An unlawful ruling was made recently in the BAV court case. Even before this ruling, there have been numerous acts not conforming to law during the course of the trial. The reason why there have been such unceasing and open unlawful acts while the laws are so plain, clear and obvious is because the prosecuting judges have acted and decided the case either based on some ideological reasons or else under the pressure of certain circles. Another reason underlying these practices, which are clearly against the rules and the law, having been so openly perpetrated despite all notices is that these individuals act on the lines “I did it and that’s it” and their imagination that they do not have any responsibility for their unlawful acts—which, in fact, is wrong.
They are both conscientiously and legally responsible for the unlawful judgments they give, and will certainly meet what is legally due on account of this responsibility.
Turkey is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights. Procedures and decisions during the course of the BAV trial, some of which are listed below, have openly violated the ECHR in more than 70 aspects. It should be noted that these violations will be brought to the European Court of Human Rights when the time comes. When these violations are brought as a court case before the European Court of Human Rights, the compensations ruled by the Court are to be borne by the judicial members who gave the wrongful judgments. Those who disregard the law and the legislation, and think that they do not have any responsibility for their judgment should know that they are mistaken.
Below are listed some of the violations to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights when the time comes.
There have been 12 years since the legal investigation began in 1996 with the resolution to tap the telephones. The European Court of Human Rights deems trials longer than 8 years to be in violation of the right to a trial in reasonable time (ECHR art. 6/1). Therefore, the defendants’ RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING WITHIN REASONABLE TIME has been violated.
The preliminary investigation in the case 2004/155, which has been combined into the main case 2004/337, took 4 years. Moreover, during this whole time nothing was done other than hearing 4 people. This is in violation of the RIGHT TO A TRIAL WITHIN REASONABLE TIME for these defendants as well (ECHR art. 6/1).
Telephone calls tapped in 1996 and 1997 and included in the case file have no legal ground. The first law in Turkey allowing interference with communication came into force in 1999. Until then, there was no law in Turkey allowing interference with communication. Therefore, according to the European Court of Human Rights precedents, records of 1996 and 1997 in the case file are in VIOLATION OF PRIVATE LIFE (ECHR art. 8/1).
Telephone tapping according to act 4422 does not conform to law either because, as revealed by the State Security Court’s lack of jurisdiction and the ruling of the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, there was no ground in the present case for the application of act 4422 but act 4422 was chosen in the beginning merely in order to be able to pass a decision to tap. Therefore, records of tapped phone calls of 1999 in the case file are too in VIOLATION OF PRIVATE LIFE (ECHR art. 8/1).
All the actions of seizing properties during the searching of premises on November 12, 1999 and later are unlawful. Properties with no evidential value and belonging to individuals who are not prosecuted in the case have been seized. These possessions have been returned to their owners only in 2004. This unfair treatment is a violation of the RIGHT OF POSSESSION (ECHR Protocol 1, art. 1).
Some searches of the premises carried out on November 12, 1999 were not authorized by the court. Therefore, these searches have violated the RIGHT OF PRIVACY OF THE HOME (ECHR art. 8/1).
The police entered and searched the premises from where BAV Honorary President Mr. Adnan Oktar was taken into custody together with the press, which is in violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ECHR art. 6/2).
According to the ECHR, arrest or detention can be effected only if there are crucial signs of having committed an offence. During the police operation carried out on November 12, 1999, however, everyone, without distinction, who were present in the premises searched were taken into custody. This is in violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON (ECHR art. 5/1-c).
During and after the operation, the arrested persons were not informed of the reasons of arrest. This is the violation of LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (Article 5/2)
All the defendants of the case numbered 2004/337 were held under custody between 12 November 1999 and 18 November 1999. This custody period of 6 days is over the 4-day period mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights. This is violation of LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (ECHR art. 5/3)
The European Convention on Human Rights specifies that the arrested persons to be brought before the judge within 48 hours. However, the defendants of the case were brought before the judge after 6-days of time. This surpassing of this 48 hours of time constitutes the violation of LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (ECHR art. 5/3)
When the persons under custody do not to meet with their lawyers more than 48 hours of time, the ECHR names this as insulation and a violation of both the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (Article 6/3-c) and the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON (Article 5/3). The persons under custody during the Security Headquarters investigation were made to meet with their lawyers on the 4th (Fourth) day.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1412 article 128, which regulated the guarantee of the judge under custody, were not in practice in State Security Courts until 2002. The defendants of the case could not benefit from theis guarantee. This caused both the violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (Article 6/3) and the RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY (ECHR art. 13).
