“Solicitors International Human Rights Group” which is an international non-governmental organization and whose acronym is known as “SIHRG” followed the trial The Adnan Oktar Case which was heard by Istanbul the 30th Heavy Penal Court within the dates of September 2019 – January 2021 in “The International Independant Observer"s capacity.
Subsequently, they compiled a report as the neutral and independent observers about the violation of law and rights experienced during the unlawful prosecution process which were in scandalous extent, the injustices, the unprecended abnormalities that was being followed by them in person.
In the past few days The SIHRG shared the observation report to the public’s opinion which they prepared regarding to the independent observance and examination during the hearing under the name of
In the 24 page detailed observation report that the SIHRG rapporteur published, during the prosecution the Chief Justice and the Court Members of Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court, they declared they gained the impression during the prosecution that,
‼️ They conducted A PARTIAL TRIAL evidently and visibly against the people who were tried in the court,
‼️ They PREVENTED THE RIGHT TO DEFENCE by overtly scaring and intimidating the people who are tried in the court and their lawyers,
‼️ The people who were on trial VIOLATED RIGHT TO FAIR TREATMENT AND RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL and THE VERDICT WAS PRE-DETERMINED.
Solicitors International Human Rights Group (SIHRG) is a non-governmental organization that was established in United Kingdom based in 2005 with the object of training, investigation, observation and reporting about civil and human rights. In the body of SIHRG there is a gigantic Observation Committee for over 138.000 Solicitors who are experts of their subject from different countries of the world.
The SIHRG followed the trial which was conducted by Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court about Mr. Adnan Oktar and the 236 defendants within the dates of September 2019 – January 2021 with the committee of 4 solicitors one of whom is the director and the Rapporteur of the Group and 3 of them are the Observers.
The names and titles of the solicitors of the Committee are;
– Lionel Blackman (Rapporteur), Advocate, Director of the Solicitors International Human Rights Group
– Sarah Hermitage (Main Observer), Solicitor, Human Rights Activist
– Sandip Basu (Observer), Solicitor and Secretary of SIHRG
– Suzanne Valentine (Observer), Solicitor and a Member of SIHRG
As it is mentioned many times by the people who were on trial and by their defense lawyers that the report which was prepared by the Committee of SIHRG under the 8 main title was exactly corroborative that the Panel of Jugdes of Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court;
‼️ They conducted an extremely partial trial against the people who were tried in the court,
‼️ They did not allow the people who were on trial to defend themselves freely and took away their right to defense and right to fair trial,
‼️ During the trial they did not recognize not a single application of defense of the people who were on trial and of their lawyers,
‼️ They put a sign to hundereds of applications which were undue and inconsistent with law against the people who were on trial
In the executive summary part of the report that the Rapporteur Lionel Blackman stated in the consediration of the observations and examinations made by the committee that A FAIR TRIAL WAS NOT CONDUCTED by Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court:
“The team of SIHRG trial observers DID NOT OBSERVE A TRIAL THAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AS FAIR BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS NOR THE STANDARDS SET BY TURKISH LAW.”
Besides the Rapporteur stated that they witnessed such an illegitimate trial that was conducted by Istanbul the 30th Heavy Penal Court with the words:
“IT IS WITH RELUCTANCE THAT I EVEN USE THE WORD “TRIAL” to describe a process that was uninterested in defence evidence or arguments and was manifestly determined to convict the defendants, sentence them to lengthy terms of imprisonment and thus UTTERLY CRUSH THE MOVEMENT.”
In this part of the committe report, they left aside the procedural terms and stated that they included “THE FINDINGS ABOUT THE CONTRADICTIONS OF THE ACCUSATIONS” and sorted the findings as:
1– “10 complainants of sexual offences were also charged with being members of the criminal organisation. In other words, A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION ACCUSED OF THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING SEXUAL OFFENCES OF WHICH THEY WERE VICTIMS.”
2– “Of 207 defendants charged with being a member of the criminal organisation 123 (26 men and 97 females) faced no other charges. Hence, according to the pattern of criminal behaviour alleged by the State of movement followers being abused by other movement followers or leaders (tho), (so-called) POTENTIAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE WERE ALSO BEING CONDEMNED FOR THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION!!!”
