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. 24122/94                          Kamil Tekin Sürek                               against                               Turkey                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 13 January 1998)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 6-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 13-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 18-35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 18-25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law           (paras. 26-35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 36-60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 36). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        B.    Points at issue           (para. 37). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        C.    As regards Article 10 of the Convention           (paras. 38-50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11             CONCLUSION           (para. 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14        D.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 52-57). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14             CONCLUSION           (para. 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15        E.    Recapitulation           (paras. 59-60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15   JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM S. TRECHSEL, J.-C. GEUS, MS G. H. THUNE, MS J. LIDDY, MM L. LOUCAIDES, N. BRATZA, I. BÉKÉS AND M. VILA AMIGÓ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR E. A. ALKEMA. . . . . . . . 18   APPENDIX :      DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 19   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 a news report 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 dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal.   B.    The proceedings   6.    The application was introduced on 9 March 1994 and registered on 11 May 1994.   7.    On 20 February 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 an independent and impartial tribunal.   8.    The Government's written observations were submitted on 25 September 1995. The applicant replied on 6 November 1995.   9.    On 2 September 1996 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints relating to the alleged interference with his freedom of expression and the alleged lack of independence and impartiality 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. Moreover, the Commission decided to join the case to Application Nos. 23927/94, 24277/94, 24735/94 and 24762/94.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was 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. On 4 March 1997 the Government submitted supplementary observations. The applicant submitted comments in reply on 17 April 1997.   11.   On 13 January 1998 the Commission decided to disjoin the case from Application Nos. 23927/94, 24277/94, 24735/94 and 24762/94.   12.   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 the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   13.   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:             MM    S. TRECHSEL, President                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   14.   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.   15. 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.   16.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is appended to this Report.   17.   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   18.   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.   19.   In the issue of 26 April 1992 a news report concerning a press declaration by former deputies Leyla Zana and Orhan Dogan and an English Committee was published.   20.   A translation of the relevant part of this news report is as follows:        "Gendarmerie Regiment Commander ismet Yediyildiz:      «Your blood would not quench my thirst...»        While the British delegation and Diyarbakir MP Leyla Zana, Sirnak      MP Orhan Dogan and Bismil District Governor Mehmet Kurdoglu      managed to persuade the people of Tepe village, which was      blockaded by the security forces, after talking to them for a      while and telling them that permission had been obtained for them      to get the bodies of their dead, an interesting conversation took      place between Diyarbakir Security Director Ramazan Er and      Gendarmerie Regiment Commander ismet Yediyildiz.        The conversation between the MPs Leyla Zana and Orhan Dogan on      the one hand and Colonel ismet Yediyildiz on the other hand was      recounted by Leyla Zana as follows:        Colonel Yediyildiz: What business do you have here? There had      been nobody here until you arrived. You have come and stirred      things up again.        Leyla Zana: No, Sir. The situation had been extremely tense      before we arrived. We have come with the District Governor and      are trying to calm down the tension here. Here is the District      Governor.        Colonel Yediyildiz: No, that's not true. We saw when we were      flying by helicopter that there was nobody here before. People      gathered when you arrived.        Orhan Dogan: No, you can ask the District Governor if you like.      (Meanwhile, District Governor Mehmet Kurdoglu was also being told      off.)        Colonel Yediyildiz: Do you know who these dead people are?        Orhan Dogan: Yes, they are our children, the children of all of      us.        Colonel Yediyildiz: No, these are not our children, they are your      children.        Orhan Dogan: But my Colonel...        Colonel Yediyildiz: Do not call me your colonel. I am not your      colonel. Your blood would not quench my thirst. You should also      be honest and freely admit that my blood would not quench your      thirst. Right now I could kill you like a rat. Your death would      give us pleasure. Your blood would not quench my thirst.        Leyla Zana: If the problem can be solved by killing us, then here      are our people; let's go among them and you kill us and this      problem is solved.        Colonel Yediyildiz: No, I would not kill you now. I would kill      you after I will have you disgraced in the eyes of the people."   21.   In an indictment dated 29 May 1992, the Public Prosecutor at the istanbul Security Court (istanbul Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi), on account of the publication of the news report, charged the applicant as the owner of the review with revealing the identity of officials mandated to fight terrorism and thus rendering them terrorist targets. The charges were brought under Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law.   22.   