E.A., a university student, applied to the cardiology department of a health facility in İzmir, where she is studying, with a complaint of "intense palpitations."
E.A., was examined by cardiologist A.E. in early February with a friend present. When E.A. went back to the doctor on Feb 18, to show her blood results from earlier tests, she was subjected to sexual assault by the doctor according to her statement.
According to the woman's account, the male doctor verbally harassed her during the examination using expressions such as "Do you have a boyfriend? You are very beautiful, I am glad I met you," and attempted physical harassment.
E.A. left the room and reported the situation by calling the 112 emergency line. Doctor A.E. was taken into custody and subsequently arrested.
The indictment prepared as a result of the investigation conducted by the İzmir Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stated that the doctor's actions were not "instantaneous" but a chain of behavior spread throughout the examination process. The act was described as "sexual assault exceeding the level of molestation."
The indictment also stated that the crime should be considered within the scope of "aggravated circumstances" due to the doctor-patient relationship, and a prison sentence of 3 to 7 years was requested. The doctor's trial began on Apr 1 after the İzmir 33rd Penal Court of First Instance accepted the indictment.
However, the presiding judge's statements normalizing the incident during the hearing led the plaintiff's lawyers to submit a request for the recusal of the judge. The judge had said, "A doctor can ask a patient to undress, look at where gynecologists look," according to the lawyers.
The court decided to release the defendant, citing the nature and quality of the crime attributed to the defendant, the fact that evidence had been largely collected, and the time he spent in detention.
E.A. and her lawyers Han Yıldırım and Rana Melisnur Duran spoke to bianet about the process.
'My boundaries were seriously violated'
E.A. recounted her experience during the examination:
"I am studying social services. At the time of the incident, I was doing an internship at the hospital in question as part of an applied course. Later, the hospital was demolished, and I moved to the Karabağlar Neighborhood Polyclinic with the community mental health team I worked with.
"One day while my internship was continuing, I experienced heart palpitations. It was quite an intense palpitation. Since the polyclinic was a small building, there was only one cardiology doctor. The people with me directed me there. An EKG and X-ray were taken there. Then I was called for a second examination. I went again on a day I was available. In the third stage, a blood test was requested. I received a message for the blood test on Feb 18. I went down to the doctor's room alone when I was available. At that time, the secretary was not there.
"During the examinations, I had to take off my shirt to be examined three times. That is, rather than an examination, my boundaries were seriously violated. A disturbing situation occurred both physically and verbally. The doctor asked me questions like 'You are very beautiful, do you have a boyfriend?' He was quite close to me and was touching my heart during the examination. When I said I had a boyfriend, he used expressions like 'Don't dwell on that, your heart will ache.'
"While the stethoscope was over my heart during the examination, he also opened the right side of my bra with his other hand and watched my right breast for a long time. Meanwhile, I tried to leave the room. It was said that an ECHO would be taken; however, I first left the room and called my friends. Later, I wanted to go back down and have the procedure done. During the ECHO, the doctor said there might be a problem with my heart valve, and this made me even more nervous.
"Later I was called to his room again. This time, he uttered similar words like 'You are very beautiful, I am glad you came.' Just as I thought we were going to shake hands as I was leaving the room, I extended my hand and he pulled me towards him and kissed me on the cheeks. Upon this, I went out immediately, called my friends and my boyfriend, and explained what happened. Then we started the legal process."
Lawyers pressured to withdraw from case
Lawyer Rana Melisnur Duran stated that from the moment they submitted their power of attorney to the file, direct and indirect pressure was exerted on their client and themselves to "abandon the case."
"During the trial stage, we faced extremely serious procedural issues. As the complainant's counsel, our right to ask questions and make statements, which is one of our most fundamental rights, was interrupted repeatedly throughout the proceedings. However, the points we emphasized did not concern a secondary aspect of the file; they pertained directly to whether the incident exceeded the limits of medical necessity, whether there was non-consensual contact, and the clear contradictions between the defendant's own statements.
