DİYARBAKIR- Up to 20 years of prison sentence was requested for  Nurcan Yalçın on charges of "being a member of a terrorist organization" and "successive offense in terror propaganda".

 

The hearing of the case brought against journalist Nurcan Yalçın on charges of "being a member of a terrorist organization" and "successive offense in terror propaganda" in the Rosa Women's Association investigation was held at the 9th High Criminal Court of Diyarbakır. While Yalçın did not attend the hearing, his lawyer Resul Tamur was present at court.

 

At the request of the court, the information requested from the police about the Jinnewes website, which is Yalçın claimed to be working at, reached the court. In the article from the Diyarbakır Police Department, it was claimed that Jinnews published news that praised and supported the PKK and the KCK.

 

‘HER ROYALTIES LIES WITH THE ORGANIZATION’

 

Having presented his opinion, the prosecution argued that sufficient and convincing evidence had been collected in the investigation which shows that Yalçın participated in organizational actions within the framework of the activities of the Rosa Women's Association, and her royalties lies with the organization, and Yalçın acted within the hierarchy of the organization. The prosecution claimed that Yalçın committed the crime of "being a member of a terrorist organization" and 'successive offense in terror propaganda' and requested a prison sentence of 8 years 6 months up to 20 years.

 

'POLICE DEFINED JOURNALISM ACCORDING TO THEMSELVES'

 

Lawyer Resul Temur stated that the Diyarbakır Police Department defined journalism according to themselves, which actually is not the definition of journalism.  Stating that the agency is an institution that legally carries out journalistic activities, Tamur submitted the tax plate that Jinnews operates legally to the court. Reminding that his client Nurcan Yalçın is not a reporter for JinNews, but a reporter for Jin News Agency (JİNHA), Tamur stated that they had submitted the documents and statements regarding this matter to the court before and requested time to defend against the opinion.

 

Accepting the request for time, the court adjourned the hearing to 22 November.