CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 23 avril 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF95AF3A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF8ED3D27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11.5pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEE333543 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.5pt } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9F44CE9D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2225D9F4 { width:20.33pt; display:inline-block } .sA5D5DE6C { width:27pt; display:inline-block } .sA9B61B9F { width:340.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s57DF49A4 { width:15.66pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s73EB4347 { width:320.64pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s719EB764 { width:313.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sC4D84E99 { width:15pt; display:inline-block } .s624B0CE8 { width:307.29pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6833ED26 { width:17pt; display:inline-block } .s1FECA6C4 { width:330.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6D85FAC9 { width:300.62pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6EDDD7F { width:13.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC8CE5108 { width:314.27pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sD73AA329 { width:323.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sDF980A38 { width:293.95pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6EF20644 { width:287.27pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sB7DE8D86 { width:317.29pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s27E05001 { width:16.34pt; display:inline-block } .s524C4EE0 { width:283.93pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s8860E0D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:90pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-90pt; text-align:justify } .s918DC932 { width:21.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4A79C24 { width:90pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s816390E { width:95.98pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s9026445E { width:20.61pt; display:inline-block } .s8A9C34DF { width:17.41pt; display:inline-block } .s35498210 { width:16.13pt; display:inline-block } .s5CAF9248 { width:11.01pt; display:inline-block } .s8BB247A6 { width:7.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC4BAA6E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s5B0D02A0 { width:15.5pt; display:inline-block } .s71AD7540 { width:15.55pt; display:inline-block } .s25FB8EA0 { width:23.39pt; display:inline-block } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sE5E8ECA1 { width:29.14pt; display:inline-block } .sB5341C0A { width:25.04pt; display:inline-block } .sD7D8E188 { width:28.5pt; display:inline-block } .sFD8ACFD7 { width:5.34pt; display:inline-block } .sFCB5128B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-42.55pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s7B383625 { width:27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4AA72B95 { width:2.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF5B34857 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-weight:bold } .s222E31FA { width:32.96pt; display:inline-block } .s9A608C13 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:26.95pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s568BE7C7 { width:0.05pt; display:inline-block } .s84CD474B { width:16.77pt; display:inline-block } .s1BD9EABB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF36799E5 { width:17.6pt; display:inline-block } .s50014358 { width:26.56pt; display:inline-block } .s101E22AB { width:17.42pt; display:inline-block } .s93672C06 { width:1.55pt; display:inline-block } .sC6BAABD5 { width:41.29pt; display:inline-block } .sDB40209C { width:19.98pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .sF6ABF5EC { width:23.17pt; display:inline-block } .s3ABB4172 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sC78DC363 { width:42.16pt; display:inline-block } .sE1871A4B { width:4.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA1738B9D { width:16.78pt; display:inline-block } .s30813AC2 { width:28.09pt; display:inline-block } .s2AE90DE5 { width:36.16pt; display:inline-block } .s5F2817CC { width:1.44pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD8CF4069 { width:39.35pt; display:inline-block } .s1551CE58 { width:34.45pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF66F5421 { width:31.43pt; display:inline-block }         EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                   Application No. 26680/95     Pelin Şener     against     Turkey                   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 23 April 1999)   TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-16) ........................................................ 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4) ..................................................... 