CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 janvier 1998

.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. 23927/94                          Kamil Tekin Sürek                               against                               Turkey                                 and                      Application No. 24277/94                            Yücel Özdemir                               against                               Turkey                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 13 January 1998)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 8-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 18-22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 23-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 23-35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law           (paras. 36-49). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 50-87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        B.    Points at issue           (para. 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        C.    As regards Article 10 of the Convention           (paras. 52-71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16             CONCLUSION           (para. 72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20        D.    As regards Article 18 of the Convention           (paras. 73-76). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20             CONCLUSION           (para. 77). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21        E.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 78-83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21             CONCLUSION           (para. 84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22        F.    Recapitulation           (paras. 85-87). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22   JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM S. TRECHSEL, E. BUSUTTIL, G. JÖRUNDSSON, A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK, A. WEITZEL, MS J. LIDDY, MM I. CABRAL BARRETO, N. BRATZA, D. SVÁBY, G. RESS, A. PERENIC, C. BÎRSAN, K. HERNDL, E. BIELIUNAS AND E. A. ALKEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR E. A. ALKEMA. . . . . . . . 25   APPENDIX No. 1 :     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                     ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION                     No. 23927/94. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26   APPENDIX No. 2 :     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                     ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION                     No. 24277/94. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the cases as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights by the parties, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The first applicant is a Turkish national. He was born in 1957 and lives in istanbul.   3.    The second applicant is a Turkish national. He was born in 1968 and lives in Duisburg, Germany. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. Semih Mutlu, a lawyer practising in istanbul.   4.    The applications are directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Bakir Çaglar, Professor at istanbul University.   5.    The cases concern the applicants' convictions by the State Security Court on account of the publication of an interview and a declaration in a weekly review. The first applicant was the major shareholder in the publishing company concerned. The second applicant was the responsible editor of the review.   6.    The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that their convictions constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of expression. They also complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that their case was not dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal.   7.    Furthermore, the second applicant complains under Article 18 of the Convention that the restrictions which were applied to his freedom of expression were inconsistent with the legitimate aims prescribed in Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   8.    Application No. 23927/94 was introduced on 25 February 1994 and registered on 20 April 1994.   Application No. 24277/94 was introduced on 4 May 1994 and registered on 6 June 1994.   9.    On 20 February 1995, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the applications to the Turkish Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints (under Article 10 of the Convention) based on the alleged violation of their 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; and of the second applicant's complaint (under Article 18 of the Convention) based on the allegation that the restrictions on his freedom of expression were not applied for the purposes prescribed in Article 10 of the Convention.   10.   As to Application No. 23927/94, the Government's written observations were submitted on 15 September 1995. The first applicant replied on 24 October 1995.   11.   As to Application No. 24277/94, the Government's written observations were submitted on 17 July 1995. The second applicant replied on 31 October 1995.   12.   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 first applicant submitted comments in reply on 18 June 1996. The second applicant submitted comments in reply on 13 February 1996.   13.   On 2 September 1996 the Commission declared admissible the applicants' complaints relating to the alleged interferences with their freedom of expression and to the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal which convicted them. The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the applications which concerned an original complaint of the applicants about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. Moreover, the Commission decided to join the two applications and also to join them to Application Nos. 24122/94, 24735/94 and 24762/94.   14.   The texts of the Commission's decisions on admissibility were sent to the parties on 16 September 1996 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   15.   On 4 March 1997 the Government submitted supplementary observations as to both applications. The applicants submitted comments in reply on 17 April 1997.   