Court sentenced Nazlı Ilıcak to 5 years and 3 months, Ahmet Altan to 6 years 3 months and 18 days and Fevzi Yazıcı to 1 year and 13 months of imprisonment for “aiding a terrorist organization"CANSU PİŞKİN, İSTANBUL

 

The third hearing in the retrial of Ahmet Altan, Nazlı Ilıcak, visuals director of the shut-down Zaman newspaper Fevzi Yazıcı and the newspaper’s marketing director Yakup Şimşek was held at the İstanbul 26th High Criminal Court on 14 February 2024. The retrial had begun after the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in the original trial.

 

Ilıcak, Şimşek, Yazıcı and defendants’ lawyers were present at the hearing, which P24 monitored. Altan did not attend the hearing.

 

Prosecutor requests sentencing for Altan, Ilıcak and Yazıcı

 

The prosecutor repeated their final opinion on the case added to the file on 18 January 2024 and requested sentencing for Altan, Ilıcak and Yazıcı on the charge of “knowingly and willingly aiding a terrorist organization without being a part of its hierarchical structure.” The prosecutor requested the acquittal of Şimşek of “membership in a terrorist organization.”

 

Ahmet Altan’s lawyer Figen Albuga Çalıkuşu said that the charge of “aiding a terrorist organization without being a member” was unconstitutional, therefore, the case should be conveyed to the Constitutional Court and the trial should be halted until the Constitutional Court reached a decision. The court rejected Çalıkuşu’s request, which it deemed “not appropriate.”

 

“I was wrong, I was fooled too”

 

Delivering his defense against the prosecutor’s final opinion, Yakup Şimşek said, “Even if it arrives late, justice is justice and I think it is very valuable,” and stated that he agreed with the opinion and requested his acquittal.

 

In his defense against the opinion, Fevzi Yazıcı said, “The prosecution is clearly attributing intentions where there is only suspicion. The defendant should benefit from doubt, so if the prosecution is in doubt, I should be the one to benefit from it.” Yazıcı rejected the impugned crime and requested the lifting of judicial control measures, and his acquittal.

 

Delivering her defense against the prosecutor’s opinion, Nazlı Ilıcak emphasized that all activities listed as evidence against her were journalistic activities and requested her acquittal.

 

Ilıcak spoke as follows: “There is not a single document that shows I got instructions from the organization or benefited from it. I have been accused of absolving Zekeriya Öz due to an interview I carried out with him completely on a journalistic basis and the photo of a snowball I used to go with the interview. At the time I carried out the interview, Zekeriya Öz was not known to be a member of the terrorist organization. He had been suspended by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) because Ali Ağaoğlu had financed his trip to Dubai. This was what the interview was about.

 

“My book ‘Her taşın altında The Cemaat mi var?’ was published in 2012. I wrote it in 2011. At the time, the congregation was being criticized only by the opposition. All higher up member of the state attended the Turkish Olympics months after the publication of my book. They say they had been fooled. I was wrong, I was fooled too.

 

“I have always tried to protect the government from illegitimate interventions. I was against the military coup of 12 September 1980. I objected whenever I saw injustice, whether I was ideologically close or not. I would ask you to take into account my self-criticism and my good behavior.”

 

“The opinion overlooks the ECtHR judgment”

 

Şimşek’s lawyer Büşra Ünal, who delivered a statement against the prosecutor’s final opinion said, “The opinion concerning my client is appropriate and lawful. We request his acquittal.”

 

Yazıcı’s lawyer Mesut Yazıcı said, “Sentencing has been requested for my client based on him being a ‘Bank Asya client,’ which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has determined cannot be the basis of accusations by itself. Elements of the impugned crime have not formed, and we request my client’s acquittal.”

 

Ilıcak’s lawyer Kemal Ertuğ Derin said the following in his statement against the opinion: “My client has simply practiced her profession by sharing the news. There are no documents supporting the charge. We request the acquittal of my client, on the grounds that elements and conditions of the impugned crime have not formed as per Supreme Court of Appeals, Constitutional Court and ECtHR jurisprudence.”

