Eren and Karabay were charged with “marking a person assigned with the fight against terrorism as a target.” The case was launched upon a complaint by Constitutional Court Judge İrfan Fidan

BÜŞRA TAŞKIRAN, ANKARA

The trial of Gerçek Gündem news portal’s Managing Editor Faruk Eren and editor Furkan Karabay on the charge of “marking a person assigned with the fight against terrorism as a target” under Article 6/1 of the Anti-Terror Law (TMK) resumed at the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court on 5 March 2024.

P24 monitored the hearing. Karabay and his lawyer Enes Hikmet Ermaner addressed the court from Istanbul via the judicial video-conferencing network SEGBİS while Eren’s lawyer Kerem Altıparmak was present in the courtroom.

The prosecutor reiterated their final opinion submitted during the first hearing of the case on 23 January 2024, requesting the court to sentence Karabay and Eren as charged.

Karabay: “The court should have rejected the case”

Addressing the court in response to the prosecutor’s final opinion, Karabay rejected the accusation. Karabay said: “I do not expect a fair trial from the court. A court respecting the rule of law should not have accepted this case in the first place. The indictment issued by the prosecutor was copy-pasted from the petition [filed by the complainant]. The court should not have accepted this indictment in the first place. I do not expect the court to rule in a way that will upset the potential president of the Constitutional Court İrfan Fidan. A decision of acquittal or punishment by the court is null and void for me.”

After hearing Karabay’s statement, the presiding judge warned the journalists covering the hearing in the courtroom, saying, “The hearing cannot be recorded,” and refused to allow them to take notes on their phones or laptops.

Lawyer Ermaner: “It is not possible to commit this crime by reporting” 

Karabay’s lawyer Enes Hikmet Ermaner reminded the court that the statements they made during the previous hearing had just been added to the case file and requested a continuance so that the court reviews the defense’s statements in writing. Ermaner added: “If no additional time is granted, we will conclude that the court has decided with a prior judgment, without evaluating the case file.” The court rejected Ermaner’s request for an additional hearing date.

Continuing his statement, Ermaner pointed out that for the alleged crime to occur there must be the element of a special motive, adding: “Throughout the trial, it was not explained with what specific motive the news article and social media posts marked [the complainant] as a target for which terrorist organization. This case is not an ‘insult’ or ‘libel’ case. This is a trial within the scope of the ‘fight against terrorism’ and should be conducted in accordance with the relevant conditions. However, this requirement has not been met until this point. It is not possible to commit this crime by news coverage only.”

In his address to the court, Faruk Eren’s lawyer Kerem Altıparmak asserted that the case file should be subject to the provisions of the Press Law. The lawyer pointed out that the news article subject to accusation was a matter of public interest. Stressing that the case had been filed after the expiry of the 4-month statute of limitations in the Press Law, Altıparmak requested the court to dismiss the case.

Asked for his last word, Karabay said: “Any judgment the court makes has no value for me. This is a case that should not have been filed.”

Delivering its judgment at the end of the hearing, the court acquitted Eren and Karabay on grounds that the charged act was not defined as a crime in the law. The court unanimously ruled for Eren’s acquittal while ruling for Karabay’s acquittal by a majority with a dissenting opinion by the presiding judge.

Another case launched against Karabay and Eren on the same charge over the same news coverage and social media posts, overseen by the Ankara 22nd High Criminal Court, was merged with this case during the hearing held on 23 January.