The court rules to await the response to the writ issued to the prosecutor’s office for a re-evaluation of the decision not to prosecute in another investigation concerning Akoğul

ÖZKAN KÜÇÜK, DİYARBAKIR

The 14th hearing in the trial of now-defunct Dicle News Agency’s (DİHA) former reporter Ramazan Akoğul on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” over a road blockade protest he reported on was held at the Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court on 22 December 2022.

Akoğul’s lawyer Resul Temur attended the hearing, which P24 monitored. Akoğul did not attend the hearing.

The prosecutor and lawyer Temur requested the case file to be updated.

In its interim order issued at the previous trial, the court had decided to issue writ to the Diyarbakır Chief Prosecutor’s Office to request a re-evaluation of the decision not to prosecute in another investigation concerning Akoğul.

The court ruled to await the response to the writ, which has not yet been received, and adjourned the trial until 2 February 2023.

Background of the case

Akoğul was detained by the police while reporting on the protests by a masked group in Diyarbakır in 2015, and was later released.

In the court case filed against Akoğul and protesters that was based on secret witness testimony, the court ruled to acquit all defendants in 2018. The prosecutor objected to the verdict, argued that a “trust relationship” existed between Akoğul and organization members due to the group blockading the road not objecting to Akoğul’s presence in any way and requested conviction for Akoğul of “membership in a terrorist organization.”

The 18th Criminal Chamber of the Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice overturned the acquittal verdict in 2018 upon the prosecution’s objection and returned the case to the court of first instance for a retrial.

The court of first instance pointed out that their decision to acquit had been used to justify the decision not to prosecute in another investigation undertaken by the prosecutor’s office and that the said acquittal verdict had been overturned at the appeals stage, and therefore asked the prosecutor’s office to re-evaluate its decision not to prosecute.