Manisa Children Torture Case Unconcluded
This is what Serhan Ozbek, the chair of the Manisa Bar Association, said. Ozbek is one of the lawyers in the torture case that came to be known as the Case of "Manisa Children".
"For offences like this one, the time limit is 7.5 years. In June 2003, the Time for the trial will be up," said Ozbek.
"Their real intention is to cause the case to be dropped due to superannuating. For this reason, we are asking the defendants to be penalized as ruled by the Panel of Chambers of the Court of Cassation and the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation." The appeals court had sentenced 10 police officers to between five and 10 years in jail for torturing the teen-agers.
16 teen-agers subjected to torture
Ozbek made this statement after the 37th hearing of the trial of the 10 police officers who are being charged with torturing 16 juveniles - most of them high-school students- while they were in custody at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Manisa Police Department.
The juveniles were detained in western city of Manisa, about 30 miles east of the Aegean port of Izmir, on grounds of being of a subversive leftist organization members.
In 1995, when the teen-agers got released after being in custody for five days, they pressed charges against the police officers claiming that they had been subjected to torture. The trial of the police officers continued simultaneously with the teen-agers' trial.
Evidence of torture
On October 28, 2000,an appeals court, the Izmir State Security Court, acquitted the 16 teen-agers. The court ruled that all confessions were extracted through torture and there was insufficient evidence to prove the teen-agers' alleged membership in an outlawed leftist group.
The trial of the police officers is still going on although the appeals court that acquitted the teen-agers, found that the students exhibited evidence of physical and psychological torture while under detention. Especially the legal community is closely watching the case.
It is argued that the torture case keeps getting postponed because the defendants are not showing up for the hearings, the necessary documents are not being presented to the court, there are missing reports, and the defense attorneys are withdrawing from the case.
No verdict on the 37th hearing
The police officers are being tried at the Manisa Criminal Court. During the hearing on Monday, 9 of the police officers, Halil Emir, Turgut Ozcan, Turgut Demirel, Engin Erdogan, Fevzi Aydag, Musa Gecer, Mehmet Emin Dal, Atilla Gurbuz and Ramazan Kolak, who are being charged with torturing the "Manisa Children," did not show up at the court.
Police officer Levent Ozvez was the only one present for the hearing. The hearing was postponed when 4 defense attorneys stated that they were stepping down from the case.
"Manisa Children Case" Chronology
Sessions of the legal action brought by the Manisa chief public prosecutor's office with indictment no. 1996/1150 of 03.06.1996 and heard by the high criminal court of Manisa under file no. 1996/128
1)24.6.1996: The opinion of the Justice Ministry on the intended transfer of the case having been asked, no action was taken and the case was adjourned since the file was waiting at the Ministry and had not yet been returned.
2)21.8.1996: Of the defendants, Halil Emir, Turgut Özcan, Turgut Demirel and Levent Özvez, and the complainant and complainant-victim intervenors, attended the session. Statements were taken from the defendants who were present and from an important number of the complainants and witnesses.
3) 06.11.1996: The other defendants Engin Erdoğan, Fevzi Aydog, Musa Geçer, Mehmet Emin Dal, Atilla Gürbüz and Ramazan Kolak appeared before the court and gave their statements. In addition, certain witnesses who are doctors and nurses, as well as Fulya Apaydin and Sabri Ergul, were heard as witnesses for the prosecution.
4) 25.12.1996: The defendant Halil Emir appeared before the court. Also, Ayşe Mine Balkanli and Mahir Göktas, the victims-complainants who had been decided to be released in the trial at the SSC, appeared and testified.
5) 03.02.1997: The defendant Halil Emir was present in the session. Endogen Kulich was heard as a witness for the intervening party, and Nazi Aydogan, Mehmet Cinar, Nihat Durmaz, Niyazi Ozturk, Celal Sahin and Orhan Caglar, officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Manisa Police Department, were heard as witnesses for the defence.
6) 30.4.1997: None of the defendants was present. It was decided that photographs of the defendants, to serve as a basis for identification, and the detention records, should be asked from the Manisa Police Department through the Manisa Public Prosecutor's Office, and the related books and documents of the Health Centre from the authorities concerned, and the other deficiencies should be removed.
7) 04.6.1997: None of the defendants appeared. It was decided that the originals of the requested documents should be provided instead of the photocopies that had been sent, that the photographs received should be returned because no identities were indicated on them, and they should be sent again after marking them with the identities of the defendants, and that the other deficiencies should be removed.
8) 16.7.1997: The defendants failed to appear. It was decided that the victims should be summoned and asked to identify the defendants on the basis of their photographs.
9) 03.9.1997: None of the defendants appeared. At the end of this session, it was decided that the defendants should be present in the next session for identification to be performed and that it should be performed on the basis of photographs in the case of any defendants who failed to appear.
