They forgot to add the law to the reason for Gezi’s decision!


The priceless work of Bulent Tanör’The human rights problem in TurkeyAt the end of page 34 of the magazine, there is a ‘resignation’ Here is a copy of the operation -which was later canceled in administrative jurisdiction-:

“While working in Çanakkale, HC’s situation is Turkish Communist Labor Party, as he gave the impression that he went to his residence at the end of working hours, did not go anywhere at night, spoke little, did not deal with any newspapers. and magazines, and gave the impression that he was an introverted person.continue your activity but be quietIt complies with the basic principle of ‘. For that reason, he was fired within the candidacy period.”

When I read most of the accusations and justifications for the decision in recent years, I am reminded of this example of an administrative act in the Tanör professor’s book, in which a person is actually punished for leading a boring life. The latest is the decision of the 13th Istanbul High Criminal Court on Gezi and its recently published justification. ‘damage to the mind‘ I will, but even what that phrase means will remain quite believable.

600 odd pages of justification, down to the last pages’cut and pasteHundreds of pages knitted with ‘la he said it, it spoke it; Unsurprisingly, I took a quick look at this text, which is very difficult to be patient with, and got to the last few pages. This part,separate assessment of the alleged crimes against the defendants Moroccan. Summary of hundreds of pages above.

Osman Kavala said this, acted like this, spoke with this, He thought positively of the Travelers, not only positively, but also supported them, explained them well abroad, made an effort to explain them, He defended the tranquility of the Travelers, organized meetings , allowed their own spaces to be used for meetings, organized a press conference with foreign journalists at the restaurant, attended by Sırrı Süreyya Önder and İlhan Cihaner, “He complained to the Europeans about the State of the Republic of Turkey.“He got along well with some European diplomats, organized summer camps with various non-governmental organizations, invited Mehmet Ali Alabora to a meeting with foreigners, talked to Can Dündar on the phone, etc., etc.

And what about the others? Judging by the justification, their greatest crime is being beside, around and in contact with Kavala. Someone is interested in the footage collected to shoot a Gezi documentary (he’s not filming the documentary, he’s just pretending!), someone is arranging some meetings, someone is ‘parking forumswhen organizing theexcited young people‘ he helps write the letter that commits the crime of identification (!) and again, blah, blah…

And what about crime? Well, a crime requires hard evidence that the crime was committed, plus wiretapping if possible. Hundreds of actions counted in the justification, one of them killed Osman Kavala and his surroundings. ‘not love as much as your sinThere may be a reason for ‘but where’s the crime? Let’s ask again, which of the reckoned agrees with the old TCK? ‘execution’ Require punishment? What is the connection between Kavala and the others – let’s use the concept they love so much – with the citizen actions listed in the justification, some of which involve violence?

This is what zurna calls “zırt”; If you see all criticism and opposition to the administration and government practices as a coup attempt/attempt to overthrow the government of the Republic of Turkey by force, you will turn even the late Louis 14 into your grave.

As this is a court decision, there must be a basis for the decision. For this, some references were made to the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court and the performance of criminal lawyers. In Quotes, Travel’‘try’Compared with the execution of tanks in Xinjiang during the February 28 process, it was concluded that the situation was even more serious than on February 28. I am not a criminal lawyer, it is possible and not necessary to get into a technical discussion, on the other hand I can say the following: if I had to translate what the referenced criminal lawyers said into Turkish, I would almost say ‘attempt attemptThey consider it punishable.

The court finds the February 28 ruling attractive in terms of the basis of its ruling. He says that while it was accepted that even the execution of a tank on February 28 revealed the intent and will to force of the defendants, it can be accepted that the stone and stick attacks in front of the Labor Office of the First Ministry in Gezi met this criterion. Well, in this case, we can penalize Kavala under TCK 312: “…A conviction of conscience was made that the accused tried to abolish the Government of the Republic of Turkey or to partially or totally impede the performance of his duties using the force and violence specified in article 312 of the TCK.”

As you like, look, it’s called conscious conviction, conscience… It’s easy for me, article 138 of the Constitution doesn’t emphasize the role of conscious opinion in decisions, oh what a conscience…

While it’s not the subject of your article and mine, I can’t help but wonder, so to speak. ‘attempt attempt’ Where is the end of acting with a purpose like detecting? How far can one go to detect a criminal act? How many years ago will a speech or action be considered?