In the proceedings before the istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges. He pleaded that the news report was published with the aim of informing the public of the events which had occurred during the 1992 Newroz celebrations. He further pleaded that the reports were based on a joint press declaration by former deputies Leyla Zana and Orhan Dogan and an English Committee, following their visit to the south-east region of Turkey. He maintained that, since Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law prohibits in any circumstances the disclosure and dissemination of the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism, it enables officials to abuse their authority, violate the law and subject citizens to ill-treatment. He stated that the right to receive and impart information, including information concerning the acts of officials, is one of the fundamental rights in a democratic society. He alleged that Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law contravened the Turkish Constitution. He invoked Article 10 of the Convention and referred to the case-law of the Commission and the Court in this respect. He stated that pluralism of opinions, including those which shock or offend, is essential in a democratic society.   23.   In a judgment dated 2 September 1993, the Court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 54,000,000 Turkish lira under Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law. The Court held that in the incriminated news report it had been alleged that the Governor of Sirnak had told the visiting Committee that the order to open fire on the people had been given by the Sirnak Chief Police Officer. The Court further held that, according to the news reports, a gendarme commander had allegedly told Leyla Zana that "your death gives us pleasure; drinking all your blood would not quench my thirst". The Court noted that the identity of these officials was disclosed in the news reports. It concluded that the report contained a declaration which rendered these officials targets for terrorist attack.   24.   The applicant appealed. He asserted that the press declaration at issue had already been reported in other newspapers and magazines and that the present news report added nothing to them. He, inter alia, reiterated the defence he had made before the State Security Court.   25.   On 10 December 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 applicant's defence.   B.    Relevant domestic law   a)    Anti-Terror Legislation   26.   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."   27.   In a judgment dated 31 March 1992, the Constitutional Court found the clause in square brackets in the text of Article 6 of the Anti- Terror Law 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.   b)    The composition of the State Security Court   28.   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.   ..."   29.   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."   30.   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...."   31.   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 ..."   32.   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."   33.   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."   34.   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.   c)    The Press Law (Law No. 5680)   35.   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.   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   36.   The Commission has declared admissible:   -     the applicant's complaint that his conviction on account of the publication of the news report in question constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression;   -     the applicant's complaint that his case was not dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal, given that one of the three members of the State Security Court is a military judge, answerable to his military superiors, whose presence prejudices the independence of the Court.   B.    Points at issue   37.   The points at issue in the present case are as follows:   -     whether the applicant's conviction on account of the publication of the news report in question 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   38.   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 a news report.   39.   Article 10 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention states:        "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.   (Art. 10-2) 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 the prevention of disorder or crime, for the      protection of health or morals,   for the   protection of the      reputation   or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure      of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the      authority and impartiality of the judiciary."   40.   The applicant submits that the incriminated news report was published with the aim of providing the public with information within the scope of journalism. In fact, the weekly review concerned has never displayed any support for terrorism. The penal sanction inflicted upon him was not necessary in a democratic society and cannot be justified by any reasons permitted under the Convention. He also asserts that various limitations of freedom of expression have existed in Turkey for decades and their existence cannot be considered justified by the upheaval of terrorism during the recent years. In any event, his sentence was disproportionate, in particular, in the light of the limited circulation of the review. The press declaration at issue had already been reported in other newspapers and the present news report added nothing to these reports.   41.   The respondent Government maintain that the interference with the applicant's rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention was prescribed by law, i.e. by Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law. They state that the applicant, in his review, published a news report concerning a press declaration which disclosed to the public the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism and thus rendered them targets for terrorist attack. Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law clearly prohibits the action of revealing the identity of officials mandated to fight terrorism. The Government consider that the domestic courts therefore interpreted the law reasonably.   42.   The Government also maintain that the purpose of the applicant's conviction was linked to the control of terrorism carried out by illegal organisations and consequently served to protect territorial integrity and national security. As to the necessity of the measure in a democratic society, the Government submit that the threat posed to Turkey by the P.K.K. (the Kurdistan Workers Party - a terrorist organisation) and its affiliations is internationally recognised, as is the need to react firmly to it. Terrorism strikes at the heart of democracy, the fundamental rights which that concept enshrines and the judicial and political systems. The Government maintain that turning the public officials of strategic importance into targets by means of revealing their identity is prohibited and penalised by legislation in many countries. They submit that it is generally accepted in comparative and international law on terrorism that restrictions on Convention rights will be deemed necessary in a democratic society threatened by terrorist violence as being proportionate to the aim of protecting public order. The decisions of the istanbul State Security Court and the Court of Cassation did not exceed the margin of appreciation conferred on States by the Convention.   