Constitutional Court rules violation for coup-plotting general
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the right to a fair trial of Major General Atilla Darendeli, who was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for his participation in the July 15 coup attempt, was violated due to the restriction of his right to defense.
12punto
The Constitutional Court (AYM) has issued a significant ruling regarding Major General Atilla Darendeli, the former commander of the 2nd Combined Air Operations Center, who was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for his participation in the July 15 coup attempt, a sentence that was upheld and finalized by the Court of Cassation.
The Constitutional Court ruled that Darendeli’s right to a fair trial was violated due to the restriction of his right to defense.
Darendeli, who appealed to the Constitutional Court, argued that although he had stated he could present his evidence by providing a detailed defense at the final hearing, this request was denied and his testimony was taken via SEGBİS (Audio and Video Information System), which resulted in his conviction.
The Constitutional Court evaluated the local court's decision to reject Darendeli's request to be present at the hearing, and its decision to proceed with the trial—receiving the prosecutor's opinion at the 11th hearing and delivering the verdict at the 13th hearing on the grounds that SEGBİS does not contradict the principle of immediacy—as a violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution.
'DOES NOT MEAN ACQUITTAL'
The Constitutional Court emphasized that the violation ruling does not mean the defendant has been acquitted. The decision stated that the retrial to be conducted to fulfill the requirements of the violation ruling does not necessarily mean that an acquittal verdict must be reached for the defendant.
The court noted that a similar or different conclusion could be reached based on the assessment of evidence during the retrial.
The applicant, Darendeli, had also stated that although he requested to question the reliability of witness testimonies and to reveal contradictory points, his request was rejected without justification, and he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses, which he argued placed him at a disadvantage against the prosecution.