"Should Evidence Exist at all, It Has to Be Revealed!"

Lawyer Tora Pekin, legal advisor of journalist Ahmet Şık who was arrested in the scope of the Ergenekon investigation, told bianet that the council of the prosecution has not got any concrete evidence. If they had obtained admissible evidence on the other hand and hid that before the defence lawyers, this would constitute a violation of the right to defence, Pekin said.

Ergenekon is the name of a clandestine organization charged with various crimes with the purpose to overthrow the government with a military coup.

Pekin declared that the search decision lacked a concrete reason too and that the search had not been restrained.

The Justice Minister, Sadullah Ergin, announced on Monday (7 March), "We do not know the contents of the file yet. The situation is different if there are other offences not related to journalism. A part of it was probably shown by the lawyers, but is there more to it?"

Ergenekon Prosecutor Zerekiya Öz had previously stated that the investigation was not concerned with the writings of the journalists but related to "evidence that cannot be made public at this stage".

"They have to announce the reason for the arrest"

Lawyer Pekin said that Şık was not prosecuted for an alleged membership of an illegal organization but for his activities as a journalist. Pekin announced the following points:

* Allegations of "membership of the Eregekon terrorist organization" and "inciting the public to hatred and hostility" were the reasons given in the search decision. There was no other concrete reason given.

* Şık made use of his right to refuse to give evidence. The allegation of "inciting the public to hatred and hostility" was cancelled when he was taken to the prosecutor. This change was not announced at all.

* The reason for the arrest had to be definitely announced. However, also here they did not give any concrete reason. It is only mentioned as a reason that according to documents and information obtained in the course of the search of Oda TV, "evidence suggested a strong suspicion of guilt".

* The secrecy of an investigation is actually meant to protect the suspect. For this file, it is used the other way around.

"Right to defence disregard"

* As the most fundamental right to defence, a person must be informed about the allegations and evidence against him or her. There are only very few files that disregard the right to defence like that. We plan to appeal the arrest on Tuesday (8 March). One of the reasons for the appeal will be that we do not know the reason for the arrest.

* There is no evidence in the file as claimed by Öz; and if there is, they did not show it to us. It is impossible to invalidate evidence that was not shown to us. It is also contrary to the law to conceal evidence from us if it is really there. If there is no evidence though, Öz conveyed wrong information to the public.

"We do not talk as hypothetical as the Minister suggested"

* It was published in the press what Prosecutor Öz asked in the investigation and which answers he received. Everybody can see that that these texts of the council of prosecution lack concrete evidence. What we say is not as hypothetical as suggested by Minister Ergin.

* Prosecutor Öz said that he inquired about Şık's alleged membership of an illegal organization but in fact the interrogation was about Şık's journalistic activities. Şık would not be in prison today if he had not been working on a book about the Fetullah Gülen congregation leaking into the Police. (AS/VK)