The prosecutor has submitted a final opinion in the trial of journalist Can Öztürk, who was detained while covering protests at Istanbul’s Boğaziçi University, and 14 students. The prosecutor requested Öztürk’s acquittal of the charges against him but sought convictions for the students.
CANAN COŞKUN
The fifth hearing in the trial of journalist Can Öztürk and 14 students, charged with “resisting public officials in the performance of their duties” and “participating unarmed in unlawful assemblies and marches,” was held at the Istanbul 69th Criminal Court of First Instance. Öztürk was detained while covering a protest at Istanbul’s Boğaziçi University in May 2025 against a speaking appearance by Nurettin Yıldız.
Two of the student defendants and their lawyers attended the hearing, while Öztürk, who is represented by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), was absent.
Senior police officer Mustafa Ermenek had subsequently joined the case as a complainant, prompting the students to give their defense statements again. The court had also requested medical records concerning Ermenek’s examination and treatment at Sultan Abdülhamid II Training and Research Hospital. The records were forwarded to the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Branch Directorate for a report.
At the latest hearing, the court announced that the forensic medicine report had been submitted to the case file. The court then asked two students who had not been questioned a second time following Ermenek’s addition as a complainant to give their defense statements. Both said they stood by their previous statements.
“Conflicting medical reports concerning complainant police officer”
Following the students’ additional defense statements, lawyer Özge Durdu addressed the court. Durdu said a medical report concerning complainant police officer Mustafa Ermenek concluded that he had sustained injuries treatable with basic medical intervention, even though his initial medical report contained no findings of any injuries.
Durdu also pointed to a physical therapy report dated June 26, 2026, in Ermenek’s case file, highlighting discrepancies between the medical reports.
Gamze Serin Şimşek, another lawyer representing the students, also raised concerns about the conflicting reports and said the defense would submit a detailed statement on the matter.
Prosecutor submits final opinion
After hearing the lawyers’ statements, the judge asked the prosecutor whether the final opinion on the merits of the case was ready. The prosecutor confirmed that it was and presented his findings.
The prosecutor said video footage in the case file showed journalist Can Öztürk filming the protest and that there was insufficient concrete and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that he had committed the alleged offenses. He therefore requested Öztürk’s acquittal on the grounds that the charges against him had not been proven.
For the 14 students on trial, however, the prosecutor reiterated the allegations in the indictment. He alleged that the students had caused the complainant police officers to fall into a construction pit, where they became trapped and sustained injuries. The prosecutor claimed that one police officer suffered a broken finger, while the others sustained injuries treatable with basic medical intervention.
The prosecutor further argued that the alleged resistance to public officials had resulted in aggravated injuries and that the students should also be punished on assault-related charges.
He requested that each of the 14 students be convicted separately under Article 32 of Turkey’s Law on Meetings and Demonstrations, which covers resistance, Article 265 of the Turkish Penal Code, which criminalizes resisting public officials in the performance of their duties, and Articles 86 and 87 of the same code, which cover intentional injury and aggravated injury resulting from the consequences of an offense.
Lawyers representing the students who attended the hearing requested additional time to respond to the prosecutor’s final opinion.
The court accepted the excuses submitted by the absent defendants and their lawyers and granted defense counsel until the next hearing to file their responses to the prosecutor’s opinion.
The next hearing was scheduled for Jan. 11, 2027, at 9:30 a.m.
Background
In May 2025, students at Istanbul’s Boğaziçi University sought to protest a speaking event featuring theologian Nurettin Yıldız, head of the Social Fabric Foundation, who had drawn criticism for statements appearing to justify child marriage. The students gathered on campus to hold a press statement in protest of his appearance.
T24 reporter Can Öztürk was covering the demonstration when police intervened and detained 14 students. Police officers also detained Öztürk, grabbing him by the throat and placing him among the detained students.
Six students were placed in pretrial detention, while Öztürk and the other eight students were released under judicial supervision measures requiring them to regularly report to a police station and prohibiting them from traveling abroad.
The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office subsequently issued an indictment charging Öztürk and the students with “resisting public officials in the performance of their duties” and “participating unarmed in unlawful assemblies and marches.”
The six students held in pretrial detention were later released. Police officers joined the case as complainants, alleging in their statements that they had fallen into a construction pit during the protest. The students, however, said police officers had surrounded them, leaving them unable to breathe.
After the students had given their defense statements in response to the complainant police officers’ allegations, senior police officer Mustafa Ermenek also filed a complaint, leading to a separate indictment that was subsequently consolidated with the ongoing case. As a result, the students were required to give their defense statements a second time.
