This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 07 April 2014, At: 01:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Middle East Critique

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccri20

The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians

and the Trials of 1915–16
a
Yusuf Sarinay
a
State Archives , Ankara, Turkey
Published online: 24 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Yusuf Sarinay (2011) The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of
1915–16, Middle East Critique, 20:3, 299-315, DOI: 10.1080/19436149.2011.619768

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2011.619768

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Middle East Critique
Vol. 20, No. 3, 299–315, Fall 2011

The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and

the Trials of 1915– 161
YUSUF SARINAY
State Archives, Ankara, Turkey

The ethnic and religious layers of Armenian identity, as well as the social and cultural
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

traits of the Armenian community, came to be preserved and, to a certain extent, flourished
under the centuries-long Ottoman rule. However, by the second half of the nineteenth
century, the currents of nationalism gained strength among the Armenians who found
support for their cause in American and European missionary circles and among European
diplomats. These nationalist notions were transformed into movements of autonomy under
the leadership of the Armenian Church.2 After the Berlin Treaty of 1878, which put an end
to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 –78, the Armenian question gained an international
character and the European states and Russia, each with vested interests in the region,
came to play the Armenian card in all ventures against the Ottoman Empire. Having taken
the Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian independence movements as their role models, the
Armenian nationalists, emboldened further by European support, first wanted to achieve
autonomy and then independence in Eastern Anatolia. Unlike the Serbs or the Greeks,
however, the Armenians lacked demographic concentration across Anatolia.3 Thus, what
one could see as ‘the material bases’ for establishing an Armenia (e.g., a predominant
population in a region with defined boundaries) did not exist in the case of Armenians in
eastern Anatolia. Accordingly, in order to realize the goals of a nationalist movement that
lacked such material bases, some Armenian nationalists chose ‘terror’ as their method for
struggling against the Ottoman state.
This tactic served two objectives: to intimidate the Muslim population of the region
where the Armenian nationalists wanted to carve out an autonomous state and force the
Muslims to leave the region so that the Armenians could achieve the demographic
majority; and second, to propagate in the West the Muslim retaliatory incidents in eastern

Correspondence Address: Yusuf Sarinay, General Director, State Archives, Office of Prime Ministry, Ivedik
Caddesi no. 59, Ankara 06170, Turkey. Email: y.sarinay@gmail.com
1
I wrote this article in Turkish and am grateful to Ramazan Hakki Oztan for translating it into English.
2
For an analysis of the reasons why Armenian nationalism emerged, see Kamuran Gürün (1983) Ermeni
Dosyası (Ankara: NP), pp. 29–53; Bayram Kodaman (2001) Ermeni Meselesi (Tarihi ve Siyasi Bir
Değerlendirme), Yeni Türkiye (Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı I) 37 (Oct.–Sept.), pp. 200–212.
3
For information on the Armenian population under the Ottomans, see Hikmet Özdemir, et al. (2004)
Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu yay), pp. 5 –52.
ISSN 1943-6149 Print/1943-6157 Online/11/030299-17 q 2011 Editors of Middle East Critique
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2011.619768
 300 Y. Sarinay

Anatolia as Armenian massacres, in hopes of securing Western military and political

intervention in the region.
Accordingly, the Armenian nationalists established a number of political parties and
associations in and outside the Ottoman Empire, with most of these groups ignoring
violence initiated by Armenian extremists while stressing acts of violence against
Armenian civilians. Especially after 1890, there were increasing incidents of armed
struggle between some Armenian nationalists and Ottoman security forces.4 Between
1890 and 1914, for example, Ottoman authorities implicated Armenian nationalists as
responsible for more than 40 instances of rebellion and terrorist activity in the regions
from eastern to southern Anatolia, from central Anatolia to Istanbul.5 The Western powers
not only used these rebellions as pretexts to pressure the Ottoman Empire for further
reforms favorable to the Armenians, but also supported the Armenian nationalists in
diverse ways. The Western pressures for reform continued up until the outbreak of the
First World War.6 As a result, having yielded to the Western pressures, the Ottoman
Empire at last signed a treaty on February 8, 1914, that extended reforms largely
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

benefitting the Armenians of the eastern Anatolia, even providing for their eventual
autonomy.7
After the start of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire sided with the Central
Powers, a development that Armenian nationalists perceived as providing an opportunity
to realize their goal of independence. The Armenian guerrilla groups, who had been
provided with arms until the outbreak of the war, sided with the Allied Powers,
particularly with Russia, in their struggle against the Ottoman Empire. After a defeat of the
Ottomans by the Russians in Sarikamis, and in parallel with the British and French
campaign at Gallipoli, Armenian komitadjis started their armed rebellion against the
Ottoman Empire with the particular goal of disrupting the supply routes of the Ottoman
army.
A nine-month period had passed since the mobilization of the Ottoman army and, faced
with an armed uprising by Armenians in eastern Anatolia, Ottoman officials believed it
necessary to take decisive steps to address the problem. A Ministry of Interior
memorandum, dated April 24, 1915, ordered the shutting down of all Armenian
committees and the arrest of their leaders, as well as the other Armenians who were known
to be complicit in revolutionary activities. Accordingly, 235 Armenians who were
members of these committees were arrested in Istanbul on April 24 and 25. The Armenian
committees were closed down, and numerous arms and ammunition were seized. The
wave of arrests continued in the Anatolian vilayets, where 321 Armenian committee

4
On the Armenian committees, see Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri (2001) Ermeni Komiteleri (1891–1895)
(Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü yayınları); and Esat Uras (1987) Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni
Meselesi, rev’d 2nd edn (Istanbul: Baskı, Belge Yayınları), pp. 421–457.
5
On the Armenian rebellions, see Azmi Süslü et al. (1995) Türk Tarihinde Ermeniler (Ankara: NP), pp. 148–
153; Uras, Tarihte Ermeniler, pp. 458–531; and Gürün, Ermeni Dosyası, pp. 126 –176.
6
For detailed information, see Münir Süreyya Bey (2001) Ermeni Meselesinin Siyasi Tarihçesi (1877–1914)
(Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü yayınları); Ercüment Kuran (2001) Ermeni Meselesinin
Milletlerarası Boyutu, Yeni Türkiye, 37, (Oct.–Sept.), pp. 235–244; and Ali Karaca (1993) Anadolu Islahatı
ve Ahmet Şakir Paşa (1838–1899) (İstanbul: NP).
7
On this reform project that ended due to the outbreak of the First World War, see Zekeriya Türkmen (2003)
İttihat ve Terakki Hükümetinin Doğu Anadolu Islahat Müfettişliği Projesi ve Uygulamaları (1913–1914),
Ermeni Araştırmaları, 9, Spring, pp. 41–75.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 301