10) 22.10.1997: None of the defendants appeared but a letter was received from the local police department stating that, of the defendants, Atilla Gurbuz and Engin Erdogan were unable to be present because they had been appointed elsewhere but the other defendants would be present in the session on the day and at the time specified. It was decided that the Police Department should be asked why the defendants failed to appear despite that letter and the Public Prosecutor's Office should be asked to certify which of the photographs sent belonged to which of the defendants because the stamps of authentication on the backs of the photographs were illegible, and that a face-to-face identification should be dispensed with because some of the victims had been heard in the initial sessions in which defendants were present and no benefit was perceived in holding a confrontation in a new hearing to be attended by the defendants and the victims, and instead a letter of instructions should be sent to the High Criminal Court of the place where the victims were held in prison so that an identification might be performed on the basis of photographs.
11) 19.11.1997: None of the defendants appeared before the court. Instead, they sent a letter of reply stating that they had not attended the previous session because they were waiting for a decision to be made in response to their objections. It was found that, although a letter had been written for the photographs of the defendants to be sent again after the Public Prosecutor's Office certified which of them belonged to which of the defendants, the defendant Turgut Demirel's photograph was missing among the photographs that had been sent again and that the photographs sent were not certified by the Public Prosecutor's Office, and it was decided that the existing photographs should be sent back to the Public Prosecutor's Office and that they should be provided to the court together with the defendant Turgut Demirel's photograph and after it was certified by the Public Prosecutor's Office which of the photographs belonged to which of the defendants. In addition, the victims who were present in the session were reminded that they must appear in the next session, and it was decided to send notices to those who were not present.
In this session, the objection by the interveners to the decision to dispense with a face-to-face identification was rejected, with the dissenting vote of the president Ihsan Özgel.
12) 23.12.1997: The defendants did not appear in the session. It was found that not all of the defendants' photos that had been sent were certified by the Public Prosecutor's Office and two of them were certified instead by the Police Department. However, in order not to prolong the trial any further and as the interveners did not object, the identification procedure was started. Meanwhile, the attorneys for the defendants requested that the identification be performed after mixing the defendants' photographs with other photographs. His opinion being asked, the Public Prosecutor stated that the identification would not have to be performed in this way if the defendants were present in the session and that, since it was already decided to perform it in this way because of the failure of the defendants to appear before the court, it would not be useful at this stage to perform the identification by mixing the photographs with other photographs which it would take time to prepare, and he requested the court to proceed according to its decision. The court decided to reject the request of the attorneys for the defendants and to proceed with the identification procedure. Of the victims, Huseyin Korkut felt unwell during identification and, for this reason, it was decided to conduct the case in closed session exclusively for the purpose of identification and the session was continued after the public was asked to leave, and left, the courtroom. In the closed session, Huseyin Korkut was heard and his identifications were recorded in the minutes. After him, Jale Kurt, Munire Apaydin, Ayse Mine Balkanli, Sema Tasar and Ozgur Zeybek were heard.
13) 21.01.1998: The defendants did not appear. Of the victims, Mahir Göktas appeared and was heard in closed session. Also, the interveners made their final submissions.
14) 23.02.1998: All the defendants attended the session. The public prosecutor submitted his final opinion and requested that eight of the defendants be sentenced for violating Article 245 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The attorneys for the defendants, and the defendants themselves, presented their defenses.
15) 11.3.1998: Seven defendants, other than Atilla Gurbuz, Engin Erdogan and Turgut Ozcan, appeared. The court acquitted the defendants on grounds that there was no definite and conclusive evidence sufficient to sentence them for the offences with which they were charged.
Both the Manisa public prosecutor's office and the complainant-victim interveners appealed against this decision. The eighth criminal chamber of the supreme appeal court examined the appeal and decided on 12.10.1998 to reverse the decision of the high criminal court of Manisa on grounds that it was against the law to acquit the defendants while it was established by the evidence in the file that they had committed the crime of applying torture against the victims.
Sessions of the case which began to be reconsidered under file no. 1998/278 following the decision of reversal by the eighth criminal chamber of the supreme appeal court:
1) 24.12.1998: Of the defendants, Levent Ozvez, Turgut Demirel, Fevzi Aydog, Musa Gecer, Ramazan Kolak and Halil Emir, and their attorneys, attended the session and requested the court to insist on its decision of acquittal.
2) 27.01.1999: None of the defendants appeared, but a reply was received to the instructions issued to Mehmet Emin Dal and Turgut Ozcan, the defendants who were outside, and the court unanimously agreed to insist on its former decision.
