Ebrar Sitesi became a grave for 80 people: Materials found to be poor quality!

A lawsuit has been filed requesting prison sentences of up to 22 years and six months for 5 defendants being tried in custody regarding the collapse of Ebrar Sitesi N Block in Kahramanmaraş during the February 6 earthquake, which resulted in the loss of 80 lives.

The indictment prepared by the Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against suspects A.D, A.Ö, M.T, A.Ö, and T.T regarding the building that collapsed on 64004 Street in the Şazibey neighborhood of the central Onikişubat district, on charges of "causing the death of more than one person by conscious negligence," has been accepted by the 2nd High Criminal Court.

The indictment, which recalls that 80 people lost their lives and 3 were injured in the collapsed block, states that the building's initial construction permit was obtained on December 23, 2003.

The indictment notes that an examination was conducted by an expert committee appointed by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to determine the condition of the building where deaths and injuries occurred following the earthquake, and that core and rebar samples were taken from the building's columns and beams and preserved. It further states that the reports prepared by the 4-person expert committee were submitted to a 7-person committee from Karadeniz Technical University.

The indictment, which states that the suspects, who were attributed primary fault in the expert report, did not accept the accusations against them in their defense, expresses that the technical supervisor suspect A.Ö. and M.A.T., for whom a decision of non-prosecution was issued due to his death, were at fault for the building's collapse in the earthquake.

"DETERMINED NOT TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS"

The indictment, which states that a soil survey report was found in the file, includes the following statements:

"However, it has been determined that the prepared report does not meet the minimum requirements specified in the relevant regulations for a soil and foundation survey report. In particular, it was concluded that it is unclear how the soil bearing capacity and soil safety stress calculations were made, the method used in the bearing capacity calculations was not specified, and the accuracy of the calculations could not be understood because the foundation dimensions were not available. Therefore, it is observed that the soil survey report was not prepared in accordance with the general format for soil and foundation survey reports of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement in effect at the time the structure was built."

"MATERIAL QUALITY IS INSUFFICIENT"

The indictment also emphasizes that while the raft foundation was mostly sufficient in terms of reinforcement area, the continuous foundation beams were mostly insufficient in terms of reinforcement area, and the following was recorded:

"It was determined that the shear walls were mostly sufficient in terms of head and body longitudinal reinforcement, but mostly insufficient in terms of body stirrup reinforcement. In addition, although some beams are close to limit values in terms of beam shear safety, they are at an acceptable level. Most of the slabs were determined to be sufficient in terms of cross-section and reinforcement area. Some slabs do not meet the minimum thickness condition. Therefore, it is understood that the suspects T.T, A.Ö, A.D, and M.T, who were responsible for the construction of the Ebrar Sitesi N block building, are primarily at fault due to the determination that the continuous foundation beams were mostly insufficient in terms of reinforcement area as a result of the analyses of the building subject to the expert committee's findings, the determination that they were mostly insufficient in terms of body stirrup reinforcement, the fact that some slabs did not meet the minimum thickness condition, and the insufficiency of material quality and reinforcement detailing."

The indictment states that the expert report also identified the building's static technical supervisor, suspect A.Ö., as primarily at fault due to various deficiencies that emerged as a result of the analyses of the building subject to the expert committee's findings.

The indictment also reports that an additional decision of non-prosecution was issued for S.G, M.Ö, M.G, M.A.T, and M.T.A. on charges of "causing death and injury by negligence," and that a separation decision was made regarding public officials as they are subject to investigation permission.