 

Ahmet Altan’s lawyer Figen Albuga Çalıkuşu said her client was being tried for the articles he wrote and the views he expressed on a TV show. Çalıkuşu said that her client’s freedom of thought and expression had been interpreted as “aiding a terrorist organization” and requested a verdict in line with the violation judgment the ECtHR arrived at concerning Altan:

 

“The opinion does not mention the ECtHR judgment regarding my client at all. The opinion was prepared like such a judgment did not exist. The prosecutor has changed the opinion concerning Yakup Şimşek rightfully and accurately. It seems the prosecutor acted lawfully in that case but chose to ignore an ECtHR judgment in another. Implementing the ECtHR ruling is a duty of this court. We hope that the court will implement the ECtHR judgment and decides to acquit my client.”

 

Çalıkuşu said that legal and material evidence for the impugned crime did not exist and requested the lifting of judicial control measures on Altan and his acquittal.

 

Asked for their final statements, Şimşek, Yazıcı and Ilıcak requested their acquittal. Ilıcak said, “I request that the court abide by the ECtHR judgment concerning me and I think I deserve to be acquitted.”

 

The court sentenced Nazlı Ilıcak to 5 years and 3 months, Ahmet Altan to 6 years 3 months and 18 days and Fevzi Yazıcı to 1 year and 13 months of imprisonment for the crime of “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member.” The court further ruled to keep the judicial control measures on Ilıcak and Altan in place, and lifted the ban on Yazıcı travelling abroad, given the sentence the defendant had been handed and the time the defendant had spent under judicial control and in remand.

 

The court ruled to acquit Yakup Şimşek of “membership in a terrorist organization” on grounds that there was no unequivocal and credible evidence that he had committed the crime.

 

Background of the case

 

At the final hearing of the initial court case, held on 16 February 2018, Ahmet Altan, Mehmet Altan, journalist Nazlı Ilıcak, visuals director of the shut-down Zaman newspaper Fevzi Yazıcı, the newspaper’s brand marketing director Yakup Şimşek and ex-Police Academy lecturer Şükrü Tuğrul Özşengül were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment on the charge of “attempting to destroy the constitutional order” on the basis of the allegation that “they knew about the 15 July coup attempt beforehand.”

 

The 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which completed its review of the appeal against the verdict in 2019, ruled that the actions of Ahmet Altan and Nazlı Ilıcak constituted the crime of “knowingly and willingly aiding an armed terrorist organization” and determined that Yazıcı, Şimşek and Özşengül should be prosecuted on the charge of “membership in a terrorist organization.” The chamber ruled that Mehmet Altan should be acquitted, and overturned the verdict of the court of first instance.

 

The 26th High Criminal Court of İstanbul delivered its verdict in the re-trial on 4 November 2019 and sentenced Ahmet Altan to 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and Nazlı Ilıcak to 8 years and 9 months of imprisonment on the charge of “knowingly and willingly aiding an armed terrorist organization” but released them based on the time they had already spent in prison. However, Ahmet Altan was arrested eight days after his release upon the objection of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of İstanbul.

 

Another appeal was filed with the Supreme Court of Appeals, and the 16th Criminal Chamber ruled on 14 April 2021 to ratify the sentencing of Yazıcı, Şimşek and Özşengül, while overturning the sentencing of Altan and Ilıcak for not applying the sentence reductions prescribed by the law.

 

On 29 April 2021, Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor’s Office requested the overturning of the verdict of the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 14 April 2021 and the overturning of the sentencing for Yazıcı, Şimşek and Özşengül, and returned the case file to the Supreme Court of Appeals’ Penal Plenary Board.

 

The convictions for Özşengül, Yazıcı and Şimşek were overturned with a decision issued by the Supeme Court of Appeals Penal Plenary Board on 8 December 2022 and the case file was returned to the İstanbul 26th High Criminal Court for a retrial at the court of first instance. The İstanbul 26th High Criminal Court filed a preliminary proceedings report for the retrial in line with the decision to overturn on 2 March 2023, and separated the case file and released Özşengül, who had died in prison from a heart attack, with full time served.