Click to read the article in Turkish / Kurdish
Four journalists who had been in pre-trial detention since October for reporting on an incident of torture were released today (April 2) after the first hearing of the case.
Two people who were detained by soldiers during a military operation in the Kurdish-majority eastern province of Van in mid-September sustained severe injuries after being dropped from a military helicopter. One of them, Servet Turgut, lost his life on September 30, after days of intensive care treatment.
Mesopotamia Agency (MA) reporters Adnan Bilen and Cemil Uğur, Jinnews reporter Şehriban Abi and freelance reporter Nazan Sala, who reported on the incident, were taken into custody on October 6 and arrested pending trial on October 12 for "membership of an illegal organization."
Zeynep Durgut, another reporter for MA, is also facing the same charge but is not arrested.
Handing down its interim judgment, the court released all four journalists and announced the next hearing will be held on July 2.
CLICK - Report by MP Şık: Soldiers stated that two people were dropped from helicopter
CLICK - Broadcast, publication ban on allegations of dropping from a helicopter
The hearing
The hearing of the case was held at the Van 5th Heavy Penal Court. The judge allowed only four journalists in the courtroom, citing coronavirus measures. They also had to leave their phones and computers outside.
While Bilen was giving testimony, Van Bar Association Chair Zülküf Uçar attempted to enter the courtroom but he couldn't because its door was locked from inside.
The presiding judge said there should be fewer attorneys in the courtroom due to the pandemic and ordered police to get them out, which led to an argument between the court board and attorneys. The presiding judge then left the courtroom.
After having a talk with the bar chair, the judge returned to the courtroom.
While the arrested journalists attended the hearing via videoconference, attorney Veysel Ok from the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), Journalists' Union of Turkey (TGS) Chair Gökhan Durmuş and TGS Diyarbakır Representative Mahmut Oral were at the İstanbul Courthouse in Çağlayan. Other attorneys were present in the courtroom.
Statements
Defense statements as reported by the MLSA:
Adnan Bilen: This is the trial of all dissident journalists
Starting his statement, Bilen said, "We are journalists, and this trial puts journalism on the defense. This is the trial of all dissident journalists, and will go down in history."
"Speak about the parts concerning yourself, everybody knows," said the presiding judge, interrupting the journalist. Bilen stated that he has been a journalist for 20 years and has not faced such a situation before and continued: "I was asked at the police station about two phone calls I made. The first call was made with the Van Medical Association Chair. The latter was with a lawyer, whom I consulted about an ECHR decision regarding their client. How could these be criminal acts?"
Remarking the piece of evidence consisting of the photos he took during the 2015 Newroz celebrations with a note saying "took photos of flags of terrorist organization members," Bilen said, "Nowhere in the world, could this constitute a crime. Those photos I took were taken by all of us. We were all there. All channels broadcasted the whole thing. I was convicted of "terrorist propaganda" and I received a sentence of which the announcement was deferred."
Noting that they were asked for yellow press cards, Bilen remarked how the indictment states that they lacked it. He said, "A press card is an accredited card. The Communications Directorate canceled the press cards of 680 persons in the course of four months. 90% of the foreign media left the country. There are tens of thousands of journalists who do not own a yellow press card in Turkey. Only 12 out of more than a hundred members of the Van Lake Journalists Community own a yellow press card."
Bilen also reminded the court that in the lawsuit on the nullity of the press card regulations, the Communications Directorate had underlined the fact that the accredited card was "not of defining but of facilitative nature."
Sala: Journalism is on the defense here
After Bilen, Nazan Sala gave her testimony: "We are not the ones on the defense here, journalism is. I have been working as a journalist for 15 years. The yellow press card is not something that is regarded. I owned one between the years 2010 and 2017. Following the shut-down of the newspaper in 2017 by a governmental decree, my card was canceled.
"Following the local elections in 2019, I worked as the director of the press unit of the municipality. That is, until the appointment of the trustee. I filed a lawsuit after I was fired, and tried to do freelance journalism in the meantime.
"I worked for a legit agency with a number of correspondents based in different places. I won the case and was returned to my job. Then, I got arrested. If my workplace was to be raided by the police, the municipality should have been raided."
Noting that she had penned numerous news reports regarding the pandemic, Sala stated none of these made the indictment but instead, only a selection of her reports from specific dates did. She said, "The indictment also mentions the newspaper archive I keep at home. I have an archive consisting of 10 newspapers published between the years 2010 and 2016.
"The indictment presents these as criminal elements. There is no decision to pull these papers off the shelves. What is more ordinary than a journalist keeping newspapers in her archive?"
Abi: Is it a crime to report on child abuse?
Following Sala, Jinnews reporter Şehriban Abi took the floor to present her defense: "In 2019, I started working for Jinnews on a piecework basis, a news agency founded as per Turkish laws in 2018. Our indictment was prepared as we marked our fifth month behind bars. Although it is called an indictment...