3– “One former complainant and defendant testified that her complaint of sexual assault had been wrought from her by police through threats and oppression. In doing so she disavowed the liberty (Being an effective remorse is stressed here) that giving evidence for the prosecution would have earned her and instead attracted a 4 year sentence of imprisonment for membership of a criminal organisation.”
4– “No complaints of sexual abuse or sexual assault were made contemporaneous to the alleged events that occurred years and even decades past.”
5– “All complaints were gathered within a short recent period of time not by the usual police departments dealing with such offences but by an investigation unit for financial crime.”
6– “The adherents of the movement in question had faced several prosecutions before 2016 for being members of this alleged “criminal organisation” but THEY WERE ACQUITTED FROM THE ACCUSATIONS.”
7– “Defence lawyers were intimidated from defending by the threat of being charged with membership of the alleged criminal organisation they were seeking to establish did not exist as such. As a matter of fact, A DEFENSE LAWYER WAS IN FACT SO CHARGED.”
In this part of the report the Rapporteur Lionel Blackman mentioned solely some parts of the violations about the right to fair trial which were directly observed by the team of observation and relying on the observations that they made about the accusations they reached the conclusion that “the observations are reliable by itself in constituting a reliable opinion and THE ENTIRE OBSERVABLE PROSECUTION PROCESS DEPARTED FROM THE JUSTICE.”
Besides, in this part of the report the Comittee of SHIRG;
also evaluated the trial which was conducted by The Panel of Istabul the 30th Heavy Penal Court in regards to the accusations within the scope of TPC (Turkish Penal Code) Article Number 220. The Rapporteur stated that “they deduced that the accusations ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF ACCURACY which is internationally acknowledged” and they emphasized the parts about the purpose of committing offence in the establishment of organizations, therefore the issue of intended offences:
"Establishing Organisations for the Purpose of Committing Crimes (Turkish Penal Code ARTICLE 220)
(1) Article 220- (1) Those who form or manage organized groups for the purpose of committing acts which are defined as crimes by the laws, is punished with imprisonment from two years to six years unless this organized group is observed to be qualified to commit offense in view of its structure, quantity of members, tools and equipment hold for this purpose. However, at least three members are required for the existence of an organized group.
(2) Those who become a member of an organized group with the intention of committing crime, is punished with imprisonment from one year to three years.”
➤ The elements in the Article which I have underlined WERE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE INDICTMENTS. This defect WAS NOT CURED BY THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES ON THE INDICTMENT. However, without it being stated it would not be possible for a defendant facing only the charge under Article 220(2) to know what crime he or she was accused of having an intention to commit.
➤ All the other charges on the table featured in the indictments ARE THE OFFENCES PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF BEING COMMITTED BY INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT BEING PART OF A GROUP ORGANIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Apart from the sexual offences it is noteworthy that the other substantive offences only involved singular or very few defendants.
➤ The criminality of the movement WAS DETERMINED EX POST FACTO by the Court during the course of the trial. A terrorist organization, the proscription of which is provided in legislation, places citizens on notice that to join it is illegal. There is then no requirement for the State to prove any specific criminal intent on behalf of an accused other than membership of the organization. In fact, the movement in question WAS NOT A LEGALLY PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION.
➤ Owing to the findings of guilt of some members of the movement for substantive offences was the ground for determining that all followers of the movement charged were thus members of a criminal organization. The court dispensed with the requirement to establish what criminal offence each defendant charged with membership intended to commit by joining the movement. Therefore, THE COURT FIND THE GUILT BY ASSOCIATION WAS SUFFICIENT. However, finding guilt merely by association IS A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The Committee of the International Observation stated the significant findings about the observations of the report that they prepared as:
A. “The Judges did not comply with the requirement upon them to give to the defendants charged with membership of a criminal organization THE BENEFIT OF THE RIGHT TO LEGAL CERTAINTY in the criminal law.”
B. “In so failing the Judges also ALSO BREACHED THEIR DUTY NOT TO REACH VERDICTS OF GUILTY against individuals based solely on their association with others who were found guilty of substantive offences.”
C. “It is explicitly seen that THE JUDGES WERE NOT IMPARTIAL. THEY WERE PREJUDICED AGAINST A VAST MOJORITY OF THE DEFENDANTS. THIS WAS EVIDENCED BY A RANGE OF BREACHES OF FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS INCLUDING DENIAL OF DEFENSE WITNESSES, INTIMIDATING DEFENSE LAWYERS, providing insufficient time to present defences etc.”