"While the defendant stated in his testimony during the investigation stage that 'the shirt was completely removed,' he said this time in his defense before the court that 'the shirt was pulled up.' At this point, we wanted to reveal why the defendant changed his statement. Because this difference is not a simple choice of words; it is an extremely critical contradiction directly concerning the nature and limit of the contact at the center of the allegation.
"However, when our questions aimed at clarifying this contradiction were asked, the judge intervened, saying, 'Do not overcomplicate the matter, this is not relevant.' It did not stop there; expressions such as 'A doctor can remove all clothes, a gynecologist looks at this and that, the doctor may have looked too, these are quite normal' were used.
"Yet, the issue being discussed is exactly the points that determine the limit and legitimacy of medical intervention, which are at the center of the sexual assault allegation. Therefore, these words uttered during the hearing raised extremely serious questions regarding the principle of impartiality. As the complainant's counsel, we observed an approach that occasionally expressed opinions and included guidance in the reactions to our legal questions. Additionally, although hand and arm gestures were made by the defendant toward our client during the hearing, this was not intervened in either.
"When we wanted to present our statements, we were either not given time or the time was clearly restricted. Furthermore, the defendant's counsel, speaking in court in a lawyer's robe almost like a witness, said that they had known the defendant for a long time, had been examined by him many times, nothing had happened to them, and they had not seen any wrong move. This situation is an unacceptable picture in terms of the limits and procedures of criminal proceedings. For all these reasons, as the complainant's counsel, we requested the recusal of the judge with the conviction that the principle of a fair trial was clearly damaged."
Bribes offered
Lawyer Han Yıldırım also shared his colleague's statements:
"Despite requesting the floor to make a statement after the opinion, I was not given the right to speak; my statement was prevented and I was shouted at by the court bench being struck while saying 'The verdict is considered' repeatedly. Our statements regarding our 'recusal of the judge' request during the hearing were also not wanted to be recorded in the minutes. Before the opinion, our words were constantly interrupted during our statements and their contents were recorded incompletely in the minutes. In contrast, the defendant and his counsel were not interrupted during their defense, the court did not ask any questions about the merits of the file, and no intervention was made.
"Various direct and indirect pressures were encountered throughout the process. We were called by phone before the hearing and asked to withdraw from the file; calls and messages with the content 'Do not follow this file' were conveyed to us even through lawyers who were not recorded as counsel in the file. However, our request to submit the call and message records regarding these pressures and directions to the file was not accepted during the hearing; the judge made a statement saying, 'So what, they can call, they may want to reach an agreement,' clearly normalizing the fact of pressure."
"Financial offers starting from 750,000 liras and reaching up to at least 1 million liras were presented to us to withdraw from the file, and attempts were also made to communicate through the client's family. In addition, suggestions were made by some individuals to close the process with expressions like 'The decision on the case is already clear' and 'Do not continue this for your reputation'; claims that the family was related to influential people and high-level bureaucrats were also put forward as part of this atmosphere of pressure. However, all these attempts were explicitly rejected by us; in line with the definite statement and instruction of our client, it has been clearly expressed that a legal struggle will be carried out in the file until the end. At no stage has there been any question of reconciliation, withdrawal, or changing will as a result of pressure.
"Furthermore, we learned that the incident was not isolated, that there were similar allegations against the same person before, and that he was under a supervision process for the same crime, during which our file was opened. The İzmir Bar Association Women's Rights Center, the İzmir Bar Association Lawyer Rights Center, and the We Will Stop Femicide Platform attended the hearing as observers. They said they would follow the next hearing.
"The next hearing will be held on May 11, 2026, at 9.30. A strong follow-up of the hearing will both contribute to the fair and transparent conduct of the trial process in favor of the client and ensure that we continue our professional activities without being under any pressure."
(TY/VK)
