Rabia Çetin
The second hearing of the trial in which 53 people are being prosecuted—including LGBTI+ individuals detained during the 23rd Istanbul Pride March and those who followed the demonstration such as bianet editor Evrim Gündüz, journalists Nur Kaya and Yusuf Çelik, and photo artist Cansu Yıldıran—was held at the Istanbul 51st Criminal Court of First Instance. Police officers who were alleged to have tortured detainees did not leave the entrance of the courtroom. Police officers present inside the courtroom also followed the defendants being tried without detention and journalists all the way to the courthouse exit after the hearing.
Journalists prevented from entering the courthouse
In the morning hours, defendants and supporters who wanted to go to the courthouse passed through police controls at the barricades set up in Çağlayan Square. The defendants were able to enter the courthouse by proving with documents that they had a hearing. However, LGBTI+ individuals and journalists who came to show support were not allowed into the hearing for hours.
Police accused of torture waited at the courtroom door
The hearing, which was planned to begin at 10:30, started approximately 30 minutes late. Due to the insufficiency of the courtroom, the hearing was held in the courtroom of the Istanbul 39th Heavy Penal Court. Because this courtroom was also insufficient, many defendants were able to participate in the hearing from the audience section. Meanwhile, 104 police officers and riot police with the inscription “special unit” were stationed outside the courtroom. The area where the court entrances are located was also blocked with both turnstiles and police shields.
After identity verification, LGBTI+ individuals, activists, and journalists began to present their defenses against the indictment prepared against them. In their defenses, the defendants stated that they were subjected to violence by the police during detention, that they were tortured both in the detention vehicle and at the police station, that the prohibition decision of the Beşiktaş District Governorship was not shown to them, and that individuals who did not participate in the demonstration were also detained in markets and on the street. Lawyers and journalists on trial also stated that they were detained while performing their duties despite presenting their identities. Lawyers on trial stated that they were subjected to torture in the police vehicle and during detention.
Defendant lawyer: “We were subjected to treatment incompatible with human dignity”
One of the defendants, Kardelen Başak Altınsoy, stated that she was outside the protest area as an observer together with three other colleagues.
Altınsoy, stating that she witnessed activists and journalists being detained with violence, said that after the demonstration, while walking on Çırağan Street, they were detained by police who stopped them, and said the following:
“My identity, phone, and bag were unlawfully seized. We could not even inform our own lawyers and friends. We were kept waiting for hours inside the detention bus. We were subjected to violence by the police. We were subjected to treatment incompatible with human dignity.”
Journalist Gündüz: “I was detained through torture”
One of the defendants, bianet editor journalist Evrim Gündüz, stated in her defense:
“I am a journalist. I went to the Pride March to do my job. Although I showed my press card, my phone was confiscated. I was detained through torture. I and those detained were subjected to torture in the detention vehicle, at the police station, and at the hospital. Although I stated the torture at the hospital, it was not recorded. I went to the march not for protest but to carry out my journalistic duty. My detention constitutes a clear violation of freedom of the press and expression guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution.”
Gündüz’s lawyer Deniz Yazgan recalled “freedom of the press” guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution, “the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches” guaranteed under Article 34, and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights stating that “Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly.” Yazgan stated that the prohibition decision of the Beşiktaş District Governorship had no legal basis and said:
“A peaceful demonstration cannot be prevented without any justification. Journalists cannot be detained. What we need to discuss is the police considering a journalist identity as illegal. Those who should be tried here are the perpetrators of violence, yet our clients are on trial. An immediate acquittal must be issued.”
Iris Mozalar: “What is called ‘so-called’ is our life, our dignity”
After the one-hour lunch break given during the hearing, Iris Mozalar, who made the first defense, stated:
“I went to that demonstration to mourn those we lost and to support the struggle for life of those who remain. I was there not to disrupt public order but to remind public conscience. Expressions such as ‘so-called pride’ and ‘so-called LGBTI’ are used in the indictment. This is problematic in terms of freedom of expression and discrimination. What is called ‘so-called’ is our life. I was there with a demand for equal citizenship. I am proud of my existence. The police did not present us with any prohibition, nor did they issue any warning; they chased us and detained us with reverse handcuffs. Due to being reverse handcuffed at every demonstration, I now have nerve compression in my arms. The police officers who put the reverse handcuffs on us are currently waiting in front of the courtroom. At the detention center, because I am a trans woman, I was placed alone in a cell and isolated. While isolated in a corridor where male suspects were present, I was subjected to verbal harassment by a man. When we were brought to the courthouse, we were kept in detention for an additional three hours despite there being no extension decision. I request my acquittal.”
Journalist Nur Kaya: “I was tortured and I witnessed torture”
Journalist Nur Kaya, who made a defense afterward, stated:
“I am a journalist. I have followed these marches for four years. I was there to carry out journalistic activity. Although I showed my press card while performing my duty, the police ran toward me. They grabbed my arm and tried to drag me. I agree with all torture statements made in the defenses. I also witnessed these tortures. I was not aware of any prohibition decision. I did not hear any police order to disperse. I request my acquittal.”
German academic detained during a touristic visit
Among those detained was German citizen and academic working in the US, Konrat Pekkip, who did not attend the hearing. His lawyer Ayşe Destan Çakıroğlu stated:
“My client is a German citizen and a research assistant in the US. He was detained while on a touristic visit that day. My client does not speak Turkish; it is not possible for him to understand any dispersal warning. I request my client’s acquittal.”
