Osman Kavala’s Attorney İlkan Koyuncu: Indictment Misreads Gezi

Click to read the article in Turkish

The indictment, for which imprisoned businessperson Osman Kavala has been waiting for 16 months, has finally been issued and accepted by the İstanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court.

The indictment refers to not only Osman Kavala and Yiğit Aksakoğlu as defendants, but also to Can Dündar, Mücella Yapıcı, Memet Ali Alabora, Ali Hakan Altınay, Ayşe Pınar Alabora, Çiğdem Mater Utku, Gökçe Yılmaz, Handan Meltem Arıkan, Hanzade Hikmet Germiyanoğlu, İnanç Ekmekçi, Mine Özerden, Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman and Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi.

Osman Kavala's attorney İlkan Koyuncu summarizes the prison terms demanded for the 16 people by saying, "The Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) foresees life imprisonment. They bring the same charge against every single one of the defendants."

The other charges filed against them are as follows: "Damage to property", "holding dangerous material", "damage to places of worship and cemeteries", "violation of the Law no. 6136 on Firearms and Knives", "qualified looting" and "qualified bodily injury."

According to the indictment, these 16 people are responsible for all offenses committed during Gezi Park protests in almost all cities across Turkey. However, İstanbul Public Prosecutor Yakup Ali Kahveci, who issued the indictment, cannot define the offense as an organized crime.

İlkan Koyuncu explains the situation as follows: "The indictment does not say that it is an organization; the indictment says that there is 'a loose hierarchical structure' among these people. In other words, it says that these people committed this crime all together."

Specifically for Osman Kavala, Koyuncu says, "There were news reported in the press, stating that Osman Kavala financed [Gezi]. There is nothing put forward in the indictment suggesting that Kavala financed the Gezi."

İlkan Koyuncu, the attorney of Osman Kavala, has answered our questions about the 657-page Gezi indictment:

There are conversations in the section of allegations regarding financial provision. Did they put them as evidence?

As a matter of fact, it is an indictment consisting of tapes to a large extent. You read the tapes, there is nothing in them. But, do you know what there is? These conversations show that the protests developed momentarily, spontaneously. For instance, there are conversations in the tapes regarding him bringing chairs and tables. But, wasn't it the basic foundation of the indictment: "These people had come together since 2011 to overthrow the government, external forces supported them, the Gezi protests were started in an extremely planned and organized manner." But, if these protests were indeed that planned and organized, then, would you search after tables and chairs in that case? You say that Osman Kavala is the mastermind of it, but is it really done like that? It is unbelievable.

In one of the tapes, there is a conversation, where someone asks Osman Kavala how they can find gas masks. He asks what kind of a thing it is and wonders whether it can be bought from Koçtaş [a home improvement retailing].

Yes, yes, there is such a tape. In fact, what they called a gas mask was actually a medical mask worn by doctors. They are, in fact, the things that refute the general subject-matter of the indictment. There is something much more interesting that attracts my attention: Before moving on to the "conclusion and request" section, the indictment relates the prosecutors who launched the [Gezi] investigation to the Fethullahist structure [which is held responsible for staging the attempted coup on July 15, 2016]. Just after that, in order to clear the evidence collected during that period, it is stated that "all evidence and especially all of the tapes subject to the investigation were re-evaluated after 2016." What does it mean to re-evaluate? An evidence is either lawful or not. Then, I ask the following: Can the evidence collected as part of the December 17-25 investigation be re-evaluated by a prosecutor one day; what kind of nonsense is that? On the one side, you talk about a perfect organization, refer to Osman Kavala as the mastermind, you say that [George] Soros financed it; on the other side, you put such conversations as "Can a mask be bought from Koçtaş; can we bring tables from Cezayir Restaurant" in the indictment as evidence. Is it how a perfect organization is made? What is more interesting is that the indictment refers to Soros for around 104 times. Then, why isn't Soros a defendant?

When I consider the indictment from the perspective of a legist, another objectionable point is the charged offence of "damage to property." They listed the cities one by one in the indictment: Tekirdağ, Tunceli, Samsun, Kocaeli... 80 cities. They divided all charges from damage to the places of worship to their broken windows among the 16 people.

The indictment talks about all incidents across Turkey.