About this part, the Rapporteur stated that the case in question covers a huge and detailed canvas and while preparing the report they decided to adopt “wood for the trees” approach. Hereunder, they stated that the trial conducted by the Panel Istanbul the 30th Heavy Penal Court IS NOT FAIR UP TO ANY STANDARDS as:
“The breaches of the duty of the Court to be impartial, to uphold the requirement of legal certainty of the charges and to treat defence lawyers with respect, were so blatant that it is not necessary to examine every other infraction of fair trial rights to establish that this “TRIAL” WAS NOT A FAIR ONE BY ANY STANDARD.”
The team of Observation declared the rights in question under 8 different headings and with the instances based upon the observations in the court. The headings are:
The team of SIHRG sorted the breaches of the right to pre-trial liberty from the statements of the reports they examined and from the third parties that they asked the opinions. Thereafter, they EVALUATED the enforcements of the court “AS A MANIFESTATION OF A MORE EXTENSIVE BREACH OF RIGHT TO LIBERTY PRACTICE and in the report they mentioned instances that they compiled in 4 different hearings regarding to the proceeding.
– During the Hearing dated on 30th October 2019
➤ " At the end of the court session the prosecutor made an application to the judge for the defendants to remain in custody. The judge agreed, stood up and walked out of the court without giving the defence lawyers a chance to make any bail applications whatsoever.”
➤ " Each defendant and their lawyers had a right to address the court on that date in relation to the issue of bail.”
➤ " Apparently a reason given by the prosecutor for denial of bail was the assertion that thedefendants were charged with being part of an armed terrorist organisation. However, the terrorist charge had been dropped from the indictment but the judge kept referring to it as a reason to deny bail.”
– During the Hearing dated on 31th October 2019
➤ "At the end of the evidence for this day a defence lawyer Bahri Bayram Belen who has served on the Board of the Istanbul Bar Association, and who has over forty years of experience and who is an extremely senior and respected lawyer was trying to address the judge on issues relating to his clients. He was waving around the Turkish Book of Criminal Procedure stating that all the defendants had a right to a bail hearing and that to deny them that the day before was unlawful. He stated that the defence lawyers were not just puppets sitting in the court but that they had a right to be heard.”
➤ "I SAW THE JUDGE (The Chief Judge Galip Mehmet Perk) BEGIN TO GET VERY ANGRY. The judge listened to the lawyer for about five minutes and then stood up and left the court. The lawyer continued to address him and THE JUDGE STATED ON HIM “ IF YOU DO NOT SHUT UP, I WILL HAVE YOU THROWN OUT OF THIS COURT.”
➤ ”According to the information that the lawyer gave me in his room; “NORMALLY, THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE EJECTED THE LAWYER, but IT WAS FELT THIS WAS NOT DONE AS THERE WAS A TRIAL OBSERVER IN THE COURT.”
– During the Hearing dated on 1st November 2019
➤ "At the end of the day there was a significant address from an eminent defence lawyer Prof. Umit Kocasakal’s (who was President of the Istanbul Bar Association for three terms). Ümit Kocasakal stated the Court must give proper reasons for continuing to remand the defendants in custody. He stated that each defendant had the right to be heard on a bail application.”
➤ "He referred to the fact that there were 250 Supreme Court decisions dealing with the issue of bail and of the right of the individuals to make a bail application that had been refused the previous day. He was extremely reactive and he said was disgusted by the court for not following the law.”
➤ "At the end the Judge dismissed all that had been said and told the lawyer to take it up with the higher courts and ended the session”.
– During the Hearing dated on 29 November 2019
➤ "Three different lawyers asked for the defendants to be released. All requests were denied.”
➤ "A defence lawyer sought to make an effective request for release of the prisoners under the constitution. No answer was given to the request.”
➤ "A Defence lawyer requested the verdict of the judge (to refuse release) in writing. No answer was given to the Lawyer”.
The committee of SHIRG, compiled the views of their report under the head of “The Conditions of Penal Institutions” about the pre-trial issues in response to the documents and reports that they examined and in response to the reliable account of the third parties that they asked for as:
➤ The cells were generally standard T cells built originally for 8 people. MANY ACCOMODATED UP TO 14 PRISONERS AND THERE ARE CREDIBLE REPORTS OF SOME CELLS HOLDING AS MANY AS 27 PRISONERS.
