There are a lot of questions to be asked, and many things to speak of with a prime minister, when the topic is the murder of Hrant Dink.

It is known that in regard to this murder and this case, many state officials with direct or indirect responsibility evaded any serious repercussions, and quite the opposite, were even rewarded and continued with their duties.

The governor of Istanbul at the time first became a parliamentarian and then the interior minister.

Istanbul’s police chief at the time was promoted to the post of governor.

Istanbul’s deputy governor was promoted and given another posting.

While preparations for the murder were ongoing, Ramazan Akyürek, the police chief in Trabzon, and Ali Fuat Yılmazer, who headed section C of the Police Department’s intelligence branch, remained in their critical high-level positions and created a close bond of trust with the government until the “community’s extrajudicial attempts.” (Community is the term used to refer to the Fethullah Gülen-led movement.)

The Dink case ensured that the spotlight stayed on these people even with the passage of time.

Yılmazer was removed from his post due to his association with the community and is currently under arrest.

Akyürek was moved to a passive post on the basis of claims that he was linked to the community’s extrajudicial actions.

Muammer Güler was removed from his post as a result of corruption claims.

Perhaps this is the most critical responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the political leadership in regard to the Dink issue. 

Some of these figures are currently testifying in the Dink case as part of an investigation into intent, neglect, and links to the murder based on Article 83 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

Does the leadership have any involvement in this?

Even if the fight between the leadership and the community has provided the spark for the launching of such type of investigations; the Court of Appeals’ overturning of the previous ruling regarding the Dink investigation, and indicating that there are links between the Dink case and organized crime should be seen as a result of a new judicial process that has started.

The political leadership is neither absolved of its responsibility nor of its obligations in regard to this topic…

Two instances:

Engin Dinç, chief of the Trabzon intelligence branch at one time, was involved in the initial correspondence with Istanbul about information received regarding an attempt on Dink (he had the opportunity to reveal the details of the murder gang via an operation at the time); he is currently a manager in one of the most critical sections of the Police Department.

He is serving as head of the Police Department’s intelligence branch in Ankara…

Ercan Demir, the former head of the Trabzon intelligence branch, participated in interviews with Erhan Tuncel and knew of the network of death and the threat it posed. Just three days ago, he testified within the framework of the new investigation into the Dink murder and had a foreign travel ban placed on him by the court. This person, at this very moment is police chief of Cizre, the most problematic place. He was appointed to this post on Dec. 26, 2013.

I was among the group of journalists that spoke with Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu during our return from Brussels the other day.

The Dink issue was brought up by me toward the end of the conversation. I mentioned the Cizre instance.

The prime minister expressed his satisfaction with the newly launched judicial process; said he was sensitive to the Dink issue and necessary action would be taken in regard to what I had pointed out, and that attention would be paid to these matters.

There is no need to write I hope it is so, as the next day, while I was writing this article, news arrived that the court had issued an arrest warrant for Ercan Demir.

This, though, does not eradicate the problem.

Davutoğlu hinted at this when he said, “With regard to Jan. 19 [2007], there might be other legal measures taken by us, and will be. I am saying this in regard to Hrant Dink…”

Regardless of what step is taken, if it is convincing, sincere and morally sound, it is possible to fulfill administrative and political obligations.