The first hearing of the case against 18 individuals detained for participating in the '3rd Eskişehir Pride March' in July 2023 was held, with the court imposing an audience restriction despite the presence of numerous observers. The defendants recounted the mistreatment they experienced during their arrest.
In Eskişehir, a city in northwestern Turkey, the attempted Pride March in July 2023 was banned, leading to police intervention and the subsequent detention of 18 individuals. They were charged with "opposing the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations No. 2911." The first hearing took place at the Eskişehir 4th Criminal Court of First Instance.
Many observers, including representatives of civil society organizations and human rights defenders, arrived at the courthouse to attend the hearing. Due to the small size of the courtroom, the hearing was conducted in a room belonging to the High Criminal Court.
The hearing was adjourned until 1 March 2024 for three more people to present their defense statements.
Audience restriction in courtroom
Before the hearing commenced, despite the absence of any written order, court officials informed press members and observers that they would not be allowed in the courtroom. However, lawyers protested this decision, stating there was no confidentiality order in the file. Following discussions with the presiding judge, only ten spectators were allowed inside. Others who wanted to attend the hearing waited outside the courtroom.
Fifteen defendants, along with their lawyers, attended the hearing. The hearing began with identity verification, and then moved directly to the defendants' statements without reading the indictment. The judge reminded the defendants of the statements taken during the investigation phase.
The defendants stated that they were at the location to exercise their constitutional rights and were detained by police without any prior warning just as they were about to make a statement. They also mentioned that they did not display any flags as alleged in the indictment and were detained with ill-treatment by the police while dispersing.
'We were detained before the action took place'
Defendant Ceren Koçak, who is also a lawyer, stated, "Being there does not constitute a crime. The state should focus on actions that harm living beings instead of non-harmful ones. We are subjected to judicial harassment every year due to these unjust lawsuits, causing financial damage to the treasury. The real issue is that we do not live the way the authority wants us to. We want to live in an environment where everyone respects each other in this region."
Hasan Toprak, another defendant, said that they were detained by police while informing them of their intention to disperse. "LGBTI+ citizens have the right to live in this country. Respect for them must be shown. I went to the event to show this respect, but the action did not take place. I deny the accusations against me."
'Prosecutor prepared the indictment without watching the footage'
Ozan Devrim Yar criticized the limited number of spectators allowed in the courtroom. Following his objection, those waiting outside were allowed to stand and watch the hearing. Yar continued, criticizing the preparation of the indictment: "It is said that the prosecutor prepares the indictment, but it is clear that he did not even examine the documents. If he had watched the footage, he would have seen that the police reports were false. It is claimed that flags were displayed, but if the footage had been watched, it would have been seen that no flags were displayed. It is claimed that slogans were chanted, but again, no slogans were chanted. There was a decision to destroy the banner and flag. How can there be such great hatred? There was no criminal element at all. Despite our statements about dispersing, we were not allowed to do so."
‘Police detained us violently as we were about to disperse’
Tolga Rahmi Solak, an LGBTI+ activist, objected to the request in the indictment to destroy the seized banner and flag. Solak said:
"While flags recognized as terrorist by Turkey and many other countries are displayed, no action is taken against them. Today, the issue is not just about this flag, even the police who detained us that day know it. Despite our request for time to disperse, they first detained us violently. Then the torture continued inside the bus. The prosecuting authority prepared the indictment without even watching the footage. This case should not have been filed in the first place. The state, which did not take necessary precautions against ISIS attacks, criminalizing our peaceful attempt to make a statement is highly ironic.
Ziya Yavuzeş, who stated that he is a member of Amnesty International, said, "What should be tried here is the decision to ban the event. This decision is being tried in administrative courts. I think that ending this case as soon as possible would be the best for the honor of the judiciary."
Pride marches have been held in Turkey since 1993
After the defenses, lawyers made their statements. Lawyer Hasan Çayır began by discussing the origin of the LGBTI+ term and recounted that pride marches were first held in New York in 1969 and in Turkey since 1993. However, he pointed out that they have been banned since 2015 due to the policies of the current government.
Çayır mentioned that they filed a lawsuit against the governor's prohibition decision, which is ongoing in administrative courts, asserting that it is illegal. He presented precedent decisions from administrative courts regarding the cancellation of similar events planned in Istanbul and Izmir.
'Those who should be tried are the police and the decision-makers of the ban'
Çayır stated that the indictment was prepared with discriminatory language, saying, "The allegations are entirely discriminatory and untrue. The items allegedly constituting the crime should be preserved until the court's decision. However, the preparation of the indictment and the decision to accept it are illegal. Those who should be tried are not LGBTI+ individuals, but police officers and those who made the ban decision."
Lawyer Esra Başbakkal pointed out that the governor's ban decision is illegal in itself, as it constitutes a restriction of rights and freedoms.
