Objections to defendant’s release rejected in ‘Leyla Aydemir murder’ case

Click to read the article in Turkish

After Yusuf Aydemir, the paternal uncle of 4-year-old Leyla Aydemir, was released from prison, both the Public Prosecutor and the attorneys of the Teacher Saadet's Association for Struggle Against Child Abuse (UCİM) appealed against the ruling of release of the court.

Both objections have been rejected.

CLICK - Prosecutor objects to defendant's release

Gone missing in the village of Bezirhane (Bezirgane) in Ağrı on June 15, 2018, Aydemir's dead body was found 18 days later. Yusuf Aydemir, the paternal uncle of the girl, was arrested pending trial. While he was then sentenced to life imprisonment for "deliberate murder", paternal uncle Aydemir has been released by the Erzurum Regional Court of Justice.

'A much harder process is ahead of us'

Speaking to bianet about the judicial process, lawyer Ayşegül Aydoğan, an Advisor to the UCİM Chair, has reminded us that the attorney of Leyla Aydemir's family as well as the attorneys of the UCİM authorized by the Ağrı Bar Association, lawyers from the Erzurum Bar Association and the Public Prosecutor appealed against the ruling of release:

"The rejection of objections to this release is not a lawful ruling. We, as the attorneys of UCİM, do not accept this release in any way. This ruling is, in fact, a ruling that leads the murderers of Leyla to walk around freely outside. This ruling is a ruling that has troubled public conscience.

"We are also of the opinion that it is an undue and unlawful ruling. In the trial to be held at the Ağrı 1st Heavy Penal Court, everything will return to square one, but we will not give up until we find her murderers.

"The Erzurum and Ağrı Bar Associations will be there, the bar association chairs of the neighboring provinces will be there. We are of the conviction that we must not stop following up this case so that the murderers of Leyla, who is now a symbol in terms of child deaths, can be found. A much harder process is now awaiting us. While there is strong evidence and suspicion, I, as a lawyer, must say it with sadness that this is going towards acquittal." 

UCİM Chair Saadet Özkan and Vice Chair Yücel Ceylan have also said that they will follow up this issue to the end.

Prosecutor objected to defendant's release

In response to the release, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Erzurum Regional Court of Justice sent a petition to the 1st Penal Chamber of the Erzurum Regional Court of Justice and objected to his release.

The petition of the office noted that the ruling of release given for defendant Aydemir was against the law and due process of law. The office noted that there had long been hostility between Aydemir and the father of the victim, which was understood from the statements of anonymous witnesses as well as from the statements of parties and witnesses in the file.

Indicating that the statements of witnesses and anonymous witnesses overlapped, the prosecutor's office argued it was understood that the victim had been abducted and killed by the defendant.

The petition also noted that when the developments that unfolded in the village after the victim got missing were considered, there was sufficient evidence for the defendant's conviction of the offense charged, adding that "he might exert pressure on the witnesses and spoil evidence."

Objection rejected

The 2nd Penal Chamber of the court has rejected the request. According to the 2nd Penal Chamber's decision, "there was nothing against the law or due process of law" in the ruling of the 1st Penal Chamber.

In its ruling, the 2nd Penal Chamber has first referred to the ruling of the 1st Penal Chamber, which has ruled for the release of defendant Aydemir "on the grounds that no definite evidence beyond all suspicion could be obtained suggesting that he committed the offense charged."

Indicating that it also examined the file, the 2nd Penal Chamber has rejected the Prosecutor's objection to the release of Aydemir on the grounds that "the statements of anonymous witnesses were based on hearsay; there were no direct, clear and definite statements based on eye-witnessing that the victim had been abducted and then killed by the defendant; anonymous witnesses made detailed statements about the hostility within the family, rather than the way in which the incident had taken place..." (AÖ/SD)