PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

     I do not find it possible to join the majority in concluding that

there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. In my opinion,

there are no solid grounds for concluding that, in this case, the

interference was not necessary in a democratic society and, in

particular, not proportionate to the aim of maintaining national

security and public safety.

     In order to assess whether the convictions and sentences of

Mr Erdogdu and Mr ince answered a "pressing social need" and whether

they were "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued", it is

important to analyse the content of the applicants' remarks in the

light of the situation prevailing in south-east Turkey at the time. In

so doing, the Commission, taking account of the margin of appreciation

left to the Government, should have confined itself to the question

whether the judicial authorities had good reasons to believe that there

was a pressing social need for such a measure, based on an acceptable

assessment of the relevant facts.

     I note in this regard that, according to the national courts,

the publication of the interviewee's opinion amounted to propaganda

against the indivisibility of the State in so far as he stated, inter

alia, that there is armed resistance in Kurdistan, that violence by the

Turkish forces cannot stop the escalation and progress of the P.K.K.,

that its ideas and action can change the official ideology and its

influence in the Kurdish and the Turkish societies will spread and

deepen, that national awareness and desire for liberation will become

stronger and will spread further, that the idea and feelings for

independence will develop and that the P.K.K.'s armed combat for eight

years has been the most important cause of certain developments

including the withdrawal of Turkish soldiers and the evacuation of

police stations in some regions, resulting in the beginning of the

formation of a State. In my opinion, those expressions, read in the

context of the interview as a whole, were capable of creating among

readers the impression that the interviewee was encouraging, or even

calling for, an armed struggle against the Turkish State and was

supporting violence for separatist purposes. In these circumstances,

the applicants' conviction and the penalty imposed on them on account

of the interview could reasonably be said to arise out of a pressing

social need.

     In the light of these considerations and having regard to the

State's margin of appreciation in this area, I am of the opinion that

the restriction placed on the applicants' freedom of expression was

proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and that, therefore, it

could reasonably be regarded as necessary in a democratic society to

achieve those aims.