The Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly decided for the acquittal of specialist sergeant G.Y. The soldier had fired his gun into the crowd during a demonstration and killed one person.
The incident happened in 2005. Specialist sergeant G.Y., coming from the Special Operations Battalion Command, drove in an SUV together with two gendarmes and a soldier to the city center of Siirt in the southeast of Turkey. They were going to the scene of a press release with a group of 150-200 people on the street. The car was left in the middle of a clash between the police and the protestors. A part of the crowd threw stones to the vehicle and two soldiers were slightly injured.
When the attack continued despite warnings of the police, the sergeant fired 7 bullets out of the side window of the SUV, killing Abdullah Aydan who was part of the crowd. The Siirt High Criminal Court ruled for G.Y.'s acquittal. An appeal was filed and the decision was brought to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeal's Public Prosecutor's Office demanded punishment for the sergeant because of "death caused by negligence".
The Court of Appeals approved the 1st Criminal Chamber's decision for acquittal. The prosecutor's office lodged another appeal and the case was carried to the Criminal General Assembly. The prosecutor's office emphasized that the crowd had not surrounded the military vehicle, that the crowd had been smaller than specified and that the accused soldier did not voice any warning before he shot.
However, the assembly rejected the objection and decided to approve the chamber's decision on 18 March 2009. Last week the involved parties received a written notification about the reasons for the decision. According to the notification, sergeant G.Y. made use of his right to defend himself. Considering the situation his defense was evaluated as commensurable. The crowd apparently shouted slogans like "Kurdistan will become the grave of fascism" and "This is Kurdistan, not Turkey". Allegedly, the crowd severely damaged the car and two soldiers were injured. In this situation the sergeant lost his nerve because of excusable excitement, fear or hastiness, which can account for "a reason for impunity".
"It can be accepted that the borders of legal defense have been exceeded because of excusable fear or hastiness, taking into account that death threats increased the intensity of the actual attack despite warnings and regarding the regional characteristics of the scene".
Although the local prosecutor's office, the local court, the public prosecutor's office and the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals unanimously stated that the "deceased person was not among the attackers", the assembly based its decision on the explanation that Abdullah Aydan was indeed among them.
According to the case-law of this decision, considering similar situations where unarmed people throw stones and security forces kill a person because of comparable fear and hastiness, this will not account for a reason of punishment since the decision constitutes a precedent. (GT/EÜ/VK)
* Parts of Gökçer Tahincioğlu's news published in Milliyet have been added to this article.
