Nagehan Alçı was on trial over a June 2018 article published in HaberTürk daily

CANSU PİŞKİN, ISTANBUL 

The final hearing of the trial of HaberTürk columnist Nagehan Alçı on the charge of “insult by means of an audio, written or video message” under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) was held on 31 March 2021 at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance.

P24 monitored the hearing, where the plaintiff judge, Hakkı Yalçınkaya, and the lawyers representing the parties were present. Alçı did not attend the hearing.

In their final opinion, the prosecutor demanded that Alçı be sentenced for “publicly insulting a public official for the performance of their duty.”

Addressing the court in response to the prosecutor’s final opinion, the complainant judge Yalçınkaya sid: “The defendant has made a habit of insulting judges. Her article has also hurt the Turkish nation. I think [the article] is backing the Armenian theses.”

Alçı’s lawyer Esennur Ezgi then addressed the court, demanding her client’s acquittal: “My client wrote her article based on information available in open sources. There is no insult or violation of personal rights.”

Ruling in line with the prosecutor’s final opinion, the court sentenced Alçı to a judicial fine of TL 7,080 for “insulting a public official through an audio, video or written message for the performance of their duty” (TCK 125/3-a). Due to a previous conviction in another case, the court did not defer Alçı’s sentence.

Alçı was on trial over an article titled “O Utanç Verici Karara Adalet Bakanı’nın Tepkisi” (Justice Minister's reaction to that shameful decision), published in HaberTürk newspaper on 15 June 2018. Alçı wrote that Yalçınkaya was “still serving as a judge at a criminal court of first instance at the Çağlayan Courthouse despite having sentenced Hrant Dink and his son Arat Dink just because they are Armenian, leading to Hrant Dink’s assassination.”

Filing a complaint against Alçı, Yalçınkaya stated that he was working as an executive judge in Malatya province at the time of Dink’s murder in Istanbul and claimed that the article was “defamatory” and that it made him “a target for terrorist organizations.”