EYLEM SONBAHAR
In a case involving journalists and lawyers that has stretched over seven years, a Turkish court ruled to lift the biweekly signature requirement for lawyer Sezin Uçar. The 28th hearing in the trial, which includes 23 defendants charged with “membership in a terrorist organization” and “terrorist propaganda,” took place at Istanbul's 27th High Criminal Court. The defendants include former Etkin News Agency (ETHA) editor İsminaz Temel, former ETHA reporter Havva Cuştan, lawyers from the Law Bureau of the Oppressed (EHB), and former co-chair of the Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP), Özlem Gümüştaş.
Only one defendant, Ali Haydar Doğan, appeared in person, though attorneys for other defendants were present.
Incident involving forced sample collection
The trial included testimony related to an incident on Sept. 5, 2023, in which Uçar and Gümüştaş were detained at Istanbul's Çağlayan Courthouse while providing statements for a separate investigation. Prosecutors requested a DNA sample, which Uçar and Gümüştaş refused. Subsequently, samples were forcibly taken, resulting in an additional indictment that included charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” and “resistance to prevent duty,” which has now been merged with the current case.
During this hearing, a police officer listed as a “victim” in the case testified, stating that he was not pressing charges. Describing the encounter, he said, "I initially warned her verbally. Sezin Uçar put her arms on her head and tried to push me away with her elbows, making contact with my body. I work in the anti-terrorism unit, so I’m used to these situations. Özlem Gümüştaş also resisted, but did not direct any actions specifically at me. Due to my heavy workload, I am not filing a complaint."
Defense calls for removal of judicial controls
Attorney Serhat Çakmak, representing Uçar, noted discrepancies in the officer’s statements, pointing out that earlier references to scratch marks were omitted in his court testimony. Çakmak argued that judicial controls on Uçar, which include biweekly reporting, were unnecessary and should be lifted. Another defense lawyer, Akçay Taşçı, highlighted the protracted nature of the trial, asserting that the legal justification for these measures had not been met in this case.
The prosecutor requested the preparation of the main opinion on the merged indictment and also recommended the removal of Uçar's signature requirement.
Court’s decision
The court ruled to lift Uçar’s signature requirement but decided to keep judicial controls in place for the other defendants, deferring further assessment of these measures until a verdict is reached. The next hearing is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2025.
