CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 décembre 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 26682/95                              Kamil Tekin Sürek                                   against                                   Turkey                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 2 December 1997)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 6-13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 14-18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 19-46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 19-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 32-46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 47-79) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13         B.    Points at issue            (para. 48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13         C.    As regards Article 10 of the Convention            (paras. 49-69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13              CONCLUSION            (para. 70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17         D.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention            (paras. 71-76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17              CONCLUSION            (para. 77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18         E.    Recapitulation            (paras. 78-79) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR F. MARTINEZ JOINED BY MR R. NICOLINI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR B. CONFORTI JOINED BY MRS G.H. THUNE, MM L. LOUCAIDES, M.A. NOWICKI, G. RESS, K. HERNDL, M. VILA AMIGÓ, MRS M. HION,   MM N. NICOLINI AND A. ARABADJIEV. . . . . . . . . . .21   DISSENTING OPINION OF MR E.A. ALKEMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23   APPENDIX :        DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                  ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . .24   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights by the parties, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant is a Turkish national. He was born in 1957 and lives in istanbul.   3.     The application is directed against Turkey.   The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Bakir Çaglar, Professor at istanbul University.   4.     The case concerns the applicant's conviction by the State Security Court on account of the publication of two readers' articles in a weekly review. The applicant is the major shareholder in the publishing company concerned.   5.     The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his conviction constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression. He also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that his case was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.   B.     The proceedings   6.     The application was introduced on 20 February 1995 and registered on 9 March 1995.   7.     On 4 September 1995, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2(b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the Turkish Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints based (under Article 10 of the Convention) on the alleged violation of his freedom of expression and (under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) on the alleged violation of the principle of a fair trial by a court satisfying the conditions of independence and impartiality.   8.     On 4 December 1995 the Government submitted information concerning the amendments made to the Anti-Terror Law (Law No. 3713) and developments in the cases of persons convicted and sentenced under Article 8 of the said Law. The applicant submitted comments in reply on 18 June 1996.   9.     The Government's written observations were submitted on 14 February 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 7 June 1996.   10.    On 14 October 1996 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints relating to the alleged interference with his freedom of expression and to the alleged lack of impartiality and independence of the tribunal which convicted him. The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the application which   concerned an original complaint of the applicant about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   11.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 31 October 1996 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   12.    On 27 February 1997 the Government submitted supplementary observations. The applicant submitted comments in reply on 16 April 1997.   13.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   14.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            MM.    R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV   15.    The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 2 December 1997 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:         (i)   to establish the facts, and         (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose            a breach by the respondent Government of their obligations            under the Convention.   17.    The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is appended to this Report.   18.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the case   19.    