Nalin Öztekin
The trial of 10 people detained while attempting to attend a Pride Week press statement in Eskişehir in 2024 has begun. During the nearly four-hour hearing, the defendants described the ill-treatment they faced in custody. Meanwhile, as the defense lawyers made their arguments, the prosecutor fell asleep.
Ongoing prosecutions of Pride events
Legal proceedings against LGBTQ+ activists for attempting to hold Pride marches and events in Turkey continue. In this case, 10 individuals who were detained before they could make a planned press statement in front of the Ulus Monument in Eskişehir were charged with “participating in an unlawful assembly and failing to disperse despite warnings” and “resisting public officials.” The first hearing of the trial took place at the Eskişehir 16th Criminal Court of First Instance.
Courtroom under heavy police presence
The hearing, attended by all defendants and their lawyers, was observed by representatives from the bar associations of Istanbul, Ankara, and Eskişehir, as well as members of the Ankara Rainbow Families Association, the Human Rights Association’s (İHD) LGBTQ+ Commission, LİSTAG, the May 17 Association, and the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA). Due to the high number of attendees, the hearing was moved to the 2nd High Criminal Court’s larger courtroom. Outside the courthouse, a significant number of plainclothes and uniformed police officers, including riot police, were present.
After identity checks, the defendants gave their statements.
‘We were threatened with disappearance and rape’
The first to speak was defendant Ceren Leventoğlu, who identified one of the police officers present in the courtroom as having threatened her with forced disappearance and rape while in custody. She stated that on the day of the incident, police did not provide space for them to disperse and that when she was taken to the hospital for a medical examination, officers attempted to subject her to a strip search. She concluded her statement by saying, “We are being prosecuted here today simply for existing, for who we sleep with.”
‘I was subjected to both harassment and violence in custody’
Following Leventoğlu, Simay Ada Kart, who is currently in prison on another charge, joined the hearing via video link from Marmara Prison. Kart denied resisting or using violence against the police and said:
“The very act of detaining LGBTQ+ people that day was an attack on our existence. We were assaulted before we could even start the event. We were never informed of a ban on the gathering. While in custody, I was subjected to both harassment and physical violence. The officers in this room threatened me with forced disappearance and rape. We saw the hatred in their eyes as they mistreated us. This violence was not separate from the state of this country or its institutionalized LGBTQ+ hostility.”
‘We take to the streets to avoid being killed’
Another defendant, Mati, argued that the real roles in the trial should be reversed, saying, “We are accused of resisting the police, but we didn’t even have the chance to resist. We were detained with violence before we were shown any ban order. When I opened my eyes, my face was being dragged against the asphalt. When I asked why, they said, ‘I will kill you.’ This continued at the police station door with, ‘I will kill you, and no one will ever find you.’”
Mati explained the necessity of the protest, recalling a past case in which a person who had threatened them with death was merely fined 500 Turkish lira ($17). “We take to the streets so we don’t get killed. If we don’t take to the streets, who will?”
Police deny allegations of threats and abuse
After the defendants’ testimonies, the court heard statements from the police officers who had filed complaints as the plaintiffs in the case. Officers from the public security and law enforcement units claimed that some defendants resisted during searches and yelled at them. They denied the allegations of threats of forced disappearance and rape.
In response, Leventoğlu and Kart reiterated that the police officers were lying and pointed out that, since they were handcuffed, it would have been impossible for them to resist police.
‘Public officials are using their authority to justify mistreatment’
Defense attorneys then took the floor. Lawyer Hasan Çayır began by demanding that the police officers in the courtroom be identified and registered. He also spoke about the historical significance of Pride Marches and why they are a matter of existence for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Lawyer Esra Başbakkal emphasized the mistreatment by police, saying, “I saw firsthand how public officials use their authority to legitimize mistreatment.” She argued that the officers should face charges of hate crimes. She also described how, when lawyers tried to bring water to their detained clients, a police chief kicked the bottles away, making them direct witnesses to police violence.
‘This is not resistance but a violation of freedom of expression’
Another lawyer, Ceren Koçak, argued that the defendants’ actions did not meet the legal criteria for the charges against them, stating, “For a crime to exist, there must be an official duty being obstructed. In this case, a peaceful protest was preemptively and unlawfully suppressed by the police.”
Lawyer Heval Yıldız Karasu added, “There is a crime here, but it’s not the crime of resisting police. The real crime is violating freedom of expression, as outlined in Article 115 of the Turkish Penal Code. While our clients should be the plaintiffs in this case, they are the ones being prosecuted instead.” She also criticized the use of Turkey’s Law No. 2911, which regulates public demonstrations, calling it outdated given numerous rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and Turkey’s Constitutional Court in favor of protest rights.
Prosecutor falls asleep during defense arguments
As the defense lawyers wrapped up their statements, they noted that the prosecutor had fallen asleep at the bench. One lawyer remarked, “It would have been nice if the prosecutor had stayed awake, listened to our arguments, and then issued an opinion accordingly.”
Following the testimonies and legal arguments, the court postponed the trial to April 9, 2025, to allow time for the prosecutor to prepare the final opinion.
Tension over police filming after hearing ends
At the end of the hearing, the defendants and their lawyers took a group photo. However, tensions escalated when a plainclothes police officer attempted to take photos and videos of the group with a cellphone. A heated exchange ensued, and, following insistence from the lawyers, an official report was filed against the officer for recording without consent.
