How was evidence hidden in Berkin Elvan case?

Click to read the article in Turkish

"As far as I remember, on that day, on June 16, our former PM and current President was going to pass through the E-5 highway. For the rally in Kazlıçeşme... We got an instruction about this. We were told that 'this road would remain open, so, no one would close this road in some way'."

F.D., the defendant police officer, uttered the above remarks in the first hearing of the lawsuit filed into the killing of Berkin Elvan, who was shot with a tear gas canister in İstanbul during Gezi protests in 2013.

Çiğdem Akbulut, an attorney for the Elvan family, spoke during the last hearing last week and talked about how the İstanbul Provincial Security Directorate "attempted to spoil evidence" by not presenting evidence to the investigation file before the lawsuit was filed.

Attorney Akbulut noted that "the entire evidence that was not in the file was disclosed thanks to the insistent follow-up of the family's attorneys while the responsible parties hid evidence during the investigation and trial."

Akbulut has shared detailed information about the "story of evidence" from the time when Elvan was shot on June 16, 2013 till today:

1. File was combined with hundreds of others

"After Berkin was killed, the attorneys of his family applied to the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and submitted a petition of criminal complaint. They requested that the list of the police officers who were on duty in Okmeydanı Mahmut Şevket Paşa Neighborhood on the day and hour of the incident be presented and the camera footage be collected.

"However, this complaint was combined with a file where there were hundreds of thousands of complaints about Gezi resistance. It was the first indication of the fact that there was an unwillingness to conduct an effective investigation. A month later, after the application to separate the file from other investigations that had nothing in common in terms of the quality of the crime, scene and date of incident was accepted, the file was separated.

2. Provincial Security Directorate did not give names

"Even though the prosecutor's office made requests about this for many times, the İstanbul Provincial Security Directorate did not give the list of the police officers who were on duty for a long time.

"The Security Directorate first wrote that 'no police officers were assigned to work in the area in question.'

"Following the insistent requests of the prosecutor, a list was sent by the İstanbul Provincial Security Directorate, but it did not have the names of the police officers who were on duty in the Okmeydanı area.

"Again, as a result of the prosecutor's insisting demands, a third document was sent by the directorate. But, this time, the list had the names of the police officers who were on duty in the Okmeydanı area, but the names of the ones who were on duty there one day after Elvan was shot.

"Faruk Bildirici, the prosecutor of the investigation, demanded the list of the police officers who were on duty at the correct date and hours. The İstanbul Provincial Security Directorate reiterated its first response and wrote that there were no police officers who were on duty at those hours and an action could be taken based on the list sent by them.

"When the proceedings started based on this list as indicated by the directorate, it was understood that the police officers whose names were on the list were not in Okmeydanı at the time of the incident. In his last letter of request, prosecutor Bildirici had to say that if the list was not sent, a legal action would be taken against the responsible parties.

"Finally, a list of hundreds of pages with the names of police officers who were on duty all across İstanbul was sent and the units and police officers who were on duty in the Okmeydanı Mahmut Şevket Paşa Neighborhood were identified by the attorneys of complainants from this list."

3. 'There is camera footage, there is no camera footage'

"Despite more than one petition penned by the prosecutor's office on different dates and indicating that the failure to meet the request would end in criminal action as required by legal liability, the İstanbul Directorate of Security displayed the same behavior about the camera footage.

"The Şişli District Security Directorate wrote to the prosecutor's office that there were no city surveillance cameras (MOBESE) in the Okmeydanı Mahmut Şevket Paşa Neighborhood, Gaziler Street and its vicinity.

"The Riot Police Department answered that there were MOBESE cameras that saw the scene of the incident and its vicinity, but as they were disabled by the protesters, there was no camera footage.

"Two different units affiliated with the İstanbul Provincial Security Directorate made a statement about the same scene of incident; while one of them said that 'there were no MOBESE cameras,' the other said that 'there were MOBESE cameras.'

"Afterwards, the Photo-Film Department answered that there was no camera footage captured in the Okmeydanı area.

"In the petitions that we submitted as attorneys, we requested the camera footage of the armed vehicles who were on duty in Okmeydanı. The camera footage in the file could be obtained only after this request.

"The identity of the police officer who shot Elvan could enter the investigation file only one year later."

4. Prosecutor's request rejected in a 'threatening' tone

"With two separate petitions, the attorneys of the complainant requested that an examination be made in the scene of the incident.

"This time, in its letter to the prosecutor's office, the İstanbul Security Directorate wrote that 'considering that the incident had a broad repercussion among the public and was widely debated, the proceedings had to be conducted by the prosecutor's office.'

"When the prosecutor insisted on an on-site examination, the İstanbul 2nd Penal Court of Peace rejected the request, indicating that 'it was not indispensable and there was no legal interest.

"The objection against this rejection was rejected by the İstanbul 17th Penal Court of First Instance for the following reason: 'An unnecessary examination leads to an unfair advantage and damages the state, which -in return- constitutes the crime of misconduct in office.'

"The request for an examination that the prosecutor's office was insisting on so that the investigation could be properly carried out was rejected by the law enforcement, which did not abide by the instruction given to itself in the first place and, to top it all, 'gave advice' to the prosecutor's office. Then, it was rejected by the courts that were not in full grasp of the file in a way almost threatening the prosecution."

5. Prosecutor's place of duty changed, file restricted

Attorney Çiğdem Akbulut has also raised concerns that the place of duty of Prosecutor Faruk Bildirici, who was trying to conduct the investigation into the killing of Elvan as meticulously as required, was changed by the 2014 summer decree of the Board of Judges and Prosecutors:

"Afterwards, a confidentiality order was imposed on the photos and footage presented to the investigation file upon the request of the İstanbul Provincial Security Directorate." (AS/SD)