In addition to the fact that hundreds of actions, meetings and meetings listed in the justification do not lead the writer of these lines to the conscientious conclusion reached by the judges, even though there is convincing evidence that a crime has been committed, ‘try’ What date does it start? In my colleague’s sentence, the criminal lawyer I consulted; “It is very dangerous in terms of legal certainty that enforcement actions are withdrawn both in terms of time.” is it not? I do not name my punitive colleague who, one day tomorrow, will say: ‘criminal lawyer associated with terrorism, constitutionalist‘ because they can put the charge!

How can the intention to film an unmade documentary be considered a crime? In the words of one of those convicted in August 2013, ‘with a group of academics brought in by the professor from the USA.‘, how can the fact that he eats somewhere be used as proof of that person’s affiliation with FETÖ/PDY? I’m talking about August 2013, take a look at who was with who and what they were talking about back then!

The decision is largelylistening activitygiven with. But listen to the decisionscrimes against the government the records in question, since the crime of ‘forbidden evidence‘ nature. In fact, the judge who voted against highlighted the situation and opposes it with the opinion that there is no other concrete evidence.conscientious‘ the opinion. To remember, ‘‘establish an organization to commit a crime’ Those who make the wiretapping decisions about crime in time, fugitive members of FETO! The Court addressed this issue in common terms and, in my view, ‘Oh dear, after all, aren’t all these organizations?‘ solved with its practicality!

Respected reader, I think there is no need to dwell on the reasoning of the decision, which could convince even one of the three judges of the commission to make the decision, which does not contain fact that corresponds to the concept of concrete evidence, and which I do not know where hold it and how to explain it without getting into trouble. This, like most practices and judgments,’I did it because it can be done‘ activity.

Undoubtedly, the reason for the article you are reading is not the existence of an expectation for the better in the current state of the country and the disappointment at the end. On the other hand, such a decision that even Ahmet Necdet Sezer felt compelled to say something! And yet, it is impossible to do without writing and reminding respected people once again what is considered good.

A constitution is still in force in this country, albeit suspended. The rule of law is one of the prohibited principles of that Constitution and one of the most serious aspects of the reasoned decision is the principle of the ‘rule of law’, which is at the heart of the rule of law principle.predictability‘ to destroy the soil. In the logic of the reasoning ahead, any protest that any government perceives as a threat to its existence is a ‘try’ acceptable; with the logic of this justification, no one known to the public, in particular, can make a single phone call without worrying about socio-political events; with the logic of this justification, no one would dare to participate in a protest that they support, to protect and watch the protesters; With the logic of this justification, every citizen can be sentenced to the heaviest penalty without concrete and convincing evidence… For life.

The reasoned decision of the Gezi trial is based on the ‘democratic state and rule of law principles, and the regime of fundamental rights and freedoms that aims to put these principles into practice in the respective articles of the Constitution.

Opinion of the judge who voted against

There is no evidence other than records of eavesdropping in the contents of the case file, and the first decision on wiretapping was rendered on 06/18/2013 in article 220 of the TCK, ‘Establishing an Organization to Commit a Crime’ under Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code.‘Crimes against the Government’ There was no decision on wiretapping on the crime of wiretapping, it was also added to article 312 of the TCK in requests and decisions to extend wiretapping, but this crime was not among the crimes listed in article 135/8 of art. CMK #5271 and subject to lawful wiretapping at the time,Crimes against the constitutional order and its functioning‘,’‘Crimes against the Government’ The crime was added to the crimes within the scope of wiretapping at CMK 5271 on 02/12/2014, there was no wiretapping decision after this date, all records of wiretapping in the records were prior to 02/12/2014, and in In this state , the records of wiretapping are illegal and illegal, as assessed in accordance with articles CMK 206/2-a, 217/2, 230/1-b and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court, which they maintain as evidence, the records of eavesdropping on the case file is of a prohibited evidence nature, and the defendants’ statements against the illegal wiretapping recordings are based on prohibited evidence, so the judgment cannot be relied upon. it was understood that there is no hard evidence to support the wiretapping recordings and that wiretapping recordings alone are not sufficient for their conviction for the crimes against them. I am of the opinion that with the release of the suspect, the other defendants should not be arrested.

Text suggestion: I suggest you read the article of a teacher from Boğaziçi, friend Özakın.

Leave a Comment