43.   In the latter respect, the Government recall the Commission's case-law which, in their view, allows for a wide margin of appreciation to governments and to national public authorities with regard to sanctions and restrictions imposed on freedom of expression on grounds of national security and public safety. The authorities of a particular Contracting Party are best placed to interpret the legal definition of criminal offences against national security, territorial integrity or public safety, and to decide whether a restriction designed to protect these matters is necessary (Critical perspectives on the scope and the interpretation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe, Mass Media Files no. 10, p. 23). The Strasbourg organs should not substitute their own evaluation for that of the national courts, where those courts, on reasonable grounds, considered the restrictions to be necessary (cf. Eur. Court HR, markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, p. 21, para. 37).   44.   The Commission is of the opinion that the penalty imposed on the applicant constituted an "interference" in the exercise of his freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   This point has not been in dispute between the parties.   45.   Therefore, the question is whether this interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) and was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to realise that legitimate aim.   46.   The Commission notes that the applicant's conviction was based on Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law and therefore considers that the interference was prescribed by law.   47.   As regards the aims of the interference, the Commission notes that the direct purpose of the prohibition against disclosing the identity of officials entrusted with the task of combating terrorism is to protect those persons against reprisals or other violent acts. The principal aim is therefore the protection of the rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2)   of the Convention. The Commission does not find it necessary to examine whether other aims, such as national security and public safety, could also be relevant in this context.   48.   The remaining issue is whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society". In this respect the Commission recalls the following principles adopted by the Court (see, as the latest authority, Eur. Court HR, Zana v. Turkey judgment of 25 November 1997, Judgments and Decisions 1997 ...., para. 51):        (i) Freedom of expression, as enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 10 (Art. 10-1) constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. It is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or are regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no "democratic society".        (ii) The adjective "necessary", within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2), implies the existence of a "pressing social need". The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court.        (iii) In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the organs of the Convention must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against the applicant and the context in which he made them. In particular, they must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient".   49.   The Commission notes that the applicant was convicted and sentenced for having published a news report, in which the identities were revealed of a chief police officer who was alleged to have given the order to open fire upon citizens and of a gendarmerie colonel on duty in south-east Turkey who was reported as having made extremely hostile and contemptuous statements in regard to two MPs of Kurdish origin and of Kurdish people in the area.   50.   The Commission notes the State Security Court's finding that the disclosure of the identities of the officials concerned made them possible targets of terrorist attack. Having regard to the general tension and to the level of terrorism and violence occurring in south- east Turkey, the Commission accepts that officials engaged in State action against terrorist groups in that area are frequently exposed to serious risks and therefore require a high degree of protection. Moreover, the Commission notes that the incriminated news report, which in itself may have contained information of public interest, could well have been published without disclosure of the identities of the two officials concerned. In these circumstances, the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was proportionate and could reasonably be regarded as necessary for the purpose of protecting the rights of the two officials concerned.        CONCLUSION   51.   The Commission concludes, by 23 votes to 9, that there has been no violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   D.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   52.   The applicant complains that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which provides, inter alia, that:        "1.   In the determination of ... any criminal charge against      him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   53.   The applicant maintains that the State Security Courts are extraordinary courts dealing with political offences. He contends that the members of these courts are appointed by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors. The president of this Council is the Minister of Justice and two other members also hold office in the Ministry of Justice. One of the three members of the State Security Court is a military judge answerable to his military superiors. Furthermore, he questions the independence and impartiality of the Court of Cassation, given that its judgments do not have any specific reasoning.   54.   The respondent Government maintain that the State Security Courts, which are special courts set up to deal with offences against the existence and continuity of the State, are ordinary courts, given that they have been established in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 of the Constitution. As they are independent judicial organs, no public authority or agent could give instructions to such courts. The State Security Courts are composed of three members, one of whom is a military judge. A civil judge acts as president and all the judges have attained the first grade in the career scale. The presence of a military judge in the court does not prejudice its independence, this judge being a judge by career and not belonging to the military. Military judges and prosecutors are independent of their commander and their security of tenure is established. The judges of State Security Courts evaluate the evidence and take their decisions in accordance with the law and their own conscientious conviction as required by Artic