Journalist Rohat Aktaş, Injured while Reporting in Cizre, Dies

Update: 11 Jun 2019 No state reply yet
Year 09 Feb 2016 Country Turkey Category Impunity for murder Source of threat State Partner CPJ , EFJ/IFJ , RSF Alert level Level 1
09 Feb 2016 Turkey Impunity for murder State CPJ , EFJ/IFJ , RSF Level 1
No state reply yet

Rohat Aktaş, news editor and reporter for the Kurdish-language daily Azadiya Welat, has been trapped in the southeastern town of Cizre with a gunshot wound since 22 January 2016. As of February 4, the newsroom had not heard from him for five days. Aktaş was shot in the arm while covering efforts to help those wounded during clashes between Kurdish separatists and Turkish forces, his editor, Zeynel Bulut, told CPJ. Bulut said Aktaş is trapped with dozens of others.

Updates

11 Jun 2019 : On 11 June 2019, the partner organisations of the platform decided to transfer this alert to the category of ‘impunity for murder’, based on their assessment of the lack of sufficient progress in the investigation of this case.
03 Apr 2017 : In March 2017, a Turkish court has issued a detention warrant for Rohat Aktaş, who was shot to death on 22 January 2016.
25 Feb 2016 : Local media reports that the dead body of the Kurdish journalist Rohat Aktas, working for Azadiya Welat newspaper, has been identified via DNA tests done by forensic authority. Aktas was trapped at the basement of a building in Cizre (Southern Turkey) with a gunshot wound since 22 January 2016.

CONTACT US

Follow us   

Follow-ups to alerts Follow-ups to alerts

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

25 August 2015