ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 10 “...[t]he Turkish legal framework still fails to provide sufficient guarantees for exercising freedom of expression and, as a result, is often interpreted in a restrictive way by public prosecutors and judges. There are still some prosecutions and convictions based on Article 301...” 47. The European Commission’s 2010 Progress Report on Turkey stated, insofar as relevant, the following: “...As regards freedom of expression, an increasingly open and free debate continued on a wide scale in the media and public on topics perceived as sensitive, such as the Kurdish issue, minority rights, the Armenian issue and the role of the military. There are few cases initiated on the basis of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCC) after it was amended in May 2008. According to the Ministry if Justice, since the amendment to Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code, a decrease in the number of cases opened has been observed. The figures below cover examinations concluded between 1 January 2010 and 31 July 2010: 369 files examined, 270 files for which permission was denied, 10 files for which permission was granted, 3.57% file for which permission was granted...” 48. In his report dated 12 July 2011 Thomas Hammarberg Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, stated the following: “17. Following his visit to Turkey in 2009, the Commissioner expressed his concern regarding Article 301, notwithstanding an amendment adopted in 2008 which led to a decrease in the number of proceedings brought under this article. On 14 September 2010 the Court delivered its judgment in the case of Dink v. Turkey in which it found a violation of Article 10 ECHR on account of Hrant Dink’s conviction based on Article 301. The Court held that Hrant Dink’s conviction for denigrating Turkish identity prior to his murder did not correspond to any “pressing social need” which is one of the major conditions on which interference with one’s freedom of expression may be warranted in a democratic society. The Commissioner considers that the amendment adopted in 2008, which subjects prosecution to a prior authorisation by the Ministry of Justice in each individual case, is not a lasting solution which can replace the integration of the relevant ECHR standards into the Turkish legal system and practice, in order to prevent similar violations of the Convention.” THE LAW I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 49. The Government submitted that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They noted that the prosecuting authorities had never instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. On the contrary, they