"Technical surveillance was conducted during the first four months of 2020. I penned news reports on women's issues and child abuse, is this a crime?
"Although we are indicted for 'membership in a terrorist organization,' the indictment could not reach such determination."
The presiding judge warned the journalists who were quietly talking to each other in the courtroom by saying, "Do not speak to each other." Afterward, he asked Abi: "There is a notebook in your file, what do you have to say about that?"
Abi answered: "I am a journalist, I transfer the contact information from my phone to the notebook, in case my phone is lost or broken. I do not know who is a member of the terrorist organization and who is not, I cannot know. I am a journalist, this has no organizational meaning."
Uğur: I was arrested because reporting on torture
MA reporter Cemil Uğur later took the stand to present his defense statement. He began by raising an objection to the indictment: "I am a journalist and journalism is on trial here. The indictment claims we only reported on social events, and not on natural or sports-related events, or tabloid news; when in fact we had taken those photos engraved upon the public memory after the Van Başkale earthquake. The fact that we are working for Mesopotamia News Agency is presented as a criminal element, whereas the agency is a legally established entity with an official trade registry."
Underscoring the fact that he was arrested because he reported on two citizens being thrown off a helicopter, Uğur pointed out that news on torture carries a high public interest:
"The phone call I was asked about was made to my news source. I was arrested because I reported on two citizens being thrown off a helicopter, which is not a crime. The source of our news report is the medical reports and eye witness statements. These kinds of news on torture carry a high public interest."
"I did not see the images on that phone or posted them on social media. I do not accept these accusations raised for fulfilling my duty as a journalist, because journalism is not a crime."
Durgut: Reporting on March 8 is considered an offense
After Uğur's statement, Journalist Zeynep Durgut, who is tried without pre-trial detention, joined the hearing from Cizre, Diyarbakır: "An arrest warrant was issued in my name following the detention of my four friends.
"Reporting on March 8 demonstrations is considered as an offense. The TV program I appeared on, does not concern me. Even if A Haber called me today, I could report for them. I am a journalist. How could reporting on March 8 be considered a crime in a country where hundreds of women are murdered? I think this is unlawful."
Durgut said she mainly reported on women's and children's issues, in addition to nature-related news and added: "I worked six years for Jinnews. My statements on Sterk TV were presented as criminal elements. I demand my acquittal."
Judge: Why bother to listen to witnesses?
After the completion of the defense statements, lawyer Ekin Yeter took the floor to request the panel to listen to two witnesses. The presiding judge answered, "Why bother? You are too excited."
Following the defenses of the defendants, lawyers began delivering their statements. The first lawyer to take the floor was Murat Timur, who began his statement by requesting the presiding judge to not interrupt himself.
Timur stated that the news report regarding two citizens being thrown off a helicopter constituted the essence of the case file. He noted that they reached this conclusion from the 28-page phone records belonging to Bilen, of which 27 pages were related to the aforementioned news report.
"Seven journalists' phones were tapped for two months by a court order, as they were thought to be members of the Cultural Committee. Afterward, these records were officially declared to be annihilated. Seven months later, my client was asked about these phone calls at the police station. The Constitutional Court's (TCC) İlhan Gökhan decision clearly states that these records cannot be considered evidence," Timur said.
MLSA Co-Director lawyer Veysel Ok took the floor to submit his defense statement: "I have been working as a lawyer in the field of freedom of expression for 16 years, and as the co-director of an NGO working in the same field."
"I was planning to present a Constitutional Court decision in this hearing, involving a provision forbidding the seizure of the digital materials of journalists, however, you began by seizing the phones and computers of the journalists monitoring the hearing.
"You did not even include this in the minutes. I request the phones and computers be returned to the journalists so that they are able to report. I will wait for your decision upon this request before moving on to my defense."
The prosecutor responded to Ok's request and stated that there was no decision of seizure but a preventive measure against audio or visual recording in the courtroom, which he considered to be clear and apparent, and requested the rejection of Ok's request. The panel of judges repeated that this was not a decision of seizure but a measure against audio or visual recording; and rejected lawyer Ok's request.
Ok continued his defense as the following: "The journalists were detained based on the evidence gathered during the detainment, without the existence of reasonable doubt. The torture news reports are on trial here. We are all aware that this is the reason behind the 6-month imprisonment of these journalists.
"The inquiry report is directly included in the indictment. A text which consists solely of the ideas of the prosecutor is the basis. Access ban decisions over the websites of the media outlets where the journalists are employed are frequently underlined by the prosecutor.
"On what authorization does the prosecutor present the lack of sports or tabloid news as evidence for "membership in a terrorist organization?" This indictment is an insult to us lawyers as well. What could a journalist do in Van, other than report on recurring rights violations?" (HA/VK)
-132.jpg)
