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

     We regret that we cannot share the view of the majority of the

Commission that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the

Convention in the present case.

     The conviction of the applicant arose out of the publication of

a news item in which it was reported that the Governor of Sirnak had

told a visiting delegation that the order to open fire on the people

of Tepe village had been given by the Sirnak Chief Police Officer and

further reported that the Diyarbakir Gendarme Regiment Commander had

told a Member of Parliament on the same occasion that her death "would

give us pleasure" and that her blood "would not quench my thirst."

     The applicant was prosecuted not for publishing statements which

were untrue (their truth was never contested) but for publishing the

identities of the Chief Police Officer and Gendarme Commander

concerned. The prosecution was brought under Section 6 of the Anti-

Terror Law which makes it an offence to "disseminate or disclose to the

public the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism or [to]

render such officials targets."  The provision is sweepingly broad in

its terms. It appears that disclosure of the identity of an official

constitutes an offence irrespective of the position or rank of the

official concerned or the context in which the identity is disclosed,

irrespective of whether the identity of the official is already

publicly known and irrespective of whether there is a public interest

in such disclosure.

     In the present case, there was in our view a clear public

interest in publishing what the Governor of Sirnak had told the

visiting delegation as to the official responsible for the order to

open fire and in reporting the disgraceful remarks alleged to have been

made to a Member of Parliament by a senior gendarme officer. While we

do not underestimate the risks posed to officials engaged in the fight

against terrorism, we consider that the conviction and punishment of

the applicant for disclosing the identity of the two officials

concerned in the above circumstances represents a disproportionate

response and an unjustified interference with the applicant's right to

freedom of expression.

                                                 (Or. English)