DENİZ TEKİN
Lawyer Süleyman Şahin stood trial facing up to 15 years in prison on charges of being a "member of an organization," based on his statements as a witness and legal representation of his clients. Şahin argued that the case aims to impede legal practices and distance lawyers from their human rights activities. The court, not considering the lawyers' request to suspend the trial, decided to continue the judicial control measure against Şahin.
The first hearing of the case against Şahin, opened on the grounds of his legal activities and the accusation of being an "organization member," was held at the Diyarbakır 5th High Criminal Court. Şahin and his lawyers were present in the courtroom. The hearing was attended by numerous lawyers, including representatives from Lawyers for Lawyers and Défense Sans Frontières, as well as members of the Diyarbakır Bar Association, the Association of Lawyers for Freedom, the Human Rights Association Diyarbakır Branch, and many other attorneys. A significant number of riot police were present outside and inside the courtroom. The hearing started with a two-hour delay.
Court President did not make an interim decision on the lawyer's request
After roll call and identity verification of the attendees, the Court President asked Şahin to make his defense without reading the indictment. Şahin's lawyer, Baver Mızrak, interjected to present procedural requests, stating that the activities subject to accusation in this case were legal professional activities. Mızrak reminded the court of Article 58 of the Attorneyship Law, which requires permission from the Ministry of Justice to investigate a lawyer accused due to their professional activities. He requested a suspension of the trial until such permission is obtained. Mızrak also referenced decisions of the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Court, and the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that confessions alone cannot be considered sufficient evidence. He pointed out that many lawyers who were suspects in the same investigation had been issued non-prosecution decisions and demanded immediate acquittal for his client.
Şahin: The purpose of this case is to distance us from our human rights activities
Without deciding on the request, the Court President proceeded to take Şahin's defense. Şahin stated that not only he but also the legal profession and defense activities were on trial. He argued, "The purpose of this case is to distance us from our human rights activities. This file is aimed at hindering legal practice. If we are to be held responsible and tried for the individuals we represent, then all lawyers would be tried for everyone they represent. The prosecutor has included evidence against me in the file. Phone call records with my client and a statement from a client I represented, which was in my favor, were not included in the file. All allegations against me are unfounded.”
Court President: Did you participate in the statements as a lawyer or as part of organizational activity?
To the Court President's question, "Did you participate in the statements as a lawyer or as part of an organizational activity?" Şahin replied that he had represented Metin Yılmaz, a client for eight years, as part of his legal practice. Regarding the question about whether the calls he received were part of legal or organizational activity, Şahin stated they were part of his legal practice. He argued that the press releases and marches cited in the indictment as criminal allegations were not crimes but democratic rights. Şahin said, “They have investigated everything about me, even my childhood. I did not take part in any prison organization. If the people I represented were released, it was the prosecutor who released them, not me. I cannot be held responsible for this.”
‘This case aims to prevent us from practicing law in organization-related files’
Şahin's lawyer, Gulan Çağın Kaleli, emphasized that the case against her client was opened illegally. She pointed out that the investigation of lawyers for crimes committed due to their duties is conditional on permission, stating, “Despite all our objections and petitions during the investigation phase, this was not considered. It is not considered even during this trial phase. It is clear that what is being tried here is my client’s profession. A lawyer has an obligation to keep secrets. Files my client followed, power of attorneys, financial transactions have been included in this file. This violates the lawyer's obligation to keep secrets. The search warrant is not legally valid. The warrant does not state for which crime the search was conducted. This case aims to send a message that we won’t let you practice law in organization-related files. The file contains evidence related to my client’s legal activities. A lawyer goes to prison, identifies human rights violations. These are not crimes. Work done in a civil society organization, a union, has been shown as organizational activity in this file. These have been criminalized based on confessor statements.” Kaleli spoke about the legal opinion prepared by Lawyers for Lawyers regarding this case and presented it to the court.
‘Lawyers cannot be equated with their clients’
Lawyer Baver Mızrak reiterated his request for immediate acquittal of his client, who is being tried in this case due to his legal activities. Mızrak said, “In every period, a confessor witness is found, and investigations are opened with fabricated statements. The purpose here is to prevent lawyers from performing their professional activities. Ümit Akbıyık, in 32 hours, made hundreds of pages of statements and identifications against 669 people. It is impossible for him to remember so much in such a short time. We request that the lawyer who took Akbıyık's statement be heard. ÖHD was a legal association with 2,000 lawyer members.” Lawyer Serdar Özer added, “We often say 'Lawyers cannot be equated with their clients' to lawyers who are attacked due to their professional activities. This is now brought to the judicial arena. Lawyers are being held responsible for their professional activities. The court cannot hold someone responsible for a person whom it has acquitted after they leave this room. If someone is held responsible for that person, then no one can perform their professional activities. We request immediate acquittal.
Court to inquire about the revocation statement of confessor witness Akbıyık from the Notary
The trial prosecutor, in his final opinion, requested the rejection of the lawyers' demands, the continuation of the judicial control decision against Şahin, and the completion of deficiencies in the file.
After a short break, the court decided to hear Ümit Akbıyık and two other individuals mentioned in his statements as witnesses in the next hearing, to inquire from the Diyarbakır Police Department about any investigations or prosecutions against Şahin, and to continue the travel ban judicial control decision. The court also decided to request a copy of the search warrant from the Diyarbakır 1st Criminal Court of Peace and postponed the trial to May 21, 2024.
