(The Lawyer of Pınar Selek)

Towards the end of November last year, I wrote an article about the judiciary  process of Pınar Selek. Within the article, published in T24, I said this as follows:

“Anymore, although we are accustomed to or get used to this unbelievable events, lets confess, we still protect our feelings of astonishment and wonder in every new one.”

The article was written in a period that the decision by the court was clear from that day and for announcement, just procedural requirements were waited to be fulfilled. After it was published two more trials have been done. At the trial, last held on January 24th, the court explained its predetermined decision: the condemnation of Pınar Selek with aggravated life imprisonment…

Çelebi[1] this is what you call judgment in this quarter!... 

The only change, as a surprise, in terms of decision, was that the chief judge of the delegation, who could not attend to the previous two sessions because of health problems, was ready there and dissent to the decision of condemnation. Aggravated life imprisonment about Pınar Selek was given by the votes of two new member judges who were appointed after Supreme Court’s decision of reversal. Unlike the chief judge of the court who holds the case from the very beginning of the trial, the new two judges who did come face to face with neither Pınar Selek nor other defendants and the witnesses listened in the trial, who did not listen them, who did not contact with the evidences directly, who were not present in the discussion of the evidences, just solved the material event subject to the court with documents in the case files and decided in accordance with their conscientious conviction.

Below you can find, I am putting the regulation in the law exactly without any interpretation:

CMK (Criminal Procedural Code) [2] article 217: “The judge shall only rely upon evidence that is presented at the main hearing and has been discussed in his presence while forming his judgement.”

The question is that: I wonder, what are two new member judges who have signature under the decision going to base their decisions on, if there is no evidence discussed in their presence? Of course, based on the evidences that has not been discussed in their presence…

 Unlawful practices were continued…

The lawyers of Pınar Selek said that the judges who desisted from the court’s decision to resist on acquittal of Pınar Selek should quit from the case since they lost their objectivity and decided unlawfully. Unless they do, the lawyers declared that they refused these judges. The lawyers requested the implementation of the procedures and rules regarding the recusal of the judges. It is difficult to tell after that… Technical law knowledge is a bit necessary to be able to understand. Never mind, the matter is crucial, yet let me try to tell it simply as much as possible. In our law, if the recusal of judges is requested there are two methods envisioned. The court can transact according to the one of these two methods after its evaluation. There is no third way or method. In the first method, if the court evaluates the request for recusal of judges as a request to extend the case only, then it can decide directly by itself. The parties have a right to appeal this decision. In the second method, the recused judges write their opinions about arguments that are presented as a reason for their recusals and send it to the next court according to the number about the decision of the request and that the court decide on the request for recusal. The parties have a right to appeal this decision by this court too. Well, what did the judges who carry out the trial of Pınar Selek and about whom the lawyers have request for recusal do? According to which method did they transact? They applied neither first nor second method; they invented third way and applied it that did not happen even in a special court of competent jurisdiction until now.

How? The court decided on the request for recusal by itself and sent it to the next court to be examined by them. The next court looked and saw that the decision has been done and also sent to them in order to be decided on. Therefore, the next court thought that the lawyers objected and due to this objection, the file was sent to them to decide on and the next court decided to refuse the objection. At the next trial when the lawyers saw the same judges whom they recused about, after they learned what happened, said they could not understand the situation. “We did not object to anything.  Instead of us, did you object to in the place of us that means the defense? Did you start to make both the defense and the decision? Did you object to on behalf of us by thinking that they somehow object to it and if they use their legal right then the time will pass? It would not be that much. We want to use our right of objection recognized by the law; we tell and write why we object to it by ourselves.” The judges who came to explain their decisions had to give the lawyers time for their usage of their legal right of objection and 7 days for their objections. During this 7-days-period, the objection petitions were presented to the court. To decide on the objection, the case file was sent to the next second numbered court. Moreover, what did the court do? Let us say it by its translation. That the court said is the request for recusal procedure and the method were incorrectly applied. The previous decision taken by the court was given after the objection already and there is no right to object to this decision. Overall, the certain decision was taken as a result of the objection done by the court in the place of us, instead of us. 

We have decided but never mind, do your defense yet!...

At the last trial hold on January 24th, after the refusal of all demands of the lawyers, it is said that do your defense about the basis of the trial now.

The situation: what the court says is that it decided to obey the reversal decision and agree with the Supreme Court’s opinion about aggravated life imprisonment of Pınar Selek and then the court announced the decision of imprisonment according to that. Nevertheless, the court says that; “Before we announce the decision, do your defense so we can complete the procedure, fait accompli… “What we said as lawyers is that if the decision has been taken and the result will not change then why do we have to do the defense?  Are we deceiving a child, why is there a need of the image of the defense? In this situation, isn’t it so ridiculous to do defense? One of the members replied verbally: not only in that case, we always do the same…

After all these happened, the court gave one-hour break to the trial. After they returned, they gave a full 46-pages-decision to the lawyers. Within one hour, they had written 46-pages-decision. Luckily, there are fantastic judges who can write 46 pages decision within one hour…  To the attention of those who complain about the long lasting judgments!

[1] Evliya Çelebi

[2] Ceza Muhakemeleri Kanunu: Code of Criminal Procedure