Members of a special operations team accused of attempting to capture or assassinate President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at a hotel in Marmaris during Turkey’s July 15, 2016 coup attempt have alleged that evidence was withheld from them and that their ability to present a defense was restricted during their trial.
A report by the Doğan News Agency said defendants complained that they had not received documents and evidence from the case file, that requests for forensic and ballistic examinations had not been granted and that their microphones were cut off while they were speaking.
The allegations have raised questions about whether the defendants were given adequate access to evidence and sufficient opportunity to challenge the charges against them.
WHAT IS BEING WITHHELD?
According to details in the agency report, members of the special operations team said they could not prepare a full defense because they had not been given all the documents and evidence in the case file.
They also requested forensic and ballistic examinations of the weapons and other evidence connected to the deaths that occurred in Marmaris.
The trial before the Muğla 2nd High Criminal Court involved 47 defendants, 44 of whom were being held in pretrial detention. The hearing continued with additional statements from the defendants in response to evidence collected during the proceedings, along with requests for release.
The court was expected to issue an interim ruling after hearing the additional statements.
The hearing was held in a hall at the Muğla Chamber of Commerce and Industry that had been converted into a courtroom. Police and soldiers imposed extensive security measures, and all detained defendants were brought to the hearing, which began at 9:25 a.m.
In a 25-page opinion submitted during an earlier hearing, prosecutor Ali Cenk requested the acquittal of Lt. Col. Hüseyin Yılmaz on the charge of attempting to assassinate the president. He sought six aggravated life sentences each for the other defendants.
Capt. Bahadır Sagun, who was assigned to the Special Forces Command, was the first defendant to give an additional statement.
“Our team was assigned the task after being told, ‘There is an instruction from the chief of general staff.’ The actual facts are intended to be hidden in this way. We could not properly prepare our defense because we are not familiar with the information in the file. I request that forensic and ballistic experts examine the evidence,” Sagun said.
Presiding Judge Melihşah Baştoğ interrupted Sagun and said, “You are abusing this microphone. There is no need to say the same things over and over again.”
Sagun concluded by saying, “I request that all the documents in the file be given to me personally.”
First Lt. Murat Köse said none of the witnesses heard by the court had made statements implicating him.
“I leave this to your discretion,” Köse said.
“TOURISTS AND AKP LAWMAKER ÖZTÜRK SHOULD TESTIFY”
First Lt. Enes Yılmaz said the prosecutor had failed to include evidence favorable to him in the opinion submitted to the court.
“I request that the Turkish and foreign tourists staying at the hotel and Justice and Development Party lawmaker Nihat Öztürk be heard as witnesses,” Yılmaz said.
Capt. Mehmet Öztürk also requested a forensic and ballistic examination.
“I want forensic and ballistic experts to examine the evidence. I know there is no evidence against me, and therefore I request my release,” Öztürk said.
“HOW CAN I DEFEND MYSELF WITHOUT SEEING THE EVIDENCE?”
First Lt. Ali Sarıbey, a member of the Turkish Navy’s Underwater Offense Command, also known as SAT, asked the court to consider precedent concerning allegations that he had used ByLock, an encrypted messaging application that Turkish authorities have treated as evidence of membership in the Gülen movement.
“What is the equivalent of the life sentences I will receive? It is not possible for me to present my full defense without seeing the evidence. The accusations against us concerning the deaths of the two police officers are slander. Our right to a defense was violated, our right to a fair trial was restricted and they cut off the microphone,” Sarıbey said.
JUDGE DEFENDS CUTTING OFF MICROPHONE
Baştoğ responded, “Of course that happens when you abuse the microphone. You are saying irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the subject.”
Sarıbey continued: “I am speaking sincerely. I am not resorting to demagoguery. I am trying to exercise my right to a defense. You are legal professionals, you know. Isn’t everyone equal before justice? You do the things you tell us to do. Don’t we have the same rights?”
Baştoğ again intervened, saying, “Do not try to evaluate me personally. Do not enter into unnecessary arguments with me. Make your defense.”
The hearing continued.
