Nikitas wrote:"I admit my ignorance of this, but have seen it being alluded to.Can I 'innocently' ask WHY?What comes to my mind is, 'are they afraid something 'bad' will be unearthed from the G/GC side?I find this most intruiging and/or generous of the RoC."
To answer your question Deniz,
The RoC realised that on its own it has no chance of ever prosecuting a Turkish national, especially if Turkey does not want to have a warrant executed against him in Turkey.
The next best policy is to let people officially off the hook if they give a formal statement. There is one case where a Turkish national has given a statement of events in 1974. He is a professor in Turkey now and his name has been kept ouf of the media.
There may also be a self serving angle too, although so far it has not been demostrated- that of using the statements for propaganda or political gain.
Isn't there also an argument that rather than pursuing a few footsoldiers, a strategy that will only ensure that others who know something will clam up, it is better to offer them immunity in return for coming clean? In this way the RoC may be able to compile a dossier that will both document the atrocities which ocured and also, possibly, enable action to be taken against those higher in the chain of command who bear ultimate responsibility.
