Suspect who abused a 13-year-old walks free despite evidence! "When you're older we'll marry you off, we'll give you the upstairs flat"

SİNEM NAZLI DEMİR

M. Aras, who came from Bursa to Istanbul in 2024 to work at a bakery near his uncle's home, met a 13-year-old child living in the same apartment building. Despite being 31 years old and married, he introduced himself to the child as a 20-year-old single man. Taking advantage of the proximity of their homes, the suspect began sending the child messages on social media. After a while, he also asked the child for nude photographs and told her he wanted to have a sexual relationship with her.

One day, using the pretext that he had "dropped his headphones downstairs," the suspect called the child down to the bottom of the apartment building. He put her on his motorbike and took her to the home of his friend E.Ç. At that home, he committed aggravated sexual abuse against the 13-year-old child. When his friend noticed the abuse, the suspect left the premises and handed the victim's phone to his friend, asking him to smash it. Because the phone was destroyed, much of the evidence it contained was lost.

On the day the abuse took place, the suspect took the child from Istanbul to Bursa, to the home where his mother and brother lived, and abused her there as well. Although the suspect's family members denied this, the fact that the child was taken to that home was established through HTS (call detail) records.

"IF YOU DON'T GIVE YOUR STATEMENT THE WAY WE TELL YOU, THEY'LL PUT YOU IN A CARE HOME"

While the child was being abducted and subjected to abuse, her family went to the police, and at the same time the suspect M. Aras's uncle in Istanbul tried to reach him. The suspect's brother F. Aras panicked and called the uncle, telling him to come and collect the child; the uncle, E. Kara, then informed the police. After the child was handed back to her family by the law enforcement officers who had been notified, the family filed a complaint and the investigation process began.

The 13-year-old girl, during her interview at the Child Advocacy Centre and during the statement-taking process, described how on the day of the abuse she was given a pill the following day, and how the suspect's mother B. Aras and his brother F. Aras told her "we'll give you the upstairs flat, you'll be our daughter-in-law, when you're older we'll marry you off, if you don't give your statement the way we tell you they'll put you in a care home and the families will kill each other" — all while putting gold bracelets on her arms.

SOCIAL MEDIA MESSAGES BECAME EVIDENCE: 'I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE SO YOUNG'

Evidence reflected in the indictment file also showed that the suspect had written the following messages to the child via social media: "I didn't know you were this young, I had no idea, I realised too late, don't you understand, is it my fault, are you going to blame me today" — "girl, how are you 13, I don't get it, you look mature" — "I swear I didn't know you were this young, make sure your ID isn't wrong."

In addition, a biological findings report obtained from the Gendarmerie Criminal Department was submitted to the court. The report stated that after the child was subjected to abuse, biological findings belonging to the suspect were found on her body.

Taking into account the messages and the reports submitted to the court, the indictment prepared by the prosecutor's office requested that the suspect be punished for the offences of "Deprivation of Liberty" and "Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child," on the grounds that "the suspect's defence that he believed the victim to be 18 years of age was not accepted."

REMAND REQUESTED UNDER THE PROCEDURALLY WRONG ARTICLE OF LAW: "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO DO MY JOB"

At the first hearing held on 13 May 2025 at Bursa 6th Heavy Criminal Court, the suspect presented his defence, denied the charges, and claimed he had continued communicating with the child because she wanted him to:

"She was interested in me. Because I was married, I didn't pay much attention. When she reached out to me, I kept talking so as not to hurt her feelings. I was forced to take her to my friend's house. Even though I didn't want to, I was forced to be with her. I thought she was older. Because I was afraid she might get pregnant, I bought a pill from the pharmacy. My wife was also pregnant at the time."

