EYLEM SONBAHAR
ISTANBUL – During the first hearing of the case filed against journalist Bülent Kılıç, who was detained under torture while covering the news, on charges of "resisting police officers for not performing their duty" and "insult," it was revealed that the police officers signed a report they did not see.
The 19th Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance convened to address charges against Agence France-Presse (AFP) photojournalist Bülent Kılıç. He had been apprehended during his coverage of the 19th Istanbul LGBTI+ Pride March, after being forced to the ground by police officers who applied pressure to his throat.
Accompanied by his legal counsel, Veysel Ok and Emine Özhasar, Kılıç, whose defense is being handled by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), attended the hearing. Other notable attendees included Özgür Öğret, Turkey Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Gökhan Durmuş, President of the Journalists Union of Turkey (TGS), and the National Press Institute (IPI).
Kılıç vehemently rejected the allegations outlined in the police report, which formed the core of the indictment leading to his trial. He asserted that he neither used profanity nor resisted the police. In his defense, Kılıç stated, "Such an event never occurred. There is comprehensive footage of the incident from start to finish. Contrarily, the video will illustrate that it was the police who used offensive language towards me. I have worked in this profession for 20 years, spanning different regions of the world. It is disheartening to be accused of false statements. Press freedoms were under attack that day. While I had a camera in my hand, the police forcibly took it, assaulting me in the process. Initially, one of the officers initiated an altercation, which quickly escalated with the involvement of the others. I endured torture and accept no culpability. Given my profession, I have an obligation to approach incidents when they arise; however, on that day, two officers forcibly removed me from the scene. They seized my arm, struck me in the face, and discarded my camera on the street. Subsequently, other officers attempted to locate my camera."
Kılıç also disclosed that the then Beyoğlu District Police Chief Aşkın Kılıç Keser had apologized on behalf of the officers for damaging his camera and subjecting him to torture. Kılıç asserted, "I was facing a life-threatening situation on that street, and I demand justice for the actions of those police officers."
Ok: “The Expert Report Remains Incomplete”
Lawyer Veysel Ok underscored the unlawful nature of the investigation and incident. He remarked, "Our client experienced police brutality on that day. While the law enforcement officers should face prosecution for this incident, our client is now on trial. The indictment relies heavily on the testimonies of the police officers, while our client's testimony remains brief. Notably, the indictment excludes the expert report, which clearly outlines the police officers' use of torture and profanity, along with their statement, 'You broke my camera.' Furthermore, the officers invoked the President's name to obfuscate their actions."
Ok continued by emphasizing the incomplete nature of the expert report due to the unprocessed audio recordings submitted to the court. He noted that the insults made by the police officers were not incorporated into the report. Ok concluded, stating, "We request the testimonial account of journalist Bilal Meyveci, who filmed the incident. Furthermore, the Beyoğlu District Police Chief should testify concerning the apology issued to our client for the damage to his camera and the torture he endured."
Late Arrivals in Court
During the hearing, police officer Sedat Kılıç, the complainant against Kılıç, and other officers who signed the police report related to the incident arrived. When asked by the judge whether Kılıç had attempted to strike him with the camera, the complaining police officer argued, "Everything documented in the report is true." He contended that Kılıç had not presented his press card on the day of the incident.
In response, Kılıç challenged the accusations: "The report alleges that I insulted the President. What relevance does this have to the President? This accusation is entirely baseless. In fact, the police officer employed the President's title in a derogatory statement. I believe he insulted the President."
Lawyer Ok inquired, "Could the complainant police officer clarify at what point our client insulted President Erdoğan?" To this, police officer Kılıç responded, "I don't recall."
When queried about how Kılıç's camera became damaged, the complainant police officer claimed, "I don't remember."
During the proceedings, lawyer Veysel Ok posed a question to the complainant police officer: "Do you routinely compel individuals to lie on the ground and obstruct their breathing?" The judge intervened, ruling that the question was unrelated to the case content and, thus, was inadmissible. Ok said, "One day, these officers will face accusations and stand trial for this incident."
Police: "I heard him say, 'I can't breathe.'"
Subsequently, other police officers who signed the police report testified as "witnesses." Witness police officer Emre Sunar, positioned 3-4 meters away from the incident, claimed to have heard Kılıç using profanity, stating that journalist Kılıç, with police officers pressing his throat with a knee, shouted "I can't breathe" in English, similar to the case of George Floyd, who lost his life due to police violence in Minnesota. Sunar added, "At that time, a political figure had died in the USA. The phrase he used had gained popularity. I distinctly heard the defendant utter 'I can't breathe' in both English and Turkish." In response, lawyer Ok noted, "There is video footage of the incident." Journalist Kılıç asserted that the video evidence would disprove this claim.
In response to lawyer Emine Özhasar's question, "Is pressing on the back a standard police practice, and for what reason did the police apply pressure to the client's back?" the judge ruled, "You cannot indirectly pose the same question."
Özhasar questioned the witness police officer, asking, "Did you witness the police officers pressing journalist Bülent Kılıç's throat with their knee?" The police witness responded, "Yes, I saw it." Lawyer Ok then inquired, "On what grounds did the police employ violence against journalist Kılıç?" The witness police officer argued that journalist Kılıç displayed a "tendency" to resist the police, which, according to him, justified the use of force as recognized by the law.
Judge to police: "Are you endorsing actions you didn't witness?"
Witness police officer Ercan Tuğay, whose signature was on the police report, claimed he "couldn't recall" the events outlined in the report. Witness police officer Ercan Tuğay contended that the content of the police report concerning the incident, which he claimed not to remember, was "accurate." In response to lawyer Özhasar's question, witness police officer Tuğay mentioned, "There was a distance of 5 meters between us and the incident. I heard the profanity but cannot recall at which stage. I have limited recollection; I merely signed the report."
Cemal Tuzak, the police officer whose signature appeared on the police report that initiated the lawsuit against journalist Kılıç, provided testimony as a witness. Tuzak also declared, "I do not recollect the incident." He added, "There was approximately 35 to 40 meters between us and the incident. I did not witness the event. Consequently, I did not hear the words mentioned in the indictment. I did not observe any attempt to strike with the camera. Since we were a group of police officers on that street, we were collectively invited to sign the report."
The judge inquired, "Why are you signing what you didn't witness?" The witness police officer responded, "It was very crowded, but the content of the report is accurate." When the judge rephrased the question, asking the police witness, "Why are you signing the minutes of an event you didn't witness because you thought we were going to sign as a group?" the police witness remained silent.
Journalist Bülent Kılıç spoke after Tuzak and expressed, "I would like to thank the last police witness for swearing on his honor and telling the truth." Journalist Bülent Kılıç contended that he hadn't used profanity toward the police officers, while video footage clearly showed Sedat Kılıç, the police officer who had filed the complaint as the "complainant," using profanity while detaining him. Kılıç said, "The police officers stated in the police report that I had threatened to drive them away, but I can't make such a statement. I barely know two or three journalists in Ankara. How could I drive these people away?"
Lawyer Ok mentioned, "The problematic nature of this report became apparent when the police officer who signed the report stated, 'I didn't witness the incident; we were instructed to sign as a group,' and I would like to highlight that the legal implications of the case have been compromised."
The court decided to forward the case file to an expert for a CD transcript of the video footage of the incident and to hear a police officer nominated by the complaining police officer as a witness. The court rejected the request by Kılıç's lawyers to hear the Beyoğlu District Police Chief and adjourned the trial to February 15, 2024, at 10:35 am.