Police officers took place during the meeting of the persons i custody with their lawyers. Yet, according to ECHR, during these meetings the defendants and their lawyers should be alone. This converse practice violates the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6/3-c).
Since the Code of Criminal Procedure 1412 article 143 which permitted the defendants to examine the preliminary document were not in practice in State Security Courts, the defendants and the lawyers of the case were not permitted to examine the preliminary document. According to ECHR, this is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING. (ECHR art. 6)
The persons in custody were exposed to the public with their hands cuffed. This practice is a violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ECHR art. 6/2)
The Security unit, which was executing the investigation, leaked the names of the persons who were taken under custody and their false testimonies to the press even though it was forbidden. This is a violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ECHR art. 6/2).
ECHR admits that not anyone exercising the right to remain silence in collective custodies is an evidence that none of them are given the right to remain silence. Nearly 100 persons who were taken under custody during the police operation on which the case was based on and none of them marked the “I would like to exercise the right to remain silence” option. This situation displays that the defendants of the case were not given the right to remain silence and it is a violation of the defendants’ RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6/1).
According to ECHR, in order to extend the period of custody, the defendants’ defence should be heard and id determination should be made. ECHR admits the extend of the custody periods over the document as a “violation.” The extension of the custody periods were complete made over the document. State Security Court did not take any defence and did not take the opinions of any of the defendants while extending this period. The decision of the extension of the custody period was made based solely on the information in the police record. This is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6/1)
Organized Crimes Department of Istanbul Police Security is well-known for its practices of torture during the period 1998-2002. The head and the deputy head of the department and some of the officers have been dismissed from the office due to torture. Besides, the deputy head of one of the units was sentenced on the grounds of torture and his penalty began. This unit applied systematic torture also to the defendants of the BAV case. In order to cover this up, they did not allow the counsels for the defense to enter the department. In fact, ECHR accepts the police statements taken without the attendance of the attorney as a proof of torture. For that reason, thanks to occurrence of the health reports, narration of the witnesses and ongoing torture cases, the prohIbItIon of torture has been violated in this case. (ECHR art.3)
During the interrogation phase of the case, the unreal, invalid and false police reports have been methodically leaked to the press. This unfair and illegal act is the violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. (ECHR art.6/2)
ECHR agrees that the accusatory statements of the administrators during the interrogation and prosecution process are the violation of the presumption of innocence. In the course of the police interrogation of this case, then Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, Minister of Internal Affairs Saadettin Tantan, Chief of Istanbul Police Department Hasan Ozdemir and some of other administrators made unfair accusations towards the defendants. Saadettin Tantan even resembled the defendants to the PKK terrorist organization. These EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS towards the people who were not considered as “accused” yet, violated the presumptIon of Innocence of the defendants. (ECHR art. 6/2)
Administrators and officials have conveyed to the public the defendant’s concepts of honor, fame, morality and their life style and personality inaccurately. For that reason, their rIght to prIvate lIfe inequitably violated. (ECHR art. 8/1)
The arrested defendants have been held in prison waiting for 4,5 months without being heard. This situation is the violation of 222nd article of Code of Criminal Procedure and article 20/3 of The Law on State Security Court in Turkish law as well as it is the violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON according to ECHR. (ECHR art.5/3)
The decisions relating to the arrest lack sufficient legal ground. The statements are all the same, all similar; printed and formulaic expressions are used. According to ECHR, these are ‘unjustified decisions’. The arrest decisions which are written in printed and standard style are the violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (ECHR art. 5/2 & 3)
ECHR accepts the act of arrest only on three conditions. However, these conditions are not existent in this case. Arresting based on unfounded grounds is the violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (ECHR art. 5/2 & 3)
The Court Commission of SSC No.6 overruled the defense attorneys’ objection to the verdict of imprisonment by providing “indignation” as a justification. “Indignation” does not exist among the imprisonment criterion of ECHR. ECHR admits the imprisonment on indignation basis as a violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON (ECHR art. 5/2 & 3).