➤ “There was a TV in prison and it was all over the news that the defendants were accused of sexual crimes which caused serious problems for them. Many of the defendants were beaten by the convicted prisoners in the cells and the guards did not stop this behaviour.”
➤ "There was one hour of hot water a day for 20-30 prisoners. There was little or no regular exercise.”
➤ “Many had relatives unable to visit due to age and distances involved to do so.”
➤ "The denial of access to medical care led to permanent and serious physical and mental disability in some of the defendants which it would be unsafe to name or outline the health issue involved. Many of these defendants were told that if they signed documents implicating themselves and others in various crimes the medical treatment would be granted. SUCH TREATMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS INHUMANE.”
➤ “THE TREATMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS IN PRISON WAS A VIOLATION IN TERMS OF THEIR RIGHT TO FAIR TREATMENT IN DETENTION.“
➤ "The trial was heard by a panel of 3 judges. Only the central Judge (The Head of the Commitee Galip Mehmet Perk) appeared to have any engagement with the proceedings.”
➤ “The observers NOTED THAT THE JUDGE CONTINUOSLY PUSHED THE DEFENDANTS WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE TO HURRY THEM UP, CONFUSE AND FRIGHTEN THEM.”
➤ “The observers WITNESSED DEFENCE LAWYERS BEING SENT OUT OF COURT BE THE JUDGE AND ABUSE OF THEM BY THE JUDGE SHOUTING. Their microphones were frequently switched off and ATTEMPTS BY DEFENCE LAWYERS TO DEFEND THEIR CLIENTS WERE FREQUENTLY SHUT DOWN BY THE JUDGE.”
➤ “The observers WITNESSED A CLEAR BIAS on the part of the Judge who allowed the complainants’ lawyers freedom to argue without focus and ask seemingly irrelevant questions to any defendant. The complainants’ lawyers did not identify themselves to the defendants they were questioning or indeed state who they were representing. Protests from defence lawyers on this issue were shut down by the Judge.
➤ “THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINANTS GAVE EVIDENCE. Their lawyers could be present but THE DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES COULD NOT WITNESS THE ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST THEM.”
➤ "The observers DID NOT NOTE ANY INCIDENT WHERE THE JUDGE FOUND IN FAVOUR OF A DEFENSE OBJECTION.” the judge found in favour of a defence objection.”
➤ "The selection of the Judges involved a process that was not observable by any of the observation team. However, we have been provided a detailed account by defence lawyers THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT JUDGES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF SELECTION WERE REMOVED FROM THE CASE AND WERE REPLACED BY JUDGES THAT WOULD NOT ORDINARILY HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE CASE.”
➤ “We regard the account that we have been provided as a reliable account. The circumstances surrounding the exceptional or special appointment of the judges WHEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THEIR OBVIOUSLY BIAS CONDUCT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS WE REGARD AS POWERFUL EVIDENCE SHOWING PARTIALITY AND A BREACH OF THE RIGHT to the Defendants to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
In the part of the report that we quoted below, The Committee of SIHRG sorted the instances which underpins their remarks from the hearings that they observed day to day as:
During the Hearing dated on 15th October 2019
➤ “Adnan Oktar’s lawyer Enes Akbas addressed the court. He stated THAT IT WAS POINTLESS FOR ANY DEFENCE LAWYER TO BE IN COURT. Because they were not allowed to be heard, present evidence or have access to or cross examine complainants.”
➤ “He stated that he had waited for days to object to the questioning of Adnan Oktar on that particular week. He stated that Oktar had been placed into the witness box and asked to answer questions without his lawyers knowing he was going to be required to do so.”
➤ "The lawyer stated that the only people who knew that Mr. Adnan Oktar was going to be in the dock that particular week, was the press; who had reported in abundance the next day.”
➤ “The lawyer stated that the questioning had been irrelevant and against the constitution in some aspects (i.e., he was questioned on his personal life and sexual competence) and totally unlawful as no one except the judge could see what he was reading from or who was making the allegations.”
➤ "The lawyer submitted that the printed copies of the evidence should be given to the lawyer and the defendant so he could prepare some kind of defence. THE JUDGE TOLD HIM TO SHUT UP and just give him his bail application.”