Both the public prosecutor and the interveners appealed against the decision of insistence of the high criminal court of Manisa. the general assembly of criminal chambers of the supreme appeal court examined the appeal and decided on 15.6.1999, with 17 votes against 7, to reverse the local court's decision of insistence, on the same grounds as the decision of reversal made by the eighth criminal chamber of the supreme appeal court.
********************
Sessions of the case which began to be reconsidered under file no. 1999/327 following the decision of reversal by the criminal general assembly of the supreme appeal court:
1) 28.12.1999:Of the defendants, Halil Emir and Turgut Demirel, together with their attorneys, and the interveners together with their attorneys, attended the session. The interveners requested the court to comply with the decision of reversal. The attorneys for the defendants argued that the decision of the Criminal General Assembly was against procedure and that there was also conflict with the Constitution, and they requested the court to stop the trial. The case was adjourned to take the statements of the other defendants concerning the decision of reversal and to wait for the arrival of responses to the instructions.
2) 17.02.2000: Of the defendants, Halil Emir, Levent Ozvez, Musa Gecer and Ramazan Kolak appeared. A response was received to the instructions issued for Fevzi Aydog. The instructions issued to Emin Dal were returned without being delivered as he was not available at the address. No responses were received to the instructions issued for Engin Erdogan, Turgut Ozcan and Atilla Gurbuz. In this session, the Public Prosecutor requested the court to reject the claims of the attorneys for the defendants concerning a conflict between the Constitution and the Law on the Supreme Appeal Court but to decide, in respect of their objection concerning the participation of the President and members of the Eighth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Appeal Court, who agreed with the decision of the Criminal General Assembly, that the file should be referred to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Supreme Appeal Court, because the General Criminal Assembly of the Supreme Appeal Court was the authority to decide such an objection, so that a decision might be made on the issue.
3) 28.3.2000: Halil Emir, Musa Gecer, Ramazan Kolak and Levent Ozvez appeared before the court, and responses were received to the instructions issued to Engin Erdogan and Turgut Ozcan. However, no reply was received from the Public Prosecutor's Office in response to the letter written to that office for Mehmet Emin Dal's address to be inquired. Nor was a response received to the instructions issued concerning Atilla Gurbuz. It was decided to reject the claim of unconstitutionality put forward by the attorneys for the defendants as well as their request for the file to be referred to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the Supreme Appeal Court.
4) 22.5.2000: None of the defendants appeared. Nor was a response received to the instructions issued for Atilla Gurbuz and Mehmet Emin Dal.
5) 19.7.2000: Of the defendants, Halil Emir and Levent Ozvez appeared. A response was received to the instructions sent to the High Criminal Court of Iskenderun for the defendant Mehmet Emin Dal. The attorneys for the intervenors submitted a petition stating that the prolongation of the case was in breach of Article 6/1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this session, it was decided that Atilla Gurbuz, whose defense it had not been possible to determine since 09.11.1999, should be arrested under Articles 223 and 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of his refusal to submit a defense.
6) 25.9.2000: The defendants Ramazan Kolak, Levent Ozvez, Halil Emir and Musa Geçer appeared, but it was found that the defendant Atilla Gurbuz's defence had not yet been taken in spite of the warrant of arrest issued in his absence and that the instructions sent to the High Criminal Court of Van had been returned without being carried out. As a result, it was decided that a notice of crime should be sent through the Manisa Public Prosecutor's Office to the Van Public Prosecutor's Office for the necessary action to be taken against those who were responsible for the failure to make the defendant available in the session. The outcome of this notice of crime is not yet known.
7) 15.11.2000: Of the defendants, Halil Emir, Levent Ozvez and Musa Geçer appeared. The statement of Atilla Gurbuz was taken by means of instructions and was inserted into the file. After the statements of the defendants were completed in this way, the court decided to comply with the decision of reversal of the General Criminal Assembly of the Supreme Appeal Court. The attorneys for the interveners were asked to state their claims concerning substance and then the Public Prosecutor was asked to do the same. After receiving their statements, the defense of the defendants was started. Their attorneys requested additional time for defense but the court rejected this request. Thereupon, the attorneys for the defendants stated that they were withdrawing from the case because, in their view, they would not be able to present a proper defense under these conditions. The defendants who were present requested time so that they could retain new attorneys. This request was also rejected, considering it to be intended to prolong the case. The defendants who were present were asked to say their final words, but they stated that they would not make any defense. The court ended the session and established a judgment in conformity with the decision of reversal of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Appeal Court, sentencing the defendants under Article 243 of the Turkish Criminal Code for torturing the victims while in detention as suspects. The defendants were sentenced to a heavy prison term of 1 year, the lower limit, for each victim they had tortured, and it was reduced by 1/6 to a heavy prison term of 10 months in accordance with Article 59 of the Turkish Criminal Code as they had no previous criminal conviction. In addition, each defendant was given a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a period of 3 months, which was also reduced by 1/6 to 2 months and 15 days. Thus, the sentences imposed on the defendants were as follows:
* Levent Ozvez: A total heavy prison term of 120 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 30 months, for torturing 12 victims;
* Turgut Demirel: A total heavy prison term of 60 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 15 months, for torturing 6 victims;
* Engin Erdogan: A total heavy prison term of 110 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 27 months and 15 days, for torturing 11 victims;
* Fevzi Aydog: A total heavy prison term of 110 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 27 months and 15 days, for torturing 11 victims;
* Musa Gecer: A total heavy prison term of 100 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 25 months, for torturing 10 victims;
* Mehmet Emin Dal: A total heavy prison term of 110 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 27 months and 15 days, for torturing 11 victims;
* Turgut Ozcan: A total heavy prison term of 70 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 17 months and 15 days, for torturing 7 victims;
* Atilla Gurbuz: A total heavy prison term of 100 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 25 months, for torturing 10 victims;
* Ramazan Kolak: A total heavy prison term of 110 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 27 months and 15 days, for torturing 11 victims; and
* Halil Emir: A total heavy prison term of 130 months and a temporary disqualification from the civil service for a total period of 32 months and 15 days, for torturing 13 victims.
