On the Narin murder

Since August 2024, the Turkish public has been closely following the case of the murder of 8-year-old Narin Güran, known as the “Narin murder.” The young girl, who was reported missing on August 21, 2024, was unfortunately found dead on September 8, 2024.

The first hearing was held on November 7, 2024, and the verdict was finally announced on Saturday, December 28, 2024. The mother, brother, and uncle of the murdered child were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment, while another defendant received a prison sentence of 4 years and 6 months.

From the moment the incident was heard, everyone first hoped that the child would be found alive, but after the tragic news was received, there was a great and justified public outcry. What disturbed the public, in addition to the murder of a small child, were the events that took place during the investigation phase. The child's family and the residents of the village where she lived drew great reaction with their contradictory statements and their attitudes that hindered the collection of evidence. While the investigation was ongoing, a statement by a political party official saying “we know the family,” the purpose of which was unclear, also fueled the public outrage caused by the incident.

We have witnessed an incident that breaks one's heart and causes anger. There are issues that need to be addressed regarding the murder, the investigation phase, the trial process, and the way the media reported it. 

From the moment the incident was learned, the media's pursuit of the story undoubtedly served the public's right to know the truth. At the same time, it helped to elevate the care already shown during the investigation and trial stages to an even higher level. I believe two issues regarding the media's approach were important. The first is maintaining the balance between the confidentiality of the investigation and the public's right to receive information. The news and broadcasts made should inform the public, but they should be done in a way that does not affect the collection of evidence or the statements of suspects and witnesses. As far as I can see in the Narin case, this balance was maintained as much as possible. 

The issue I can criticize is the excessive discussion of what was alleged to be the motive for the murder; according to the claims, an incident that the little girl had witnessed. I do not think it was right to use what the child allegedly witnessed in a way that would arouse great curiosity. 

A child was murdered by multiple perpetrators acting in concert. Almost the entire village tried to protect the perpetrators, the statements contained contradictions, and access to evidence was made difficult. Given this situation, highlighting the question “what did the child see that she was killed?” was inappropriate. While uncovering the material truth is of course essential, highlighting a secondary issue alongside the multifaceted gravity of the incident does not help in punishing the criminals.

When we look at the incident in terms of the investigation phase and the trial, there were difficulties, especially in the collection of evidence and the proper taking of statements from suspects, witnesses, and defendants.  

The social and cultural structure of the place where the incident occurred, as far as we can see, shows resistance to the uncovering of a crime and its punishment by the court. When we also consider the politicians who made unnecessary statements about the family, it becomes even more apparent how complicated the matter is. Comprehensive and long discussions can be held on the reasons for this situation. 

The fact that there was a close kinship relationship among the defendants was another difficulty. Here we need to look at a provision of the law. Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains the conditions for refraining from testifying. The mother, brother, and uncle of the victim, who were tried together as defendants and received sentences, also have a lineage and kinship relationship with each other. If they were not defendants themselves, they would have the right to refrain from testifying for other defendants during the trial process. However, being tried together as defendants makes the situation complicated. We can say that the pressure of not stating that their relatives committed a crime while having to defend themselves is one of the main reasons for the contradictory statements given.

Finally; the completion of the trial in the court of first instance in a short period of two months served to satisfy the public conscience. It is of course important that the perpetrators of an incident that caused such outrage are tried quickly. I hope that other legal remedies will also be completed quickly and fairly. However, it is worth noting that since the reasoned decision has not yet been announced, it is not very appropriate to comment on the judgment established by the court at this moment. We hope that a decision as fair as it is fast has been reached. 

The completion of judicial activities in a fast and fair manner is one of the primary conditions of being a state of law. Speaking for the criminal cases that are the subject of this article, criminals should be punished as soon as possible, and the innocent should not live even for a day with the status of a suspect or defendant.