Nalin Öztekin
A trial involving ten individuals detained for attempting to stage a sit-in protest outside Turkey's Supreme Election Council (YSK) during the 2023 presidential election period continued at the Ankara 27th Criminal Court of First Instance. Despite objections from lawyers, an armed police officer remained in the courtroom, raising concerns over fair trial practices.
The defendants, arrested while protesting alleged irregularities in the first round of the presidential election under the banner of a "Democracy Vigil," face charges of violating the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations (Law No. 2911).
"Testifying under armed presence violates the right to a fair trial"
Tensions flared in the courtroom when lawyers objected to the presence of an armed police officer. Lawyer Cem Gürbüz demanded the officer’s removal, arguing that their presence was requested unlawfully by the court. Another lawyer, Seher Duygu Çildoğan, called for the removal or at least the identification of a plainclothes officer present in the room.
The defense stressed that the presence of armed officers during testimony could intimidate defendants and violate their right to a fair trial. However, the court rejected these requests, stating that the armed officer was assigned to duty on that floor and that no legal violation had occurred.
Complaint to be filed against the armed officer
Lawyer Gürbüz cited Article 1 of the Firearms and Knives Law (Law No. 6136), which explicitly prohibits the presence of firearms in certain spaces, including courtrooms. “It is illegal for police officers to remain armed in the courtroom, and expecting testimony from defendants in such conditions is coercive,” he said. Gürbüz announced plans to file a criminal complaint against the armed officer.
Defendants deny charges, assert right to peaceful protest
After identity verification, the defendants gave their statements, denying the charges. They claimed they heard no warnings while peacefully protesting and argued that their detention violated their constitutional right to demonstrate.
The court postponed the trial to Feb. 27 to address procedural deficiencies and execute arrest warrants issued for two defendants who did not appear.
