The appellate court has overturned the sentences, finding them unlawful, in the Taraf trial and ruled for Baransu’s release, who completed his maximum duration of detention, unless he serves another conviction

The 27th Criminal Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Court of Justice has overturned the sentences delivered for former Tarafnewspaper executives Ahmet Altan, Yasemin Çongar, Yıldıray Oğur and reporter Mehmet Baransu on grounds of “unlawfulness.” With the unanimous decision, the court ruled that Baransu, who completed his maximum duration in detention, be released unless he serves another conviction.

Baransu, who was sentenced to imprisonment of 19 years and 6 months over a news item of his on genetically modified rice seized at customs at Mersin Port, will not be released from prison due to a finalized verdict issued for him.

On 4 March 2022, the İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court had sentenced Baransu to total imprisonment of 13 years; 6 years on charges of “obtaining documents related to the state security” and 7 years on charges of “disclosing information related to the security and political interests of the state.” While the court had ruled for Baransu’s acquittal on charges of “partially or completely destroying, stealing or damaging documents and records related to the security and domestic or foreign political interests of the state,” it had dismissed a suit on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization.”

The court had ruled that Çongar, Altan and Oğur be sentenced to imprisonment of 40 months each on charges of “obtaining documents related to the state security” and acquitted them of other charges.

“Retired military personnel who were not harmed by the case do not have the right to be co-plaintiff”

The Chamber overturned the decision due to the unprocedural hearing of Kurtuluş Tayiz as a witness and the incorrectly entered date of the crime in the reasoned decision, and returned the file to the court of first instance for retrial.

The Chamber rejected the demands for appeal by Dursun Çiçek, İzzet Ocak and Suat Aytın, who attended the trial as co-plaintiffs on the grounds that they were not harmed by the case and therefore did not hold the right to be co-plaintiff.

Mehmet Baransu’s lawyer Çiğdem Koç said, “Throughout the trial, we repeatedly expressed that this trial had nothing to do with Balyoz (Operation Sledgehammer). In its decision to overturn, the appellate court revealed that the subject of the trial was not related to Balyoz by stating that the co-plaintifss had not been harmed by the crime. Mehmet Baransu was tried just for his news reports and after these trials, everyone will see that his actions [allegedly] constituting the basis of the impugned crime were actually journalistic activities.”

“Not Balyoz, but Egemen Operation Plan (Egemen Harekât Planı)"

Yasemin Çongar and Ahmet Altan’s lawyer Figen Albuga Çalıkuşu evaluated the appellate court’s decision to overturn as follows:

“Today, the İstanbul 27th Criminal Chamber ruled that the decision made by the İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court based on Article 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code was unlawful, and ruled for the decision of the court to be overturned and a retrial to be held by the İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court. In its ruling initially the appellate court rejected the requests for appeals by the co-plaintiffs, who persistently claimed that this six-year-long trial was the Balyoz Case, and by all military personnel and the Ministry of National Defense. The court ruled that they did not have the right to refer to the legal remedy of launching an appeal as ‘they were not harmed parties.’

“This means that the subject of trial, which had become a subject for conflict and debate in almost every hearing in this trial for six years, was not the Balyoz Setup case. The subject of the trial in which my clients were tried is the Egemen Harekât Planı (Egemen Operation Plan). In the trial filed over allegations that this document had been acquired by my client; the General Staff stated in an official letter to the court that the plan in question had been destroyed in 2008. Those who did not hold the right to participate in the trial as co-plaintiffs claimed that this trial was related to Balyoz trial over a meaningless allegation that a document, which was destroyed in 2008, had been acquired in 2010. The appellate court has finally ruled that ‘they did not hold the right to to be co-plaintiffs’ and this fact is finally established.

“Another ground to overturn is the presence of different dates as 2013 and 2015 in the court’s ruling whereas the date of the alleged crime was 2010.

“The appellate court has requested that the file be evaluated along with other cases against Mehmet Baransu and the defendant’s legal situation be re-examined according to the scope of the overall file and ruled for Baransu’s release on bail due to a legal obligation since the maximum duration of detention has been exceeded.

“The court ruled for Kurtuluş Tayiz to be summoned to the court as a witness and the legal situation of the defendants to be re-examined to justify its decision that the investigation was incomplete. In the next stage, the court of first instance will carry out a retrial as the initial sentencing has been overturned.”