Cemille Turhallı: We appealed against the decision and the detention 

2020-12-23 19:19:15


	 

	Şehriban Aslan

	 

	DİYARBAKIR - DTK Co-chair Leyla Güven's lawyer Cemile Turhallı Balsak drew attention to the fact that the court had a 45 minutes break before the verdict and it was evident from the decision that they were in a rush. Cemile said also that they appealed against the decision and the detention situation.

	 

	Democratic Society Congress (DTK) Co-chair Leyla Güven was detained and arrested two days ago, following the 22 years and 6 months prison sentence and arrest warrant given within the scope of the case held at the Diyarbakır 9th High Criminal Court. While there were reactions from many areas regarding Leyla's arrest, her lawyer Cemile Turhallı Balsak said that it was not possible to make sense of the individual sentences given from the upper limit and this was thought-provoking for the public.

	 

	'There was no stage to decide'

	 

	Stating that the arrest warrant against Leyla Güven was thought-provoking for the whole country, Cemile stated that this decision was not a result of an ordinary trial. She noted that Leyla was a public figure and was also a co-chairman of an institution with political representation. Cemile stated that Leyla had been detained for nearly 5 years in the KCK main case, which was previously described as the conspiracy case of FETO members. Cemile said, “There was no stage to be decided in the trial. As her lawyers, we said that there were other trials against Leyla Güven and these files should be merged and no decision could be made until this ”.

	 

	'There was evidence to be collected but the court rejected it'

	 

	Stating that they were forced to make a defense by the court, Cemile said, “We stated that the conditions of the defense could not be in that way, even though the prosecutor gave an opinion about a month ago, there were evidence to be collected, there were cases that had to be combined, and a new deadline had to be given. Because it is a fact that this file has not been completed for us. We said that even if we were forced to defend in this direction, at least a period of time should be given and detailed statements should be given in writing after meeting with our client. Of course, this reasonable time request is always a demand that is accepted in criminal proceedings. But here we are talking about an exceptional case. There was a  specific attitude and a specific purpose in this case as we see. All our objections on this matter have been denied. We saw that they were in a rush to make a hasty decision. There was no meaning in being on the defensive side, because a decision was made, and we were forced to defend it. We stated that compelling defense restricts the right to defense and we cannot defend her in this situation ”.

	 

	‘It is not possible to understand the prison sentence given from the upper limit’

	 

	Cemile drew attention to the fact that the court had a 45-minutes break and to it was evident from the decision that they were in a rush. Cemile said, “14 years and 3 months for being a member of a terrorist organization.. When we look at the prison sentence given for membership of an organization, it is a decision that I can explain  as exceptionally in terms of judicial history. We are talking about a person with political representation. It is not possible to make sense of the prison sentence given from this upper limit when we consider that the activities that are completely subject to trial are political activities. In addition, Leyla Güven had nearly 18 files combined. She was acquitted in terms of propaganda, but she was sentenced to 8 years in total for two separate propagandas. This is the first prison sentence that we can call the upper limit. Although we do not know the reasoned decision, it does not have legal elements. It is also not understandable to be punished separately here.”

	 

	'Our right to defense was denied'

	 

	Emphasizing that Leyla was not in the court and the decision was made without her, Cemile said: “Interestingly, Leyla Güven, who was arrested in 2018, did not attend the court after her detention on remand. An eviction order was issued at the hearing in which we did not exist. Unfortunately, our presence and absence in the trials have no meanings. If there is a decision, it can result in a negative result if there is no it can result in a positive decision. She was absent yesterday and there was a decision made in her absence. It was not important if we were in court or not  because our right to defense was denied.

	 

	"Conditions of arrest have not been met"

	 

	There are certain conditions for arrest. These conditions are defined in the international convention, the European Convention on Human Rights (AHIS) and the 35th article of the Constitution. For arresting there must be a strong suspicion of guilt, there must be a blackout of evidence, and at the same time there must be an escape situation.  Leyla güven has no these situations. The day before her trial she was visiting tradespeople. Judicial control provisions have already been implemented for nearly two years. There was no problem with these judicial controls. There can be no hint of the suspicion of escape, she always acted with the confidence of this.

	 

	'She taken to Anti-Terror Branch Office'

	 

	When she was detained after the verdict, we were told that she would be taken to prison but she was taken to the Anti-Terror Branch Office (TEM). She was referred to the courthouse the following morning. Only identification was made. The decision was not even read to her.

	 

	The detention order is against the law. If there is an arrest warrant, you cannot detain someone. The arrest warrant must be executed, and she must be referred to the courthouse. This was not respected in any way.

	 

	'We appealed against detention and arrest'

	 

	After this stage, we appealed to a higher court regarding the arrest. There is no decision regarding the appeal yet. At the same time, we objected to the detention. Since the court has given a conviction, we will continue with the domestic courts. "