members also were arrested.8 However, these arrests failed to halt increasing
insurrectionary activity by the Armenians, their growing cooperation with the Allied
Powers and a major rebellion in Van. The growing sense of alarm among Ottoman officials
about the war and the security situation in eastern Anatolia prompted discussion of
strategies that on May 27, 1915, resulted in the law to relocate the Armenian population
from the war zones. The central government communicated the legislation, entitled
Temporary Legislation on the Measures to be Taken by the Army for the Defiers of
Government Authority During War Time (Vakt-i seferde icraat-ı hükümete karşı gelenler
için cihet-i askeriyece ittihaz olunacak tedabir hakkında kanun-ı muvakkat),9 to the local
administrators with a detailed explanation as to how the relocation was to be carried out.
Documents demonstrate that the Ottoman government put great effort into making sure
that the Armenians were relocated to their destinations safely.10
The 1915 relocation legislation was not a preemptive measure that anticipated an
Armenian rebellion in eastern Anatolia, but rather a reaction to the very real Armenian
armed struggle and collaboration with the enemy Allied Powers. Therefore, the relocation
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

of the Armenians was not preplanned and political in nature, but rather a decision
reflective of security concerns and of military necessity. The relocation process lasted
almost a year, ending on March 15, 1916, following a directive sent to the vilayets
(provinces) and mutasarrifiyyas (autonomous districts).11 As other articles in this special
issue show, the actual implementation of Armenian relocation resulted in considerable
human suffering. However, there is no evidence that officials in Istanbul foresaw any of
the dire consequences that ensued, nor did the Ottoman government approve the violence.
On the contrary, as will be discussed below, the Ottoman government actually set up
tribunals to prosecute some of those who perpetrated violence against Armenians during
the relocation process.

Provisions for Armenians during the Relocations

The Ottoman government put great effort into providing for the needs of the Armenians
during the relocations and their aftermath. The Cabinet (Meclis-i Vükela) Resolution
dated May 30, 1915, detailed the position of the Ottoman government in this respect:
adequate food and water were to be provided for the Armenians during the relocations, and
the expenses for provisions were to be met from the Allocation for the Muhacirs (settlers);
properties and lands in the new locations were to be provided for the Armenians in
accordance with their former economic and financial standings; and seeds and agricultural
equipment were to be provided for Armenian farmers.12 The government believed both the

8
For detailed information, see Yusuf Sarınay (2008) What Happened on April 24, 1915?: The Circular of April
24, 1915, and the Arrest of the Armenian Committee Members in İstanbul, International Journal of Turkish
Studies, 14, 1– 2, pp. 75–101; and Yusuf Sarınay (2006) 24 Nisan 1915 Ermeni Tutuklamaları, Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 4 (Fall), pp. 23–35.
9
This legislation was published on June 1, 1915, in Takvim-i Vekayi, no. 2189.
10
BOA, Meclis-i Vükela Mazbatası, No. 198/24; BOA.DH.ŞFR.Nr. 54/10; DH.ŞFR. 54/9, DH.ŞFR.No.
54/162. (BOA is the standard acronym for the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archives).
11
BOA, DH.ŞFR.No. 62/21. After this directive, only one convoy was sent out from Maraş in April 1916; BOA,
DH.ŞFR. 516/93; and BOA, DH.ŞFR. 517/10
12
BOA, Meclis-i Vükela Mazbatası, No. 198/24.
 302 Y. Sarinay

orders issued during the relocation and the monetary allocations met the needs of the
relocated Armenians. Subsequent regulations, dated June 10, 1915, reiterated the
provisions of the Cabinet Resolution.13 Further regulations issued by the Ministry of
Interior on October 7, 1915, detailed how the needs of the relocated Armenians were to be
met:14
(1) To facilitate the steady execution of the relocation order and the corresponding
supply of provisions for the relocated, an organization was to be created,
comprised of a general director and a number of public servants who would
serve in their respective localities.
(2) Sufficient subsistence was to be provided and civil servants were to be placed
on the relocation routes and in the relocation stations.
(3) Only robust and young individuals were to be transferred on land, and each
convoy of Armenians was not allowed to exceed 1,000 people; a sufficient
number of guards were to be provided, as well as donkeys, mules or camels, in
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

line with the number of women and children in each convoy; and each convoy
would be supplied with food and water at four-day intervals.
(4) At each relocation station or center, and particularly in Aleppo, a storehouse for
flour was to be established so that the relocated Armenians would not suffer
from hunger.
(5) Necessary funds were to be allocated for the supply of these storehouses with
flour and bulgur.
(6) For the provision of bread, bakeries were to be established immediately in each
relocation station and center. If the establishment of bakeries was not possible
in a given locality, 100 iron baking sheets, as well as a sufficient amount of salt,
were to be provided.
(7) Upon arrival at the relocation centers/stations or the location of a storehouse,
each person was to be provided a half okka15 of bread; and it was necessary that
each final destination for the relocated had arable land and an adequate supply
of water.
(8) In addition to food and water, the relocated were to be provided
accommodations; rapid and long marches were to be avoided; places for
accommodations were to be established in one out of three relocation stations
where health officers would treat the sick.
(9) In each relocation station and center, a civil servant responsible for relocations
and 10 guards were to be present to meet the needs of, and provide security for,
the relocated.
The necessary funds to implement these regulations during the relocations, as well
as to provide for the needs of the Armenians during their resettlement, were secured
from the Allocation for the Muhacirs. The Allocation for the Muhacirs, available in
each vilayet, first were used to cover the expenses of what proved to be a costly

13
Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (1914–1918) (Ankara: Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Yayınları, C.I, 2005),
pp. 430– 431.
14
For the full text of this Regulation with its 56 articles, see BOA, DH.EUM.VRK. 15/71.
15
An okka was an Ottoman unit of weight equaling 1,283 grams.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 303

operation,16 and as a result of increasing expenses, Istanbul started providing direct

funds to cover the expenses. Accordingly, in September 1915, Istanbul wired 300,000
piasters (kuruş) to the vilayet of Adana, 400,000 to Konya, 300,000 to Ankara,
300,000 to Aleppo, 100,000 to Syria, 150,000 to the sanjak of Izmit, and 200,000 to
Eskisehir, stressing in the accompanying order that the Armenians were not to suffer
on any account.17 Also, it was decided that the mutasarrifiyya of Zor was to receive
4,000 lira regularly each month.18 On September 5, 1915, 5,000 lira was sent to the
vilayet of Aleppo, with an order that the funds be spent for the steady and immediate
relocation and subsistence of the Armenians; it was ordered that if the funds fell short
of the expenses, a new request for funds was to be filed.19
In its efforts to meet the needs of the Armenians, the Ottoman government offered to
either cancel or defer the debts of Armenians. Accordingly, the mutasarrifiyya of Maras
ordered the cancellation of the debts of the Armenians on June 1, 1915.20 Regulations
dated August 4, 1915, and dispatched to all vilayets required the deferral of all debts
incurred by taxation. In light of the worldwide epidemics of typhus, typhoid, cholera and
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

