Erdoğan's bodyguards may stand trial for torture

The trial has commenced for the two security guards of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, accused of assaulting lawyer Sertuğ Surenoğlu during the wedding of the Demirören and Kalyoncu families at Çırağan Palace. The incident occurred when Sürenoğlu expressed disapproval of the road closure during the event.

The hearing, held at İstanbul's 40th Penal Court, saw extensive attendance from bar associations and lawyers. However, the two accused guards did not appear in court.

The prosecutor, presenting the indictment, pointed out that considering the statement content and the report prepared about the victim, there is a possibility that the simple intentional injury attributed to the defendants could constitute the crime of 'torture' as a whole. Given this, and considering that the evaluation of evidence and the legal status of the defendants fall within the jurisdiction of the Heavy Penal Court concerning the crime of torture, the prosecutor requested the court to declare its incompetence.

"Not only torture"

Responding to this, Ömer Kavili, one of Sürenoğlu's lawyers, expressed his agreement with the prosecutor's statement, stating, "In the incident mentioned in the indictment, indeed, the crime of torture has been committed, as asserted by the prosecution. However, the defendants, suffering from power intoxication, not only committed the crime of torture but also engaged in the crimes of defamation, forgery of official documents, false testimony, and, thanks to the corrupt system that has protected them until today, they did not attend today's hearing."

Filiz Saraç, the President of the İstanbul Bar Association, added, "It is evident that many fundamental rights defined by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. Close guards of the President should have been presented in court the day after the incident; however, this investigation has been ongoing for five years. Therefore, everyone involved, not just the two police officers, should face justice, including those who witnessed the torture and prolonged the process over the past five years."

No arrest

The court, acknowledging the potential formation of the crime of torture, ruled to transfer the case to the heavy penal court. However, considering that the defendants are public servants and therefore have no suspicion of fleeing, the court did not order their arrest. It also rejected requests for judicial control measures. (HA/VK)