The second hearing of the case regarding the discovery of the lifeless body at Eğertutmaz River on 8 September of Narin Güran, who disappeared in the Tavşantepe Neighbourhood of the central Bağlar district of Diyarbakır province is being held today at the Diyarbakır 8th Heavy Penal Court.
Defendants under arrest including mother Yüksel Güran, elder brother Enes Güran, uncle Salim Güran and neighbour Nevzat Bahtiyar have been brought to the Diyarbakır Court House for the hearing. The court house has been placed under police blockade before the hearing. Lawyers of the defendants are present, while Diyarbakır Bar Association lawyers, and lawyers of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies representing the plaintiff, in addition to many politicians and representatives of children’s and women’s organizations are also taking part in the hearing.
The Chair of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey Committee of Human Rights Inquiry and AK Party Osmaniye member of parliament Derya Yanık is also taking part in the second hearing of the Narin Güran murder case along with her entourage. The group has sat in a section separately allocated for them. Mustafa Alkayış, Adıyaman member of parliament and Mehmet Sait Yaz Diyarbakır member of parliament, both from the ruling AK Party, are also present at the hearing.
The hearing has begun with the formal identification of the attendees.
Witness R.A.: “I don’t know, I don’t remember”
Following formal identification, R. A. (15), a worker for Salim Güran, has begun to present his statement via SEGBİS, the remote audiovisual communication system.
R. A. begins to describe the day of the incident: “It was just another day. We were working. I don’t remember what time I went to the village. We went there with my father. We went to the field, and Salim came up to us. It was around 8 or 9. He stayed with us for about an hour and a half. In the afternoon, my father went to get the workers. It was about 1.30 pm. He was going to get them and take them home. It was around 3 or 4 pm. Salim came up to me and asked where my father was. He called my father, he said, ‘drop the workers off and come to the house’. We sat around with Salim for a while, drank some tea. He then called my father again and my father said, ‘I’ll have something to eat and then come over’.
R.A.: “Salim Güran said he would change his clothes and come. It was around 5 pm, 5.30 pm. In the evening, around 6.30 pm me, my father and Salim Güran had dinner. Someone called Salim and said, ‘the girl is lost’. Then they drove off in the car with my father.”
Witness R.A. is once again asked about the sound recording they made with Salim Güran on the day of the incident, and when he responds, “I don’t remember what we talked about”, the voice recording was replayed.
R.A. states that the disagreement over an object/person, as heard in the voice recording, was about a ‘fountain sprinkler’.
He is then asked about the gendarmerie minutes stating that he swore at Salim: “They asked me that at the police station, too. The commanders asked whether Salim’s feet were wet before the arrest. I said no. I didn’t read my statements, they just made me sign the document.”
Head Judge: “You were crying when you said this?”
R.A.: “I didn’t say such a thing. I don’t know whether his feet were wet. I didn’t look. Nothing out of the ordinary, it was normal.”
Head Judge: “Let’s ask again whether his feet were wet.”
R.A.: “I mean they weren’t, I didn’t look at his feet.”
The Head Judge asks about the discrepancy between Salim Güran and R.A.’s statements.
Head Judge: “At the time when you state you were together, Salim is calling you on the phone, sort out the discrepancy.”
R.A.: "Salim was with me until he got the call. Only once did he leave for 15-20 minutes to change his clothes. It was about 6 o’clock.”
The prosecutor states that the discrepancy remains and that the question is repeated.
R.A.: “I don’t remember.”
Prosecutor: “There were two calls at 17.26 and 18.27. There’s still a discrepancy.”
R. A.: “I’m guessing, I didn’t check my watch.”
Salim Güran changed clothes on the day of the incident
Lawyer Nahit Eren from the Diyarbakır Bar Association: “During the interrogation, Salim persistently said that he was with you in the afternoon. Were there any threats or prompts for him to give such a statement?”
R.A.: “No, if there had been, I would have said so already.”
Nahit Eren: “Was there anyone else at the field other than Salim and your father after your father had gone and dropped off the workers?”
R.A.: “There was someone at Tavşantepe but I don’t remember. He brought his lambs every day, but I don’t know whether he came on the day of the incident.”
Nahit Eren: “Ms. Dilek (pedagogist) states that you went down to the village one more time. Could you please ask the time of that once again?”
Pedagogist: “Did you go to Tavşantepe Village on that day?”
R.A.: “I can’t be sure, I don’t remember, by God.”
Nahit Eren: “Does he remember the time when his father came and went? How long did it take for his father to return after Salim came and he went to the field?”
R.A.: “He went around 6 pm, was it 6 pm, I think so. It took about half an hour. We turned off one of the irrigation taps.”
Nahit Eren: “So about half an hour?”
R.A.: “I’d say so.”
Nahit Eren: “Does he remember what Salim was wearing, before and after?”
R.A.: “He didn’t have his working clothes on, he went and changed into his working clothes.”
Salim Güran’s lawyer Onur Akdağ asks: “Did he suffer maltreatment while he was providing his statement?”
R.A.: “They beat me up at the police station. Then a commander came and said, “He’s innocent”. Before that, someone attacked me from behind, I fell to the ground breathless.”
Mother Yüksel Güran’s lawyer Yılmaz Demiroğlu also poses a question.
Pedagogist: “Did the electricians come to the field?”
R.A.: “There was a sound at the top of the power distribution unit.”
Pedagogist: “So you saw them?”
R.A.: “Yes.”
Pedagog: “Did they have anything in their hands?”
Enes Güran’s lawyer Mustafa Demir intervenes: “Could we have more detail? Some issues have become muddled.”
Pedagog: “The electricians came, you saw them. Did they come up to you?”
R.A.: “I don’t remember.”
Mustafa Demir: “The electrician had said we ate menemen [scrambled eggs] together.”
Head Judge: “That would be leading.”
Nevzat Bahtiyar’s lawyer Adnan Ataş asks: “Why does he talk in secret after Salim calls him?”
Head judge: “Could it be because it was an unlicensed construction? We discussed this during the previous hearing and decided it was about the fountain sprinkler.”
R. A.’s statement ends. Shepherd Ahmet Akgün is brought in and is shown footage where he is beaten up.
Head Judge: “Why have you been brought here?”
Shepherd who faced violence: “I saw nothing”
Shepherd Ahmet Akgün: “Ömer and Uğur came and said, ‘Brother Erhan wants to see you’. I went over to him and told him that I knew nothing. I never saw Narin. I didn’t see anything untoward in Arif’s place either. ‘You’re with the animals all day, what have you seen?” was what they asked me. I don’t know why they didn’t believe me. They slapped me across the face, they tore my shirt.”
Head judge: “So why don’t they believe you? You even go to the back in the footage? Did they do anything to you?”
Ahmet Akgün begins to cry: “They hit me right here.”
The Head Judge comes up to him: “Calm down, it’s alright.”
Ahmet Akgün, continuing to cry: “I swear on my honour, I saw nothing. I didn’t see whether Enes had brought the girl. I saw nothing.”
Indictment
The investigation carried out by the Diyarbakır Head Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the 4 defendants arrested in connection with the murder of Narin Güran, who disappeared on 21 August in the Tavşantepe neighbourhood of the central Bağlar district of Diyarbakır, and whose lifeless body was discovered on 8 September at Eğertutmaz River.
From among the 23 suspects detained within the scope of the investigation, 12, including uncle Salim Güran, mother Yüksel Güran, elder brother Enes Güran and Nevzat Bahtiyar had been placed under arrest.
(ED/NHRD)