plague, the Ottoman government took measures to protect Armenians.21

Further funds were also made available in later days and months of the relocation of the
Armenians. For instance, 10,000 lira were provided to each of Sivas22 and Zor on
September 20, 1916,23 and 2,500 lira to the mutasarrifiyya of Urfa on October 1917.24
Other allotments after the relocation officially had ended included 1,000 lira to
Ma’müretül-aziz (Elazig),25 2,000 lira to Aleppo,26 2,000 lira to Adana,27 5,000 lira to
Syria,28 3,750 lira to Mosul29 and 2,500 lira to the mutasarrifiyya of Maraş.30
The Ottoman government not only allocated necessary funds for the subsistence needs
of the relocated Armenians and assigned lands and housing for them in the final
destination for relocation, but also in some instances paid a per diem rate to the relocated.
For instance, the Armenian settlers in Konya were given 20 paras for each person,
regardless of age, on May 16, 1916. In another instance, an encrypted telegram, sent to the
mutasarrifiyyas of Corum and Yozgat, ordered that the per diem rate of two piasters, for
adults, should be increased to three piasters; the per diem rate of one piaster, for juveniles,
should be increased to 60 paras; and that clothing should be provided for the needy.31

16
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 53/152.
17
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 55/A/17.
18
BOA, DH. İUM. No. 4–1/9.
19
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 55 A/77.
20
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 53/200.
21
For a detailed study on the epidemics, see Hikmet Özdemir (2005) Salgın Hastalıklardan Ölümler
(1914–1918) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları).
22
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 55 A/135.
23
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 68/73.
24
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/73.
25
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/78.
26
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/80.
27
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/82.
28
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/86.
29
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/88.
30
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 80/95.
31
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 70/18.
 304 Y. Sarinay

Measures Taken for Protection of Real Estate and Belongings of Relocated

Armenians
The Ottoman protection of the relocated Armenians also included a set of measures for
protecting property belonging to them. This was the case from the beginning, as the May
30, 1915, relocation order guaranteed the safety of the relocated, the protection of their
property, and promised the return of belongings to their owners. As for real estate, the state
emphasized that these properties were to be registered in trusts so that payments later
would be made to the owners. All these rules were to be set out in later regulations.32 The
first such regulation was dated June 10, 1915, and included 34 Articles, which are
summarized below:33
(10) The real estates belonging to relocated Armenians were to be sealed.
(11) These belongings were to be stored in proper places after the registration of the
owners and a determination of the value, amount, and type of the property were
completed.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

(12) If the exact ownership of a property in question is unknown, the property to be

protected was to be registered to the ownership of the village.
(13) Perishable chattels, as well as livestock, were to be auctioned by the
commissions and the revenues held in trust so that payments later could be
made to the relocated owners.
(14) Immovable property was to be registered in trust in the name of the owner.
(15) The produce from the immovable properties were to be auctioned by the
commissions and the revenues held in trust so that payments could be made to
the relocated owners.
(16) Refugees were to be settled with temporary documentation in villages that
were empty after the relocation.
(17) The revenue from renting and auctioning of property belonging to the
relocated was to be held in trust so that it could later be paid to the owner.
(18) Responsibility for the realization of these goals of protection, registration and
administration of the properties of the relocated was assigned to the
Commission for the Properties of the Deserter/Deceased (Emval-i Metruke).
The Ottoman government was quite sensitive about the orderly implementation of these
regulations and wanted to avoid any misuse. For example, an encrypted telegram of June
9, 1915, communicated to the vilayet of Erzurum, ordered the auction of Armenian
properties in the owners’ names because the government would pay the relocated
Armenian owners the proceeds of sale.34 Similarly, an encrypted telegram of June 27,
1915, to the Mutasarrifiyya of Kayseri embodied the same line of thought.35 The order of
July 5, 1915, to the vilayet of Trabzon underlined the necessity to conform to the June 10
regulation.36 Another encrypted telegram, dated August 11, 1915, ordered all vilayets,

32
BOA, Meclis-i Vükela Kararı, no. 198/24.
33
For the full text of this regulation, see Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (1914–1918), vol. I (Ankara,
2005), pp. 435 –438.
34
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 53/303.
35
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 54/226.
36
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 54/310.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 305

mutasarrifiyya and every directorship of the Commission for the Properties of the
Deserter/Deceased that:
(19) Where properties belonging to relocated Armenians had been sold off cheaply,
the sale contract must be terminated and the property re-auctioned for its real
value.
(20) No stranger or suspicious person be allowed to enter the evacuated zones.
(21) Relocated Armenians be allowed to take any of their portable possessions that
they wished.
(22) Perishable immovable property be sold and non-perishable immovable
property be registered in the name of the owner.
(23) Any practice that violates an existing lease or mortgage deal on any property
should be terminated.37
In an attempt to prevent abuse, the Ottoman government forbade its civil servants to buy
the properties in question, although later they were allowed to buy residential property
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

from the Armenians on condition that the cost of the property should exceed its real value
and payment should be made before taking possession of the property.38
During the first months of the relocation, Armenian property was protected by regulations,
but legislation dated September 26, 1915, provided the legal basis for these measures.
Entitled Interim Legislation Regarding the Properties, Debts, and Aforementioned Claims of
the Persons Relocated to other Locations (Ahar mahallere nakledilen eşhasın emval ve düyun
ve matlubat-ı mezkuresi hakkında kanun-ı muvakkat), the temporary legislation, composed
of 11 articles, stipulated that both chattels and immovable properties belonging to the
relocated were to be preserved and registered, and the revenues derived from the auctions
were to be kept in trust in the name of the owner.39 Based on this temporary legislation, a 25-
article regulation dated November 10, 1915, detailed the implementation of the measures.40
Accordingly, Clearance Commissions for the Properties of the Deserter/Deceased (Emval-i
Metruke Tasfiye Komisyonları) were to be established in each location where there were
properties belonging to the relocated; in addition, auxiliary commissions and civil offices
that would help the Clearance Commissions were to be established. The duties of these
commissions ranged from detailed registration of the properties belonging to the relocated to
safeguarding the revenues from the auctions of perishable goods and livestock. While the
Ottoman government implemented these measures, it also prosecuted and at times dismissed
civil servants who either disobeyed or abused the regulations.

