JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM S. TRECHSEL, E. BUSUTTIL,

G. JÖRUNDSSON, A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK, A. WEITZEL, MS J. LIDDY,

MM I. CABRAL BARRETO, N. BRATZA, D. SVÁBY, G. RESS, A. PERENIC,

C. BÃŽRSAN, K. HERNDL, E. BIELIUNAS AND E. A. ALKEMA

     We regret that we are unable to share the view of the majority

of the Commission that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the

Convention in the present case.

     While we agree that the published declaration by four socialist

organisations was not such as to justify an interference with the

applicants' right to freedom of expression, we take a different view

of the interview with C.B. which was published in two parts in the

31 May and 7 June 1992 editions of the applicants' weekly review.

     We attach special significance to the fact that C.B. was at the

time of the interview the second-in-command of the P.K.K., an armed

terrorist organisation which was and is engaged in violent terrorist

acts. Like the majority of the Commission, we do not consider that the

mere fact of publication of an interview with a leading member of the

P.K.K. would be sufficient to justify an interference with freedom of

expression. Thus, for example, an interview with a terrorist leader

which contained a factual analysis of the development of the conflict

or which put forward suggestions for bringing about its peaceful

solution would not in our view of itself justify action against the

publisher. However, it is in our view incumbent on those who publish

such interviews to take special care to ensure that they do not contain

anything which can fairly be interpreted as an encouragement to further

violent acts.

     The majority of the Commission conclude that the replies of C.B.,

while including a clear prediction of continued armed action from the

Turkish State as well as from the P.K.K., can hardly be interpreted as

an incitement to further violence. We cannot agree. There are in our

view a number of passages in the interview which can only be

interpreted as an encouragement to further terrorist violence. In

particular, we draw attention to the following replies: "Our combat has

reached a certain level. Tactics have to be developed which match that

level, because it is a mistake to wage war with less developed tactics.

Progress can be achieved in the war by using tactics in keeping with

the level of warfare which has now been reached. That is why an action

of that nature was planned. The idea was to attack in the morning and

hold our ground, continuing the clashes throughout the day - and it was

successful in the end. It was an experiment. From our point of view

there are conclusions to be drawn from it. We are studying the matter.

We shall benefit from that in the actions we carry out in the future.

... This war will continue as long as the Turkish State refuses to

accept the will of the people of Kurdistan. There will be not one

single step backwards. The war will go on until there is only one

single individual left on our side."

     The Commission has previously drawn attention to the particular

difficulty in striking a fair balance between the requirements of

protecting freedom of information and the imperatives of protecting the

State and the public against armed conspiracies seeking to overthrow

the democratic order, in a situation where the advocates of this

violence seek access to the media for publicity purposes (see eg.,

No. 15404/89, Dec. 16.4.91, D.R. 70, p. 262).

     In the present case we consider that the national authorities did

not exceed their margin of appreciation in taking measures against the

publications and that such measures may be regarded as necessary in a

democratic society to achieve the aims of national security and public

safety.

                                                 (or. English)