A decision of acquittal was given by the Istanbul 23rd High Criminal Court about lawyer Ruken Gülağacı, who was tried within the scope of the “HDK file.” Gülağacı remained under house arrest for 45 days due to this accusation.
MLSA – The decision hearing of the case of lawyer Ruken Gülağacı, who was tried within the scope of the Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK) investigation, was seen at the Istanbul 23rd High Criminal Court.
In her defense statement, lawyer Ruken Gülağacı stated that the Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK) is a legal formation and objected to the criminalization of this structure.
The prosecutor at the hearing repeated the accusations directed in the indictment and demanded that she be punished within the scope of the charge of “organization membership” regulated in Article 314/2 of the Turkish Penal Code.
Lawyers making defense statements at the hearing expressed that the accusations in the file are devoid of legal basis. Referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Constitutional Court (AYM), the lawyers stated that acquittal decisions were given in approximately 40 similar files known as “HDK files” and requested acquittal.
At the end of the hearing, the court decided on Gülağacı’s acquittal.
About the case
Gülağacı was taken into custody on May 21 within the scope of the investigation carried out. After her statement to the prosecutor’s office, she was released by the Criminal Judgeship of Peace to which she was referred, with a judicial control measure in the form of house arrest applied. Gülağacı remained under house arrest for 45 days within this scope.
In the indictment, it was alleged that Gülağacı took place in various lists related to HDK meetings and organizations. Among these lists, it was stated that there were an HDK Women’s Assembly conference invitation list, general assembly member lists, and meeting records belonging to different periods.
In its statement regarding the detention and house arrest decision, the Lawyers for Freedom Association (ÖHD) used the expressions: “The taking into custody of our colleague while she was only carrying out her professional activities and the decision of house arrest given about her are directed at the right of defense.”