Observers again not allowed into the courtroom
After the break, observers who wanted to watch the hearing were not allowed into the courtroom by the police. A lawyer requested that observers be allowed. The judge rejected the request due to the insufficiency of the courtroom, stating:
“We are not responsible for the situation outside. Those police officers are here to protect you as well.”
Defendant lawyer: “We were tortured; the Istanbul Protocol was violated”
One of the defendants, lawyer Serhat Alan, stated that his clients’ right to a fair trial was violated because he himself was on trial in the same case, and said:
“As an LGBTI+ lawyer and human rights defender, I went to the protest area to document possible violations. While trying to go to the police station upon receiving detention information from the crisis desk, we were detained. Although we stated that we were lawyers and showed our identities, our bags were emptied and our records were confiscated. We were subjected to insults and violence in the detention vehicle. At the hospital, we were forced to undergo examination with reverse handcuffs in violation of the Istanbul Protocol. The prosecution did not conduct any investigation into the physical and psychological torture carried out in the detention vehicle and during detention. The prosecution did not examine whether the march was peaceful or whether a dispersal order was communicated. Because I am currently on trial as a defendant, I cannot fulfill my duty as defense counsel. This violates my clients’ right to a fair trial. Immediate acquittal must be issued for all defendants.”
Threat of torture by police
Some defendants stated that because they objected to torture during detention, police officers threatened them by saying, “If you shout, we will do more.” Defendants stated that they were also tortured individually while being transferred from the police station to the courthouse with reverse handcuffs. Defendants demanded that all police officers who carried out the detentions that day be prosecuted for torture.
Defendant journalist: “I was subjected to sexual harassment by the police during detention”
Journalist Yusuf Çelik stated in his defense:
“As an LGBTI+ journalist, I was there both to do my job and to protect my dignity. As soon as I arrived in Beşiktaş, I was surrounded and detained. They tried to detain me with reverse handcuffs. Because I refused, police pulled me to a fenced wall and tortured me there for a while. At the hospital, we were subjected to rights violations; during detention, they both tortured us and showed us torture videos. I was physically sexually harassed by the police during detention. I was not aware of any prohibition decision. I did not hear any dispersal order; no warning was made. I request my acquittal.”
Police present inside the courtroom
After the defendants, lawyers began their defenses. However, beforehand, defendants objected to the presence of police inside the courtroom. The judge rejected the request for the police to be removed.
Lawyer Batıkan Erkoç: “Being LGBTI+ is not unlawful!”
Batıkan Erkoç from MLSA Legal Unit stated:
“It is not possible to make a defense on the merits. There are so many procedural violations and unlawful acts in the file. Moreover, the prohibition decision of the Beşiktaş District Governorship is null and void because it was not announced. An unannounced administrative act is null. Additionally, courts annulled all prohibition decisions in Istanbul this year. Being LGBTI+ or carrying an LGBTI+ flag is not unlawful in Turkey. This indictment has been imported from Russia, because it is a crime there. The indictment first states the 33rd Pride March and then the 23rd Pride March. It also uses the term ‘so-called LGBTI+.’ The individuals being tried here are LGBTI+ people. Do these people not exist? The police report has been copied verbatim into the indictment. Flags and slogans unrelated to the alleged offense appear in the indictment, even though it concerns the offense of not dispersing. However, there is no dispersal announcement or prohibition decision. Chanting slogans and carrying an LGBTI+ flag are not crimes. We request that the police officers on duty that day be heard as witnesses.”
“The cost of this trial is 7 million liras”
Erkoç also stated that images obtained through digital patrol practices constitute unlawful evidence:
“You referred to images. You showed images to 27 people. These were taken from social media. The Constitutional Court annulled the digital patrol practice five years ago. This is unlawful evidence. This trial will end in acquittal, and the outcome will include attorney fees for 53 people, as well as compensation for two days of detention. The cost of this trial is 7 million liras. Even if this trial ends in acquittal, this file is maintained to prevent LGBTI+ individuals from attending Pride Marches next year. It is intended to say, ‘If you go out onto the streets, you will face such practices.’”
“What is criminalized in this file is not an act, but lawyering”
Erkoç continued:
“Hayriye Kaya is a lawyer working on LGBTI+ rights. Cansu Yıldıran is a photojournalist covering social events. Despite stating they were performing their professions, they were detained five hours after the press statement without any justification. Legal practice cannot be the subject of criminal law. A lawyer’s presence at an event, observation, or contact with clients cannot be the source of criminal suspicion. In this case, lawyers were detained five hours after the event ended, without any factual link to a crime, solely because they were lawyers. What is criminalized here is not an act, but lawyering. This is incompatible with the rule of law.”
“A criminal complaint should be filed against police who committed torture”
After Erkoç, other lawyers requested that the court file criminal complaints against police officers who tortured defendants. They also objected to the increased police presence in front of the courtroom.
Hearing adjourned
After the statements, the court took a 10-minute recess. After the recess, the court ruled that necessary procedures be carried out to hear the defenses of five people who had not yet been heard, and that requests to hear police officers who signed the incident reports as witnesses be evaluated at the next hearing.
The next hearing will be held on 5 June at 10:30.
After the hearing, a large police force followed the LGBTI+ defendants and journalists all the way to the exit.
