Turkey’s Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a statement on June 3, a day after the Dogu Perincek v Switzerland case was referred by the Grand Chamber Panel to the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber. According to the statement, Switzerland’s motives in appealing the ECHR decision were “entirely political.” On March 9, 2007, Turkish nationalist and former chair of the Turkish Workers’ Party Dogu Perincek was found guilty of violating Switzerland’s anti-racism legislation by a Swiss court for denying the Armenian Genocide of 1915. His sentence included 90 days incarceration and a fine of 3000 Swiss Francs. On December 17, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights found that Switzerland had violated Perincek’s freedom of expression. The Court verdict took the view that the Swiss authorities had failed to show how there was a social need in Switzerland to punish an individual for racial discrimination on the basis of declarations challenging only the legal characterisation as “genocide” of acts perpetrated on the territory of the former Ottoman Empire in 1915 and the following years. In March of this year, Switzerland announced its decision to appeal the ECHR ruling and on June 2, the European Court of Human Rights announced that the Grand Chamber Panel has agreed to refer the case of Perincek v. Switzerland for hearing by the Grand Chamber. Below is the full text of the Turkish Foreign Ministry statement: “Switzerland’s request for the referral of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the Perincek v. Switzerland case on 17 December 2013 has been accepted yesterday. “While the ECHR’s judgment of 17 December 2013 endorsed the principle of ‘the protection of the freedom of expression which is the fundamental element of societies committed to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law,’ Switzerland has brought the matter before the Grand Chamber on entirely political motives. “We are confident that the Grand Chamber will be guided by exclusively legal considerations when hearing the case. One cannot imagine an outcome different than the Chamber judgment of 17 December 2013 considering the jurisprudence of the ECHR and the fundamental principles of law. “Thus, once again, this will be an adequate response against initiatives attempting to politicize history and law, and will strongly confirm that freedom of expression, which is the building block of democratic societies, is under protection.”
↧