Expression Interrupted

Journalists and academics bear the brunt of the massive crackdown on freedom of expression in Turkey. Scores of them are currently subject to criminal investigations or behind bars. This website is dedicated to tracking the legal process against them.

Court separates merged Gezi and Çarşı retrials

Court separates merged Gezi and Çarşı retrials

Ruling for the continuation of Osman Kavala’s detention, court sets 21 March 2022 as the date for the next hearing of the Gezi trial

 

CANSU PİŞKİN, ISTANBUL

 

The fourth hearing of the merged retrials of Gezi and Çarşı defendants was held at the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court on 21 February 2022. The Gezi trial, in which 16 civil society figures, including the jailed businessperson Osman Kavala, are being retried for allegedly “organizing and financing” 2013’s Gezi Park protests, and the Çarşı trial, in which 35 members of the Beşiktaş football fan group “Çarşı” are being retried for allegedly “organizing a plot against the government during Gezi protests,” were merged last summer.

 

P24 monitored the hearing, which was held in the courtroom of the 27th High Criminal Court due to the large number of defendants and lawyers in the case.

 

“Gezi” defendants Mücella Yapıcı, Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman and Çiğdem Mater and some of the defendants from the “Çarşı” case and defense lawyers were in attendance.

 

Osman Kavala, the only jailed defendant in the case, did not attend the hearing. His lawyers were present in the courtroom. Kavala, who has been behind bars since November 2017 as part of the “Gezi” and “15 July coup attempt” investigations against him, had said in a statement in October 2021 that he would not be attending hearings anymore because he did not believe this was a fair trial.

 

Çiğdem Mater, who could not attend previous hearings of the retrial, addressed the court first. Rejecting the accusations against her, Mater demanded to be acquitted. “The indictment alleges that I had attempted to overthrow the government ‘by means of a movie,’ which, actually, has never been shot. Even if such a film existed, the place to discuss a film should not be courtrooms. Making movies is not a crime. I am being tried on baseless allegations,” Mater said.

 

The presiding judge then told those in attendance that the court would be hearing statements concerning the separation of the cases in this hearing.

 

Lawyers Ersan Şen and Yıldız İmrek, who are both representing Çarşı case defendants, and lawyers representing Osman Kavala then addressed the court, requesting that the cases be separated.

 

Kavala’s lawyer Köksal Bayraktar said: “The motive behind the joinder is to prolong Kavala’s detention and to make the case obscure for the other Gezi trial defendants. This was an artificial joinder.”

 

The prosecutor demanded that the file against Çarşı case defendants be separated.

 

Osman Kavala’s lawyer Deniz Tolga Aytöre addressed the court next. Aytöre noted that there was no evidence in the indictment concerning the “espionage” charge against his client. Arguing that the retrial was aimed at prolonging Kavala’s imprisonment and that the indictment was not a legal document, Aytöre added: “This indictment was written with such political enthusiasm that what is presented as evidence in the case file has nothing to do with legality. The court has not issued a single interim decision regarding Kavala throughout the previous hearings. He is on trial on three counts but neither the judges nor the prosecution asked him a single question. … The court is acting with political motivations. Therefore, we request that you recuse yourselves from the case.”

 

Kavala’s lawyer Bayraktar spoke next. Stressing that the court has been rejecting requests for Kavala’s release without providing the grounds for its decisions, Bayraktar said: “Osman Kavala has been deprived of the right to a fair trial; the presumption of innocence is being ignored. We do not trust the court. … We demand that the files be separated.”

 

Kavala’s lawyer İlkan Koyuncu added: “The court should separate the [third] file in which Osman Kavala is on trial with Henri Barkey. Let's discuss the charges in that case.”

 

Lawyer Fikret İlkiz, who represents Gezi trial defendants Mücella Yapıcı, Tayfun Kahraman and Can Atalay, spoke next. Questioning why the court held the four hearings so far if the merged files were to be separated again, İlkiz asserted that in the event of a separation of the cases, the Gezi trial should again be overseen by the Istanbul 30th High Criminal Court, which oversaw the case before the joinder.

 

The prosecutor requested that the file be handed over for the preparation of their final opinion concerning the case against Gezi defendants. The prosecutor also demanded the continuation of Kavala’s detention.

In response to the prosecutor’s request concerning Kavala’s detention, lawyer Bayraktar said: “This is an extremely prejudiced opinion. The prosecutor does not explain on what grounds he requests the continuation of my client’s detention. He claims the [detention] measure is proportional, but it is unclear how and why it is proportional. They must provide the grounds for their requests.”

 

Following a brief recess, the court issued its interim decisions. The court rejected Osman Kavala’s lawyers’ requests for the recusal of the judges on the grounds that it was “aimed at prolonging the trial.” Ruling for the continuation of Osman Kavala’s detention by a majority and to separate the case against Çarşı defendants, the court decided to hand over the file against Gezi defendants to the prosecutor’s office for the drafting of their final opinion and adjourned the case until 21 March 2022.

Top