At the material time, the applicant was the major shareholder in Deniz Basin Yayin Sanayi ve Ticaret Organizasyon A.S., a Turkish company, which owns a weekly review entitled Haberde Yorumda Gerçek (The Truth of News and Comments), published in istanbul.   20.    In issue No. 23 dated 30 August 1992, two readers' articles, entitled "Silahlar Özgürlügü Engelleyemez" ("Weapons cannot win against freedom") and "Suç Bizim" ("It is our fault"), were published.   21.    A translation of these articles is as follows:   a)     "Weapons cannot win against freedom         In the face of the escalating war of national liberation in       Kurdistan, the fascist Turkish army continues to carry out       bombings. The «Sirnak massacre» which Gerçek journalists revealed       at the cost of great self-sacrifice has been another concrete       example of this week.         The brutalities in Kurdistan are in fact the worst that have been       experienced there in the past few years. The massacre carried out       in Halepçe in Southern Kurdistan by the reactionary BAAS       administration is now taking place in Northern Kurdistan. Sirnak       is concrete proof of it. By causing provocation in Kurdistan, the       Turkish Republic was heading for a massacre. Many people were       killed. In a 3-day attack with tanks, shells and bombs, Sirnak       was razed to the ground.         And the bourgeois press, en masse, wrote about the slaughter.       And as the bourgeois press has said, there are indeed scores of       «unanswered» questions to be asked. As to Sirnak, the attack on       Sirnak is the most effective form of the campaign that is being       waged throughout Turkey to eradicate the Kurds. Fascism will       follow it up with many more Sirnaks.         But the struggle of our people for national freedom in Kurdistan       has reached a point where it can no longer be thwarted by       bloodshed, tanks and shells. Every attack launched by the Turkish       Republic to wipe out the Kurds intensifies the struggle for       freedom. The bourgeoisie and its toadying press, which draw       attention every day to the brutalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina,       fail to see the brutalities committed in Kurdistan. Of course,       one can hardly expect reactionary fascists who call for a halt       in the brutalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina to call for a halt in       the brutalities in Kurdistan.         The Kurdish people, who are being torn from their homes and their       fatherland, have nothing to lose. But they have much to gain."   b)     "It is our fault         The TC murder gang is continuing its murders... on the grounds       of   «protecting the Republic of Turkey». But as people wake up       to what is happening and become more aware, as they gradually       learn to stand up for their rights and the idea that «if they       won't give, then we'll take by force» gradually germinates in       people's minds and grows stronger day by day - as long as this       continues, the murders will obviously also continue...   Beginning       of course with those who planted the seed in people's minds -       according to the generals, imperialism's hired killers, and       according to the double-chinned, pot-bellied, stiff-necked       Turguts, Süleymans and Bülents...   Hence the events of 12 March,       hence the events of 12 September...   Hence the gallows, hence the       prisons, hence the people sentenced to 300 or 400 years. Hence       the people murdered in the torture rooms «in order to protect the       Republic of Turkey». Hence the Mazlum Dogans exterminated in       Diyarbakir Prison... Hence the Revolutionaries recently       officially assassinated... The TC murder gang is continuing - and       will continue - to commit its murders. Because the awakening of       the people is like a flood of enthusiasm... Hence Zonguldak,       hence the municipal workers, hence the public service       employees... Hence Kurdistan. Can the «murder gangs» stop that       flood? There may be some who see the title of this letter and       wonder what on earth it has to do with the text.         The «hired killers» of imperialism, i.e. the authors of the       12 September coup d'état, and their successors of yesterday and       today, those who are still looking for «democracy», who in the       past participated in one way or another in the struggle for       democracy and freedom, who now covertly or openly criticise their       past actions, who confuse the masses and present the       parliamentary system and the rule of law as the means of       salvation, give the green light to the killings of the TC murder       gang.         I am addressing the «faithful servants» of imperialism and its       hardened spokesman(-men), the one(s) who said some time ago «You       won't get me to say that the nationalists commit crimes», who       say(s) today «Those are not what we call journalists», who say(s)       «Who's against demonstrations? Who's against claiming one's       rights? Of course they can hold a march... They're my workers,       my peasants, my public employees», but then has (have) the public       employees who march to Ankara beaten up in the very heart of the       city and say(s) afterwards «The police did the right thing», and       who postpone(s) strikes for months on end. I am addressing the       blabbers, the deserters and the charlatans who are stirring up       the reactionary consciousness of the masses, who try to judge       these people by their attitude towards Kurdistan and try to work       out how «democratic» they are. The guilt of the murder gang is       proven. It is through flesh and blood experience that people are       beginning to see it and realise it. But what about the guilt of       the charlatans, the ones who are thwarting the struggle for       democracy and freedom... Yes, what about their guilt... They have       their share in the killings by the murder gang... May their       «union» be a happy one!"   22.    