Verdict reached in the trial of Başak Demirtaş

A verdict has been reached in the case filed against Başak Demirtaş, the wife of former HDP Co-Chair Selahattin Demirtaş, who was sentenced to 43 years and 8 months in prison in the Kobani Case.

Başak Demirtaş and the doctor, Rezan Buğday, who was accused of issuing her an irregular medical report without examining her while she was on trips abroad, were acquitted of the charges of “forgery of an official document”, for which they faced up to 2.5 years in prison.

According to a report by Özgür Cebe from Sözcü, the appellate court had requested that the protocol book record containing the date the 5-day report was issued by Rezan Buğday, who worked at the community health center, be obtained from the relevant institutions and added to the file after an expert examination.

CONTRARY TO PROCEDURE AND LAW

According to the allegations, it was stated that the secretary at the community health center should have been heard in court regarding the acquisition of reports on past dates. The appellate court requested the identification of who kept the protocol polyclinic book record and demanded the determination of the prescription record and the date the rest report was issued. However, it was stated that these issues were handled with incomplete examination and insufficient grounds, and that the conviction decision rendered against the two defendants was contrary to procedure and law.

The high criminal court, which conducted the retrial, stated that Başak Demirtaş had received 8 reports ranging from 5 to 45 days while working as a Turkish teacher, and that she had flown from Istanbul Atatürk Airport to Frankfurt with her husband by obtaining reports contrary to the truth, and subsequently returned to Atatürk Airport on an Amsterdam-Istanbul flight. It was stated that although Demirtaş returned to Turkey on December 15, she received a doctor's report dated December 14, and that a report was issued in her name as if she were in Turkey while she was actually abroad. It was noted that a polyclinic entry was made in her name without her being seen by the doctor or undergoing a physical examination, after which a report contrary to the truth was issued, and that she subsequently went abroad and submitted the report to the school administration upon her return to Turkey.

WITNESSES HAD NO KNOWLEDGE

The court stated that the originals of the protocol books were requested from the community health center, but it was reported to the court that the originals of the books did not exist. The General Secretariat of the Association of Public Hospitals reported to the court with a record that all documents, archives, and personnel began to serve under one roof following the merger of the public health services directorate within the provincial health directorate, and that the books were not in the archive due to the process of moving and merging the archives. Stating that there was no evidence that both defendants issued irregular reports and committed forgery of an official document because there was no protocol book, the court also noted that the midwife, nurse, and medical secretary who were heard as witnesses had no knowledge of the incident.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OBTAINED

The court emphasized that the principle of presumption of innocence, which is one of the most important and universal principles of criminal procedure—aiming to reach the material truth in a concrete case, punish the perpetrator whose commission of the crime is proven, prevent the disruption of public order, and restore the disrupted public order—must be taken into account. Pointing out that the fundamental condition for a defendant to be sentenced for a crime is that the crime must be proven definitively without leaving any room for doubt, the court stated that a conviction cannot be established by interpreting allegations whose manner of occurrence is suspicious or not fully clarified against the defendant. Emphasizing that a criminal conviction must be based on certain and clear proof, not on any probability, the court stated that this proof must be based on certain and clear evidence, not on an opinion reached by relying on some of the collected evidence while ignoring the rest. It was concluded that there was no lawful, doubt-free, certain, and convincing evidence sufficient to provide a criminal conviction that the defendants committed the crime charged against them, other than the allegation, and that it could not be proven by witness statements. Taking into account the universal criminal principle that the defendant benefits from doubt, the court acquitted Başak Demirtaş and the doctor who issued the report as sufficient evidence could not be obtained.