The Abuses During the Relocations and the Corresponding Prosecutions

While the relocation of Armenians was in progress under difficult wartime circumstances,
the Ottoman government also took measures for the protection of each convoy of the

37
Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915–1920) (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü
Yayınları, 1994), pp. 76, 371.
38
For the encrypted telegram sent to the vilayet of Hüdavendigar on August 19, 1915, see BOA, DH. ŞFR. No.
55/107.
39
For the full text of the legislation, see BOA, Kavanin Defteri, No. 28.s.245–246; and Takvim-i Vekayi, 14
Eylül 1331, No. 2303
40
For the full text of the Regulation, see Takvim-i Vekayi, 28 Teşrin-i Evvel 1331, No. 2345
 306 Y. Sarinay

relocated. The May 30, 1915, Cabinet Resolution, as well as the regulations communicated to
the local administrations by the Ministry of the Interior, speak to the extent of the measures:
the lives and property of the relocated Armenians were to be protected during the relocation
and if there were any instance of abuse, the civil servants and gendarmes who were
responsible for the mishandling of the relocated were to be dismissed immediately from
public service and referred to courts martial.41
After an Armenian convoy of 500 persons, traveling between Erzurum and Erzincan,
had been massacred by the Kurds, a Ministry of Interior directive, dated June 14, 1915,
ordered the vilayets of Erzurum, Elazığ and Bitlis to protect the Armenian convoys on the
relocation routes, to prevent local involvement in relocations, to take necessary measures
to avoid any possibility of bilateral clashes, and to punish those who attempted to kill, or to
extort from, Armenians.42 A similar set of instructions was communicated in a June 26
directive to the vilayet of Elazığ, ordering the continuation of measures that were breached
by the attacks of Dersim bandits on Armenian convoys.43 An August 28 directive to the
vilayet of Trabzon ordered the punishment of the looters and bandits.44 The August 29
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

directive to the vilayet of Ankara ordered the protection of all Armenians, regardless of
whether they were affected by the relocation orders. The directive also ordered the
suspension of the relocation until the safety of the Armenians was guaranteed; and, where
the directive was breached, the referral to the courts martial of civil servants who were
responsible for the safety of the Armenians.45
The issue of safety of the Armenian convoys was greater in certain regions of the empire.
After the news of massacres and robbery had reached the Ottoman capital, the government
increased its protective measures. Following the massacre of 2,000 Armenians traveling
between Aleppo and Meskene and the robbing of 2,000 Armenians who were relocated from
Diyarbakır to Zor and from Suruç to Aleppo,46 a directive ordered that the convoys should
not proceed without guards, that the number of guards be increased and that the attackers be
brought to justice. In this respect, the Commander of the Gendarmes of Tokat was put under
investigation; Hamid Bey, the Qaimaqam of Aziziye (Pınarbaşı), and Cemil Bey, the
Qaimaqam of Tenos (Şarkışla), were removed from their posts and brought before courts
martial.47 The gendarmes who guarded the Armenians convoys but abused their authority in
the region of Urfa were also brought before courts martial.48 The routes of relocation from
Urfa, that is, the ones through Resulayn and Nusaybin, were changed to prevent attacks on the
Armenian convoys.49 With reference to reports that a gendarme whipped the relocated
Armenians in Karaman station, the encrypted telegram of September 18, 1915, ordered that
the vilayet of Konya start an investigation of the gendarme in question, as well as the civil
servants who overlooked the violence.50

41
BOA, Meclis-i Vükela Mazbatası, No. 198/24; and BOA, DH, ŞFR. No. 54/9; 54/156, 54/162; 55/292.
42
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 54/9, 54/10.
43
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 54/162.
44
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 55/266.
45
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 55/290.
46
Yusuf Halaçoğlu (2001) Ermeni Tehciri ve Gerçekler (1914–1918) (Ankara: TTK Yayınları), pp. 59–60.
47
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 57/105; 57/116.
48
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 57/309.
49
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 57/277.
50
BOA, DH. ŞFR. No. 56/64.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 307

In another instance, after investigations into the alleged ill-gotten gains of Nazim Bey, the
Inspector of the Committee of Union and Progress in Elazığ, he was court martialed.51
Similar examples can also be found in other cases: the Qaimaqams of Elbistan and Gürün
also were also court martialed on the grounds of misconduct during the attacks on the
Armenians of Gürün.52 The Qaimaqam of Besni, Edhem Kadri Bey, was first dismissed from
his post, then court martialed for collecting goods from the Armenians without providing
them any compensation.53 The former Mutasarrif of Malatya, Reşit Bey, the Qaimaqam of
Hısn-ı Mansur (Adıyaman), Mehmet Bey, and the Qaimaqam of Kahta, Hakkı Bey, were all
sent to courts martial because of misconduct during the relocation of the Armenians.54
The examples of misconduct and violation of government policies by some civil servants
during the relocation of the Armenians led the Ottoman government to analyze the situation
nationwide and take action to punish those responsible. Accordingly, after Minister of
Interior Talat Pasha’s memorandum dated September 28, 1915, the Cabinet decided to
establish three investigatory commissions. This important decision reflected the position of
the Ottoman government: the clear evidence of misconduct and defiance of the law on the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

part of some civil servants and local citizens during the relocation required creation of these
commissions, each of which was tasked to investigate local conditions, identify the
responsible people and refer them to courts martial. Hulusi Bey, the head of the Court of
Appeals (Temyiz Mahkemesi) presided over the first commission, the other members of
which were Seyyid Haşim, a member of the Council of State (Şuray-ı Devlet), and the
gendarme major (binbaşı) Galip Bey. Its mandate was to examine the circumstances of
relocation in the vilayets of Hüdavendigar and Ankara, the sanjaks (liva) of İzmit, Karesi,
Eskişehir, Karahisar-ı Sahib, Kayseri and Niğde. Asım Bey, head of the Court of Appeals
presided over the second commission, the other two members of which were were
Qaimaqam Hüseyin Muhyiddin, Regional Inspector of the Izmir Gendarme, and Muhtar
Bey, Civil Inspector (Mülkiye Müfettişi) of Ankara vilayet. The second commission’s
mandate was to examine the vilayets of Adana, Aleppo and Syria, and the sanjaks (liva) of
Maraş, Urfa and Zor. Mahzar Bey, the former governor of Bitlis, presided over the third
commission (the other two members were Nihad Bey, the Attorney General of Istanbul
(İstanbul Bidayet Müdde-i Umumisi) and the gendarme major Ali Naki Bey), which was
charged with examining the situation in the vilayets of Erzurum, Trabzon, Sivas,
Mamuretülaziz, Diyarbakır and Bitlis and the sanjak (liva) of Canik.55 Even before the
decision by the Cabinet, the government had ordered the members of each commission to
prepare for the responsibility, an indication of the extent of its sensibility about reports of
failure of some local officials to prevent a breakdown of law and order during the
relocations.56

51
BOA, DH.ŞFR. 54/A 348-1.
52
BOA, DH.ŞFR. 57/416-1; and BOA, DH.ŞFR. 492/70-1.
53
BOA, DH.ŞFR. 60/61; BOA, DH.ŞFR. 61/165; BOA, DH.ŞFR. 507/105-1; and BOA, BEO. 330271-1.
54
BOA, DH.ŞFR. 58/277-1; BOA, DH.ŞFR. 58/278; BOA, DH.ŞFR. 59/146; and BOA, DH.ŞFR. 59/235
55
BOA, Meclis-i Vükela Mazbatası, no. 199/35; on the grounds of medical conditions, İsmail Hakkı Bey,
member of the Council of State, was appointed as replacement for Seyyid Haşim Bey. BOA. DH. ŞHR. no.
58/38; the establishment of four commissions is mentioned in Alpay Kabacalı (ed.) (1994) Talat Paşa’nın
Anıları (Istanbul: NP), p. 83.
56
On this subject, Muhtar Bey, the Civil Inspector of the vilayet of Ankara, and Mahzar Bey, the former
governor of Bitlis, were informed in an earlier communiqué; see BOA, DH. ŞFR., no. 56/179; 56/186.
 308 Y. Sarinay