In an indictment dated 21 September 1992, the Public Prosecutor at the istanbul State Security Court (istanbul Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi), on account of the published articles, charged the applicant, being the owner of the review, with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State and provoking enmity and hatred among the people. The charges were brought under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law and Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code.   23.    In the proceedings before the istanbul State Security Court, the applicant denied the charges. He asserted that expression of an opinion cannot constitute an offence. He stated that the said articles had been written by the readers of the review.   24.    In a judgment dated 12 April 1993, the Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. It found no grounds for conviction under Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The Court first sentenced the applicant to a fine of 200,000,000 Turkish lira. Then, considering his good conduct during the trial, it reduced the fine to 166,666,666 Turkish lira.   25.    In the reasoning of its judgment, the Court held that the incriminated articles contravened Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law to the extent that they referred to a certain part of Turkish territory as an independent state, "Kurdistan", alleged the existence of a "national independence war" against the Turkish State, made discriminatory statements on the grounds of race and contained views which aimed at provoking enmity against the Turkish State.   26.    The applicant appealed. He stated that his trial and conviction contravened Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. He asserted that Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law was contrary to the Constitution. He denied that the articles in question disseminated separatist propaganda. He also asserted that he had not been able to be present at the hearing during which the decision on his conviction had been given. He pleaded that the decision given in his absence and without taking his final statement was contrary to law.   27.    On 26 November 1993 the Court of Cassation found the amount of the fine, as imposed by the State Security Court, excessive. It set aside the applicant's conviction and sentence in this respect.   28.    In a judgment dated 12 April 1994, the istanbul State Security Court first sentenced the applicant to a fine of 100,000,000 Turkish lira. Thereupon it reduced the fine to 83,333,333 Turkish lira. As to the grounds for conviction, the Court, inter alia, reiterated its reasoning dated 12 April 1993.   29.    The applicant appealed. He reiterated the defence which he had made earlier. He also stated that the State Security Court had convicted him without having duly heard his defence.   30.    On 30 September 1994 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the cogency of the State Security Court's reasoning and its assessment of evidence.   31.    After the amendments made by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995 to the Anti-Terror Law, the istanbul State Security Court re-examined the applicant's case. On 8 March 1996 the Court sentenced the applicant to the previous sentence.   B.     Relevant domestic law   a)     Anti-Terror Legislation   32.    Article 8 paragraph 1 of Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991 (before the amendments of 27 October 1995)         <Original>         "Hangi yöntem, maksat ve düsünceyle olursa olsun Türkiye       Cumhuriyeti Devletinin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlügünü       bozmayi hedef alan yazili ve sözlü propaganda ile toplanti,       gösteri ve yürüyüs yapilamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda 2 yildan 5 yila       kadar agir hapis ve ellimilyon liradan yüzmilyon liraya kadar       agir para cezasi hükmolunur."         <Translation>         "No one shall, by any means or with any intention or idea, make       written or oral propaganda or hold assemblies, demonstrations or       manifestations against the indivisible integrity of the State of       the Turkish Republic, its territories and the nation. Those       carrying out any such activity shall be sentenced to imprisonment       between two and five years and a fine between 50 and 100 million       Turkish lira."   33.    