Decision to continue the detention of 16 journalists

2022-08-10 16:09:30


	 

	DİYARBAKIR - The court ruled for the continuation of detention for 16 journalists arrested in Diyarbakır on June 16.

	 

	In the evaluation of the monthly detention of 16 journalists arrested in Diyarbakır on June 16, Diyarbakır 5th Criminal Judgeship of Peace decided to continue their detention for the second time. Resul Temur, the attorney of the journalists who wanted their clients to be tried pending trial, stated that their access to the file was restricted even though there was no restriction decision in the file during their detention, and that they could not get any results from their objections, and it is not revealed any evidence to the scrutiny of the defense is against the “principle of equality of arms". Temur stated that with the restriction, they did not have the opportunity to examine the evidence in the file and the legality of these evidences, and this abolished the right to present evidence against the accusation and to demand the collection of evidence in favor of it and

	 

	noted that this is contrary to the “right to a fair trial” regulated in Article 36 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

	 

	'A DECISION INDEPENDENT OF LEGAL PURPOSE'

	 

	Temur pointed out that the preparation of the 6-page document containing the arrest referral request 3-4 minutes after his clients gave their statements to the investigating prosecutor revealed that the document was prepared in advance and that only the statement was copied and added to the action. Temur said: "The 'detection that the organisation achieved its ultimate goals under the guise of a media organization', which was the reason for the arrest, was not included in the scope of the criminal investigation, and that the accusation was 'unspecific' for clients. This is a malicious and legally-independent decision that destroyed the principle of the individuality of crime and punishment."

	 

	'DECISION OF ARRESTS WILL TURN INTO A PENALTY'

	 

	Reminding that the arrest warrant was based on "the finding of facts showing a strong suspicion of committing a crime," Temur said: "The arrest warrant did not comply with Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). According to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an arrest warrant can be issued only in the presence of concrete evidence showing the existence of a strong criminal suspicion and a reason for arrest. Otherwise, the decision to arrest will go beyond the purpose of a precautionary measure, will turn the detention into a method of punishment that will remove it from a precautionary measure, and will result in a violation of the rights protected both nationally and internationally."

	 

	Temur, who submitted the violation decisions of the ECtHR, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals in unjust detentions to the file, stated that the arrest of his clients on the grounds of "being members of a terrorist organisation" despite their investigation within the framework of their press activities, revealed that the investigation and the activities of his clients were manipulated. Temur said:"This interference is also aimed at freedom of the press, and it is clear that this will lead to a violation within the scope of Article 13 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the ECHR."

	 

	REQUEST FOR RELEASING BY JUDICIAL CONTROL

	 

	It was clear that his clients were arrested due to legitimate and unlawful reasons, therefore attorney Temur asked to be released them within the scope of judicial control measures.

	 

	THE DECISION TO CONTINUE ARREST

	 

	Diyarbakır Criminal Court of Peace decided to continue their detention on the grounds there is evidence showing strong suspicion of crime that the imprisoned journalists have committed the crime, that there is no change in the evidence in favor of the suspect journalists, that the crime charged against them is one of the catalog crimes specified in the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the detention measure is proportional according to the expected sentence.