In the trial of journalists, lawyers, and activists related to the 23rd Istanbul Pride March, the court has decided to evaluate requests to hear police officers who signed the incident report as witnesses at the next hearing

EYLEM SONBAHAR, ISTANBUL

The second hearing in the trial of bianet editor Evrim Gündüz, former Özgür Gelecek newspaper reporter Yusuf Çelik, journalists Nur Kaya and Zilan Azad, and photographer Cansu Yıldıran, who are charged with “participating in illegal meetings and marches without weapons and failing to disperse voluntarily despite warnings” was held at the Istanbul 51st Criminal Court of First Instance on 24 December 2025.

Due to insufficient capacity in the courtroom, the hearing continued in the courtroom of Istanbul 39th High Criminal Court. With the defendants and their lawyers present, the hearing began with the identification of the defendants, followed by the judge reading the indictment.

The lawyers requested an immediate acquittal before proceeding to the defense. Lawyer Fatih Arslan said, "Three of our friends among the defendants are members of the Istanbul Bar Association. We request that a separation decision be made in the trial and that an investigation permit be obtained.” The court decided to reject the requests for separation and immediate acquittal on the grounds that the defendants' defenses had to be heard.

“The police took my phone while I was recording video”

Bianet editor Evrim Gündüz in her defense said, “I am a journalist, I was there for journalistic activities. I had my press card with me, but even though I showed it, the police took my phone from my hand while I was recording video. Later, my computer and camera were also taken. We were also kept in handcuffs during the check at the hospital. As someone who has been working as a journalist for a long time, I was there to do my job. I believe that the detention procedure applied is contrary to the freedom of the press and freedom of expression."

Lawyer Deniz Yazgan Şenay, stating that her client worked for bianet news site, submitted the relevant documents to the case file and requested an acquittal. After some of the defendants' defenses, the hearing was adjourned for an hour.

“I was there for journalistic activities”

After the break, the hearing resumed with the defense of journalist Nur Kaya. Kaya stated, “I was there to carry out my journalistic activities. I was following the area; no announcement was made. Even though I showed my press card, a law enforcement officer ran towards me and detained me. I do not think anything I did constitutes a crime,” and requested acquittal.

In his defense, journalist Yusuf Çelik said, "I am an LGBT+ journalist, and I went there to follow the march. When we were detained, we were held in a very old detention vehicle, then the vehicle was changed. We were also subjected to various rights violations at the hospital. I saw that the doctor was examining me under police supervision, and when I refused to accept this situation, another doctor examined me. I do not accept the charges.”

”They took my phone when I said to the police, ‘I am not filming you, I am filming the representative’”

Then Zilan Azad made her defense. Azad said, “I was there from the beginning to the end of the action. It is clear that there was no warning to disperse in either the footage we filmed or the footage filmed by the police. Evrim and Nur had press cards around their necks, yet their phones were taken from them. They took my phone while I was telling the police, ‘I am not filming you, I am filming the representative.’ Then I was pushed to the place where the detentions were taking place. I have long since stopped asking where the police got the audacity to take a journalist's camera while they were filming. The fact that I am here rather than the police officer who took the camera, shows where they got this audacity.”

After the defenses, photographer Cansu Yıldıran's lawyer, Batıkan Erkoç, said, ”This indictment is an indictment imported from Russia. It was written with an understanding that does not understand Turkish law. The indictment contains no information about who issued the warning or when, meaning there are no essential elements. I request that the police officers on duty be heard as witnesses.”

Criticizing the large number of police officers in the corridor where the courtroom is located, lawyer Lütfi Sabri Batı also said, “The presence of so many police officers at the door shows that this case is not just a political case, but a show of force. You can immediately acquit us at this stage."

The court decided to postpone the trial until 5 June 2026, ordering that the necessary procedures be taken to hear the defense of the five people who were not heard and that the requests to hear the police officers who signed the minutes on the day of the incident as witnesses be evaluated at the next hearing.

Background of the case

⁠The 23rd Istanbul Pride March, planned for 29 June 2025, under the theme “Insisting on Life” as part of Istanbul Pride Week, was blocked by police in Ortaköy. Fifty-three people, including activists, journalists who wanted to cover the march, and observer lawyers who wanted to record human rights violations, were arrested. After the completion of procedures at the police station, the 53 people were transferred to the courthouse the next day, and Doğan Nur, Hivda Selen, and Sinem Çelebi were sent to pre-trial detention.

In the indictment dated 3 July against the 53 individuals, the march was described as an “illegal action.” It was requested that all suspects be punished on the grounds that they had committed the alleged crime.

Doğan Nur, one of the detainees, was released on 30 July 2025. The first hearing in the case was held on 8 August. In the hearing, which was closed to the press and spectators, the court decided to release Hivda Selen and Sinem Çelebi, who had been detained since 30 June. The judicial control measures prohibiting all defendants from leaving the country were lifted.