16.   On 13 January 1998 the Commission decided to disjoin the cases from Application Nos. 24122/94, 24735/94 and 24762/94.   17.   After declaring the cases 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   18.   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           MM    J.-C. GEUS                E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER           Mrs   G.H. THUNE           MM    H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                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   19.   The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 13 January 1998 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   20. 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.   21.   The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications are appended to this Report.   22.   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   23.   At the material time, the first 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. The second applicant was the responsible editor of the review.   24.   In the 31 May 1992 and 7 June 1992 issues of the review, an interview, made with a leader of the P.K.K. (the Kurdish Workers Party - a terrorist organisation), was published in two parts. Moreover, in the 31 May 1992 edition a joint declaration by four socialist organisations was published.   25.   A translation of the relevant parts of these publications is as follows:   a)    Interview with Mr. C. B., the P.K.K. second-in-command (Part 1)        ...   "Q:   What do you mean when you say [the elections present]      dangers?        A:    The US say: «The Kurds are oppressed. Saddam is slaughtering      them. We are protecting the Kurds against Saddam's massacres. Their      survival is in our safekeeping.» But it is quite obvious that this is      a big swindle. If they were really protecting the Kurds against      massacre as they claim, they ought to be protecting them against the      Turkish State, too. Since the massacre which the Turkish State is      carrying out against our people in the North is as horrible as that of      Saddam. In fact, there are practices which are much more extreme than      those of Saddam. So the US ought to be doing the same thing against      Turkey. The double standard is clear for all to see. The US take action      against Saddam, but support Turkey's massacres against the Kurdish      people in both the North and the South. There have been many signs of      this and our people are aware of it. They want to make the Kurds an      instrument for gaining their own ends. Their aim in the elections is      both to contain the positive developments in the South through the      organisations they want to promote and to block the fight for      independence and freedom which is developing in Kurdistan in general.      They want to bring all the Kurdish movements under the control of those      two organisations already controlled by them [the US]. So that is why      they all present a danger for the Kurdish people.        Q:    Laws will be enacted once a parliament has been established in      Southern Kurdistan. Treaties will be signed, on the one hand with      neighbours, i.e. Turkey and Iraq, and, on the other hand, with the US.      Turkey can have only one demand from these countries, that the P.K.K.      be excluded. If Kurdish parties take part in such an environment, what      would be the P.K.K.'s attitude?        A:    It is a well-known fact that Turkey and/or imperialism wants to      divert our people from its national identity and struggle. But we want      to achieve our identity as a nation and have a fatherland. That is what      we are fighting for. They want to uproot us and drive us out of our      territory; they want to annihilate us or force us to change. But we      fight to live in freedom in our own territory. If either the US or      Turkey or any other power which claims to be acting in the name of      Kurdish identity attempts to force us out of any part of our country,      we will fight in order to stay where we are. That is what we are      fighting for right now. The Turkish State wants to oust us from our      territory. It is driving people out of their villages. It wants      Kurdistan to become a totally uninhabited area. But we are resisting.      No one can tell us or ask us to get out. We are not on anyone else's      territory; we are on our own territory. No one can tell us to leave our      own territory. We make no distinction between the North and the South;      we are in Kurdistan. We are amongst our own people. If they want us to      leave our territory, they must know that we will never agree to it. We      are a people who have lost everything we had and who are fighting to      regain what we have lost. That is the purpose of our action. We have      nothing to lose. We shrink from nobody and are afraid of no one. All we      can lose is our slavery. That is why we act without fear....        Q:    It is said that broadcasting programmes in Kurdish on Turkish      State television would be interpreted as making a concession to the      P.K.K. Could that be true? It is also rumoured that the P.K.K. is going      to set up a TV station. Is that right?        A:    It is not true that the P.K.K. is going to broadcast on      television. We have no such facilities. Television broadcasting either      by satellite or through any other channel is not an issue for the      P.K.K. It was Turgut Özal who brought up the issue of Kurdish TV in      Turkey when he went to the US. That is what is being debated.   A very      small fraction of people say that Özal was right, but a very large      proportion are against it. Those who are suggesting Kurdish TV are      doing so deliberately. The aim is supposedly to influence and win over      the masses and thus to isolate the P.K.K. That is what the idea is. But      even if Kurdish TV became a reality, it would do them no service. That      is why they are against it. The purpose of those who want to create      Kurdish TV is to isolate the P.K.K. For there is no mention of any      argument such as «Here is a people who have their own language and we      must broadcast in their language. There is need for respect for that      people. It is wrong to ban a people's language, that also harms the      Turkish people.» Far from it. The debate has revealed the real      intentions: «How can we wipe out the influence of the P.K.K.?   