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-11) .................................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 12-16) .................................................. 2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 17- 58) ...................................................... 4     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 17 - 29) ................................................. 4     B.   Relevant domestic law     (paras. 30 - 58) ................................................. 6     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 59 - 107) .................................................... 18     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 59) ..................................................... 18     B.   Points at issue     (para. 60) ..................................................... 18     C.   As regards Article 10 of the Convention     (paras. 61 - 87) ................................................ 18       CONCLUSION     (para. 88) ..................................................... 22     D.   As regards Article 18 of the Convention     (paras. 89 - 92) ................................................ 22       CONCLUSION     (para. 93) ..................................................... 23     E.   As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention     (paras. 94 - 103) ............................................... 23       CONCLUSION     (para. 104) .................................................... 26     F.   Recapitulation     (paras. 105 - 107) ............................................... 26     APPENDIX :   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO   THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ............... 27   I.   INTRODUCTION   1.   The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.   The application   2.   The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1969 and resident in Cologne, Germany. She was represented before the Commission by Mr Kamil Tekin Sürek, a lawyer practising in İstanbul.   3.   The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent.   4.   The case concerns the applicant's conviction by the State Security Court on account of the publication of an article in a weekly review. The applicant is the responsible editor of the review. She complains under Article 10 of the Convention that her conviction constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression. She also complains under Article 18 of the Convention that the restrictions which were applied to her freedom of expression were inconsistent with the legitimate aims prescribed in Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention.     Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the İstanbul State Security which dealt with her case was not an independent and impartial tribunal.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 7 March 1995 and registered on 9 March 1995.   6.   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 respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.   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.   8.   The Government's observations were submitted on 20 March 1996 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicant replied on 7 June 1996 after an extension of the time-limit.   9.   On 21 October 1997 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Article 6 para. 1 and Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 31   October 1997 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government submitted observations on 18 March 1998.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with former [1] Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also 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   12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of former Article   31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       MM   S. TRECHSEL, President       E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS     Mrs   G.H. THUNE     Mr   F. MARTINEZ     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS         M.P. PELLONP       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA       I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       C. BÎRSAN       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV   13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 23 April 1999 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with former Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.         14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to former 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 State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   15.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is appended to this Report.   16.   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   17.   At the material time, the applicant was the owner and the responsible editor of a weekly review entitled "Haberde Yorumda Gerçek" (The Truth of News and Comments) and published in İstanbul.   