The court has rejected the defense lawyers' request that an occupational health and safety report be drawn up and that footage relating to the incident be obtained, and adjourned the case until 23 October 2026

The fourth hearing in the trial of T24 reporter Can Öztürk and 14 students from Boğaziçi University, who are charged with “violating the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations” for protesting a speech by Nurettin Yıldız, who advocates child marriage, was held at the İstanbul 69th Criminal Court of First Instance on 3 July 2026.

Öztürk, along with some of the students on trial and their lawyers, were present in the courtroom. P24 monitored the hearing.

Öztürk stated that he was reiterating his previous statements and had nothing further to add.

Lawyer Özge Durdu requested that an occupational health and safety report be drawn up and that footage relating to the incident be obtained.

The court rejected lawyer Durdu’s request.

The case was adjourned until 23 October 2026.

Background of the case

In 2021, students at Boğaziçi University sought to protest against a speech to be given on campus by Nurettin Yıldız, a theologian and chairman of the Sosyal Doku Foundation, who had drawn criticism for his views legitimizing child marriage.

They gathered on campus to hold a press conference. Can Öztürk, a reporter for T24, was also covering the protest.

Despite holding a press card, Öztürk was detained after his throat was grabbed during a police intervention. In the incident, 14 students were also detained alongside Öztürk. Whilst six students were remanded in custody, journalist Öztürk and the eight students with him were released under judicial supervision measures, including a ban on travelling abroad and a requirement to sign in regularly.

Subsequently, legal proceedings were initiated against journalist Öztürk and the students on charges of “resisting the performance of duty” and “participating unarmed in unlawful assemblies and marches.”

In the case, in which the six detained students were released, the police officers appearing as complainants had claimed in their previous court statements that they had fallen into a construction pit.