ETHA editor Semiha Şahin and reporter Pınar Gayıp were not released during this hearing, the trial is adjourned until 13 June
İstanbul - Fourth hearing of the trial where Etkin News Agency (ETHA) editor Semiha Şahin and reporter Pınar Gayıp face “membership in a terrorist organization” and “making terrorist propaganda charges” was held at İstanbul 23rd High Criminal Court today. Şahin and Pınar have been detained since 19 April 2018. The court ruled to continue their detention during this hearing.
Gayıp and Şahin were brought to the courtroom by the gendarmerie officers. Defense lawyers Gülhan Kaya, Kader Tonç and Özcan Karakoç were present in the courtroom. Defendants Gülsen İmre and Ferhat Harun Pehlivan, who are tried without detention, did not attend the hearing for they are exempted from trial hearings.
The prosecutor had presented their final opinion as to the accusations in the previous hearing and requested Gayıp to be punished for “membership in an armed terrorist organization,” and “making terrorist propaganda” charges, and requested Şahin to be punished for the same charges, with the addition of “violating the Law no. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstrations.” The prosecutor also requested defendants İmre and Pehlivan to be punished for “making terrorist propaganda charges.
The presiding judge gave the floor to the defense in order for them to present their defense statements in response to the prosecutor’s final opinion.
The lawyers noted that they will not present a statement in response to the prosecutor’s opinion at this stage, further stating that not all evidence have been collected yet and pointing out that the digital investigation has not been completed. They requested the investigation to be extended.
Noting that they have been voicing their objections since the beginning of the investigation, lawyer Tonç said: “Digital evidence that is used as the basis of this investigation should be presented to us in digital form as well. We haven’t been able to see the evidence yet. We must determine whether this digital evidence was collected lawfully.”
Underlining that the research report on cyber crimes notes that the report itself is inconclusive, that it needs further verification and that the person who prepared this report must be brought before the court and questioned, Tonç stated: “No evidence against my client has been added to the file over the last year but she is still tried whilst in detention. We have numerously stated that my client is just a dissident journalist, this is the only reason why she is before the court today. All evidence included in the file are unlawful. This detainment has gone beyond a judicial measure and turned into a punishment.”
“Defense statement can be presented as an antithesis to the prosecutor’s opinion”
Lawyer Karakoç took the floor next and said that he agrees with his colleagues’ objections to the prosecutor’s opinion. Karakoç stated, “The verdict should be reached through critical thinking and synthesis, following the presentation of a defense statement which serves as an antithesis to the prosecution’s opinion. However, we’ve repeated many times that the prosecution cannot present a final opinion at this stage in the process. If we’re to reach a judgement just with a police record, then let’s go ahead and proceed that way. However, the law is very clear; the prosecution cannot present a final opinion before the evidence is collected. Supplying this evidence is the responsibility of your court.”
Karakoç noted that the cyber crimes department has not been able to send the evidence due to “having a hectic workload,” and stated: “In this case, your court should file a lawsuit because my client has been detained for nearly a year because the evidence could not be sent yet. This creates an unjust suffering on my client’s part.”
Following the lawyers’ statements, the presiding judge gave the floor to journalist Pınar Gayıp. Gayıp said: “Our detainment is closely linked to the political conjuncture. In the past, students and academics have been charged with grave crimes. Now we face trial for being an advocate for free press.”
Semiha Şahin took the floor next and demanded her release. She stated: “We’re at the fourth hearing, it’s been almost a year since we were taken into custody. Before going into prison, we experienced the attacks on free press first-hand. Now we are trying to follow the situation as much as we can behind bars. It is clear that censorship and detainment does not yield any solutions. Members of free press continue to practice their profession and share the truth with the public. We will continue to do this as well.”
After Şahin’s statement, the presiding judge asked the prosecutor for his opinion. The prosecutor noted that he repeats the statements from the final opinion as to the accusations from the previous hearing and requested the demand to extend the investigation to be rejected on the grounds that it would not contribute to the proceedings at this stage.
The court gave a short break for deliberations. Following the break, audience members were not let inside the courtroom to hear the interim decision. Only defendants and their defense lawyers were let inside. The court decided to reject the request to extend the investigation and ruled to continue Gayıp and Şahin’s detention on grounds that judicial control measures would be insufficient considering the existing evidence and the reasonable doubt for guilt. The trial is adjourned until 13 June.