18.   On 5 September 1993 the İstanbul State Security Court ordered the seizure of the twenty-third edition of the review, dated 4 September 1993, on the ground that it contained separatist propaganda.   19.   In an indictment dated 29 September 1993, the Public Prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court, on account of an article entitled "Aydın İtirafı" ("The confession of an intellectual") published in the twenty-third edition of the review dated 4 September 1993, charged the applicant, as the owner and "responsible editor", with disseminating propaganda   against the indivisibility of the State. The charges were brought under section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law.     20.   The indictment against the applicant incriminated certain passages of the article, including the following:     "Confession of an Intellectual     We are watching the extermination of a nation; we are watching a genocide such that it will not be a mistake to call it unprecedented; we are groaning night and day between the cogs of a dirty war ... We are claiming the right of nations to determine their own fate; we are saying that there should be no impediments to the exercise of this right. We are trying to explain that recognition of the Kurdish reality is an important step. The reason for the (..) civil war is American imperialism and we think that to stand up against war is an obligation for every human being. The Namaz mountains, the Tendürek mountains, Nurhak and many others are being bombed and at this moment Kurdistan is blazing; the genocide is continuing violently; we are watching the brutality in Bosnia on our colour screens, suddenly we are full of anger, we become human rights advocates; chemical weapons are being used in the Nurhak mountains. <<We will not leave a stone standing>> says a military authority. Their determination to exterminate a whole nation echoes in our ears ... We know that an oppressed nation cannot be chauvinist, yet, we are still trying to deceive one another.   We are preaching the necessity of trying peaceful methods in resolving the Kurdish problem and discussing what could be the solution. Brazenly, we are filling our newspapers with made-up news which tell how the terrorists who raided the Sündüz plateau killed the women and children; knowing that the public was not aware of the briefing given to the press, we are announcing in our columns, in a democratic way, that the Kurdish and Turkish citizens have been living in brotherhood for centuries, but the terrorists’ intention was to spoil that brotherhood. And we are denigrating the attitude of the Kurdish peasant who started a freedom march.”   21.   In the proceedings before the İstanbul State Security Court, the applicant denied the charges. She pleaded that the article did not contain elements of separatist propaganda and that the author had expressed his opinion in accordance with his freedom of expression.         22.   In a statement to the İstanbul State Security Court, the applicant's legal representative asserted that section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law was contrary to the Constitution and Article 10 of the Convention. He further maintained that trying the applicant   before the State Security Court was contrary to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. He finally requested the applicant's acquittal.   23.   In a judgment dated 5 July 1994, the court found the applicant guilty of an offence under section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. It sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and a fine of fifty million Turkish Lira. The Court referred in its judgment to certain extracts from the article and observed the following:     "The examination of the article as a whole, which refers to part   of the Turkish territory as <<Kurdistan>> and states that it is intended to exterminate the Kurdish nation there, that a genocide is taking place, that the places referred to as Kurdistan are being bombed and blazing, that chemical weapons are being used,   and that the people living there are Kurdish citizens, led to the Court's conclusion that by referring to certain parts of the Turkish State in those areas, the offence of propaganda aiming at the destruction of the indivisible integrity of the Turkish Republic with its land and nation has been committed; the material and moral elements (mens rea) with respect to the imputed offence have been established." 24.   On 6 July 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. In his notice of appeal the applicant's legal representative challenged the İstanbul State Security Court's interpretation of the article in question and asserted that section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law was contrary to the Constitution.   25.   