this context, before the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the 7th article, "The information that does not exceed the reporting limits"  It reminded that the sentence "Expressions of thought made for the purpose of criticism do not constitute a crime" was added. In its reversal decision, the Supreme Court evaluated this change with the words: "As can be seen, it is very clear that every change made in the phase is in favor of freedom of expression and press."

 

'IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED WHICH POST CONSTITUTED A CRIME'

 

In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the court did not clearly discuss which posts legitimized, praised or encouraged the use of force, violence or threat methods of the propaganda crime regulated in the 2nd paragraph of Article 7 of the TCK Law No. 3713. In its decision, the Supreme Court determined that which of the 8 posts made by Eskin were taken as basis for the conviction of the crime of making propaganda for a terrorist organization, which were not taken as basis for the verdict, the dates were shown in a way that would allow auditing, and it was not stated how the conviction was taken as a basis.

 

The Supreme Court of Appeals based the prison sentence decision given due to the legal regulations made and the failure to disclose which post Eskin was punished for, based on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), stating that "No one can commit an act that does not constitute a crime under national or international law when it is committed." or found guilty of negligence”. Since the reason for the sentence given to Eskin was not clearly written, the decision was made in the 2nd paragraph of Article 141 of the Constitution, "All decisions of all courts are written with reasons" and in Articles 34 and 230 of Law No. 5271, which regulates the writing of reasoned decisions found it contrary to regulation.

 

DECIDED TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF UNREASONABLE JUDGMENT

 

The Supreme Court of Appeals requested that the prison sentence decision be evaluated in favor of freedom of the press and expression, and found it unlawful to make an unjustified judgment in violation of the 6th article of the ECHR, the 141st article of the Constitution, the 34th and 230th articles of Law No. 5271. ruled that the unanimous decision be overturned.