ARDIL BATMAZ
Lawyer Burhan Arta, accused of "membership in a terrorist organization" based on the testimony of a cooperating witness, was acquitted today by the Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court. Arta had faced up to 15 years in prison, but the court ruled that the alleged crime lacked legal elements.
Background and charges
Arta's case stemmed from allegations made by informant Ümit Akbıyık, whose testimony led to widespread raids across 20 provinces on April 25, 2023. Arta was detained for 28 days before being released. The prosecution relied heavily on Akbıyık's statements to accuse Arta of using his legal practice as a cover for illicit activities.
Defense challenges credibility of witness testimony
At the trial, Arta’s defense team, comprising lawyers Mehdi Özdemir, Rıza Polat, and Şeyhmus Bayhan, argued that the charges were baseless and relied solely on Akbıyık's uncorroborated claims. Özdemir highlighted that prosecuting professional legal activities sets a dangerous precedent:
“The sole basis for the allegations is the abstract testimony of an informant. Using legal practice as evidence of a crime is unacceptable.”
Bayhan added that similar cases involving the same witness had resulted in acquittals, emphasizing that there was no evidence beyond Akbıyık’s testimony:
“Our colleague’s activities are purely professional. Previous cases based on the same witness’s claims have also ended in acquittal.”
Criticism of the prosecution's motives
Polat criticized the investigation as politically motivated, alleging it was initiated on orders from the Interior Ministry. He pointed out inconsistencies in Akbıyık's testimony, including implausible claims about identifying hundreds of individuals within hours.
“Akbıyık identified 669 people over 22 hours—this defies logic and even the capabilities of artificial intelligence. Our colleague faced prosecution based on discredited testimony.”
Court’s ruling
Without a recess, the court issued its verdict, stating that the elements of the alleged crime were not present. The acquittal marks another case where charges against legal professionals based on informant testimony have failed to hold up under scrutiny.
Broader context
The trial is part of a broader pattern of prosecutions targeting lawyers and human rights defenders in Turkey. Critics argue that these cases often aim to intimidate and undermine legal advocacy, particularly involving Kurdish or opposition figures. Arta's acquittal underscores ongoing concerns about the use of informant testimony in politically sensitive cases.