Article 8 paragraph 2 of Anti-Terror Law         <Original>         "Yukaridaki fikrada belirtilen propaganda suçunun 5680 sayili       Basin Kanunun 3 üncü maddesinde belirtilen mevkuteler vasitasi       ile islenmesi halinde, ayrica sahiplerine de mevkute bir aydan       az süreli ise, bir önceki ay ortalama satis miktarinin: [mevkute       niteliginde bulunmayan basili eserler ile yeni yayina giren       mevkuteler hakkinda ise, en yükek tirajli günlük mevkutenin bir       önceki ay ortalama satis tutarinin]; yüzde dosani kadar agir para       cezasi verilir. Ancak, bu para cezalari yüzmilyon liradan az       olamaz. Bu mevkutelerin sorumlu müdürlerine, sahiplerine       verilecek para cezasinin yarisi uygulanir ve alti aydan iki yila       kadar hapis cezasi hükmolunur."         <Translation>         "If the offence of propaganda, referred to in paragraph 1 above,       is committed by means of periodicals, as defined in Article 3 of       Press Law No. 5680, the owners of such periodicals shall be       punished by a fine to be determined in accordance with the       following provisions: for periodicals published at less than       monthly intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the       average real sales revenue of the previous month; [for printed       works that are not periodicals or for periodicals which have       recently started business, the fine shall be the average monthly       sales revenue of the highest circulating daily periodical]. In       any case, the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish lira.       Responsible editors of these periodicals shall be sentenced to       imprisonment of between six months and two years and to half of       the fine determined in accordance with the provisions concerning       the owners."   34.    In its judgment No. 1991-18/20, dated 31 March 1992, the Constitutional Court found the above clause in square brackets to be contrary to the Constitution and annulled it. The decision was published in the Official Gazette on 27 January 1993. The annulled clause ceased to have effect on 27 July 1993.   35.    Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law as amended by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995         <Original>         "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti'nin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez       bütünlügünü bozmayi hedef alan yazili ve sözlü propaganda ile       toplanti, gösteri ve yürüyüs yapilamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda bir       yildan üç yila kadar hapis ve yüz milyon liradan üçyüzmilyon       liraya kadar agir para cezasi hükmolunur. Bu suçun mükerreren       islenmesi halinde, verilecek cezalar paraya cevrilemez."         <Translation>         "No one shall make written or oral propaganda or hold assemblies,       demonstrations or manifestations against the indivisible       integrity of the State of the Turkish Republic, its territories       and the nation. Those carrying out any such activity shall be       sentenced to imprisonment between one and three years and to a       fine between 100 and 300 million Turkish lira. In case of       re-occurrence of this offence, sentences of imprisonment shall       not be commuted to fines."   b)     Press Law No. 5680 of 24 July 1950   36.    Article 3         <Original>         "Gazetelere, haber ajanslari nesriyatina ve belli araliklarla       yayinlanan diger bütün basilmis eserlere bu kanunda 'mevkute'       denir.         Basilmis eserlerin herkesin görebilecegi veya girebilecegi       yerlerde gösterilmesi veya asilmasi veya dagitilmasi veya       dinletilmesi veya satilmasi veya satisa arzi 'nesir' sayilir. .."         <Translation>         "Newspapers, publications of news agencies and all other       published matter, published at specific intervals, are referred       to as 'periodicals' in this Law.         The display, distribution, broadcast, sale and supply of       published matter in locations accessible to the public shall be       regarded as 'publication'.   ... "   37.    Under Article 7 of the Press Law, in cases where a periodical is owned by a company, the major shareholder in that company is considered to be the owner of the periodical.   c)     Legislation on the State Security Court   38.    Article 143 of the Turkish Constitution         <Original>         "Devletin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlügü, hür demokratik       düzen ve nitelikleri Anayasada belirtilen Cumhuriyet aleyhine       islenen ve dogrudan dogruya Devletin iç ve dis güvenligini       ilgilendiren suçlara bakmakla görevli Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemeleri       kurulur.         Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesinde bir Baskan, iki asil ve iki yedek       üye ile savci ve yeteri kadar savci yardimcisi bulunur.         Baskan, bir asil ve bir yedek üye ile savci, birinci sinifa       ayrilmis hakim ve Cumhuriyet savcilari arasindan; bir asil ve bir       yedek üye, birinci sinif askeri hakimler arasindan; savci       yardimcilari ise   Cumhuriyet savcilari ve askeri hakimler       arasindan özel kanunlarda gösterilen usule göre atanirlar.         Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi Baskani üye ve yedek üyeleri ile savci       ve savci yardimcilari dört yil için atanirlar, süresi bitenler       yeniden atanabilirler.         Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemeleri kararlarinin temyiz mercii       Yargitaydir.   ..."         <Translation>         "State Security Courts are to be established to deal with       offences against the indivisible integrity of the State and its       territory and nation, offences against the Republic which are       contrary to the democratic order enunciated in the Constitution,       and offences which undermine the internal or external security       of the State.         