- A prosecutor has requested prison sentences for 35 people on trial following a rally in Istanbul’s Saraçhane district, charging them with violating Law No. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstrations.
- The court said the next hearing will be the session at which it delivers its verdict.
Rabia Çetin
The third hearing in the case, which includes Cumhuriyet newspaper reporter Engin Deniz İpek among the defendants, was held at the Istanbul 64th Criminal Court of First Instance. The defendants are accused of “participating unarmed in unlawful meetings and marches and failing to disperse despite warnings” after a rally held in Saraçhane on July 1, 2025.
Because the courtroom was too small, the hearing was moved to the chamber of the 1st High Criminal Court. The trial involves 35 people — including İpek, a lawyer and mostly students — who were charged for attending a rally organized by the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) in Saraçhane on the 100th day since the arrest of suspended Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. The hearing began 35 minutes late.
Uniformed and plainclothes police officers also monitored the hearing.
Many defendants and their lawyers were present, except for Engin Deniz İpek. After identity checks, the defendants who spoke in their defense said they repeated the statements they had made at the previous hearing and requested acquittal.
Defense lawyer Onur Cingil said his client had been detained in a dawn raid, although the charge was “failing to disperse despite warning,” noting that the detention took place in the morning hours. He said his client lives in Bursa, a northwestern province, and had traveled to Istanbul’s Saraçhane district through an organization by the CHP Bursa Provincial Chair. After the rally ended, his client was unable to return due to a police blockade, he said. Although his client had no record in the city, he was detained in a morning operation while staying at his cousin’s home, Cingil said. “He was probably detained as a result of technical surveillance. In addition, the demonstration and march were not unauthorized, and there was no ban decision. My client and all defendants were detained without any warning to disperse. We request the acquittal of my client and all defendants,” he said.
Lawyers stated that the anticipated expert report had been added to the file one day before the hearing. They argued that the photographs matched with the defendants in the report were incorrect and that the images allegedly belonging to their clients in fact belonged to other people.
Some defense lawyers said the expert report contained no findings regarding their clients and asked that the file not be prolonged and that the prosecutor present his opinion on the merits.
Female defendant described as ‘with an almond mustache’
Lawyer Fatih Kapan argued that the expert report had been prepared carelessly, stating that his client was described in the report as “with an almond mustache,” although his client is a woman.
‘Doctor concealed torture in detention’
Some defense lawyers alleged that a student on trial in the case had been detained with police violence and that although the student’s nose was broken, the doctor who conducted the initial examination concealed this fact. They also said that many of the students had been subjected to lengthy detention in this case and had faced administrative investigations at their universities.
‘Engin Deniz İpek was there to do journalism’
Özge Naz Akkaya, lawyer for journalist Engin Deniz İpek, said that the expert report in the file only indicated that her client had been present at the scene. “From the very beginning, we have stated that our client was there to perform his profession. We also submitted his press card to the file. There is no situation of failing to disperse despite warning at the scene. We request our client’s acquittal,” she said.
Prosecutor: ‘Insult to the president was also committed,’ seeks sentence under Law 2911
After the defense statements, the prosecutor presented his opinion on the merits, rereading the slogans chanted at the rally in the courtroom and arguing that the crime of insulting the president had also been committed during the rally. The prosecutor said the charges against the defendants had been proven and requested that each be punished separately for violating Law No. 2911.
Lawyers responding to the opinion said the case was not a trial for insulting the president, that the indictment had been prepared based on police reports and that there was no evidence of violating Law No. 2911.
Some defense lawyers also argued that the 35 defendants could not be evaluated in the same way, noting that the lawyer, journalist and students in the file had been detained at different places and times. They said the elements of the crimes of failing to disperse despite warning and violating Law No. 2911 had not been met, and that some students were surrounded by police while leaving the area and were unlawfully detained because no exit corridor was opened.
Özge Naz Akkaya, lawyer for Engin Deniz İpek, requested additional time to submit a written defense against the prosecutor’s opinion on the merits. The court accepted the request.
Without taking a break, the court announced its interim decision, accepting the excuses of some defense lawyers and adjourning the hearing until 2 p.m. on March 4. The judge said the next hearing would be the verdict session.