These commissions were given jurisdiction to investigate the gendarme, police,

administrative chiefs and civil servants. If evidence indicated anyone might be guilty of a
crime or there were signs of abuse of authority, the responsible individuals were to be
referred to courts martial.57 These courts martial, also known as the Customary Courts
Martial (Divan-ı Harbi Örfi Mahkemeleri), were military courts that had jurisdiction in the
regions where martial law had been declared. During the war, these courts prosecuted any
activity that endangered the internal and external security of the Empire, any rebellious
activities including but not limited to rebellions, insurrection and banditry, and any
instances of defiance of laws, regulations and decrees coming from Istanbul.58
Based on the reports prepared by these investigation commissions in the regions where
the Armenians were subject to relocation, decisions were made to dismiss many Ottoman
officials and refer them to courts martial. These martial law courts differed from the courts
established after the 1918 armistice since the latter were established because of the
pressures of the Allied powers. Significantly, the pre-armistice courts martial prosecuted
Ottoman officials on the basis of evidence provided by the reports of the commissions for
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

investigation. Based on encrypted telegrams, dated February 19, March 12, and May 22,
1916, from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Exterior, we can prepare a list of the
courts martial prosecutions in 12 vilayets:59
. Amasya, 2
. Ankara, 148
. Bitlis, 29
. Canik, 89
. Diyarbakır, 70
. Eskişehir, 29
. Halep, 56
. Hüdavendigar, 21
. İzmit, 28
. Kayseri, 146
. Konya, 16
. Mamuretülaziz, 249
. Niğde, 8
. Sivas, 579
. Suriye, 27
. Urfa, 170
A total of 1,673 individuals were prosecuted for illegal behavior during the Armenian
relocations. Of these 1,673 who were taken into custody to face charges in courts martial,
528 were from the military, police and intelligence (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa). These personnel
included people with high ranks such as captains, lieutenants, first and second lieutenants,
commanders of gendarme squads and police superintendents. Additionally, 170 civil

57
BOA, DH. ŞFR, no. 56/267.
58
For detailed information, see Osman Köksal (1996) Tarihsel Süreci İçinde Bir Özel Yargı Organı Olarak
Divan-ı Harb-i Örfiler (1877–1922), PhD thesis, Ankara University.
59
BOA, HR. SYS, no. 2882/29; according to Gürün, Ermeni Dosyasi, pp. 221 –222, the number of courts
martials prosecution is 1,397.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 309

servants were prosecuted, and they represented diverse public service officials, such as
medical managers (sıhhiye müdürü), tax collectors, qaimaqams, mayors, district managers
(nahiye müdürü), clerks, relocation officials (sevk memuru), property managers (mal
müdürü), land register officials (tapu memuru), mukhtars, telegraph managers, population
office clerks (nüfus memuru), chief clerks and the manager of the Commission for the
Properties of the Deserter/Deceased (Emval-i Metruke Komisyonu reisi). The remaining
975 defendants were either gang members or ordinary men who took part in pillaging and
attacking the Armenian convoys during the relocations.
A number of charges, such as murder, wounding, damaging the properties of
Armenians, stealing, usurpation, bribery, pillaging, pickpocketing, unsanctioned marriage
with Armenian girls and misuse of public office, were brought against the above
individuals. According to the documents that I have been able to study, up through mid-
1916, of the total charged, 999 individuals had been or were in the process of being court
martialed. Of this number, 67 defendants were convicted of capital offenses and sentenced
to death (although, as discussed below, the extant records do not indicate how many
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

actually were executed). Another 524 defendants—52 percent of the total—were

convicted of other serious crimes and sentenced to prison terms of varying lengths. The
crimes of 68 defendants were deemed to merit harsher sentences such as forced labor
(oar),60 monetary punishment, imprisonment in a castle (kalabendlik), shackling or exile.
A total of 227 defendants (22 percent) were acquitted, while four were minors who were
remanded to their guardians. By mid-1916, the courts martial of 109 defendants were still
in process, while those for the remaining 674 defendants had not begun. Even though the
cases underway and the trials that had not begun were not reflected in the documents under
scrutiny, it is reasonable to expect similar results in the later courts martials, i.e., a
conviction rate of 75 to 80 percent among defendants and an acquittal rate of 20 to 25
percent.
The above-cited documents provide considerable details about the defendants and the
crimes of which they were accused. For example, Sirozlu Çerkez Ahmet and his friend
Dersaadetli Halil were accused of being active in the gang that attacked and killed
Armenians and pillaged their belongings. The gang also was held responsible for the
murder of two members of the Ottoman Parliament, Krikor Zohrab and Seringulian
Vartkes, who were bundled off to Diyarbakır. Sirozlu Çerkez Ahmet and Dersaadetli Halil
were held in custody in Konya and the Ministry of the Interior ordered their imprisonment
to prevent their escape until Cemal Pasha demanded them for court martial proceedings.61
After having been sent to Syria, they faced the charges in the Syrian court martial, where
Sirozlu Çerkez Ahmet was convicted, sentenced to death and accordingly executed in
Damascus.62 Dersaadetli Halil, however, was sentenced to imprisonment in a castle.
Cemal Pasha, the commander of the Fourth Army, did not endorse this decision, but
instead returned his dossier to the court martial.63 In a second trial in the Syrian court
martial, Dersaadetli Halil also was sentenced to death64 and accordingly executed in

60
According to articles 19– 21 of the 1857 penal code, the legal term kürek is used to describe the major
punishments for serious offenders, particularly forced labor (hidemat-ı şakka) and shackling.
61
BOA, DH. ŞFR, no. 55 A/177.
62
BOA, DH.ŞFR, no. 492/107-1; BOA, DH.ŞFR, no. 493/106-1; and BOA, HR.SYS. no. 2882/29-25.
63
BOA, DH.ŞFR, no. 493/158-1.
64
BOA, HR.SYS, no. 2882/29-25.
 310 Y. Sarinay