Yes, the places where the incidents of damage to property occured. These 16 people are responsible for them all. But, the indictment refers to the protesters as the perpetrators. But, they do not go after the perpetrator. Legally, you should first go after the perpetrator, if he or she did commit such a crime. You should find him or her. Then, you should investigate why these people committed the crimes and whether they have any links to these 16 people. But, they do not find the principal perpetrator or investigate the ones who inflicted the damage. Then, they say it is these 16 people who did the damage. It means that all this damage from Uşak to Kocaeli, from Tekirdağ to Samsun was done by 16 people, which is against reason and logic.

In consideration of these statements, how do you evaluate the indictment?

Very, very weak. Considering the ramp and rage around the issue, it is empty, it lacks evidence. This indictment shows that they have put Osman Kavala in prison for 16 months for nothing. There is an another side of this indictment... Thus far, not any case regarding Gezi was filed upon an indictment of overthrowing the government. At the time, neither the Taksim Solidarity nor any organizations that participated in the Gezi protests called the government to resign, let alone overthrowing the government. On the contrary, they directed their demands at the government; they met with the government officials.

And the Taksim Solidarity was acquitted from the case against them on February 15.

Exactly. Including that one, all the investigations were conducted for opposition to the Law on Gatherings and Demonstration Marches. The characteristics of the Gezi protests were clear. There were demands like 'the park should be protected', 'violent acts should not be in the demonstrations', "security forces who applied unproportional force should be punished." If you remember, it was stated that the security officers who used violence against the Gezi protesters were FETÖ (Fethullahist Terrorist Organization, held responsible for the 2016 coup attempt). Okay, but those who use violence are the officers of the state at the time, you should prevent that. That part in the indictment is also interesting. There were Gezi demonstrations in all cities of Turkey apart one. In 80 cities...

Yes, the Ministry of Interior at the time stated that demonstrations took place in every city apart from Bayburt.

Demonstrations were staged, people took to the streets in this many cities. Now the indictment says, there were no judicial cases in 50 cities. It means that there were no incidents where the police did not use unproportional force. If these demonstrations were against the government and was such planned, controlled, organized act, there would be incidents in those places too. The government would be called to resign in these places, the demonstrations would be turned into a total uprising. These demonstrations developed spontaneously.

Of course, everyone who took to the streets could have different motives. Some would protest because their area of freedom was breached, some would like the park to stay as a park, some would provoke. Everyone has different motivations, it is not possible to evaluate this as a whole. Osman Kavala's reason to be there is that he wanted the park to stay as a park. He is an activist, a sensitive person. He does not say that he was not there. Yes, he was there, and he used all of his rights in democratic ways to make the park stay as a park. This is what it is all about. There is not anything in the indictment that Osman Kavala did not say. They put telephone calls; he does not deny that he talked with those people. They are not people whom he says he does not know. They are his friends, colleagues. Osman Kavala does not say "I was not at the Gezi Park," he says "I was there."

Some newspapers frequently mentioned the allegation of financing the Gezi protests. Are there any evidence on this in the indictment? Or what are there?

If you accuse a person of financing, you have documents. Osman Kavala is a businessperson. At the same time, he is a person who cooperates with many civil society organizations. How much he spent on which projects is documented. They say the Open Society Foundation. It is an organization that is overseen by the Directorate General of Foundations. Accounts were given for all the expenditures, the amount of incoming and outgoing money is clear.

Now, a report from the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) has been put into the indictment. But that report does not say a concrete thing. So I ask: How much net money did Osman Kavala spend to the Gezi protests? This is not in the indictment. If there is anyone who knows that, who documented that, they should tell. Or what did he finance related to the Gezi happenings? This is not in the indictment, too. But they put this in the indictment: The Open Society Foundation supported a project on Romani people. It is a totally different thing. There are not any projects they can relate to the Gezi protests.

As for the last question, what is the closest thing to evidence in the indictment? Like, something you can say "This looks like evidence..."

No, it cannot be. Legally it cannot be, politically, the reading is wrong. The indictment misreads Gezi. It reads Gezi as an insurrection that was organized by outer powers, everyone who participated in it as militants. You cannot read the Gezi protests like this, it is impossible. It is not distant past. It happened five or six years ago. We all lived it, we know it, we are the witnesses of it. This indictment alleges some charges but cannot convince anyone. (HK/VK/SD)