- This week, 30 people were tried in four cases. At least 20 of them were journalists. Journalistic activities once again entered case files as “evidence.”
- Hearings started late, and cases were again postponed. Problems related to the right to a fair trial were repeated.
- The overall picture in the monitored trials did not change: freedom of expression was on trial.
- New cases filed against journalists Alican Uludağ and Mehmet Murat Yıldırım also showed that judicial pressure on journalists and rights defenders continues.
MLSA – A total of 30 people were tried in four cases monitored this week. With the trial of a journalist in the Özgür Gündem case, the total number reached at least 20. In addition, one human rights activist, three individuals from different professions (journalist, writer, academic), and seven politicians also appeared before the judge.
The most common charges in this week’s cases were “membership in an organization,” “propaganda for an organization,” and “violation of Law No. 2911.”
In the hearings monitored this week, notable procedural problems were also observed in terms of fair trial principles.
The first hearing in the Nimet Tanrıkulu case, held in Diyarbakır in southeastern Turkey, started late due to the court’s workload. Although there was no physical problem in the courtroom, the presence of plainclothes police officers in the hall drew attention. Despite it being the first session of the trial, the case was adjourned on the grounds of addressing missing elements in the file. Developments regarding the case, in which Tanrıkulu is being tried on charges of “membership in an organization” based on her participation in Newroz events in 2012, were included in our news story titled “Tanrıkulu trial adjourned: ‘The accusation criminalizes our struggle.’”
In the Özgür Gündem case, heard in Istanbul and closely followed by the public, the trial of Şebnem Korur Fincancı, Erol Önderoğlu, and Ahmet Nesin continued. It was noted that the hearing started late due to a commemoration program held inside the courthouse. It was observed that the trial has long been repeatedly postponed on the grounds of awaiting a response to a written instruction concerning one of the defendants who is abroad. At this hearing, the court again adjourned the case to Sept. 15 for the same reason.
In the Newroz Organizing Committee case, heard in Diyarbakır, seven people, including politicians, were tried on charges of “violation of Law No. 2911.” While it was observed that the hearing started late due to the court’s workload, it was also seen that the trial did not proceed as the court awaited the execution of arrest warrants in the file, and the case was adjourned to Sept. 16.
The more than quarter-century-long trial of sociologist and writer Pınar Selek was once again adjourned, this time due to a change of judge, and the uncertainty in the trial process continued.
In the case in which documentary filmmaker Koray Kesik is being tried over the documentary “Bakur,” Kesik emphasized that his work was a journalistic and documentary activity, stating, “I wanted to bear witness to history”; the court adjourned the hearing.
Meanwhile, a new case was filed against journalistMehmet Murat Yıldırım on charges of “insulting the president,” based on his social media posts and articles.
Similarly, following a previous decision of non-prosecution,a new investigation was launched against journalist Can Öztürk, this time on the allegation of “personal data.”
In addition, the case regarding RTÜK’s cancellation of Açık Radyo’s license has been taken to the Court of Cassation stage, and debates about the restriction of freedom of expression through judicial decisions have once again come to the agenda.
Among other prominent developments of the week were the release of four of the six students tried over a protest at Istanbul University’s Beyazıt Campus, and the preparation of an indictment against detained journalist Alican Uludağ seeking heavy prison sentences.
The decision to continue Uludağ’s detention and his individual application to the Constitutional Court stood out among developments showing that judicial pressure on journalists continues.
The overall picture reveals that not only the trials concerning freedom of expression, but also the way these trials are conducted, is problematic. Hearings starting late, repeated postponements, the use of journalistic activities as evidence, and lengthy trial processes point to the continuation of structural problems regarding the right to a fair trial.
