Rabia Çetin
The first hearing in the case against 36 people detained during the 11th Istanbul Trans Pride March on June 22, 2025, in Acıbadem, a neighborhood on the Asian side of Istanbul, was held at the 12th Criminal Court of First Instance at the Anadolu Courthouse. The defendants are charged with “violating the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations.” During the hearing, the judge rejected lawyers’ request to record the proceedings through SEGBİS, Turkey’s judicial video recording system, and repeatedly interrupted both defendants and lawyers, saying, “I am mentally very tired, I cannot listen to anyone at length.”
The hearing, which lasted about six hours, began with a 15-minute delay. Eighteen defendants appeared before the judge at the first session. The hearings for the remaining 18 defendants are scheduled for Thursday.
Due to the limited capacity of the courtroom, lawyers’ request for a larger courtroom was rejected. The Istanbul Bar Association’s Human Rights Center and the Istanbul branch of the Human Rights Association (İHD) followed the hearing as observers.
Police present in the courtroom
The judge initially did not allow families, observers or journalists to attend the hearing besides the defendants and their lawyers. After objections from the lawyers, a limited number of observers and journalists were allowed into the courtroom. Uniformed police officers were also present in the courtroom. Requests by lawyers and defendants for the police officers to leave the courtroom were rejected.
After the identification procedures, lawyers Serhat Alan and Gülyeter Aktepe took the floor, stating that the evidence in the file had already been collected and requesting an immediate acquittal for all defendants.
Request for larger courtroom and SEGBİS recording rejected
Aktepe also said the physical conditions of the courtroom were inadequate, noting that both defendants and lawyers had to remain standing, and requested a larger courtroom and SEGBİS recording. The court rejected the requests for immediate acquittal, a larger courtroom and SEGBİS recording.
“We were subjected to insults and violence in the detention vehicle”
One of the defendants, Betül Göktepe, said the following in her defense statement:
“That day, while walking on the street with my friend, we ran away from two men who were following us. They came after us with a black vehicle and asked for our IDs. Because we did not know who they were, we did not give them our IDs. They tried to detain us and confiscated our IDs and belongings. They put us in the vehicle and took us to the Kadıköy Police Station. After a body search at the station, they put me in the detention vehicle with my hands cuffed behind my back without telling me the reason for the detention. We were subjected to insults in the detention vehicle. At the station, one of the female police officers tried to conduct a strip search. When I reacted, I was subjected to violence. I did not carry the banners mentioned in the indictment. I did not hear any police call to ‘disperse.’ I was not aware of the governor’s ban decision.”
“I was subjected to a strip search and sexual violence”
Another defendant, Es Yılmaz, described their detention process as follows:
“While walking with a friend far from the march area, four to five hours before the march time, we were stopped by civilian vehicles under the pretext of an identity check. Even though I presented my identification, I was detained. My phone was confiscated and my messages were read in the police vehicle. My rainbow-colored keychain was confiscated as ‘evidence.’ I was only able to meet with my lawyer after 12 hours. In a dark room I was subjected to a strip search and to harassment and sexual violence by a female police officer. While in detention, we were threatened with rape by other suspects. I have attended Pride marches since I was 18 and I will continue to attend them throughout my life. But that day I was profiled on the street and detained.”
“We were not detained, we were kidnapped”
Another defendant, Ezgi, described what they were told during the detention:
“While walking with my friends in Acıbadem, a white vehicle blocked our way. Police officers kept us waiting under the pretext of an identity check. Then they brought in riot police and surrounded us. When we asked why we were being detained, they said ‘because of your appearance.’ We were not detained, we were kidnapped. We were harassed in the detention vehicle. Marching against violations of our rights, starting with the right to life of trans people, is a constitutional right.”
“Reverse handcuffs and ill-treatment”
Another defendant, Göktuğ, described what happened during detention:
“While walking with my friends, we were surrounded by plainclothes police officers. We were detained using excessive force without being informed of the ban decision. While in detention, none of our needs were met. One of our friends was subjected to a strip search. There was no police warning to ‘disperse.’”
Another defendant, Hazal, said in her defense statement:
“While carrying Sırrı Süreyya’s banner is cited as a crime in the indictment, we were told the reason for our detention was that our appearance was not liked. We were subjected to psychological and physical violence at the police station and in the detention vehicle. The torture we were subjected to is against human dignity.”
“A lawyer was also detained with torture”
Defendant and lawyer Kardelen Başak Altınsoy said in her defense statement:
“I took out my phone to record police officers intervening against my client. At that moment, people from the surroundings attacked. Despite showing my bar association ID, the police did not intervene. I was dragged by my hair and detained. Inside, a superior officer told the police officers, ‘Give her special treatment.’ A strip search was carried out.”
Prosecutor replaced during the recess
After Altınsoy’s defense statement, a 30-minute recess was given. During the break, it was announced that the main prosecutor assigned to the case had become ill and could not attend the hearing. Another prosecutor was assigned in their place.
Lawyers: “There is torture and unlawful detention”
One of the defense lawyers, Arya Dilan Vargün, said the indictment had been prepared by copying police reports:
“This trial is not being conducted to reveal the material truth but for political motives, and enemy criminal law is being applied. This indictment was prepared by copying and pasting a report created by law enforcement. If the only evidence in the file is a police report, no one can be punished.”
Vargün also said Esra’s phone had been confiscated unlawfully:
“Our client’s phone was forcibly confiscated and examined without any court decision. We request the return of the phone obtained unlawfully, the removal of the travel ban and an acquittal decision.”
While Vargün was speaking, the judge interrupted her and said, “I am mentally very tired, I cannot listen to anyone at length.” Vargün again requested a SEGBİS recording, but the request was rejected.
Lawyer Lütfi Sabri Batı said:
“People who were simply walking peacefully were taken by the police without any action having taken place. A violation of Law No. 2911 cannot be derived from an action that never occurred.”
Lawyer Gülyeter Aktepe said the ban decision was discriminatory:
“They were detained on the street based on simple suspicion while walking. The Kadıköy District Governor’s Office cannot arbitrarily restrict citizens’ constitutional rights. Expressions such as ‘public morality’ in the ban decision are clearly discriminatory.”
“An investigation should be opened against police officers who committed torture”
Lawyer Serhat Alan said:
“The prosecutor turning personal opinions into an indictment without legal basis is a violation of the prohibition of discrimination. We request acquittal for all our clients.”
Lawyer Mücahit Eren Kutluk also drew attention to what happened during the detention:
“Our client, lawyer Kardelen, was detained in violation of the prohibition of torture. The limits of the use of force were exceeded. An investigation should be opened against these police officers.”
Request to file a criminal complaint against police rejected
After the defense statements, the hearing was adjourned for an interim ruling. After a 10-minute break, the court issued an order to forcibly bring four people, including one lawyer, who did not attend the hearing. It lifted the travel bans for three people. It ruled that 11 defendants would be exempt from attending future hearings. The request to file a criminal complaint against the police officers was rejected. Requests for the return of the phone and the removal of unlawfully obtained evidence from the file were also rejected.
The court adjourned the hearing to March 12 at 10:30 a.m.
Police followed defendants until they left the courthouse
After the hearing, uniformed police officers waiting at the courtroom door followed the defendants and their lawyers until they exited the courthouse.
