This happened too: A 'Presidential Insult' case was opened based on diary notes!..

We are witnessing new investigations and arrests almost every day. But it seems there is more to come.

Let us explain immediately. A convict who has been in prison for 8 years and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment begins keeping a diary in their cell upon the recommendation of the prison psychologist.

During inspections conducted at the prison where they are held, these diaries are also examined, but no criminal element is found, and no action is taken.

That is, until they were transferred to another prison on January 31 of this year.

When the prisoner was sent that day, their belongings reached the new prison 6 days later via cargo. Among their belongings, in addition to books, letters, and court documents, were their diaries consisting of 7-8 journals.

The prison administration examines them all and confiscates four of the diaries. When the prisoner asks why they were not given, they are told, “These are leather-bound. The leather will be removed and they will be given to you.” But on the same day, their defense is taken, and they are sentenced to one day of solitary confinement.

The prisoner later files an objection to this penalty with the Enforcement Judgeship. The objection is accepted, and the penalty in question is lifted.

However, the prison administration, not content with the solitary confinement penalty, prepares a report for certain expressions gathered under four headings in the diaries, stating that they “could be evaluated within the scope of the crime of insulting the President,” and sends it to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.

The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office refers this to the relevant prosecutor's office on March 19. One month later, the prosecutor takes the statement of this prisoner, the owner of the diaries, “to serve as the basis for the ongoing investigation into the crime of insulting the President.” In their statement on April 18, the prisoner says the following:

“The journals belong to me. Due to the nature of my sentence, I stayed in a single room for 4 years. There were only judicial convicts where I was. There was no one to talk to about general things or share my troubles. I wrote these for the purpose of talking to myself, to relax, and to pass the time. I did not show them to anyone; I had no intention of having anyone read or hear them. They were already examined during the transfer. Therefore, I have no criminal intent. General inspections were carried out from time to time in the prison where I was previously held, and no action was taken.”

PERMISSION FROM THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Since the permission of the Ministry of Justice is required for a lawsuit to be filed for the crime of “insulting the President,” the prosecutor's office requests permission on May 6, stating that “it has been concluded that the expressions in the diary could be evaluated within the scope of the act of insulting the President.”

Three months later, with the “approval” of Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç, prosecution permission is granted, and it is requested that “a copy of the finalized decision resulting from the trial be sent upon the execution of the requirement.”

Ultimately, an indictment is prepared on September 5 with the charge of “insulting the President.” The Criminal Court of First Instance accepts this indictment on September 19 and sets a hearing date for October 17.

HOW THE DIARY BECAME PUBLIC

Let us continue by stating that in all these correspondences and the indictment, those expressions in the personal diary, which are considered “criminal elements,” are explicitly described, thus making those expressions available for everyone to see and read.

At the hearing on October 17, the notes considered “criminal elements” are entered into the record.

The defendant makes the following defense in addition to their previous statement to the Prosecutor's Office:

“I do not accept the accusation against me. Even the prison psychologist recommended that I keep a diary. I have kept a diary for as long as I can remember. The things written in this diary are my own unique thoughts. I did not share these with anyone, I did not have anyone read the diaries. They are thoughts that I wrote entirely as my individual thoughts and that did not reflect to the outside world. Therefore, I do not think the diaries constitute a criminal element. Moreover, I have received an aggravated life sentence; it is not possible for me to leave the prison or for these to reflect to the outside world.”

A LESSON IN FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

The result?

In this first session, while the prosecutor requests that the defendant be punished for the crime of “insulting the President,” the Judge of the Criminal Court of First Instance issues an acquittal decision, subject to appeal, after stating, “The defendant declared that the journals in question are diaries where they wrote their personal thoughts and that they did not share these writings with anyone, and no determination was made by the Penal Execution Institution that the journals in question were not diaries and were shared with others.”

The following is emphasized in the justification of the decision:

“According to Article 25 of the Constitution, ‘Everyone has the freedom of thought and opinion. No one shall be compelled to disclose their thoughts and opinions for any reason or purpose; no one shall be condemned or accused because of their thoughts and opinions’. The freedom of thought regulated in the Constitution protects thoughts that exist in a person's inner world and do not reflect to the outside world, and no limitation reason has been foreseen in the Constitution regarding this freedom. Therefore, concluding that the defendant's personal thoughts, which they only wrote down and for which there is no determination that they were shared with others, should be evaluated within the scope of the freedom of thought protected under Article 25 of the Constitution…”

Do not say “Oh, how nice!”!..

Because the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office once again writes those expressions from the diary and appeals the acquittal decision with the claim that “it remains within the scope of insulting the President.”

It is clear that after the freedom of expression was narrowed as much as possible, it is now the turn of the freedom of thought.

Let's see what happens!..

Müyesser YILDIZ

December 23, 2024