Significant development in the trial of judges and prosecutors involved in the Ergenekon conspiracy

Müyesser YILDIZ/12Punto.com.tr

The Office of the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor has submitted its closing arguments in the trial that has been ongoing for 5 years at the Supreme Court against the judges and prosecutors who served in the Ergenekon conspiracy case, on charges of “misconduct in office, deprivation of liberty, fabrication of evidence, and forgery of documents.”

CHARGES OF 'MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY'

In the closing arguments submitted ahead of today's hearing, it was requested that 7 defendants, primarily the former president of the now-closed 13th High Criminal Court where the Ergenekon conspiracy case was heard, Hasan Hüseyin Özese, member judge Hüsnü Çalmuk, and former prosecutor Mehmet Ali Pekgüzel, be punished for misconduct in office and deprivation of liberty. While the opinion suggested that the files of Ercan Fırat and Nihat Topal—who were not ordered to be arrested despite violating judicial control provisions during the trial and eventually became fugitives—should be separated as they also committed the crime of “deprivation of liberty,” no assessment was made regarding fugitive defendants Zekeriya Öz, Hadi Çağdır, Fikret Seçen, and Sedat Sami Haşıloğlu.

REACTION AT THE LAST HEARING

At the 51st session of the trial, which is being heard by the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court acting as a court of first instance, on September 26, victims of the Ergenekon conspiracy and their lawyers reacted by saying, “Do not drag this out. It is time to reach a verdict.” Following this, the Court decided to send the file to the Office of the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor to present its closing arguments.

SUPREME COURT CHIEF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE SUBMITTED ITS ARGUMENTS

The Office of the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor sent its closing arguments to the 8th Criminal Chamber yesterday, ahead of today's hearing.

In the closing arguments, the defendants were requested to be punished for “misconduct in office” due to actions such as: not hearing former Chief of General Staff Işık Koşaner, whom former Chief of General Staff İlker Başbuğ had brought to the hearing to testify as a witness in the Ergenekon conspiracy case; trying Başbuğ at the 13th High Criminal Court instead of the Supreme Council (Yüce Divan); failing to conduct fingerprint analysis on the “Action Plan for Combating Reactionism” allegedly seized at the office of lawyer Serdar Öztürk, one of the Ergenekon conspiracy defendants; rejecting Dursun Çiçek's request for an expert report regarding the same document; restricting the defense time of the defendants and their lawyers; and using illegal audio recordings as evidence. They were also requested to be punished for “deprivation of liberty” for issuing arrest and continued detention orders based on baseless grounds.

THE ÖZGÜR ÖZEL DETAIL

One of the accusations directed at the judges and prosecutors of the Ergenekon conspiracy was the obstruction of then-CHP deputies Özgür Özel, Veli Ağbaba, Mahmut Tanal, and Erdal Aksünger, who wanted to enter the courtroom to observe the hearing on July 27, 2012, through the use of the gendarmerie.

In the closing arguments of the Office of the Supreme Court Chief Public Prosecutor, it was recalled that hearings are open to everyone and that the conditions under which restrictions can be imposed are determined by law. After including the hearing transcript from that day, the following was stated:

“When the record in question is examined, it is clear that according to Article 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK), the deputies were not removed from the courtroom but were prevented from entering, and no reason was provided for this. Just as all decisions of courts and judges must be reasoned, there was no interim decision taken to remove the deputies. It must be accepted that the measure applied as a result of the tension that began with the arbitrary refusal to allow the deputies inside constitutes the crime of misconduct in office by abusing discretionary power.”