The defense attorneys gave an objection petition every month throughout the imprisonment period of the detained defendants. The State Security Court decreed on all of these petitions by examining the documents only. This state of affairs which verify that the imprisonment inspection was insufficiently done is a violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (ECHR art. 5/2 & 3)
The court must put forth convincing reasons every time it extends the imprisonment period. However, in this case, the imprisonment was extended based on extremely common and abstract statements. EHRC admits this as a violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON (ECHR art. 5/2 & 3)
Adnan Oktar, the Honorary President of BAV (Science Research Foundation) was imprisoned for 9 months and Halil Hilmi Müftüoğlu was imprisoned for 7 months. According to the EHRC, these periods exceed the reasonable periods and therefore it constitutes a violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON (ECHR art. 5/3).
In the hearing dated 7 April 2000, the prosecution demanded the release of all the defendants, upon which some videos recorded on the consequence of maltreatment were delivered to some of the press. And these press groups broadcasted these fake videos—in which the defendants were allegedly blaming themselves--under the name “Interrogation Videos”. So, the defendants’ PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is heavily violated. (ECHR art. 6)
State Security Court Public Prosecutor’s Office demanded a criminal complaint to be filed regarding those who broadcasted those videos. However, Istanbul 1st State Security Court rejected this rightful demand and remained silent in the face of this severe violation of law that took place before the eyes of millions. This, which eliminated the possibility of documenting that broadcasting those videos are unjust and unlawful, once again violated the defendants’ PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ECHR art. 6).
Our law system does not have the sufficient measures to protect defendants’ presumption of innocence. There is no deterrent law or sanction regarding this issue. As per the doctrine of positive responsibility, it is the duty of institutions to find out ways and measures to prevent it. The lack of these is a cause of violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING.
Regarding two Public Prosecutors (Selamettin Celep and Mete Gokturk) who submitted their legal opinions in favor of the releasing of the defendants, administrative investigations have been opened with groundless claims, subsequent to which they have been relieved of duty. This state of affairs shows the intensity of the pressure put upon the prosecuting judicial members and is in violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
After they were released by the public prosecutor’s office, the defendants Tarkan Yavas and Altug Berker were once again taken into custody by the police on account of criticizing the police investigation on a TV show. This unjust custody is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The prosecutor conducting the investigation demanded the imprisonment of these two individuals without taking their defenses and without even seeing them in person. This attitude is a violation of the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON (ECHR art. 5/3).
According to the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights, an indictment should demonstrate the particulars of an action imputed against the defendants. It should clearly state which crime was committed where and when, and by whom, and based on which evidence. However, the indictment which is the basis of this case made no discrimination of crime. It is not definite who is accused for what. For example, many defendants’ names appear only in the list at the beginning, but not in any other place of the indictment. European Court of Human Rights considers such conditions as violation of the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF ARMS (ECHR art. 6/1 & 3).
The Court should give the impression that it is impartial. During the interrogations conducted at Istanbul 1st State Security Court on April 7, 2000 and June 2, 2000, the Presiding Judge asked all defendants if they were “members of the gang.” This manner of the Court, acknowledging the existence of a gang beforehand in a prejudiced way has broken faith in the Court. The statements of the judges of the same court not conforming to law, such as “it would hurt my feelings if you didn’t say anything” or “do I say about your clients ‘what sort of men are they’?” totally destroyed the faith in the Court. This attitude of Istanbul 1st State Security Court Commission violated the defendants’ PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6/2).
Code of Criminal Procedure 222 states that under no conditions there can be an interval longer than 1 month between two consecutive hearings of an imprisoned defendant. However, in its first preliry proceedings record the State Security Court set the date for the hearing 2.5 months later. The second hearing was adjourned until 2 months later. Leading to defendants having been unnecessarily imprisoned for months without being prosecuted, this violated both the PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY (ECHR art. 6/1) and the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON (ECHR art. 5/3).
