Prosecution objects to the acquittal decision about Journalist Taşkın

2019-06-05 14:29:22


	ANKARA - The prosecutor who objected to our reporter Seda Taşkın's decision of acquittal alleged that, her news article about the prisons are 'organizing the  related mass, especially by creating national and international public opinion and has provided mobility to the organization.'

	 

	The final hearing of our reporter Seda Taşkın in which she was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment was held on 15 May in the Erzurum Regional Courthouse. Taşkın was sentenced to 1 year and 11 months and 10 days of imprisonment for ”organization propaganda" by the court and was acquitted on charges of  "helping and abetting the organization without being a member of it'.

	 

	The decision of the Erzurum Regional Court of Justice was challenged by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. It was learned that the objection was made to the 6th Criminal Chamber of the Erzurum Regional Courthouse on 30 May.

	 

	The appeal made by the prosecutor's office defended that the reversal of decision by the Court of Appeal was against the law and nonprocedural.

	 

	The objection of the prosecutor was grounded on Taşkın's search for stories involving prisoners and convicts who were sentenced to prison for being members pf PKK/KCK/YPG, the prison conditions they are staying at and the condition of their families and the fact that Taşkın stated that she worked for DİHA and Dihaber Agencies, which was closed down with law decrees during the state of emergency (OHAL) because they were related to PKK/KCK and their news articles are legitimizating their so called struggle.

	 

	The reason decision also includes that Taşkın 'have been motivating the members of the organization with her stories,facilitating the communication and information transfer within the organization, organizing the related mass, especially by creating national and international public opinion and has provided mobility to the organization'. 

	 

	The prosecutor stated that the punishment imposed by the local court was in place and that the decision of acquittal was against the procedure and the law.