Meanwhile, a Psychological Assessment Report from Marmara University Education and Research Hospital, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, confirmed that the child had experienced trauma. However, following the first hearing, the suspect was not arrested because the prosecutor requested remand under the procedurally wrong article of law. When the child's family and their attorney told the prosecutor, "Please make the request again under the correct article of law," the prosecutor responded: "Don't tell me how to do my job." At the second hearing held on 7 July, a new presiding judge was assigned to the court. However, the attorney for the child and her family filed a motion to recuse the presiding judge on the grounds that they believed the judge was not impartial.

CHILD'S ATTORNEY TO THE SUSPECT: "DID YOU THREATEN THE VICTIM WHEN SHE WAS SCARED?"

The court also rejected, at the second hearing, the Istanbul Bar Association No. 2's request to intervene in the case, on the grounds that it had not "suffered direct harm."

During this period in which the suspect is being tried without remand, the child's attorney Bülent Özdaman directed the following questions to the court to be put to the suspect, in order to have him apprehended and remanded as soon as possible:

"After you took victim B. to your friend E.'s home in Istanbul and sexually abused her, why did you then take her all the way to Bursa to be with your family?"

"When the victim was scared and did not want to have sexual intercourse, did you threaten her because you were at your friend's home?"

"Did you threaten the victim with messages and images, saying you would tell her family?"

"THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR, THE WITNESSES ARE UNAMBIGUOUS, THE CHILD'S STATEMENT IS CONSISTENT — YET THE COURT STILL HAS NOT ISSUED A REMAND ORDER"

Bülent Özdaman, the attorney for the child and her family, who recounted the course of the case and the negligence that had occurred to 12Punto, noted that the suspect had continued to send messages to the child even while the case was at the indictment stage:

"We can see that the suspect was sending messages to the victim even at the indictment stage — that is, even after the incident. Witness statements and audio recordings are also on file. The court is not remanding the suspect on the grounds that he attends hearings, that evidence has been collected, and that there is no longer a risk of evidence tampering. This is a legally wrong decision. Because in aggravated sexual abuse cases where the act of abuse has occurred more than once, sentences of no less than 16 years are handed down. That is a very heavy sentence. A conviction is highly likely, and for that reason trying him without remand is disproportionate."

"PROVISIONS ON MISTAKE AS TO AGE CANNOT APPLY — TRYING HIM WITHOUT REMAND IS AN OUTRAGE"

Özdaman also responded to M. Aras's defence that he "did not know the child's age." He underlined that no concrete circumstances existed under which M. Aras could have mistaken the 13-year-old girl for an adult, and that this defence therefore could not be accepted:

"The suspect admits to the act of abuse but claims he was mistaken about the victim's age, that he made an error. However, applying the provisions on mistake as to age is not possible under Court of Cassation rulings and existing legislation. The victim was born in a hospital, her physical appearance is consistent with her age, the judge of the court of rogatory commission and all witnesses state that the victim appears to be 13 years old. The suspect has also been unable to submit any message or other evidence to the file showing that the victim introduced herself as being older. Therefore, it is legally an outrage — and a decision that wounds public conscience and will provoke public indignation — for someone who, if the 'provisions on mistake as to age' are not applied, is almost certain to receive very heavy sentences for the abuse and other acts, to be tried without remand."

THIRD HEARING ON 14 OCTOBER, FAMILY AWAITS PUBLIC SUPPORT

Özdaman, stating that they hope the suspect will be remanded at the third hearing, noted that the child's psychological treatment is ongoing and concluded his remarks with the following words:

"Even the witness E. Kara — who is the suspect's own maternal uncle — stated at the hearing that the suspect had previously committed an act of abuse against a 16-year-old child, and that the families had intervened to cover it up and no complaint had been filed. I have been practising criminal law for 10 years, and this is the first time I have witnessed a suspect being tried without remand in an abuse case with such concrete evidence. The evidence is clear, the witnesses are unambiguous, the child's statement is consistent — yet the court still has not issued a remand order."

The third hearing in the case will be held on 14 October 2025. At the hearing, the taxi driver who took the suspect and the child to Bursa will be heard. The 13-year-old child's psychological treatment is continuing.

Photo: Hale Güzin Kızılaslan