On 30 November 1994 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the cogency of the State Security Court's assessment of evidence in rejecting the applicant's defence.   26.   The İstanbul State Security Court, on 17 November 1995, also found the author of the article, Erhan Altun, guilty of an offence under section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. It sentenced him to one year and one month's imprisonment and a fine of 111,111,110 Turkish Lira. However, the court, taking into account the good conduct of the author during the trial, suspended his sentence.   27.   After the amendments made by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995 to the Anti-Terror Law, the İstanbul State Security Court re-examined the applicant’s case. On 8 March 1996 the court sentenced the applicant to the previous sentence. The applicant appealed again.   28.   On 10 June 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 8 March 1996 on the ground that the İstanbul State Security Court had not commuted the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment to a fine.   29.   On 25 September 1997 the İstanbul State Security Court suspended the delivery of the final judgment in the applicant’s case pursuant to section 1 of Law No. 4304 of 14 July 1997. The court also decided, under section 2 of the same law, that the initiated criminal proceedings would be set aside if the applicant did not commit any offence deliberately as a responsible editor within three years after this decision.   B.   Relevant domestic law   1.   Criminal Law   a)   The Constitution   30.   Article 14   <Original>   "Anayasada yer alan hak ve hürriyetlerden hiçbiri, Devletin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlüğünü bozmak, Türk devletinin ve Cumhuriyetin varlığını tehlikeye düşürmek, temel hak ve hürriyetleri yok etmek, Devletin bir kişi veya zümre tarafından yönetilmesini veya sosyal bir sınıfın diger sosyal sınıflar   üzerinde egemenliğini sağlamak veya dil, ırk, din ve mezhep ayırımı yaratmak veya sair herhangi bir yoldan bu kavram ve görüşlere dayanan bir devlet düzenini kurmak amacıyla kullanılamazlar.   ..."   <Translation>   "None of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Constitution shall be exercised with a view to violating the indivisible integrity of the State, its territory and people, endangering the existence of the Turkish State or Republic, destroying fundamental rights and freedoms, placing the government of the State in the hands of a single individual or group, ensuring the rule of one social class over others, creating discrimination between individuals on the grounds of language, race, religion or denomination, or establishing by any other means a political system based on any of the above concepts.   ..."   b)   Anti-Terror Legislation   31.   Section 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 düşünceyle olursa olsun Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devletinin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlüğünü bozmayı hedef alan yazılı ve sözlü propaganda ile toplantı, gösteri ve yürüyüş yapılamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda 2 yıldan 5 yıla kadar ağır hapis ve ellimilyon liradan yüzmilyon liraya kadar ağır para cezası 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."   32.   Section 8 paragraph 2 of Anti-Terror Law   <Original>   "Yukarıdaki fıkrada belirtilen propaganda suçunun 5680 sayılı Basın Kanunun 3 üncü maddesinde belirtilen mevkuteler vasıtası ile işlenmesi halinde, ayrıca sahiplerine de mevkute bir aydan az süreli ise, bir önceki ay ortalama satış miktarının: [mevkute niteliğinde bulunmayan basılı eserler ile yeni yayına giren mevkuteler hakkında ise, en yükek tirajlı günlük mevkutenin bir önceki ay ortalama satış tutarının]; yüzde doksanı kadar ağır para cezası verilir. Ancak, bu para cezaları yüzmilyon liradan az olamaz. Bu mevkutelerin sorumlu müdürlerine, sahiplerine verilecek para cezasının yarısı uygulanır ve altı aydan iki yıla kadar hapis cezası 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."   33.   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.   34.   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 bütünlüğünü bozmayı hedef alan yazılı ve sözlü propaganda ile toplantı, gösteri ve yürüyüş yapılamaz. Yapanlar hakkında bir yıldan üç yıla kadar hapis ve yüz milyon liradan üçyüzmilyon liraya kadar ağır para cezası hükmolunur. Bu suçun mükerreren işlenmesi 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."     2.   Press Act (Law No. 5680 of 24 July 1950)   35.   Section 3   <Original>   "Gazetelere, haber ajansları neşriyatına ve belli aralıklarla yayınlanan diğer bütün basılmış eserlere bu kanunda 'mevkute' denir.   Basılmış eserlerin herkesin görebileceği veya girebileceği yerlerde gösterilmesi veya asılması veya dağıtılması veya dinletilmesi veya satılması veya satışa arzı 'neşir' sayılır. .."   <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'.   ... "   36.   Under section 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.   