Arslan was jailed pending trial on the charge of “marking those involved in the fight against terrorism as targets” on 25 July for sharing on social media a HSK decision regarding the relocations of a public prosecutor and a judge; expert opinion by P24 on Arslan's case submitted to court

 

ÖZKAN KÜÇÜK, DİYARBAKIR

 

The first hearing in the trial of Mezopotamya News Agency (MA) reporter Fırat Can Arslan, who was detained on 25 July 2023 over posting a news item on social media and placed in pre-trial detention the same day on the charge of “marking those involved in the fight against terrorism as targets,” was held at the Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court on 31 October 2023.

 

Arslan was detained for sharing on social media a decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) concerning the relocations of the prosecutor who filed the indictment against 18 journalists detained in Diyarbakır in June 2022, 16 of whom were placed in pre-trial detention, and the prosecutor’s spouse, who was a judge on the court panel that tried the journalists. Arslan was placed in pre-trial detention on the grounds of "flight risk" and because "judicial control measures would not be sufficient."

 

Arslan attended the trial from the Sincan Type F Closed Prison, where he was being held, via the judicial videoconferencing network SEGBİS. P24 monitored the hearing. Arslan’s lawyers Resul Temur and Çiğdem Kozan were present in the courtroom, while Şevin Kaya attended via SEGBİS.

 

The trial was also monitored by Hakkı Boltan from the Dicle Fırat Journalists’ Association (DFG) and Arslan’s colleagues.

 

Following identification, Arslan spoke in his own defense and said that it was tragicomic that he should be on trial at the very same court which tried the journalists detained in 2022, which he had covered as a journalist. Arslan said it was journalism, and not him, that was on trial.

 

Arslan added that historically, journalists had always faced pressure, going as far as the bombing of newspaper offices and said: “Journalism has always been a thorn to some people and journalists have been targeted. Those who defend the truth against the politics of manipulation are being tried.”

 

Regarding the social media post that is subject to the accusation, Arslan said: “The main issue is not my reporting. I could provide you with hundreds of news articles where public officials are named, contradicting what the prosecution has argued. Therefore, the charge against me here is a specifically targeted practice.”

 

Arslan said that he had been charged over sharing information that had been reported on before, that he had been in pre-trial detention for almost 100 days despite posing no risk of flight, that he was being kept in full isolation and requested his release and acquittal.

 

“There is a suspicion that the investigation is being run out of personal animosity”

 

Lawyer Resul Temur, who submitted the expert opinion prepared by P24 Platform for Independent Journalism on the case against Arslan to the court, addressed the court following his client.

 

Temur said that Arslan, who is also a courthouse reporter, had come across prosecutor Mehmet Karababa’s name in the HSK decision concerning relocations while carrying out research about the imprisoned journalists. Temur said that the HSK decision his client had shared was public information and that therefore the accusation was not realistic.

 

Temur added that it could be observed that the said prosecutor was active in the investigation carried out against Arslan and that the case against his client had developed through “solidarity among prosecutors.” Temur said, “This strengthens the suspicion that the investigation is being run out of personal animosity.”

 

Temur reminded the court of the expert opinion prepared by P24 and said the following: “The expert opinion I had requested clearly establishes that the crime should have a motive and that taking a news item out of it context does not establish the crime. As also described in the expert opinion, Vezirköprü local media have reported on the relocations by naming the public officials. I would like to say that the defense agrees with all of the assessments for the impugned crime within the framework of the Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights judgment criteria that are referred to in the expert opinion.”

 

Temur said that the imprisonment of his client for his journalistic activities was a violation under articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution and reminded the court of the Musa Çitil case. Based on all of these reasons, Temur requested Arslan's acquittal.

 

“The law governs an indeterminate crime”

 

Lawyer Çiğdem Kozan added that her client had reported on the publicly disseminated HSK decision as a journalist and requested his acquittal as the legal elements of the impugned crime did not exist.

 

Lawyer Şevin Kaya said that article 6/1 of the Anti-Terror Law stipulated an indeterminate crime with no clear elements, that all reporting could be considered as falling under its scope, which would lead to violations of press freedom and freedom of expression.

 

Kaya said that the identification of a marital connection between an officer of the court who wrote the indictment in the trial of 18 journalists and a member of the panel of judges which oversaw the trial was newsworthy and reminded the court that at the open trial these names had been recorded in court minutes and the case file.

 

Kaya said that her client had been held in pre-trial detention for three months as part of the trial over a crime which was not committed because the investigation was motivated by revenge; that the imprisonment was clearly disproportionate and that they requested the acquittal and release of her client given the time spent in custody and the nature of the impugned crime.

 

Presenting their final opinion on the case, the prosecutor requested that Arslan be kept in pre-trial detention.

 

Arslan said he did not accept the prosecutor's final opinion and requested his acquittal.

 

Arslan’s lawyers requested the acquittal and release of their client based on their defense and the fact that the impugned crime is not a crime for which special precautions are foreseen under article 100/3 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (CMK).

 

Rendering their judgment following a brief recess, the court ruled to acquit and release Arslan on the grounds that elements of the impugned crime did not exist. As per the decision, Arslan will be able to seek damages for the time he has spent in pre-trial detention.