During the Hearing dated on 1st of November 2019
➤ “At the end of the day there was a significant address from an eminent defence lawyer Prof. Umit Kocasakal’s. He stated that he doesn’t bother to object to questions as it was futile and that THE CRIMINAL CODE OF TURKEY WAS NOT BEING APPLIED TO THE COURT PROCEEDINGS.”
➤ "He complained of the fact that seemingly anyone was being allowed to address the court.”
➤ “He stated that INDICTMENTS prepared in response to a complainant statement ARE NOT VALID UNDER THE LAWS OF TURKEY. He said he was disgusted by the court for not following the law. He stated that he saw no law in the court room but just gossip. He stated that THE JUDGE ALLOWED ANY QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BY COMPLAINANT LAWYERS BUT THIS WAS NOT THE CASE FOR THE DEFENDANT LAWYERS. He stated that the judge allowed the complainant lawyers to question the defendants as if they were judges.”
➤ "It was an extraordinary display of anger from this advocate who was literally shouting at the judge. The address went on for at least 6 or seven minutes and at times the judge seemed to treat him with contempt by turning to his side judges and looking bored.”
➤ "At the end he dismissed all that had been said and told the lawyer to take it up with the higher courts and ended the session
The observations and analysis of the International Observation Commitee SIHRG are stated below about the issue of the treatments that the defendants were exposed to concerning the violations of the Presumption of Innocence within the scope of Right to Fair Trial:
➤ "The defendants were arrested and held in pre-trial detention for over fourteen months. This period exceeded the time allowed under Turkish Law. Most defendants remanded in custody constantly appealed this decision when allowed by video link to a judge. However, many defendants were not afforded this right in accordance with Turkish law.”
➤ "The Defendants lawyers constantly raised the issue of bail with the Judge; however, the Judge often refused to make any further order in respect of bail as required on a monthly basis during the trial.”
➤ "On several occasions observers witnessed defence lawyers asking the judge to hear individual bail applications at the appropriate times and the Judge shut down the defence lawyers. HOWEVER, THE JUDGE SWITCHED OFF THEIR MICROPHONES AND ON OCCASIONS SENT THE DEFENSE LAWYERS OUT OF COURT. On many occasions the observers WITNESSED the Judge DIRECTING the defence lawyers TO “SHUT UP OR YOU WILL BE THROWN OUT OF COURT.”
➤ "The Public Prosecutor failed to answer written submissions on the issue of bail from the defence lawyers and the issue of them not being allowed to be heard.”
Observers were also present in court each day of the week where the hearings were conducted within the dates of 14th -17th December 2020 and they relayed the findings regarding to the violation of the Presumption of Innocence to their reports as, “WE THINK IF ANY PART OF THE TRIAL SHOWED WHAT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE THESE PROCEEDINGS AMOUNT TO THEN IT WAS THIS WEEK.” Observers enlarged upon the condition that they witnessed as:
➤ "IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE FARCE and THE CONSEQUENCES HORRIFIC.”
➤ "In four days, I witnessed over forty men give evidence on multiple allegations of rape and serious criminal and sexual offences. In the context of this lengthy trial JUST MINUTES WERE GIVEN TO EACH DEFENDANT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.”
➤ "AT LEAST FIVE DEFENDANTS WERE INTERRUPTED FROM GIVING THEIR EVIDENCE BY THE JUDGE and all were treated impatiently and with little interest in what they were saying. ALL REQUESTS TO BRING WITNESSES WERE REFUSED.”
➤ "IT IS MY VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH FOR INNOCENCE BY THE COURT IN THIS TRIAL. THE OUTCOME WAS PRE-DETERMINED.”
Right to be Informed of Charges and Disclosure of Evidence and Adequate Time and Facilities to Prepare Defence
The Rapporteur of the International Observation Committee stated about the violations of right to fair trial in their report as:
➤ "Almost all of the defendants were not informed of the charges against them at the time of their arrest and IN SOME CASES FOR MONTHS AFTER.”
➤ "The defendants’ lawyers constantly raised concerns with the Judge concerning the failure of the Prosecutor to disclose evidence and in particular the digital evidence relied on by the prosecution.”
➤ "Several applications were made to the Court to rule on applications that evidence was not admissible on the ground that it had not been sealed in accordance with Turkish law. THE JUDGE REFUSED TO RULE ON THESE APPLICATIONS.”