3.   State Security Courts   a)   The Constitution   37.   Article 138 paras. 1 and 2   <Original>   "Hakimler, görevlerinde bağımsızdırlar; Anayasaya, kanuna ve hukuka uygun olarak vicdani kanaatlerine göre hüküm verirler.   Hiçbir organ, makam, merci veya kişi, yargı yetkisinin kullanılmasında mahkemelere emir ve talimat veremez; tavsiye ve telkinde bulunamaz."   <Translation>   "In the performence of their duties, judges shall be independent; they shall give judgment, according to their personal conviction, in accordance with the Constitution, statute and the law.   No organ, authority, officer or other person may give orders or instructions to courts or judges in the exercise of their judicial powers, nor send them circulars or make recommendations or suggestions to them."   38.   Article 139 para. 1   "Hakimler ... azlolunamaz, kendileri istemedikce Anayasada gösterilen yaştan önce emekliye ayrılamaz ..."   <Translation>   "Judges ... shall not be removed from office or compelled to retire without their consent before the age prescribed by the Constitution ..."   39.   Article 143   <Original>   "Devletin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlüğü, hür demokratik düzen ve nitelikleri Anayasada belirtilen Cumhuriyet aleyhine işlenen ve doğrudan doğruya Devletin iç ve dış güvenliğini ilgilendiren suçlara bakmakla görevli Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemeleri kurulur.   ...   Başkan, bir asıl ve bir yedek üye ile savcı, birinci sınıfa ayrılmış hakim ve Cumhuriyet savcıları arasından; bir asıl ve bir yedek üye, birinci sınıf askeri hakimler arasından; savcı yardımcıları ise Cumhuriyet savcıları ve askeri hakimler arasından özel kanunlarda gösterilen usule göre atanırlar.   Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi Başkanı üye ve yedek üyeleri ile savcı ve savcı yardımcıları dört yıl için atanırlar, süresi bitenler yeniden atanabilirler.   Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemeleri kararlarının temyiz mercii Yargıtaydır.   ..."   <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 president, the public prosecutor, a full 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, full members and substitute judges of the State Security Courts shall be appointed for a renewable period of four years.   There is an appeal against the decisions of the State Security Courts to the Court of Cassation. ..."   40.   Article 145 para. 4   <Original>   "Askeri yargı organlarının kuruluşu, işleyişi, askeri hakimlerin özlük işleri, askeri savcılık görevlerini yapan askeri hakimlerin mahkemesinde görevli bulundukları komutanlık ile ilişkileri, mahkemelerin bağımsızlığı, hakimlik teminatı, askerlik hizmetinin gereklerine göre kanunla düzenlenir. Kanun, ayrıca askeri hakimlerin yargı hizmeti dışındaki askeri hizmetler yönünden askeri hizmetlerin gereklerine göre teşkilatında görevli bulundukları komutanlık ile olan ilişkilerini gösterir."       <Translation>   "The personal rights and obligations of military judges ... shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principles of the independence of the courts, the safeguards enjoyed by the judiciary and the requirements of military service. Relations between military judges and the commanders under whom they serve as regards their non-judicial duties shall also be regulated by law."   b)   Law No. 2845 on the creation and the rules of procedure of the State Security Courts   41.   Section 1     <Original>     "Devletin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlüğü, hür demokratik düzen ve nitelikleri Anayasada belirtilen Cumhuriyet aleyhine işlenen ve doğrudan doğruya Devletin iç ve dış güvenliğini ilgilendiren suçlara ilişkin davalara bakmak üzere ... il merkezlerinde, bu illerin adlarıyla anılan Devlet güvenlik mahkemeleri kurulmuştur."   <Translation>   "In the capitals of the provinces of ... State Security Courts shall be established to try persons accused of offences against the Republic - whose constituent qualities are enunciated in the Constitution - against the indivisible unity of the State - meaning both the national territory and its people - or against the free, democratic system of government and offences directly affecting the State's internal or external security."   42.   Section 3   <Original>   "Devlet güvenlik mahkemeleri, bir başkan ile iki üyeden oluşur. Her Devlet güvenlik mahkemesinde ayrıca iki yedek üye bulunur."   <Translation>   "The State Security Courts shall be composed of a president and two full members. In addition, there shall sit at each State Security Court two substitute members."     43.   Section 5   <Original>   "Devlet güvenlik mahkemesinin başkanı ve bir asıl bir yedek üyesi ... birinci sınıfa ayrılmış adli yargı hakim ... arasından; bir asıl bir yedek üyesi birinci sınıfa ayrılmış askeri hakimler arasından ... atanır."   <Translation>   "The president of a State Security Court, one of the full members and one of the substitutes shall be civilian ... judges, the other members, whether full or substitute, military judges of the first rank ..."   44.   Section 6 paras. 2, 3 and 6   <Original>   "Askeri hakimler arasından üye, yedek üye ... atanmaları, özel kanunlarında gösterilen usule göre yapılır.   Devlet güvenlik mahkemeleri başkan, üye ve yedek üyeleri ... meşru mazeretleri halinde muvafakatları alınmadıkça dört yıldan önce başka bir yere veya atanamazlar. Bu kanun ve diğer kanunlardaki istisnalar saklıdır.   ...   Devlet güvenlik mahkemelerinde görevli başkan, üye, yedek üye ... hakkında kendi kanunlarına göre yapılacak soruşturma sonunda görev yerlerinin değiştirilmesine dair yetkili kurul veya mercilerce karar verildiği takdirde, ilgili hakim, askeri hakim ... görev yeri veya görevi, özel kanunlarında gösterilen usule göre değiştirilebilir."      <Translation>   "The appointment of military judges to sit as full members, substitutes ... shall be carried out according to the procedure laid down for that purpose in the special legislation [concerning those posts].   Except as provided for in the present Law or other legislation, the president and the full or substitute members of the State Security Courts ... may not be appointed to another post or place, without their consent, within four years...   ...   If, after an investigation concerning the presidents and full or substitute members of the State Security Courts conducted according to the legislation concerning them, competent committees or authorities decide to change the duty station of a military judge, the duty station of that judge or his duties [themselves] ... may be changed in accordance with the procedure laid down in that legislation."   45.   Section 27 para. 1   <Original>   "Devlet güvenlik mahkemesi kararlarının temyiz mercii Yargıtaydır."   <Translation>   "The Court of Cassation shall hear appeals from the judgments of the State Security Courts."   46.   Section 34 paras. 1 and 2   <Original>   "Devlet güvenlik mahkemelerinde göreve atanan hakim, askeri hakim ... özlük işlerinde, denetimlerinde, haklarında disiplin soruşturması açılması ve disiplin cezası verilmesinde, şahsi ve görevle ilgili suçlarının soruşturma ve kovuşturulmasında ... kendi mesleklerine ait kanun hükümleri uygulanır...   Askeri yargıya mensup hakim ... hakkında verilecek Yargıtay notları ve adalet müfettişlerince düzenlenecek siciller ... ve bunlar hakkında adalet müfettişlerince yapılacak soruşturmalara ilişkin evrak Milli Savunma Bakanlığına gönderilir."   <Translation>   "The rules governing the rights and obligations of ... military judges appointed to the State Security Courts and their supervision ..., the institution of disciplinary proceedings against them, the imposition of disciplinary penalties on them and the investigation and prosecution of any offences ... they may commit in the performence of their duties shall be as laid down in the relevant provisions of the laws governing their profession...   The observations of the Court of Cassation and the assessment reports drawn up by Ministry of   Justice assessors on judges of the Military Legal Service ... and the files on any investigations conducted against them ... shall be transmitted to the Ministry of Justice."   47.   Section 38   <Original>   "Devlet güvenlik mahkemesinin yargı çevresinin tamamını veya bir kısmını kapsayacak şekilde sıkıyönetim ilan edilmesi halinde o yargı çevresinde birden fazla Devlet güvenlik mahkemesi olmak kaydıyla, Devlet güvenlik mahkemesi aşağıdaki esaslara göre sıkıyönetim askeri mahkemesine dönüştürülebilir..."   <Translation>   "A State Security Court may transformed into a Martial Law Court, under the conditions set forth below, when a state of emergency has been declared in all or part of the territory in respect of which the State Security Court concerned has jurisdiction, provided that within that territory there is more than one State Security Court..."   c)   The Military Legal Service Act (Law No. 357)   48.   Section 16 paras. 1 and 3   <Original>   "Askeri hakimlerin atanmaları ... Silahlı Kuvvetleri mensuplarının nakil ve tayinleri hakkındaki hükümler esas alınarak Milli Savunma Bakanı ve Başbakanın müşterek kararnamesi ile Cumhurbaşkanının onayına sunulur...   ...   Askeri hakimlik ... görevlere yapılacak atamalarda ... Askeri Yargıtay notları, müfettiş raporları ve idari üstlerce düzenlenen siciller gözönünde tutularak işlem yapılır.   <Translation>   "Military judges ... shall be appointed by a decree issued jointly by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister and submitted to the President of the Republic for approval, in accordance with provisions on the appointment and transfer of members of the armed forces...   ...   The procedure for appointment as a military judge shall take into account the opinion of the Court of Cassation, the reports by Ministry of Justice assessors and the assessment reports drawn up by the immediate superiors..."   49.   