- In the case of lawyer Şiar Rişvanoğlu, who is being tried in Adana on charges of “membership in an organization,” the witness whose statement formed the main basis of the file retracted his testimony in court; the defense stated that the case had collapsed.
- Following the withdrawal of the witness statement, lawyers immediately requested acquittal; the court lifted judicial control measures and postponed the hearing to February 16.
Özgür Kaya
ADANA – In the first hearing of the case in which lawyer Şiar Rişvanoğlu is being tried at the Adana 11th High Criminal Court on the charge of “membership in an armed terrorist organization,” the main witness statement forming the basis of the file was retracted in the presence of the court. The court lifted the judicial control measures and postponed the hearing to February 16.
The first hearing in the trial of Rişvanoğlu, who is registered with the Adana Bar Association, was held with a substitute panel due to the regular panel being on leave. The indictment, prepared by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, claims that Rişvanoğlu was part of the PKK/KCK’s “civilian area structuring”; witness statements, HTS (call detail) records, MASAK (Financial Crimes Investigation Board) reports, and open-source research are presented as evidence in the file. Rişvanoğlu, who is being tried without detention, was accompanied by a large number of lawyers at the hearing. Hans Gaasbeek, one of the founders of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation, also observed the hearing.
In his defense, Rişvanoğlu stated that the indictment was prepared in a one-sided manner and that he had been on trial for years due to his work on human rights and the Kurdish issue. He argued that the elements presented as evidence were not legally valid and rejected all charges; he emphasized that there was no assessment in the indictment in his favor.
The critical moment of the hearing came when the witness Merdan Rüştü Ovalıoğlu—who had previously testified against Rişvanoğlu during the investigation and is currently under arrest in another case—was heard via SEGBİS (Audio and Video Information System). Ovalıoğlu rejected his earlier statement, saying it had been taken under the direction of the Ankara Police and that he had simply signed prepared transcripts. Ovalıoğlu stated: “I do not know the person. The statement was made under the direction of Ankara Police. They said, ‘We will help you in your files’; they did not help,” thus retracting his previous testimony.
After the witness retracted his statement, the defense lawyers argued that there was no longer any concrete evidence against the defendant in the file and requested immediate acquittal under Article 223/9 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lawyers emphasized that the witness’s statement given in court nullified the evidentiary value of the statement made during the investigation phase; they also argued that the HTS and other technical records in the file were unreliable.
The prosecution requested that the file be submitted to them for preparation of an opinion and asked for the hearing to be postponed. The court decided to lift the judicial control conditions and adjourned the hearing to February 16.
In a statement made in front of the courthouse after the hearing, the lawyers said the case aimed to criminalize professional and political activities. Hans Gaasbeek described the case as “fabricated” and stated their opposition to the prosecution of lawyers for their professional activities.