Damascus.65 Likewise, Lieutenant Nuri, the commander of the gendarme squad of Sivas-
Şarkışla, who was accused of being responsible for the deaths of some Armenians, was
sentenced to death and executed.66 Clearly, these three individuals were executed in
accordance with their sentences, but there is no tangible evidence as to the fate of other
convicted persons. Among the latter were those charged with ‘extortion of properties and
murder of’ Armenians (gasb-ı emval ve katli nüfus), and who were tried, and sentenced to
death; they included Ali el-Hamd from the village of Abdü’l-gayre in the Sanjak of Deir
ez-Zor; Bezkâde bin Ömer ed-Derviş from the village of Hicce; in the Sanjak of Rakka,
Hamı̂d el-Hamd el-Hâlûb, Ali el-Hasan el-İbrahim, Hızır el-Yusuf, Abdullah bin Hamı̂d
el-Hâlûye, Ni‘me el-Hâc, Habı̂b el-Esved from the village of Telsemı̂n, Ali el-Halef and
Hamd bin Halef eş-Şehrı̂ from the village of Kesra, Hamûd el-Hamdi from the village of
Hulv, and Hüseyin bin Abdülisa from the village of Fâtise.67
Individuals who extorted goods from the Armenians, and therefore were convicted of
plunder and accordingly were sentenced to execution, included Küçük Ali bin Osman
from the village of İhsaniye in the Kaza of Ödemiş;68 İmam el-Berho, Hamd es-Selmo,
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

Ced‘ân el-Hamd, Abdullah el-İsa, Da‘ı̂l el-İsa, and İbrahim eş-Şemâde in the village of
Şeyhyakup in Urfa; Mehmed Gülo, Ali bin Ali Dudu, Ahmed bin Abdi, Elves Haso,
Ahmed bin Ahmed Abdi, Mehmed Ali bin Ali, Seyito bin İsmail, Mustafa bin Ramo, Bekir
bin İsmail,69 Şahin bin Müslim, Derviş bin Müslim, Gazzâl bin Ali Sultan el-Mâni,
İbrahim er-Ra‘pûl, Mehmed bin Hamûş, Ömer bin İskender, Şeyho bin Ramazan, Şeyho
bin Abdi, Bojo bin Mehmed, Halef bin Abdullah, İbrahim bin Ali, Osman bin Haso,
Müslim Kahya bin Molla Eyyüb, Ahmed bin Abdi, Halef bin Derviş, Hamûş (the uncle of
Mehmed Bojo), Mehmed (the son of Hamûş), Puzan (the son of Bektuş), Said bin Ramo,
Mehmed (the son of Molla İbrahim), Hallo bin Akdâr, Mahmud bin Bekir, Osman (the son
of Hüseyin), İmam (the son of Alo), Şeyhgânlı Hami Üso, Hami Seyito, Ahmed Surik,
Ma‘mo (the son of Seyito Yekşo), Ali (the son of Ayo-yı Bero), Hasan (a relative of
Seyido-yı Ma‘mo), Hüseyin bin Abdi,70 Boran bin Ahmed Abdi, Boji Ayo, Şeyh Mustafa
bin Ali, Seyito bin İbo, and Hami bin Hamûş all from the village of Karapınar in the
Nahiye of Kabahaydar of Urfa; and Efsuslu Hacı from the Village of Çiçek in Elbistan.71
Individuals who were tried for extortion and theft of property belonging to Armenians
and of abduction and abuse of Armenian girls, and therefore sentenced to forced labor
(oar), were Çolak Osman oğlu Hacı Bekir from the Haraza quarter of Malatya;72 Hacı
Ali oğlu Abdurrahman and Halil oğlu Berber İbrahim73 from the town of Mucur in
Kırşehir; Odabaşıoğlu Hamza and Kör Ali from the Yukarı quarter in the Nahiye of
Çubuk;74 Sirozlu İlyas bin Süleyman and Sirozlu İdris bin Yusuf (members of brigand
groups), Salih bin Mustafa Müslim from the village of Seyrekli in the Kaza of Ödemiş of

65
BOA, DH.ŞFR, no. 497/64-1; and BOA, DH.ŞFR, no. 497/95-1.
66
BOA, DH.ŞFR, no. 605/65-3.
67
BOA, HR. SYS, no. 2882/29_26_4a.
68
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_14_1b.
69
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_26_3a.
70
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_26_3b.
71
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_26_4a.
72
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_5_3b.
73
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_13_4a.
74
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_13_4b.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 311

the Sanjak of Manisa; İdris bin İbrahim from the village of Selendi in the Sanjak of
Manisa;75 Ömer bin Hacı Mehmed Fennûn (from the Bâb gendarme);76 Sekbanoğlu
Hasan (from the Kavak gendarme); Kâmil bin Sadullah (from the Havza gendarme);
Abdullah oğlu Şükrü of Giresun (from the gendarme in the Kaza of Çarşamba); İmam
Molla Mehmed from the village of İdrisli in Kavak;77 Seydi bin Mehmed from the
village of Demircik in Urfa; İmam bin Molla Eyyüb from the Yusufpaşa quarter of Urfa;
Hamza bin Ahmed from the Dergezenli quarter of Urfa; Salyan bin Eyyüb (the custodian
of the Molla Eyyüb Han in Urfa);78 as janitors in the Zara Hospital and also as privates,
İzmirli İsmail Çavuş, Divriğili Kemal oğlu Mehmed, Zaralı Yusuf oğlu Hâfız Mehmed,
Zaralı Hızır oğlu Hızır, Kürd Hasan (from the village of Topallar in Zara), and Şükrü
(from the village of Göleris in Zara); Mustafa oğlu Mahmud (the porter of Mülâzım
Yusuf Efendi from the Second Depot Battalion of the 88th Regiment);79 Hacı Mehmed
oğlu Hüseyin Hüsnü from the Third Squad of the Erbaa gendarme;80 İbrahim oğlu Kerim
from the Labor Battalion;81 Hüseyin oğlu Alihan from the village of Beypınarı; Manzur
oğlu Haydar from Büyükköy; Hüseyin İsmail from Eskiharman; Ali oğlu Veli from
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

Büyükköy;82 Şaban oğlu Ali and Ahmed Kahya oğlu Hasan Niyazi from the Nahiye of
Gemerek;83 Mehmed oğlu Mehmed and Hüseyin oğlu Ali from the Hamurkesen
Ranch.84
Individuals who were tried on charges of abuse of authority during the relocations of the
Armenians and accordingly sentenced to prison included Mahmut Efendi (the telegraph
officer in Birecik), Ali Çavuş (from the Urfa gendarme) and Antepli Ahmet Onbaşı;85
Cemal Efendi (wakf clerk) and İbrahim Efendi (gendarme second lieutenant);86 Davutoğlu
Recep (gendarme private in Palu), Eğinli Mehmet Ali oğlu Ahmed (gendarme private in
Elazığ), Arapkirli Mehmet oğlu Rıza (gendarme private in Keban), Elazığlı Yusufoğlu
Mevlüd, Hüseyin oğlu İsmail, Ömer oğlu İsmail, Cemalzade Hüseyin oğlu Ali (the
relocation officer responsible for the Palu procession), and Elazığ merkez muhafaza
bölüğü askeri Osman oğlu Ali (a private in the Central Elazığ Guard Squad);87 Tevfik and
Hüseyin (mobile gendarme sergeants in Fatsa);88 Hasan oğlu Ahmed, Mustafa oğlu
Hüseyin, Mehmed oğlu İbrahim (three gendarme privates in Erbaa); from the Yozgat
gendarme, Ali oğlu Hasan, Bekir Hafız oğlu Şükrü, Ali oğlu Şükrü, Hacı İshak oğlu
Şevket, Hacı Ömer oğlu Ali, Yusuf oğlu Salih, Debbağ oğlu Durak; from the Zile
gendarme, Mustafa oğlu Nuri, Mustafa oğlu Hacı Süleyman, Kalelioğlu Hacı Emin,

