- In the second hearing of the case in which T24 reporter Can Öztürk and 14 students are on trial, press and relatives of the defendants were left outside the courtroom. The presiding judge, in response to the objection of the lawyers, said about not letting the press into the courtroom: “I am not obliged to.”
- Lawyer Batıkan Erkoç from MLSA Legal Unit stated that the court panel displayed a biased attitude and drew attention to the shortcomings in the indictment.
MLSA - The second hearing was held in the case opened against T24 reporter Can Öztürk, who was detained by having his throat squeezed while following a protest held at Boğaziçi University in 2021, and 14 students, on the charges of “resisting to prevent the fulfillment of duty” and “participating unarmed in unlawful meetings and marches.” The hearing, which was held at Istanbul 69th Criminal Court of First Instance, was conducted in the courtroom of the 21st High Criminal Court due to the inadequacy of the room. However, despite the hearing being moved to a large courtroom, on the grounds of “no space,” relatives of the defendants, journalists, and national and international observers were not allowed into the courtroom.
While only courthouse reporters were allowed into the hearing, journalists with a Turkuaz press card, the representative of the U.S. Consulate, and observers from freedom of expression organizations were left outside based on a “verbal instruction” given to security officers. In contrast, only the relatives of police officers who are in the position of complainants were allowed to sit in the audience rows.
Lawyers: The court is not acting impartially
The lawyers of the defendants stated that although the hearing was open, selectively allowing certain spectators constituted discrimination.
It was observed during the hearing that the statements of the lawyers were frequently interrupted and that they were not allowed to ask direct questions to the police officers who are in the position of complainants.
In his defense statement, journalist Öztürk said that he was there to follow the protest, that he did not understand the reason for his detention, and that law enforcement officers did not let him leave despite his press cards. Öztürk said, “Three police officers did not allow me to leave. I do not accept the charges.”
The police officers who are complainants in the incident claimed that the students and Öztürk physically intervened against them. However, it was stated that in the medical report regarding the injury on the arm of one police officer, there was no record.
Erkoç: ‘If you say we are not collecting evidence, then let’s not listen to anyone’
Batıkan Erkoç, lawyer of Öztürk from MLSA Legal Unit, said that the court panel was limiting the defense and pointed out the interventions against the right to defense:
“The defendants and the press were not allowed into the courtroom. All of the complainant’s relatives were allowed inside. This is the first ground for annulment. Only one member of the press was allowed to enter the hearing, and he arrived in the middle of the hearing. As lawyers, our words were cut off, sometimes the court panel answered before the complainants. You said you would not collect evidence. If we are not collecting evidence, what are we doing here? Then let’s not listen to anyone.”
‘There is no information in the indictment that he is a journalist’
Stating that the indictment was prepared incompletely and in a biased manner, Erkoç said:
“There are 15 defendants in the indictment, but it is not clear who resisted with which act. A riot police officer holds my client by the throat and lifts him into the air for five seconds. In this case, everyone whose name is mentioned in the arrest report should be included in this file for the crime of injury. The lack of images related to the arrest is not due to a lack of cameras, but because the footage was not submitted to the file. Although my client stated at every stage that he is a journalist, he was referred for arrest, and there is not a single statement in the indictment that he is a journalist.
Under Law No. 2911, if there is disproportionate police violence, no punishment should be given. According to administrative law, prohibition decisions must be notified to the relevant persons. If not notified, these decisions are null and void. There is only one announcement published in May related to the incident, and it is unrelated. Therefore, I would be expected to construct a defense based on journalistic activity, but this is not possible with this incomplete and erroneous indictment. If any decision other than acquittal is given in this case, the verdict will be overturned.”
Erkoç also requested that a letter be written to the police department regarding the missing footage, an expert report be obtained, and that the duplicate investigation opened by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office be included in the file.
Partial acceptance from the court, many requests rejected
The court rejected the lawyers' requests for the footage to be submitted to the file and for a criminal complaint to be filed against the police officers. However, it ruled that the duplicate investigation opened at the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office upon MLSA’s application and the decision of the Regional Administrative Court to grant investigation permission regarding the complainant police officers be included in the case file.
The court ruled that the next hearing of the case would be held on April 27.
