- The reasoned decision for the acquittal of Rojhilat Aksoy, who was tried due to the screening of the film “Aurora’s Sunrise,” has been announced.
- The court evaluated the film screening within the scope of freedom of expression and artistic freedom.
The reasoned decision for the acquittal given to Rojhilat Aksoy, a member of the Middle East Cinema Academy Association, who was put on trial and acquitted due to the screening of the film “Aurora’s Sunrise,” which tells about the Armenian Genocide, has been prepared. In the reasoned decision, attention was drawn to precedent rulings of the Constitutional Court (AYM); the film screening was evaluated within the scope of freedom of expression.
The Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation within the scope of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) against Rojhilat Aksoy, who at the time was the Vice President of the Middle East Cinema Academy Association, due to the screening of the said film. The investigation later turned into a case. In the indictment prepared by the Diyarbakır 22nd Criminal Court of First Instance, punishment was requested for Aksoy on the charge of “publicly insulting the organs of the state.” In the indictment, dialogues in the film were included, and it was claimed that these expressions were “hurtful” and “insulting.”
Two hearings were held in the case. In the first hearing, Aksoy, making his defense statement, did not accept the accusations and stated that the film should be evaluated within the scope of freedom of expression. In the second hearing, the prosecutor requested punishment, while the court gave a decision of acquittal. The reason for the acquittal decision was announced in recent days.
In the reasoned decision, reference was made to “freedom of expression and dissemination of thought” regulated in Article 26 of the Constitution. In the decision, it was emphasized that everyone has the right to express and disseminate their thoughts and opinions by word, writing, picture, or other means.
The court stated that Aksoy did not take part in the production of the film, did not create its content, and applied for the allocation of a hall within the scope of a festival. It was pointed out that the selection of the film was made by the association or organizers. For this reason, it was expressed that there was not sufficient evidence that Aksoy’s act carried the intent of “insult” within the scope of Article 301.
As a result of all evaluations, the court stated that the film remained within the scope of freedom of expression and artistic freedom secured by Article 26 of the Constitution. Ruling that the legal elements of the crime were not formed, the court decided on Aksoy’s acquittal.