During the hearings at the State Security Court, judges’ consultations were also attended by the prosecutors. This unlawful practice which is clearly in violation of Code of Criminal Procedure 382 (New Code of Criminal Procedure 227) also violates the PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY (ECHR art. 6/1) and the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF ARMS (ECHR art. 6/1).
Code of Criminal Procedure 212 grants the defence the right to have its witnesses present at the first hearing. Istanbul 3rd State Security Court, however, denied the defence this right although the defence wished to have its witnesses summoned to the hearing in accordance with this article. This state of affairs, which is clearly a violation of article is in violation of the PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY (ECHR art. 6/1) according to the European Court of Human Rights Law.
The part of the trial between January 11, 2000 and September 12, 2003 was conducted by Istanbul State Security Court. During the course of these almost 4 years, the Court did not hear a single one of 61 defence witnesses. While the prosecution’s all witnesses were heard, none of the defence witnesses were. This violates the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR 6/3-d) and the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF ARMS (ECHR art. 6/1).
While the requests and statements of the prosecution were minuted into the record of proceedings word for word by the Prosecutor himself, the requests and statements of the defense was summarized by the Presiding Judge and only then appended to record. This is an explicit violation of the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF ARMS (ECHR art. 6/1).
The seating in the court room was also a violation. The public prosecutor sitting in a higher place than the defense and at the same level with the judges (and sometimes even side by side) is a violation of the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF ARMS (ECHR art. 6/1).
Even though there is not even a remote connection with the alleged actions mentioned in the indictment prepared by the Office of Attorney General of the State Security Court, there are pages of groundless accounts regarding the religious lives and religious beliefs of the defendants in the indictment. This is in violation of the FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE (ECHR art. 9).
During the hearings tried in the State Security Court, when the interlocutory judgments were to be recorded, the court room was vacated. These parts of the hearings were carried out without the presence of the defendants and the defense attorneys. Denying entry of the defendants and their attorneys to these sections of the hearings is a violation of the PRINCIPLE OF PUBLICITY (ECHR art. 6/1) and the RIGHT TO ATTEND THE TRIAL (ECHR art. 6/1).
Istanbul 3rd State Security Court, which was the second court hearing the case, was exceedingly reluctant to accept the defense petitions. The presiding judge confessed to the defense attorneys that he didn’t read the petitions and told them not to bring any. Each and every one of these is severe violations of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The presiding judge constantly rejected the requests of the defense attorneys for copies of some documents in the case file. This treatment, which was also documented by the report of a Bar representative, is a severe violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The criminal criteria defining the jurisdiction of State Security Courts, which is a judicial body with restricted rights for the defense, are not approved by the European Court of Human Rights. Since the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts are defined by criteria outside the reign of law and the crimes which actually cannot possibly be a threat to the state security are also dealt with within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, European Court of Human Rights considers them as courts where intense violations of human rights are taking place. A stage of 3 years and 9 months of this trial was heard in the State Security Court. This reveals that, even if only for this respect, the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6) was violated. Moreover, one can see that the extent of the violation is much greater when he considers that even according to the domestic law there is no aspect requiring the defendants to be prosecuted in the State Security Court.
Even though the defendants of the case did not have even a remote connection with the law code 4422, the legal investigation and the prosecution were based on this law code by hearing the case in State Security Courts, resulting in the inadequate use of defense rights by the defendants. Implementing the special proceedings of the law code 4422, defendants’ right of defense, private life, right of possession and privacy of home have been unjustly violated. This is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The 1st Article of the law code 4422—the basis of the indictment—that defines the crime is so complicated that it is impossible to understand. In this long definition consisting of a single sentence with 106 words, the conjunctions “or” and “and” are used 18 times* . It is impossible to understand which conjunction binds which phrases and it is not possible for a layman to understand what is prohibited in this law and what is not. This ambiguity is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The concepts in the law code 4422—the basis of the indictment—are extraordinarily ambiguous (as also explicitly stated in the legal ground of the law code 4723). The ambiguity in the concepts of a penal law that the defendants are prosecuted with is a violation ofthe RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR art. 6).