75
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_14_1b.
76
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_15_1b.
77
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_25b.
78
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_26_4a.
79
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_22_1b.
80
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_22_2a.
81
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_22_2b.
82
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_22_4a.
83
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_22_4b.
84
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_22_7b.
85
BOA, HR.SYS, 2882/29_24_1.
86
BOA, HR.SYS, 2882/29_29_2.
87
BOA, HR.SYS, 2882/29_19_2_8.
88
BOA, HR.SYS, 2882/29_31.
 312 Y. Sarinay

Hasanoğlu Ahmed; from the Amasya gendarme, Mehmet oğlu Zeynel, Havzalı Hüseyin
Çavuş, and İsmail oğlu Hasan.89
The documents provide a list of military personnel/civilians who were referred to courts
martials and faced charges, but do not indicate any the final verdicts. These include in the
Kaza of Mucur, Yüzbaşı (captain) Kadri, the Chief of the Military Branch, Mülâzım
(second lieutenant) Mehmet Efendi, sergeants Halil and Ahmet, and 38 privates, all of
whom were referred to the courts martial on charges of provoking massacre, robbery,
assault and murder of the Armenians during the relocation.90
The following officials were charged with misuse of power, extortion of property,
robbery, assault and misdemeanor: Hamid Bey (Qaimaqam of Aziziye), Şuayb Efendi
(Qaimaqam of Gürün), Alaaddin Efendi (second lieutenant in the Divriği gendarme),
Hafız Kemal (the clerk in the Office of Population Affairs), Şakir Efendi (the mayor of
Gürün), Yahya Efendi (the Assistant to the Chief of Police in Gürün), Ali Efendi (the
Property Manager of Gürün), Kamil Efendi (the Commander of the Gendarme Squad of
Gürün), Mehmet Faik Efendi (the Head of the Commission for the Properties of the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

Deserter/Deceased in Aziziye) and Ahmet Çavuş (the Commander of the Central

Gendarme Station in Tonus). Yüzbaşı Rıfat Efendi and his entourage, Başçavuş (sergeant
major) Hüseyin in the Tonus gendarme, and numerous gendarme privates were referred to
the customary courts martials of Sivas.91 Reşid Bey (the former Mutasarrif of Malatya),
Mehmet Bey (Qaimaqam of Adıyaman), Tevfik Bey (Qaimaqam of Eğin), Turhan Efendi
(the head of the Nahiye of Samsad), Neşet Efendi (the head of the Nahiye of Hasançelebi),
Muhyiddin Efendi (the head of the Nahiye of Hekimhan), Abdullah Efendi (the Police
Captain of Malatya) and 18 police officers, Kolağası Hamdi Efendi (the Commander of the
Gendarme Battalion of Malatya), Mülazim-ı Sani Tahsin Efendi (the Commander of the
Central Gendarme Squad of Malatya), Mehmet Faik Efendi (the Commander of the
Gendarme Squad of Pötürge), Nazmi Efendi (second lieutenant of the Malatya gendarme),
Emin Efendi (second lieutenant of the Adıyaman gendarme), Yüzbaşı Şevket Efendi (the
Commander of the Gendarme Squad of Malatya), Yüzbaşı Edhem Hüsameddin Efendi
(the Commander of the Gendarme Squad of Araplar) and 68 gendarme privates, were
referred to the courts martial of Elazığ on the charges of abuse of authority, extortion and
robbery.92
In the region of Bursa, Ahmed oğlu İbrahim, Ali oğlu Koca İbrahim, Berber Ali oğlu
Mehmed (gendarme privates), Hacı Tevfik Bey (the Assistant to the Chief of Police),
Rüstem Zihni, Ahmed Refik, Hüseyin Hüsnü Bey (police officers) and Abdullah and Akif
Efendi (tax collectors) were charged and tried for abuse of authority against the
Armenians.93 In Eskişehir, Yuvanaki Efendi (Qaimaqam of Mihalıççık), Mehmet Nuri
(the qadi of Mihalıççık), Suat Efendi (the property manager of Mihalıççık), Mihalıççık
Belediye Reisi Şükrü Efendi (the mayor of Mihalıççık), as well as some civil servants and
gendarme privates faced charges of misuse of authority during the relocation of
Armenians.94 Rıfat Bey (the former Qaimaqam of Ulukışla), Yüzbaşı Hasan Efendi (the

89
BOA, HR.SYS, 2882/29.
90
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_26_8.
91
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_34_35_36.
92
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_19_2_8.
93
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_32_1_2.
94
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_6.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 313

former Commander of the Gendarme Squad of Ulukışla) and five gendarme privates also
were referred to the courts martial.95 In the region of İzmit, Ermenilere ait emvali gasbla
suçlanan Mehmed Cemal (the Captain of Karamürsel), Salih (the gendarme sergeant) and
Onbaşı İsmail (the corporal) were referred to the courts martial for trial.96
As for the Diyarbakır and Bitlis regions, Mülazım Hasan Efendi (the Commander of the
Gendarme Squad of Lice), Emin Efendi (the clerk in Lice, Tahrirat Katibi), Rasim Efendi
(the telegraph manager), Osman Bey (the Commander of the Gendarme Regiment of
Bitlis), the police officers Abdulgaffar, Abdulhadi, İsmail, İzzet, Yasin Bey, and Baha Bey
(the medical manager of Bitlis), and the gendarme privates of Lice, Mustafa, Hüsnü, and
Rüştü Efendi (the mayor of Lice) also were referred to the customary courts martial to face
charges.97
These 1915 –16 courts martial were organized by the Ottoman government on its own
initiative and reflect a willingness to punish criminals. In this respect they contrast with
the special courts martial that were established after the end of the First World War.
While these latter courts obviously deserve a separate study, their creation reflected the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