How can      we isolate the P.K.K.? How can we pull the wool over the Kurdish      people's eyes?» It is a tactical approach. It is a trick. But no matter      what steps they take, they will be working to the advantage of the      P.K.K. The Turkish State has now lost Kurdistan. That is a fact. Any      move the State makes in Kurdistan after this will turn out to the      advantage of the P.K.K. and the disadvantage of the Turkish State. ...        Q:    A different tactic was applied in the Uludere attack. Previously,      attacks were always carried out at night. But this time, the attack was      carried out during the day and the clashes continued throughout the      day. It is said that this entails more risk for the guerrillas. What      was the reason for it?        A:    What they say is right. Our combat has reached a certain level.      Tactics have to be developed which match that level, because it is a      mistake to wage war with less developed tactics. Progress can be      achieved in the war by using tactics in keeping with the level of      warfare which has now been reached. That is why an action of that      nature was planned. The idea was to attack in the morning and hold our      ground, continuing the clashes throughout the day - and it was      successful in the end. It was an experiment. From our point of view      there are conclusions to be drawn from it. We are studying the matter.      We shall benefit from that in the actions we carry out in the future."   b)    Interview with Mr. C. B., the P.K.K. second-in-command (Part 2)        "Q:   What do you think about the assassinations by unknown      perpetrators in Kurdistan and the actions ascribed to the «Hizbi-      contra»?        A:    It is true that there is an organisation known as Hizbullah. But      it is a weak organisation. It is not that organisation which is      carrying out the massacres, contrary to what is being said. Since the      organisation is weak, the Republic of Turkey has captured its members      in many places. Many massacres are carried out in the name of that      organisation, but it is actually the Turkish State itself which is      doing the killings. We say this to the members of Hizbullah: «If you      are really Muslims, [you should know that] the Islamic faith is against      repression and injustice and advocates what is right and just.» It is      a well-known fact that the Turkish State is repressive and carries out      massacres and inhuman actions. They [the Hizbullah] must respect those      who oppose these acts. If they want to wage war, they must join forces      with them. That is what we are asking of them. We warn them as friends      that they must throw out the contra-guerrillas who infiltrate their      ranks. For unless they do that, they will come to grief. We have not,      as yet, reacted more seriously, we have just warned them. We say that      that phenomenon has served the Turkish State and we have received a      favourable response from certain quarters. They have said that      Hizbullah people or Muslims have not in fact been involved in that sort      of action and that the acts have not been carried out by Hizbullah      people. That is favourable as far as we are concerned. But it [the      State] is still carrying out massacres in some places in Hizbullah's      name....        Q:    On what lines will the struggle be carried out from now on?        A:    The climate does affect a war, although the effects are not      decisive. The 1991-92 winter was very hard and that affected our      movements, the capacity for combat and caused several difficulties -      both for us and for the Turkish State. But they have the advantage of      using technology and they used that advantage to the full. To no avail,      however. They intended to deal us murderous blows last winter. They      thought they would have overthrown us and ousted us by the spring. But      they did not achieve what they wanted. Our capacity for movement was      reduced by the hard winter conditions and, as a result, steps could      only be taken late as compared to previous years. The season is      gradually becoming more suitable, however. There is still snow on the      ground in many places, but it is presenting less and less of an      obstacle. 1992 will be more different compared to other years, but we      never say: «Let us improve our armed combat, let us expand it further.»      If we continue the war, we do so because we have to. Because there is      no possibility of achieving a different life and developing. All roads      have been blocked for us. We are waging war because we are forced to.      Any further expansion of the war will depend on the attitude of the      Turkish State. The State is intensifying the war. So we have to extend      the war to that degree. The war will escalate. Before the P.K.K., there      was a one-sided war being waged in Kurdistan. In the last few years      that war has begun to be a two-sided war. In the old days, the Turkish      State used to achieve whatever ends it intended to achieve in the war      it was waging, and the Kurdish people was being rapidly wiped out as a      result. But the Kurdish people have begun to say «Stop!». They began to      resist in order to avoid annihilation. It was the State which started      the war and the ending of the war will also depend on the Turkish      State. We did not start the war. We developed a defensive war against      the war of annihilation that was being waged on us. This war will      continue as long as the Turkish State refuses to accept the will of the      people of Kurdistan: there will be not one single step backwards. The      war will go on until there is only one single individual left on our      side."   c)    Call «to unite forces» - Joint Statement of TDKP, TKEP, TKKKÖ and TKP-ML Hareketi             "The Central Committees of the Revolutionary Communist Party of      Turkey (TDKP), the Communist Labour Party of Turkey (TKEP), the Turkish      Organisation for the Liberation of Northern Kurdistan (TKKKÖ) and the      Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist Movement of Turkey (TKP/ML Hareketi)      have called on all revolutionaries and democrats to unite forces.             «Let us unite against State terrorism, against the repression on      and oppression of the Kurdish people, against the massacres, the street      killings, the dismissals and unemployment; let us unite and step up our      efforts for freedom, democracy and socialism!» Such is the heading of      the appeal in which it is stated that the only means of action for the      ruling classes is that of force and violence. And the «democratisation»      initiatives of the DYP and SHP government are described as a manoeuvre,      purely a means of concealing their attacks.             The appeal goes on to state the following views:             «Workers, labourers and young people of the Kurdish and Turkish      nation!             It is possible and perfectly feasible for us to drive back the      attacks levelled on us by imperialism and the collaborating ruling      classes and to obtain our economic and political rights and freedoms.      To do so we must rally our forces around our common demands and join      battle. Aware of its historic revolutionary role, the working class      must take action, must lead that action, must call the bluff of the      trade union bosses of every camp and smash the barriers they have put      up to curb our movement and must develop the fight and action.        -     The Turkish army must withdraw from Kurdistan. Action must be      taken to put an end to the double standards in the legal system and all      Kurdish prisoners must be released.        -     The Turkish parliament must end its authority over Kurdistan.      Kurdish people must be free to determine their own destiny, including      the establishment of a separate State.        -     The State terrorism and street executions, carried out by MiT      [State Intelligence Organisation] agents, contra-guerrillas and special      squads, must stop immediately and they must be called upon to account      for the massacres and murders.        -     The servicing of external debts to imperialists must be stopped,      and those resources must be used for the benefit of the proletariat.        -     Dismissals must be stopped and sacked workers must be given their      jobs back. All the obstacles which have been placed in the way of trade      union organisation must be removed and the right to organise without      restriction must be granted.        -     Measures must be taken to prevent the State Economic Enterprises,      which are the resources of the country and of the people, from being      sold for a song to imperialists. Labour sub-contracting, which is a      means of eliminating trade union coverage, must be stopped immediately.        -     The strike bans must be lifted and lockout must be prohibited.      The right to hold general strikes, political strikes, strikes to obtain      rights and sympathy strikes must be recognised. And all the bans on      freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate, freedom of opinion and of      the press must be ended.        -     Act no. 657 pertaining to civil servants must be repealed and all      working people must be granted the right to join a trade union with the      right to strike and to conclude collective agreements.        -     All working people must have insurance coverage; all workers must      be granted unemployment insurance and the facilities must be provided      for free health services and health care for everyone.        -     The discrimination based on sex which prevails in working and      social life and the pressure exerted on working women must be ended.        -     The YÖK [High Council for Education] must be done away with and      young people in higher education must be allowed to have a say and to      participate in decision-making in university administration. All the      obstacles that have been placed on youth organisations must be removed      and education and training must be free of charge at every level.        -     Education boards must be given full autonomy; textbooks must meet      contemporary requirements and must be re-written with democratic      contents.        -     All debts owed to the State by the peasantry must be cancelled      and the rural population must be allowed to set the minimum prices of      products.»"   26.   On 1 June 1992 the istanbul State Security Court (istanbul Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi) ordered the seizure of all copies of the 31 May 1992 issue of the review, since it allegedly contained a declaration by terrorist organisations and disseminated separatist propaganda.   27.   In an indictment dated 16 June 1992, the Public Prosecutor at the istanbul State Security Court charged the applicants with having disseminated propaganda against the indivisibility of the State by having published an interview with a P.K.K. leader and a declaration made by four terrorist organisations. The charges were brought under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, respectively.   28.   In another indictment dated 30 June 1992, the applicants were again charged, on account of having published the second part of the interview in the 7 June 1992 issue, with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The charges were brought under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law.   29.   On 4 February 1993 the criminal proceedings were joined in view of the fact that the incriminated articles was considered to constitute a single interview, which was published in two parts.   30.   