Dilruba Kayserilioğlu's trial for 'insulting the president' closed to journalists and observers
In a trial in İzmir where Dilruba Kayserilioğlu faced charges of "insulting the president" over comments made during a street interview, journalists and observers were barred from the courtroom. Despite no clear reason being provided, even Kayserilioğlu's mother was not allowed to attend, while police officers were permitted entry.
The first hearing of the case was held at the İzmir 62nd Criminal Court of First Instance. Kayserilioğlu and her lawyers, Hüseyin Yıldız and Ali Barış Ercan, were present at the hearing. According to the defense team, the prosecutor called for a prison sentence of one to four years for Kayserilioğlu. Her lawyers requested additional time to prepare their defense, and the trial was adjourned to October 31 at 2:30 p.m.
Kayserilioğlu defends freedom of speech
Speaking outside the courthouse after the hearing, Kayserilioğlu emphasized that she stood by her statements, asserting, "I expressed my criticisms, and I stand behind them. There is freedom of expression in Turkey." She criticized the case against her, stating, "This case has been made personal. As if there are no other crimes or criminals, the focus remains on me."
Her lawyer, Hüseyin Yıldız, highlighted that public officials should be open to criticism in democratic societies, expressing confidence that the case would result in a fair outcome.
Background of the case
Kayserilioğlu was initially arrested on August 12 following remarks she made about an Instagram ban imposed by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK). She was charged with "inciting hatred and enmity among the public" and "insulting the president." After being detained and sent to Şakran Women's Closed Prison, she was released on August 29 following an appeal. However, her release took place without notification.
In a separate case, Kayserilioğlu faced charges of "inciting hatred and enmity" under Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and "publicly denigrating a segment of society." In that case, the prosecutor sought a 4.5-year prison sentence. She was acquitted of the first charge but was sentenced to 9 months for the latter offense. After mitigating factors were considered, her sentence was reduced to 7 months and 15 days, and the announcement of the verdict was postponed, lifting her judicial control.