The defendants appealed against the decision of convection by the high criminal court of Manisa. The eighth criminal chamber examined the appeal and decided ın the session of 02.05.2001 to reverse the convection on grounds that the right of defense had been restricted in breach of article 251 of the code of criminal procedure by rejecting the request for additional time by the attorneys for the defendants so that they could prepare the defenses, after the public prosecutor stated his opinion concerning substance in the session of judgment held on 15.11.2000 and argued for the conviction of the defendants, on the basis of the abstract reason that the attorneys had attended the sessions ever since the beginning of the trial, whereas the court must have granted them an appropriate period of time for that purpose and must have considered rejecting their such requests only if there were any signs that they were actually abusing the right of defense.
***********************
Sessions of the case which began to be reconsidered under file no. 2001/200 following reversal by the eighth criminal chamber of the supreme appeal court:
1) 18.7.2001: The defendants Turgut Demirel, Halil Emir and Levent Ozvez attended the session. Of the attorneys for the defendants, Lawyer Talat Tekkilic and Lawyer Zeynel Balkiz were present in the session although they stated in the session of 15.11.2000 that they had withdrawn from the case and although the judgment did not mention their names among the attorneys for the defendants, and they were nevertheless admitted into the session and their statements were taken without making any decision to admit them into the session. It was decided to wait for (responses to)* the instructions issued to the defendants who did not appear and the defendants who were outside.**
2) 29.8.2001: Of the defendants, Ramazan Kolak and Halil Emir appeared. In addition to Lawyer Talat Tekkilic and Lawyer Zeynel Balkiz, attorneys for the defendants, Lawyer Emin Uz, an attorney for the defendants, who stated in the session of 15.11.2000 that he had withdrawn from the case and whose name was therefore not mentioned in the judgment among the attorneys, was also admitted into the session without making any decision to admit him into the session.
3) 10.10.2001: The defendants Ramazan Kolak, Musa Gecer, Halil Emir and Levent Ozvez appeared and responses arrived to the instructions concerning Turgut Ozcan, Mehmet Emin Dal and Fevzi Aydog.
4) 21.11.2001: The defendants Ramazan Kolak, Levent Ozvez and Halil Emir appeared and a response arrived to the instructions concerning Atilla Gürbüz. The case was adjourned after deciding to wait for the arrival of (a response to) the instructions concerning Engin Erdogan.
5) 23.1.2002: Lawyer Serhan Ozbek, the President of the Manisa Bar Association, attended the session as attorney for the complainant-intervenors and stated that he had found out that the defendant Engin Erdogan's statement had been taken on 04.12.2001 under Bornova High Criminal Court's file of instructions no. 2001/1081 and the file had been completed. Thereupon, the court decided to make a notice of crime concerning the officials who neglected their duties, and the case was adjourned.
6) 04.03.2002: The defendant Engin Erdogan's statement arrived. The court, deciding to comply with the reversal, asked the opinion of the public prosecutor, who then stated his opinion and requested the court to sentence the defendants as stated in the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Appeal Court. The attorneys for the defendants requested time so that they could present their defenses.
7) 25.03.2002: Of the attorneys for the defendants, Lawyer Talat Tekkilic submitted a medical report stating that he was ill, and the other attorneys for the defendants submitted petitions stating that they withdrew from attorney ship. It was decided to send notices to the defendants to inform them of such withdrawal, and the case was adjourned until 15.04.2002.
* Words added by the translator.
** What they were outside of is not clear. (Translator's Note)