In the proceedings before the istanbul State Security Court, the applicants denied the charges. They pleaded that the interview had been published with the aim of providing the public with information within the scope of journalism and the liberty of press. As regards his freedom of expression, the first applicant referred to the Convention and the case-law of the Commission and the Court. He stated that pluralism of opinions is essential in a democratic society including those opinions which shock or offend. He argued that the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law restrict freedom of expression in contravention of the Turkish Constitution and the criteria laid down in the case-law of the Commission and the Court.   31.   In a judgment dated 27 May 1993 the State Security Court found the applicants guilty of offences under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti- Terror Law. The first applicant was sentenced (under Article 6) to a fine of 100,000,000 Turkish lira and (under Article 8) to a further fine of 200,000,000 Turkish lira. The second applicant was sentenced (under Article 6) to a fine of 50,000,000 Turkish lira and (under Article 8) to six months' imprisonment and a further fine of 100,000,000 Turkish lira.   32.   In its reasoning, the Court held that the incriminated interview was published in the form of a news commentary. It further held that the interviewee had referred to a certain part of Turkish territory as "Kurdistan", he had asserted that certain Turkish citizens who are of Kurdish race form a separate society and that the Republic of Turkey expels Kurdish people from their villages and massacres them. It further considered that the interviewee had praised Kurdish terrorist activities and had claimed that the Kurds should form a separate State. On these grounds, the Court found that the interview, as a whole, disseminated propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The Court further held that another page of the review contained a declaration by terrorist organisations and the publication thereof thus constituted a separate offence under Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law.   33.   The applicants appealed. In addition to the defence which the applicants had made before the State Security Court, their legal representative emphasised that in a democratic society opinions must be freely expressed and argued. Noting that there had been no prosecutions for the publication of other interviews with the leaders of the P.K.K. in other newspapers or magazines, the applicant's representative asserted that the applicants had not been convicted for publishing the incriminated interview, but for publishing a Marxist review.   34.   On 4 November 1993 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the cogency of the State Security Court's assessment of the evidence and its reasoning in rejecting the applicants' defence.   35.   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 applicants' case and confirmed their respective sentences.   B.    Relevant domestic law   a)    Anti-Terror Legislation   36.   Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991        <Original>        "isim ve kimlik belirterek veya belirtmeyerek kime yönelik      oldugunun anlasilmasini saglayacak surette kisilere karsi terör      örgütleri tarafindan suç islenecegini veya terörle mücadelede      görev almis kamu görevlilerinin hüviyetlerini açiklayanlar veya      yayinlayanlar veya bu yolla kisileri hedef gösterenler besmilyon      liradan onmilyon liraya kadar agir para cezasi ile      cezalandirilir.        Terör örgütlerinin bildiri veya açiklamalarini basanlara veya      yayinlayanlara besmilyon liradan onmilyon liraya kadar agir para      cezasi verilir.        Bu Kanunun 14 üncü maddesine aykiri olarak muhbirlerin      hüviyetlerini açiklayanlar veya yayinlayanlar besmilyon liradan      onmilyon liraya kadar agir para cezasi ile cezalandirilir.        Yukaridaki fikralarda belirtilen fiillerin 5680 sayili Basin      Kanununun 3 üncü maddesindeki mevkuteler vasitasiyle islenmesi      halinde, ayrica sahiplerine de; mevkute bir aydan az süreli ise      bir önceki ay ortalama fiili satis miktarinin, aylik veya bir      aydan fazla süreli ise bir önceki fiili satis miktarinin,[mevkute      niteliginde bulunmayan basili eserler ile yeni yayina giren      mevkuteler hakkinda ise, en yüksek tirajli günlük mevkutenin bir      önceki ay ortalama satis tutarinin] yüzde doksani kadar agir para      cezasi verilir. Ancak, bu ceza ellimilyon liradan az olamaz. Bu      mevkutelerin sorumlu müdürlerine, sahiplerine verilecek cezanin      yarisi uygulanir."        <Translation>        "Those who announce that a crime will be committed by terrorist      organisations against certain persons either expressly or without      mentioning their names, or who disseminate or disclose to the      public the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism,      or who render such officials targets, shall be subject to a fine      of between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira.        Those who print or publish the leaflets of terrorist      organisations shall be subject to a fine of between 5 and      10 million Turkish lira.        Those who, contrary to Article 14 of this Law, disclose or      publish the identity of informants shall be subject to a fine of      between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira.        If one of the crimes defined 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 periodicals published monthly or at more than      monthly intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the      average real sales revenue of the previous issue [; for printed      works that are not periodicals or for periodicals which have      recently started business, the fine shall be ninety per cent of      the monthly sales revenue of the highest circulating daily      periodical]. In any case, the fine may not be less than      50 million Turkish lira. Responsible editors of these periodicals      shall be sentenced to half of the sentences to be imposed upon      the publishers."   37.   Article 8 paragraph 1 of Anti-Terror Law (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."   38.   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 doksani 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."   39.   In a judgment dated 31 March 1992, the Constitutional Court found the clau