pressures by the Allied powers on the Ottoman government after the Armistice of
Mudros. For the Ottoman government in charge, these courts were means of obtaining
favors from the Allied powers, taking revenge on the former officials and capitalizing on
political benefits during the Allied occupation. Thus, these courts metaphorically put the
previous decades on trial. The defendants who faced charges in the post-war courts
martial were determined on the basis of names provided by the representatives of the
Occupation in Istanbul. Accordingly, the Ottoman government arrested those named on
the lists and put them on trial. The course of justice in these courts was more reflective of
the post-war political alignments between the Allied Occupation and the Ottoman
representatives, which left a power vacuum in the Ottoman capital, than any
manifestation of legality. For instance, Nemrut Mustafa Paşa, the chair of the customary
courts martial, highlighted this fact, saying: ‘a court martial that works under foreign rule
functions on the basis of emotions rather than conscience. Such a legal process is
underway as a result of an order from the top.’ Also relevant in the postwar trials was the
lack of most procedural rights for the defendants, who were not given lawyers for their
defense and whose trials were conducted behind closed doors. The judges also
functioned as public prosecutors and their decisions were confidential. An interesting
turn of events took place with the transfer of government from the cabinet of Damat Ferit
Paşa to the cabinet of Tevfik Paşa. On December 1, 1920, those who faced charges in
these postwar courts martial were given the right of appeal. Accordingly, the Military
Court of Appeals examined the courts martial verdicts and found a number of abuses of
processes during the legal process. For example, after a careful examination of the files,
the Military Court of Appeals found two different verdicts for Nusret Bey, the Mutasarrif
of Urfa, who was found guilty and executed on August 5, 1920: one verdict for
imprisonment and a second for execution. In the end, the Military Court of Appeals
canceled nearly all the sentences given by the customary courts martial from April 23,
1920. Thus, it seems that the verdicts given by the customary courts martial during the

95
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_12.
96
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_30.
97
BOA, HR. SYS, 2882/29_8.
 314 Y. Sarinay

Armistice were reflective of political pressures and calculations.98 Additionally, during

the period of the Armistice, the British put 144 Ottoman statesmen on trial in Malta for
charges from war crimes to various offenses during the relocations. Yet, no evidence
existed to punish these statesmen held under British custody.99

Conclusion
The Ottoman government took necessary measures to secure the lives of, and provide
subsistence, shelter and guards for, the Armenians who were relocated during the First
World War. The government also attempted to register, protect and maintain the property
of the relocated, which was to be returned to their owners after the relocation. It is
important to note here that these measures were taken before the start of the relocations,
that is, they were preemptive measures and thus not simple reactions to developments
during the relocations. The decision to relocate the Armenians was a reaction to the
increased revolutionary activity by armed Armenians groups in areas of Anatolia that had
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

been invaded by Russian forces who encouraged Armenians to rebel against the Ottoman
government.
During the relocation of the Armenians, those suspected of abusing their duties or
defying the law and regulations or simply committing crimes against the Armenians, be
they military personnel, civilian men, gang members or public servants, were prosecuted
and convicted of various crimes by the courts martial. These trials were reflective of the
Ottoman government’s sensitivity to the safety of the Armenians.
The prosecution of officials suspected of harming Armenians during the events of
1915– 16 raise the question of whether it is possible that Ottoman government was guilty
of mass murder and attempted genocide of the Armenians, as some critics have argued
over nearly 100 years. With respect to this point, it is notable that the Ottoman
government sent two aide memoires in February 1919 to the nations that had remained
neutral during the First World War, namely, Denmark, Holland, Spain and Sweden,
asking them to investigate the allegations of mass murder and massacres of the
Armenians, establishing an investigatory commission and appointing two legal
experts.100 This initiative was left unanswered as a result of British pressures.101 In
1919 the victorious Allied Powers prevented an impartial investigation of such
allegations by an international commission. The initiative to set up an international
investigatory commission demonstrated the self-confidence of the Ottoman government
during the relocations of the Armenians.

References
Ata, F. (2005) İşgal İstanbulunda Tehcir Yargılamaları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları).
Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri (1994) Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915–1920) (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet
Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları).

98
For detailed information on these prosecutions between 1919 and 1920, see Feridun Ata, İşgal İstanbulunda
Tehcir Yargılamaları.
99
For detailed information, see Bilal Şimşir (1985) Malta Sürgünleri, 2nd edn. (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi).
100
BOA, HR.SYS. No. 2569/2.
101
Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler, pp. 592–597.
 The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915 –16 315

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri (2001) Ermeni Komiteleri (1891–1895) (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri
Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları).
Eldem, V. (1994) Harp ve Mütareke Yıllarında Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Ekonomisi (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Yayınları).
Genelkurmay Başkanlığı (2005) Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (1914–1918) (Ankara: Genelkurmay
Başkanlığı Yayınları, C.I.).
Gürün, K. (1983) Ermeni Dosyası (Ankara: NP).
Halaçoğlu, Y. (2001) Ermeni Tehciri ve Gerçekler (1914–1918) (Ankara: TTK Yayınları).
Kabacalı, A. (Ed.) (1994) Talat Paşa’nın Anıları (İstanbul: NP).
Karaca, A. (1993) Anadolu Islahatı ve Ahmet Şakir Paşa (1838–1899) (İstanbul: NP).
Kodaman, B. (2001) Ermeni Meselesi (Tarihi ve Siyasi Bir Değerlendirme), Yeni Türkiye, 37 (Jan.-Feb.),
pp. 200–212.
Köksal, O. (1996) Tarihsel Süreci İçinde Bir Özel Yargı Organı Olarak Divan-ı Harb-i Örfiler (1877–1922), PhD
thesis, Ankara Üniversity.
Kuran, E. (2001) Ermeni Meselesinin Milletlerarası Boyutu, Yeni Türkiye, 37 (Jan.-Feb.) pp. 235–344.
Münir Süreyya Bey (2001) Ermeni Meselesinin Siyasi Tarihçesi (1877–1914) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları).
Özdemir, H. et al. (2004) Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları).
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 01:43 07 April 2014

Özdemir, H. (2005) Salgın Hastalıklardan Ölümler (1914–1918) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları).
Sarınay, Y. (2006) 24 Nisan 1915 Ermeni Tutuklamaları, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Cumhuriyet Tarihi
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(Fall), pp. 23 –35.
———.(2008) What Happened on April 24, 1915?: The Circular of April 24, 1915, and the Arrest of the
Armenian Committee Members in İstanbul, International Journal of Turkish Studies, 14(1– 2), pp. 23–35.
Süslü, A. et al. (1995) Türk Tarihinde Ermeniler (Ankara: NP).
Şimşir, B. (1985) Malta Sürgünleri, 2nd edn. (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi).
Takvim-i Vekayi (1916) 14 Eylül 1331, No. 2303.
Takvim-i Vekayi (1916) 28 Teşrin-i Evvel 1331, No. 2345.
Türkmen, Z. (2003) İttihat ve Terakki Hükümetinin Doğu Anadolu Islahat Müfettişliği Projesi ve Uygulamaları
(1913– 1914), Ermeni Araştırmaları, 9(spring), pp. 41– 75.
Uras, E. (1987) Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, rev. 2nd edn. (İstanbul: Belge Yayınları).