The State Security Court shall be composed of a president,       two titular members and two substitute members, a public       prosecutor and a sufficient number of substitutes.         The president, the public prosecutor, a titular member and a       substitute member shall be appointed, according to the procedures       laid down by special laws, from the Republic's first class rank       of judges and prosecutors, a titular member and a substitute       member from the first class rank of judges, and the substitutes       from the Republic's public prosecutors and military judges.         The president, titular members and substitute members, the public       prosecutor and the substitutes of the State Security Courts are       appointed for four years; they can be reappointed after the       expiry of their mandate.         There is an appeal against the decisions of the State Security       Courts to the Court of Cassation. ..."   39.    Article 145 of the Turkish Constitution         <Original>         "... Askeri yargi organlarinin kurulusu, isleyisi, askeri       hakimlerin özlük isleri, askeri savcilik görevlerini yapan askeri       hakimlerin mahkemesinde görevli bulunduklari komutanlik ile       iliskileri, mahkemelerin bagimsizligi, hakimlik teminati,       askerlik hizmetinin gereklerine göre kanunla düzenlenir. Kanun,       ayrica askeri hakimlerin yargi hizmeti disindaki askeri hizmetler       yönünden askeri hizmetlerin gereklerine göre teskilatinda görevli       bulunduklari komutanlik ile olan iliskilerini gösterir."         <Translation>         "... The composition and functioning of military judicial organs,       matters relating to the status of military judges and relations       between military judges acting as military prosecutors and the       commanders under whom they serve shall be regulated by law in       accordance with the principles of the independence of the courts       and the security of tenure of the judiciary and requirements of       military duty. Relations between military judges and the       commanders under whom they serve with regard to military duties       other than judicial functions shall also be regulated by law."   40.    Article 16 of the Law on Military Judges         <Original>         "Askeri hakimlerin atanmalari (...) Milli Savunma Bakani ve       Basbakanin müsterek kararnamesi ile Cumhurbaskaninin onayina       sunulur. ..."         <Translation>         "The appointment of military judges by the decree of the Minister       of Defence and the Prime Minister is subject to the approval of       the President of the Republic.   ..."   41.    Article 29 of the Law on Military Judges         <Original>         "Askeri hakim subaylar hakkinda   Milli Savunma Bakani tarafindan,       savunmalari aldirilarak, asagida açiklanan disiplin cezalari       verilebilir .         A. Uyarma ...         B. Kinama..."         <Translation>         "The Defence Minister may apply the following disciplinary       sanctions to military judges, after hearing their defence:         A. Written warning ...         B. Rebuke ..."   42.    Article 7 annexed to the Law on Military Judges         <Original>         "Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet       savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin       rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe ilerlemesi yapmalarini       saglayacak yeterlilikleri, bu Kanunun ve Türk Silahli Kuvvetleri       Personel Kanununun hükümleri sakli kalmak sarti ile, asagida       belirtilen sekilde düzenlenecek sicillerle saptanir.         a) Birinci sinifa ayrilmis üye ve yedek üye askeri hakimlere       subay sicil belgesi düzenlemeye   ve sicil vermeye yetkili birinci       sicil amiri Milli Savunma Bakanligi Müstesari, ikinci sicil amiri       Milli Savunma Bakanidir.         b) Cumhuriyet savci yardimciligi kadrolarina atanan askeri       subaylar hakkinda;         1. Mesleki sicil belgesi, Yargitayda incelem yapan dairece ve       adalet müfettislerince, bu Kanundaki esaslar gözönünde tutularak       verilecek sicil notlarina göre düzenlenir ve bu sicil belgesi       süresi içinde Milli Savunma Bakanligina gönderilir.         2. Subay sicil belgesi, sirasiyla; Milli Savunma Bakanligi ilgili       müstesar yardimcisi, Müstesari ve   Milli Savunma Bakani       tarafindan düzenlenir.         Cumhuriyet savci yardimcisi askeri hakim subaylar hakkinda Devlet       Güvenlik Mahkemesi Cumhuriyet savcisi tarafindan, subay sicil       formu esaslarina göre kanaat notu verilir".         <Translation>         "The eligibility for promotion, seniority in grade and salary       increments of officers acting as judges in the capacity of       assistant public prosecutors and State Security Court members,       is subject both to the said Law and the Law on Military Personnel       and assessed in accordance with the following procedure:         a) The first hierarchical superior competent to issue an       assessment certificate for military judges who are to be       appointed is the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, the second       superior is the Minister of Defence.         