Section 18 para. 1   <Original>   "Askeri hakimler[in] ... maaş dereceleri, maaş yükselmeleri ve diğer özlük hakları subaylar hakkındaki kanun hükümlerine tabidir."   <Translation>   "The rules governing the salary scales, salary increases and various personal rights of military judges ... shall be as laid down in the provisions relating to officers."   50.   Section 29 of the Law on Military Judges   <Original>   "Askeri hakim subaylar hakkında Milli Savunma Bakanı tarafından, savunmaları aldırılarak, aşağıda açıklanan disiplin cezaları verilebilir:   A. Uyarma: Görevde daha dikkatli olması gerektiğinin yazı ile bildirilmesidir.   ...   B. Kınama: Belli bir eylem veya davranışın kusurlu sayıldığının yazı ile bildirilmesidir.   ...   Bu cezalar kesin olup, ilgilinin kuvvet komutanlığındaki dosyası ile kıta şahsi dosyasına konur, siciline işlenir.   <Translation>   "The Minister of Defence may apply to judges, after considering their defence submissions. the following disciplinary sanctions:   A. A warning, which consists in giving the person concerned notice in writing that he must exercise more care in the performance of his duties.   ...   B. A reprimand, which consists in giving the person concerned notice in writing that a particular act or a particular attitude has been found to be blameworthy.   ...   The said sanctions shall be final, mentioned in the assessment record of the person concerned and entered in his personal file..."   51.   Section 38   <Original>   "Askeri hakimler ... görevlerini yaparlarken eşiti adliye hakimlerinin ... kıyafetini taşırlar."   <Translation>   "When military judges ... sit in court they shall wear the special robes of their civilian counterparts..."   52.   Additional section 7   <Original>   "Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeliği, yedek üyeliği ve Cumhuriyet savcı yardımcılığı görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subayların rütbe terfii, rütbe kıdemliliği, kademe ilerlemesi yapmalarını sağlayacak yeterlilikleri, bu Kanunun ve Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Personel Kanununun hükümleri saklı kalmak şartı ile, aşağıda belirtilen şekilde düzenlenecek sicillerle saptanır.   (a) Birinci sınıfa ayrılmış üye ve yedek üye askeri hakimlere subay sicil belgesi düzenlemeye ve sicil vermeye yetkili birinci sicil amiri Milli Savunma Bakanlığı Müsteşarı, ikinci sicil amiri Milli Savunma Bakanıdır.   ..."   <Translation>   "The aptitude of military judges ... appointed as full or substitute members of the State Security Courts required for promotion or advancement in salary level, rank or seniority shall be determined on the basis of assessment reports drawn up according to the procedure laid down below, subject to the provisions of the present Act and the Turkish Armed Forces Personnel Act (Law No. 926).   (a)   The immediate superior competent to carry out assessment and draw up assessment reports for military judges, whether full or substitute members ... shall be the Minister of Defence, followed by the Secretary of State for Defence.   ..."     53.   Additional section 8   <Original>   "Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemelerinin askeri yargıya mensup mahkeme üyeleri ile Cumhuriyet savcı yardımcıları, Genelkurmay Personel Başkanı, Adli Müşaviri ile atanacakların mensup olduğu Kuvvet Komutanlığının personel başkanı ile adli müşaviri ve Milli Savunma Bakanlığı Askeri Adalet işleri Başkanından oluşan Kurul tarafından seçilir ve usulüne uygun olarak atanırlar."   <Translation>   "Members ... of the State Security Courts belonging to the Military Legal Service ... shall be appointed by a committee composed of the personnel director and legal advisor of the General Staff, the personnel director and legal advisor attached to the staff of the arm in which the person concerned is serving and the Director of Military judicial Affairs at the Ministry of Defence..."   d)   The Military Criminal Code of 22 May 1930   54.   Article 112   <Original>   "Memuriyetinin nüfuzunu suistimal ile askeri mahkemeler üzerinde tesir yapanlar beş seneye kadar hapsolunur."   <Translation>   "It shall be an offence, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, to abuse one's authority as a [public official] in order to influence the military courts."   e)   Law No. 1602 of 4 July 1972 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court   55.   Under section 22 of Law No. 1602 the First Division of the Supreme Administrative Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review and claims for damages based on disputes relating to the personal status of officers, particularly those concerning their promotion and professional advancement.   f)   The Code of Criminal Procedure   56.   Section 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.   g)   Law No. 4304 of 14 August 1997   57.   Section 1     <Original>     "12.7.1997 tarihine kadar işlenmiş suçlar nedeniyle 5680 sayılı Basın Kanununun 16 nci maddesi veya sair kanunlar hükümlerine göre sorumlu müdür sıfatıyla mahkum edilmiş bulunan kimselerin cezalarının infazı ertelenmiştir.     