The hearing took place at the 79th Criminal Court of First Instance in Ankara, with Medin appearing via video link from Marmara Prison. His legal defense was presented by attorneys Veysel Ok, Hazal Sümeli, and Batıkan Erkoç.
Observers in the courtroom included Jonas Sjöstedt of the European Parliament, Ulrika Westerlund of the Swedish Parliament, Sweden’s Ambassador to Turkey Malena Mard, as well as representatives from Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Turkish Press Union DİSK Basın-İş, the Turkish Journalists’ Association, and the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA).
Due to inadequate translation during the initial identification process, attorney Batıkan Erkoç stepped in to interpret from the video conference room. In his defense statement, Medin said he had never received the indictment and learned of the charges only after being sent to prison. His attorneys confirmed that the prison administration failed to deliver the indictment.
Emphasis on journalism
Medin explained that the case stemmed from two articles he wrote for a Swedish audience about public reactions to Turkey’s NATO accession process. He said he did not attend the protest mentioned in the indictment, did not choose the photo used in the article, and that all editorial decisions were made by his newspaper.
He described coming to Istanbul for a weekend trip and said he had no translator or lawyer during his detention. He communicated with police officers using Google Translate and only learned what he was accused of after his incarceration.
“I had no intention to insult the president,” Medin said in his defense. “From a journalistic ethics perspective, it is not right to demean any individual. President Erdoğan is a political figure who has been in office for 20 years, and reporting on him is in the public interest.”
Ok: Case reaises concerns for judicial standards and Turkey's reputation
Attorney Veysel Ok stressed that Medin had acted within journalistic norms. “The rules of journalism are clear both in Turkey and internationally. A reporter writes the article; the headline, subhead, and visuals are determined by the editorial team. Medin was simply fulfilling his professional duty.”
Ok noted that the article was published in Swedish for a Swedish readership and had no direct connection with Turkish domestic affairs. “To prosecute this in Turkey raises serious concerns for both judicial standards and the country’s international reputation.”
He also pointed out that the photo used in Medin’s article had been widely published in Turkish media outlets across the political spectrum, including pro-government Anadolu Agency and independent platforms like Diken and Medyascope. “This content, which is not criminalized for Turkish journalists, is used to target a foreign journalist. That’s a double standard.”
Ok referenced comments made earlier that day by Turkey’s Minister of Justice, who said journalists acting within the bounds of their profession should not be punished. “Joakim did not go beyond these bounds. That he remains in prison, unable to return to his pregnant wife, is unacceptable both legally and on humanitarian grounds.”
Attorney Hazal Sümeli argued that Medin had been targeted solely based on intelligence information, which does not constitute legal evidence. She emphasized that the protest at the heart of the indictment took place in Sweden, under Swedish law, and that the principle of universality does not apply to this kind of offense.
In his opinion, the prosecutor claimed that Medin had clearly committed the offense of “insulting the president” and called for both a conviction and the continuation of his detention. The court handed down a sentence of 11 months and 20 days but suspended the sentence and ordered his release in that case.
However, Medin remains imprisoned due to a separate investigation in which he faces more serious charges, including “making terrorist propaganda” and “membership in a terrorist organization.” These charges are being pursued under Turkey’s broad anti-terror laws, which have often drawn international criticism for their use against journalists, academics, and political dissidents.
No date has been set for the next hearing in that case.