➤ "THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PERSISTENTLY DENIED LAWYERS AND DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO COURT FILES. The indictments were not issued to them for twelve months after their arrests. THE DOCUMENT WAS 4,000 PAGES LONG AND SERVED JUST TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE TRIAL.”
Nonetheless, Observers stated a dialogue between a defense lawyer and the panel of judges that they witnessed during the hearing that they participated in on the date of 28th November 2019 to their reports as:
➤ " A complainant lawyer showed a video to the court which was handed to the judge who allowed it to be submitted without any reference to the defence. One defence lawyer objected stating that all the evidence should be given to the defence so they can prepare. THE JUDGE SAYS IT IS ALL IN THE INDICTMENT AND THEY’VE HAD 16 MONTHS TO PREPARE.”
However, not only the video wasn’t appeared in the indictment but also the indictment was prepared only 2 months in advance of the hearing, not 16 months before contrary to the terms of the Judge.
The findings of the Observers of the SIRGH Committee regarding the issue is:
➤ "We were informed that none of the defendants were given a right to be present when the complainants gave their evidence. Whilst there is a right for their lawyers to be present they often were not there.”
➤ "This was due to many factors within the control of the court i.e. time schedules and providing extremely short notice that a complainant was to give evidence. Generally, timetabling was unpredictable. No trial management hearing was ever held to establish a timetable for stages of the trial and the order of witnesses etc.”
➤ "For such a massive trial this failure denied lawyers, MANY OF WHOM HAD TO TRAVEL FROM OTHER CITIES, REASONABLE NOTICE TO PREPARE THEIR APPEARANCES.”
➤ "Related to this we have been reliably informed that records of hearings and minutes of the proceedings should have been provided or made available to Defendants and their lawyers and were not. THUS THE DEFENCE WERE CONTINUOUSLY PLACED AT GREAT DISADVANTAGE IN PREPARING THEIR DEFENCES. Because of the unpredictable timetabling and consequent logistical obstacles faced by lawyers attending hearings and the removal of Defendants during complainants’ testimonies THE DEFENCE WERE CONSTANTLY WORKING IN IGNORANCE OF WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COURT PREVIOUSLY.”
7. Right to Call and Examine Witnesses:
The findings and declaration of the Observation Comittee concerning the violation is stated utterly explicitly below. Hereunder;
➤ "THE JUDGE REFUSED ALL THE REQUESTS FROM THE DEFENDANTS TO CALL WITNESSES IN THEIR DEFENCE AT ANY STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT PROVIDE REASONS TO SUPPORT THIS REFUSAL.”
The findings of the Observation Committee regarding the violations in the issue is stated in the report as:
➤ "Defence lawyers were continuously prevented from properly representing their clients. THE JUDGE PERSISTENTLY REFUSED OBJECTIONS, TURNED OFF THEIR MICROPHONES AND EXPELLED THEM FROM COURTROOM.”
➤ "The Judge was observed TO BE CONSISTENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND OBSTRUCTIVE towards defence lawyers whilst being obliging to the complainants lawyers.”
➤ "THE DEFENDANTS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY DENIED ACCESS TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT ALL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS: upon arrest, post arrest, during detention and during the trial process.”
The Observation Comittee stated a highly striking instance concerning about the issue that they encountered during the hearing they participated in on the date 28th of November 2019 as;
➤ “One witness was asked if she breastfed her child or if Adnan Oktar told her not to. Her defence counsel stood up and objected to this line of personal questioning. THE JUDGE SHOUTED AT HER AND INSTRUCTED THE GENDARME TO REMOVE HER FROM THE COURT. SHE IS REMOVED WITH AROUND 20 MILITARY POLICE AND GENDARME SURROUNDING HER.”
As we emphasized in the begining it is explicitly seen that the findings in the independent observation report includes highly significant observations, testimonies, evidences and proofs concerning about the Chief Justice and the Court Members of Istanbul 30th Heavy Penal Court;
‼️ Conducted A PARTIAL TRIAL clearly and visibly against the people who were tried in the court,
‼️ Overtly PREVENTED THE RIGHT TO DEFENCE of the people who were tried in court and their lawyers by scaring and intimidating them,
‼️ The people who were on trial VIOLATED RIGHT TO FAIR TREATMENT AND RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL and THE VERDICT WAS PRE-DETERMINED.
during the prosecution.
We respectfully submitted to the public’s opinion