Deniz Tekin
A Diyarbakır court heard the trial of journalist Şehriban Aslan, who is being prosecuted for reporting on the alleged misuse of government vehicles by public officials. The court postponed the case to allow for the completion of missing documents.
The case was triggered by a news report published by Jin News that exposed alleged irregularities in the use of official vehicles at the Diyarbakır Provincial Directorate of Family and Social Services. Aslan and two individuals accused of being her news sources are facing charges of “violating the right to privacy.” The first hearing was held at the Diyarbakır 16th Criminal Court of First Instance, with Aslan, defendants R.A. and Y.E., complainants Burhanettin İncedursun and Ayşe Nur Baysal—both deputy directors at the institution—along with their lawyers, in attendance.
Defendants deny allegations
R.A., a lawyer at the Family and Social Services Directorate, denied the charges, stating that while he was aware of misconduct by the complainants—who allegedly violated austerity measures by using state vehicles for personal purposes—he did not share any footage with the press. Y.E., a director at the institution, claimed that access codes for four official vehicles had been changed by complainant İncedursun. He admitted to taking photos upon hearing that the vehicles were being used for private purposes but insisted he did not share them with the media and did not know who did. He also stated that he later deleted the images.
Journalist refuses to reveal source
When asked by the judge to disclose the identity of her source, Aslan refused, citing press freedoms under Article 12 of the Press Law. “I learned from my source that the complainants were using government vehicles for personal matters. At the time, an austerity directive was in effect. After verifying the information, I published the report,” Aslan stated. The complainants reiterated their demand for prosecution against Aslan and the other two defendants.
‘This is about public harm, not private lives’
Aslan’s lawyer, Resul Temur, argued that the report was based on information obtained from sources about the misuse of public resources, emphasizing that it did not reveal any private details about the complainants. “This is about public harm caused by the unauthorized use of official vehicles. My client published the report in the public interest,” he said. Temur also pointed out that, under Article 26 of the Press Law, legal action against published news must be initiated within four months of the report’s release, a requirement he argued was not met in this case.
The lawyers of the other defendants also argued that the legal elements of the alleged crime were not present and that there was no evidence proving their clients had shared the images. Meanwhile, the complainants’ lawyer asserted that Aslan and the other defendants had committed the offense together and requested further investigation into other potential individuals involved in capturing the footage.
The prosecutor requested that missing information in the case file be completed.
The court accepted the complainants' request to participate in the trial but rejected additional investigative demands, ruling that they would not contribute new evidence to the case. Granting time for the complainants' lawyer to submit a written statement, the court adjourned the trial until Feb. 17.