Since the law code 4616 was not applied, this caused the courts to lose years of time with unnecessary allegations (such as those made by Ebru Simsek and Fatih Altayli) about which the courts cannot give a judgment of conviction or acquittal. This, in turn, violated the RIGHT TO A HEARING WITHIN REASONABLE TIME (ECHR art. 6).
According to case law of the ECHR, request for recusation of the judge is an ancillary criminal case. Since a judge cannot be the object and the subject of the case concurrently, the requests for the recusation of the judge should be adjudicated by other judges. The adjudication of a request for the recusation of a judge by the recused judge himself is a serious violation of European Convention on Human Rights. However, the requests for the recusation of the judge against the State Security Court judges at the June 7th, 2002 dated trial, were adjudicated by the same judges at the June 21st, 2002 dated hearing (they rejected the request). This occurrence is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
During the police operation, without any search warrant, the house of Ms Fatma Ceyda Ertuzun (3rd party, not related with the case) was searched by the police and her belongings were subjugated without court decree. Moreover, this action was not affirmed by any judge. This situation is violation of PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. (ECHR Art. 1 of the First Protocol).
Although there was a decree of dismissal of the proceedings in regard to Ceyda Ertuzun, the jewelries which belonged to herself and her family were not returned back to her party. Besides, the right of intervention of these people in the court case was obstructed until 28 March 2003. Only in 2004 Ceyda Ertuzun could get her belongings which were seized because of a court case that she is not a defendant of. This unjust treatment that lasted for four years is a serious violation of both PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (ECHR art. 1 of the 1st Protocol) and the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6/1).
The committee of the Istanbul 1st State Security Court changed during the proceedings. The committee at the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court where the last court hearing was held was also replaced after two trials (September 24th, 2004 and December 9th, 2004) and at the 3 trials following this (on March 17th, 2005, March 23rd, 2005 and October 13rd, 2005) different court committees have come up. Therefore, the judges who put their signature under the final verdict were not present neither at the beginning, nor during or at the final stage of the case. The fact that the adjudication was made by judges who did not get in contact directly with the evidence is an apparent violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6/1).
The Istanbul 7th High Criminal Court has not accepted entry of any other person besides the parties in dispute into the hearing room on the grounds that the place is small. Yet, this implementation has violated the RIGHT TO A FAIR AND PUBLIC HEARING (ECHR art. 6/1).
Article 144 of our Constitution assigns the authority of inspection of the judges to the Ministry of Justice. We all acknowledge that an interrogation may be initiated for any judge directly with the instruction of the Ministry of Justice. This circumstances where the judges are put under the interrogative pressure of the executive organ is a violation of the sovereignty of the judge. There is no doubt that this suspicion impairs the trust of the defendants in the judges and for that reason violates the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The decree dated May 9th, 2008 of the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court has validated the statements given at the police custody without the presence of a defense attorney, even though these statements were later not accepted by the defendants before the Public Prosecutor or the Court. Therefore, the Court’s decision is based on the invalid statements given at the police custody. The same Court ruled that these statements are invalid in a parallel trial for 6 defendants and gave a decree of acquittal. This is certainly the violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
Even though there is no other evidence than the invalid statements given at the police custody, the punishment of 2 years was increased by 1 year to 3 years without any justification. This act is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING. (ECHR art. 6).
The decree given by Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court in regard to the case file was reversed by the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court based on the invalid statements taken at the police custody; however, the 4 defendants affected by this were not asked for their account on this reversal decision and besides, none of the defendants were asked for their defenses. This situation is the total violation of the RIGHT TO DEFENCE. (ECHR art. 6).
The requests for the recusation of the judges participating in the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court have been rejected by the very same judges. But it is not possible to object to this decree because there is no means for appeal. This occurrence is a violation of the RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY. (ECHR art. 13)
The suits for damages brought against the judges of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court were rejected due to the reason that “No suits may be filed against judges of the Supreme Court.” This implementation is a violation of the RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY. (ECHR art. 13)
The 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has leaked the decree on the case to the press 4 days before its signature, and this way has caused media organs to broadcast against the defendants. This act has been a violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ECHR art. 6).
Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court has perceived the reversal decree of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court as an instruction and therefore has directly made a decision on their behalf without providing them any right of defense. There is no doubt that this is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (ECHR art. 6).
