Reasoning for Fatih Altaylı verdict released: 'Assassination and kill order'

The Istanbul 26th High Criminal Court has shared with the public its reasoned decision regarding the 4-year and 2-month prison sentence previously handed down to journalist Fatih Altaylı. In the decision, the content of the statements made by Altaylı during a program on his YouTube channel was evaluated in detail.

The reasoned decision stated that with the words uttered during the program, Altaylı "made a threat that the complainant, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, could fall victim to an assassination or be killed."

The court emphasized that the questions asked and the answers given during the program were examined together, that the conversation directly targeted President and AKP Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and that no third party was mentioned.

The decision pointed out that the content in question was broadcast on YouTube, an international platform. The court noted that Altaylı's channel has more than one million subscribers and that the video was viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

The following statement was included in the reasoned decision:

“It has been proven that the defendant had the intent to convey the aforementioned threatening discourse.”

The court noted that Altaylı's words could not be evaluated within the scope of freedom of the press and expression. The reasoning included the following assessment:

“Considering the dimensions of the impact the press creates on its interlocutor while exercising freedom of expression, a public service privilege has been granted to the work it performs; the reliability bestowed along with this privilege brings with it a great responsibility arising from the work done.”

Furthermore, citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it was recalled that freedom of expression is not an absolute right and may be subject to legal restrictions in certain circumstances.

In the reasoned decision, it was ruled that Fatih Altaylı's detention should continue. The court cited the length of the sentence and the suspicion of flight as grounds for this decision.

The decision included the following statements:

“Considering the amount of the sentence given to the defendant, due to the suspicion of flight, judicial control provisions would be insufficient, and in this respect, the detention measure would be proportionate…”