Halen cezalarını çekmekte bulunan sorumlu müdürler hakkında da birinci fıkra hükmü uygulanır.     İşlenen suçlardan dolayı sorumlu müdürler hakkında henüz takibata geçilmemiş veya hazırlık soruşturmasına girişilmiş olmakla beraber henüz hüküm kurulmamış veya verilen hüküm kesinleşmemiş ise, davanın açılması veya kesin hükme bağlanması ertelenir.     <Translation>       “The execution of sentences of those who were convicted as responsible editors for offence committed until 12.7.1997 under Press Law No. 5680 or other laws are postponed.     Paragraph 1 also applies to responsible editors who are still serving their sentences.     Institution of criminal proceedings or delivery of final judgments for crimes committed by responsible editors shall be postponed, provided that an investigation has not yet been commenced or a preliminary investigation has been commenced but a criminal proceeding has not been instituted or final investigation has been commenced but judgment has not yet been delivered or judgment has not become final.”   58.   Section 2     <Original>     “Haklarında 1 inci madde hükümleri uygulanmış bulunan sorumlu müdürler, ertelenme tarihinden itibaren üç yıl içerisinde işlenen kasıtlı bir cürümden dolayı sorumlu müdür sıfatıyla mahkum edildiklerinde ertelenen cezalar aynen çektirilir.     Sorumlu müdürün infazı ertelenen mahkumiyetinden bu Kanunun yürürlüğe girdiği tarihe kadar çektiği kısmı, birinci fıkrada belirtilen halde çekilecek cezaya mahsup edilir. Şartla salıverilmeye ilişkin hükümler saklıdır.     Davanın açılması veya hükme bağlanmasının ertelenmiş bulunduğu hallerde ertelenme tarihinden itibaren üç yıllık süre içerisinde işlenen kasıtlı bir suç nedeni ile sorumlu müdür sıfatıyla mahkum olunduğunda, ertelenen suçtan dolayı dava açılır veya ertelenmiş olan davaya devam edilerek hüküm kurulur.     Üç yıllık süre, sorumlu müdur sıfatıyla yeniden kasıtlı bir cürümden mahkum edilmeksizin geçirildiğinde, sorumlu müdür hakkındaki mahkumiyet vaki olmamış sayılır veya bu suçtan dolayı kamu davası açılamaz. Açılmış olan davanın ortadan kaldırılmasına karar verilir.”     <Translation>     “Postponed sentences of responsible editors who have been subject to the provisions of section 1 shall be executed if these responsible editors are convicted for a deliberate offence as such within three years after the date of postponement.     The part of the postponed conviction which was served by the responsible editor until the date on which this Law is put into force shall be deducted from the sentence to be served as indicated in section 1. The provisions concerning conditional release are reserved.     In the case of institution of criminal proceedings or postponement of the delivery of judgment, if one is convicted, within three years after the date of postponement, for committing a deliberate offence as responsible editor, criminal proceedings shall be instituted before a court or the postponed criminal trial shall proceed and judgment shall be delivered.     In case a period of three years is passed without the responsible editor being convicted for committing a new deliberate offence as responsible editor, his conviction shall be deemed never to have occurred and no criminal proceedings shall be instituted in connection with this offence. It shall be decided that the initiated criminal proceedings are to be set aside.”         III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaints declared admissible   59.   The Commission has declared admissible:   -   the applicant's complaint that her conviction on account of the publication of the article in question constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression;   -   the applicant's complaint that the restrictions which were applied to her freedom of expression were inconsistent with the legitimate aims for which they had been prescribed;   -   the applicant's complaint that her case was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.   B.   Points at issue   60.   The points at issue in the present case are as follows:   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention;   -   whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   C.   As regards Article 10 of the Convention   61.   The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that her conviction and sentence for publishing an article, as the owner and "responsible editor" of a periodical, constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression and in particular with her right to receive and impart information and ideas.   62.   Article 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 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."   63.   The applicant submits that her conviction cannot be justified for any of the reasons permitted under the Convention. She considers that the article in question was within the limits of pe