ISTANBUL - The Co-Director lawyer of MLSA, Veysel Ok, commented on the 35-page reasoning of the Constitutional Court's verdict regarding TİP MP Can Atalay's application in the Gezi Trial. He stated that this was the first time that the Constitutional Court had delivered such a clear, precise, and non-controversial decision. Ok emphasized that not releasing Atalay despite the court's ruling would amount to committing a crime.
The Constitutional Court (AYM), which announced its short decision on October 25th on the individual application of Can Atalay, Hatay MP of the Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP), whose 18-year prison sentence in the Gezi trial was finalized, announced the 35-page justification of its decision at midnight tonight (October 27th).
Members selected by President Erdoğan voted against
Muammer Topal, Yıldız Seferinoğlu, Basri Bağcı, İrfan Fidan and Muhterem İnce, who were elected as members of the Constitutional Court by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, voted against the Constitutional Court's unanimous decision that Atalay's 'right to be elected and to engage in political activity' and 'right to personal liberty and security' were violated.
From the moment the Constitutional Court issued its short ruling, the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court was expected to reopen the case, suspend the proceedings against Atalay because he had gained immunity by being elected as a member of parliament, and release him. However, this decision was not implemented for two days.
Lawyer Veysel Ok, Co-Director of the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), said that the Constitutional Court's reasoned decision, like Paragraph D of its short decision, was "obvious and explicit." "Article 117 of the reasoned decision explains what the local court should do, one by one, in a way that leaves no room for discussion," Ok said:
"Can Atalay has been detained for two days despite Constitutional Court's ruling. Article 117 of the justification of the short decision, which was announced at midnight, is also obvious; the Constitutional Court has explained what the local court will do and how it will decide on his release. The 13th High Criminal Court's job is straightforward; here's what it needs to do: Eliminate the violation of rights, hold a retrial, suspend the execution of the verdict, and order release. From then on, not complying with this decision and not releasing Can Atalay would be committing a crime."
What does Article 117 of the reasoned decision say?
Article 117 of the 35-page justification of the Constitutional Court's decision, a copy of which was sent to the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court that tried the Gazi Case in order to 'eliminate the consequences of the violation' of Can Atalay's rights, reads as follows:
"While the Applicant was in detention status at the time of the individual application within the scope of the case in which he was tried, he became a convicted person with the approval of the conviction verdict. In this case, although the Applicant was elected as an MP, he continued to be tried in pre-trial detention, and his conviction was upheld. Accordingly, in order to end the violations of rights identified by the Constitutional Court against the Applicant and to eliminate their consequences
i. Commencement of retrial proceedings,
ii. Suspension of the execution of the conviction and release from the penal institution,
iii. Termination of the Applicant's convicted status,
iv. Ordering a stay in the retrial
"It is obligatory to fulfill the procedures."