The court assessed the defendants’ submission of petitions to the Minister of Justice etc. and dissemination of some publicly known documents such as the prosecutor’s opinion as making pressure on judgment and on this legal ground any reduction on the penalty was not made. This practice is a violation of the RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING. (ECHR art. 6)
Some of the defendants and Chairman and member of the Commission of Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance sued for damages from one another and thus mutual animosity arose. Due to this animosity the defendants demanded for recusation and this request was again turned down by the Commission. This practice is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING. (ECHR art. 6)
Some defendants have newly appointed attorneys who have submitted their attorneyships at the session when the decree is expected. These attorneys requested time to prepare their defences since they had recently been involved with the trial heard at the İstanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance. This natural right was not granted to the new attorneys. This practice is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND DEFENSE. (ECHR art. 6)
Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance did not let the defendants to make their defence. They denied the time needed to prepare the defence. This practise is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND DEFENSE. (ECHR art. 6)
Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance denied all the defense evidence and defense witnesses. This practice is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND DEFENSE. (ECHR art. 6)
Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance punished the defendants in accordance with a code (Turkish Criminal Code Number 5237 Article 220) which was not in force during the time claimed to be the “Date of Crime“ in the indictment. This practice is against the LEGACY PRINCIPLE. (ECHR art. 7)
Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance gave penalty to the defendants in accordance with the article of a code which is different from the one shown in the indictment. Moreover, while doing this the court did not grant an additional right of defense, which is contrary to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 226 dictating grant of additional right of defence according to the domestic law. This practice is contrary to the LEGACY PRINCIPLE. (ECHR art. 6)
Due to some practises that conflict law some of the defendants’ advocates resigned. However, İstanbul Criminal Court of 2nd Instance did not grant time to the defendants to appoint new advocates and, just at the very same session, gave its verdict about these defendants who remained without advocates. This is a violation of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING AND DEFENSE. (ECHR art. 6)
İstanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance did not give their verdict about the demands for recusation about the judges. This practice is contrary bothto the LEGACY PRINCIPLE due to the violation of domestic law and RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING since is restricts right to defence. (ECHR art. 6)
İstanbul 2nd Criminal Court of 2nd Instance PERPETUALLY BANNED Mr. Adnan Oktar, the honorary president of BAV from going abroad. This is contrary to the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. (ECHR art. 5)
In addition to BAV Case, the European Court of Human Rights should also investigate sending Mr. Adnan Oktar to mental asylum in 1987 and the cocaine plot made against him in 1990. Both cases are violations of the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING. (ECHR art. 6)
In the BAV case, the human rights violations cited above and those others that would immediately be revealed after a detailed examination of case file breached the European Convention on Human Rights many times severely. ECHR, which is due to Article 90 of our Constitution is a part of the domestic law.
Turkish State encourages and grants every one of its citizen the right to take human rights violations to the attention of European Court of Human Rights. However, it is evident that bringing a case file full of violations of law before international organs of justice is unfavorable for Turkey in many respects.
Our country was made to pay cumbersome compensations due to the cases opened in European Court of Human Rights against our country by those who unjustly served their sentences. These compensations revert to the judges who give the related verdicts. Since exercising the judgment in a fair hearing in compliance with human rights is a duty of judges, the verdicts given by our judges in such cases should absolutely be of a nature non-violating the European Convention of Human Rights.
We kindly announce these remarks to the public with regards.
Sincerely,
* ACT NO. 4422, ARTICLE 1 - Those who establish a ring for the purpose of committing crime by “taking over the management or control of an institution or an enterprise directly or indirectly,” gaining control and power over public services, media institutions, bid, privilege, or license proceedings,” creating cartel and trusts in economic activities, providing the prices to go down or up,” reaping unjust profit for themselves or others,” using force or threat for the purpose of gaining vote in the elections or preventing the elections, or “forcing individuals to follow them, or “using the force of intimidation, frightening, or threat through open or secret cooperation among its members,” who guide such a ring, “who are engaged in any action on behalf of such a ring or who purposefully serve such a ring will be sentenced to three to six years imprisonment, and those who are member to the ring will be sentenced to two to four years imprisonment just for this reason.