b) In respect of judges acting as military prosecutors:         1. The professional assessment certificate is issued, according       to the procedure laid down in the said Law, by the competent       chamber of the Court of Cassation and the Inspector of Legal       Affairs. This certificate has to be sent to the Minister of       Defence within the prescribed time-limit.         2. The assessment certificate for officers is established by the       Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State to the Minister of       Defence, and the Minister of Defence.         The judges acting as military prosecutors are evaluated according       to the assessment formula. This evaluation is carried out by the       Public Prosecutor attached to the State Security Court."   43.    Article 8 annexed to the Law on Military Judges         <Original>         "Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemelerinin askeri yargiya mensup mahkeme       üyeleri ile Cumhuriyet savci yardimcilari, Genelkurmay Personel       Baskani, Adli Müsaviri ile atanacaklarin mensup oldugu Kuvvet       Komutanliginin personel baskani ile adli müsaviri ve Milli       Savunma Bakanligi Askeri Adalet isleri Baskanindan olusan Kurul       tarafindan seçilir ve usulüne uygun olarak atanirlar."         <Translation>         "The military members of the State Security Court and assistant       public prosecutors are appointed by a committee consisting of the       personnel director, the legal adviser of the General Military       Staff, the personnel director, the legal adviser of the regiment       to which the candidate belongs and the director of military       judicial affairs attached to the Ministry of Defence."   44.    Article 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that cassation appeals only lie in respect of alleged illegality and non-compliance of the first instance judgment with the relevant procedure.   d)     Turkish Criminal Code   45.    Article 312 paras. 2 and 3         <Original>         "Halki; sinif, irk, din, mezhep veya bölge farkliligi gözeterek       kin ve düsmanliga açikça tahrik eden kimse bir yildan üç yila       kadar hapis ve ucbin liradan onikibin liraya kadar agir para       cezasi ile cezalandirilir. Bu tahrik umumun emniyeti için       tehlikeli olabilecek bir sekilde yapildigi takdirde faile       verilecek ceza üçte birden yariya kadar arttirilir.         Yukaridaki fikralarda yazili suçlari 311 inci maddenin ikinci       fikrasinda sayilan vasitalarla isleyenlere verilecek cezalar bir       misli arttirilir."         <Translation>         "It shall be an offence punishable by not less than one and not       more than three years' imprisonment, and by a fine of not less       than three thousand and not more than twelve thousand lira, to       provoke feelings of hatred and enmity among the people by       discriminating on the grounds of social class, race, religion,       sect or region. If such provocation imperils public safety, the       punishment shall be increased by one third to one half of the       sentence.         The punishment for the acts defined in the preceding paragraph       shall be doubled where they have been committed by the means       enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 311."   46.    The means enumerated in Article 311 para. 2 of the Criminal Code are: mass media, audio tapes, records, films, newspapers, magazines, handwritten texts distributed in the form of leaflets, placards and posters.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   47.    The Commission has declared admissible:   -      the applicant's complaint that his conviction on account of the publication of the readers' letters in question constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression;   -      the applicant's complaint that his case was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.   B.     Points at issue   48.    The points at issue in the present case are as follows:   -      whether the applicant's conviction on account of the publication of the two readers' articles infringed his freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention;   -      whether the fact that the applicant was convicted by the State Security Court constituted a violation of his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.     As regards Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   49.    The applicant complains that his freedom of expression has been infringed, contrary to Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, in that he was convicted on account of the publication of two readers' articles.   50.    Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention provides as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.   This right       shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart       information and ideas without interference by public authority       and regardless of frontiers.   This Article shall not prevent       States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television       or cinema enterprises.         2.   The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it       duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,       conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law       and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of       national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for  &#xa