Those Who Choose to Be Silent Will Act as Accomplice to Injustice
The criminal proceedings (!) against 20 lawyers- being defendants- at the 37th High Criminal Court in Silivri Courthouse is over today. All of our colleagues were convicted.
At the first hearing of the case, as a result of the due process by the court board (panel of judges) at that time, the court ruled for the release of the lawyers. In the justification of the verdict, references have been made to (a) the possibility of change of the legal definition of the crime (b) ECHR rulings (c) the fact that the defendants are lawyers, and the releases of the defendants have been “well-reasoned”. 3 judges have their “wet signatures” under this reasoned ruling. However, 10 hours after this verdict of release was given for them, the same court with the same board issued a warrant for the arrest of these lawyers and this was communicated with “electronic signatures”.
Within the same week, two of the members of the court board were removed from this court and assigned to other courts.
At the hearings that follow, it can be obviously seen that a “pre-judgment” dominates within the newly-assigned board of the court. This was uttered both by the President of Bar Association who observed the hearings and the defense counsels being present at the courtroom during the first hearing the newly-appointed board took office.
[…]
At the hearing started on 18 March 2019, Presiding Judge asked the defendants for their defense concerning the opinion as to the accusations as a “preliminary action”. In response to this action observed by 16 bar presidents and a delegation from the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, objections have been raised by some lawyers including the President of Istanbul Bar Association. Requests for the extension of the proceedings were rejected. In the same ruling, reasoning was made for the dictum requested from the prosecutor’s office indicating that they waited for 35 days (!) without any mention of an extension of time granted “till the next hearing”.
Rejecting the request for the extension of prosecution, the Presiding Judge, upon the objections from defense, heard the reasons for this request not only from one defense counsel, but also from the defense counsels of each defendant. More clearly speaking, the request which was rejected in advance was voiced by the defense counsels this time. After hearing these requests, the Presiding Judge rejected all once again, with his “already-built pre-judgment, and he started taking statements, but he was confronted with the objections of defendants and defense counsels. This time, defense counsels and defendants were taken out of the courtroom and verdict for conviction of all defendants was announced without hearing the defense counsels.
As Istanbul Bar Association, we take this opportunity to express that Turkish Legal History has witnessed such a proceedings for the first time.
As an organization with 141 years of history that has experienced various extraordinary periods and that has saved the unjust proceedings to its memory as lessons, we should admit that it is the first time we have been going through such unlawfulness.
We, as defense being one of the constituents of judiciary, feel “ashamed” as we come across such a verdict that contains tens of undue and unlawful practices inside of it. We name is as “shame” though we are not the cause of this result. We are curious about the feelings of those who induced such a result.
What we have learnt and internalized about law is not enough to define all these incidents during the hearings of this case as a “trial”. Now, the legal society would discuss to what extent this verdict, delivered at the end of the sessions so-called as “trial”, is justified” and the position of the lawyers whose freedoms were restricted following a verdict composed under such circumstances.
Independent from the identities of the accused, accusations, allegations and defenses, we express that each powerholder who feels himself liable to secure “justice” will act as accomplice to this injustice, if they choose to remain silent. Some of the presidents of bar associations made an early warning to High council of Prosecutors and Judges and requested its immediate attention to the matter. We do not want to presume that this request will remain unanswered in the coming days though there has still been no response to this request. We try to explain that none of the subjects of the judiciary has the right to drag judiciary to this position. We call everyone for “real duty”. We only and simply ask for “fair trial”.
We do not ask for privileges as lawyers. We do not say that “lawyers cannot be put on trial”. We do not say that “lawyers cannot be arrested”. We only remind the right to fair trial for “everyone”. We are trying to tell that it is far beyond our imagination where this is going to lead into if lawyers are subject to all these.
We shall never give up our ideal for justice as Istanbul Bar Association and as lawyers. We will never remain silent.
Never and ever, even if we are left alone…
PRESIDENCY OF ISTANBUL BAR ASSOCIATION