In my seventeen years of law practice, this is the first time I have made a defense statement after a decision was made in a hearing. Before starting the defense, I asked the presiding judge "Will your decision change?"
VEYSEL OK
The experienced journalist and Co-President of the Dicle Fırat Journalists Association, Dicle Müftüoğlu, whose first trial was held in Diyarbakır on December 7th, was arrested during an operation against the Kurdish press prior to the presidential election on May 14th, and subsequently detained on May 3rd, World Press Freedom Day.
Dicle's colleagues, friends, and lawyers filled the courtroom. Dozens of people came to the Diyarbakır 5th Heavy Penal Court in the hope of Dicle's release. Dicle, however, joined via SEGBİS from Sincan Prison, where she has been detained for seven months.
Dicle has been detained since May 3rd on charges of being a member of a terrorist organization. The twice-returned indictment contains no credible evidence. Her work-related travels, the institution she worked for, and phone calls with colleagues have been listed as 'evidence' in the case file.
The indictment, penned by the prosecutor and lacking legal basis and credibility, merely aimed to imprison a journalist and has been the basis of Dicle’s detention and imprisonment for seven months. The content of the text makes it clear that not only should Dicle not have been detained for seven months, but she should not have been arrested for even a day.
In her defense via video-conferencing system SEGBİS, Dicle refuted all of the baseless allegations in the indictment before the newly appointed presiding judge. The judge felt no need to record Dicle's defense.
Following Dicle, her lawyer Resul Temur took the floor and laid bare the inconsistencies and illegalities in the prosecutor's indictment, explaining to the presiding judge and prosecutor that Dicle's travels, her employer, her statements, and her news reports cannot be used as criminal evidence.
In response to these defenses, the prosecutor requested the continuation of detention in his opinion.
According to criminal procedure, the defendant and then their lawyers should be allowed to speak after the prosecutor's opinion. However, in this hearing, even the most basic procedural rules of law were not followed. The newly appointed presiding judge decided to continue detention without taking the defenses of either Dicle or her lawyers. We, as lawyers, could only make our defenses after the decision was made.
This is where we realize the need for more solidarity. As long as Dicle's case is not embraced like a Western journalist's case, the pressure on the press will continue to increase.
In my seventeen years of law practice, this is the first time I have made a defense statement after a decision was made in a hearing. Before starting the defense, I asked the presiding judge, "Will your decision change?"
The presiding judge clearly replied, "No!" Nevertheless, I spoke. My goal was to record this in history, to show this injustice to the audience in the courtroom and those following the hearing on social media, and to expose the oppression.
The court adjourned the hearing to January 18, 2024, without listening to the lawyers and Dicle. Dicle will continue to be imprisoned in Sincan without any evidence.
When we stepped outside after the hearing, we witnessed the duplicity in the judiciary and the media again. The injustices we experienced during and before the hearing were only reported in a few places.
If this judicial travesty had occurred in Istanbul, İzmir, or Ankara, all "independent" media from Halk TV to TELE1 would have pursued this injustice, and the leaders of opposition parties would have called for solidarity.
Unfortunately, when the victim of this judicial massacre is a Kurdish and female journalist, ears do not hear, and eyes do not see. When the topic is Dicle, all media in the West suddenly become silent.
This is where we realize the need for more solidarity. As long as Dicle's case is not embraced like a Western journalist's case, the pressure on the press will continue to increase.
The media in Turkey must also rid itself of this duplicity and show solidarity with all victims of this legal travesty.
Dicle's next hearing will be on January 18th in Diyarbakır. Dicle, in Sincan Prison, waits for the end of this injustice. Our duty is to confront this injustice with solidarity.
