The plaintiff judge Hakkı Yalçınkaya claimed that Alçı was being protected by the prosecution and demanded that she be brought to court by force

CANSU PİŞKİN, ISTANBUL 

The first hearing of HaberTürk columnist Nagehan Alçı’s trial on the charge of "defamation by means of an oral, written or visual message” (Turkish Penal Code 125/2) for her article titled “O Utanç Verici Karara Adalet Bakanı’nın Tepkisi” (Justice Minister’s reaction to that disgraceful judgment) was held on 3 December 2020 at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance.

The trial was launched over a complaint filed by judge Hakkı Yalçınkaya. P24 monitored the hearing, where Yalçınkaya and the lawyers representing the parties were in attendance. Alçı was absent.

Yalçınkaya addressed the court first, reiterating his complaints in his petition:

“Because of my duty as a judge, I have been shown as a judge who makes a disgusting decision, who does not care about human rights and who protects torturers. Although I was at the Malatya Enforcement Court at the time of Hrant Dink’s murder, I was previously targeted by pro-FETÖ media for days. I accidentally found out on the Internet that the defendant insulted me with the same perspective. The method of insult is the same as those used by FETÖ members. My conscience allows neither the press nor the courts to deal with such situations. But when I die, I don't want to be called one of the murderers of Hrant Dink. Therefore I filed a complaint against her.”

Yalçınkaya demanded to participate in the proceedings.

“I have read the history of Armenians from various sources. While I was a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court [DGM], I read the history of the Mesopotamians. I have no problem with the Armenian nation,” Yalçınkaya said and asked the court to impose on Alçı the maximum penalty.

Yalçınkaya’s lawyer Yeşim Gün told the court that Alçı made her client a target and insulted him. Noting that the act was committed through the press, Gün demanded the maximum penalty for Alçı. Yalçınkaya retook the floor and said: “I demand that the defendant be brought to court by force. I believe that the prosecution is protecting the defendant.”

Alçı’s lawyer Selim Erbağcı denied the accusations and said his client’s article was within the scope of press freedom. Erbağcı demanded Alçı’s acquittal.

In its interim ruling, the court decided to evaluate Yalçınkaya’s participation in the proceedings after hearing the defendant’s statement and adjourned the trial until 11 February 2021.

Case background

Alçı’s article was published in HaberTürk on 15 June 2018. In it she wrote: “Unfortunately, even today, a 'judge/prosecutor mentality which does not care about individual rights’ is still prevalent in some places. Not only the judge in Izmir, but for example, judge Hakkı Yalçınkaya, who rendered a certain judgment about Hrant Dink and his son Arat Dink solely because they were Armenians, and paved the way for Hrant Dink’s assassination, is still serving as a Criminal Judge of First Instance at the Çağlayan Courthouse.”

In his complaint file, judge Yalçınkaya wrote that he was an enforcement court judge in Malatya when Dink was assassinated and claimed that Alçı’s “article contained insult and slander, and that it marked him as a target for terrorist organizations.”