Trial for the attack on journalist Yavuz Selim Demirağ nears its end

Journalist and author Yavuz Selim Demirağ was attacked in front of his home on the night of May 10, 2019, after leaving a television program. The trial for the attack was held today. It was decided that the case file would be submitted to the Prosecutor's Office for the presentation of the final opinion.

12punto

At a time when journalist Alican Uludağ is being subjected to threats and insults from MHP officials due to his reporting on the case of former Ülkü Ocakları President Sinan Ateş, who was murdered in an assassination in Ankara, the trial for an attack on another journalist in Ankara has been held.

In the trial regarding the incident where journalist and author Yavuz Selim Demirağ was beaten with clubs by 6 people and hospitalized in front of his home on the night of May 10, 2019, after leaving a television program, it was decided that the case file would be submitted to the Prosecutor's Office for the presentation of the final opinion.

The 4th hearing of the case, which is being heard at the Ankara 35th High Criminal Court and was followed exclusively by 12punto.com.tr, was attended by the complainant Yavuz Selim Demirağ, two of the defendants being tried without arrest, and their lawyers.

OBJECTION TO WITNESS MURAT AĞIREL'S TESTIMONY

In previous hearings, some defendants claimed that they only had a traffic dispute and did not beat Demirağ. Upon the request of Demirağ and his lawyer Erhan Tokatlı, the Court had decided to hear the testimony of journalist and author Murat Ağırel, who had dropped Yavuz Selim Demirağ off at his home in his car after they both participated in the television program on the night of the incident.

Ağırel's testimony, which was taken via rogatory commission in Istanbul last month, has reached the file. Ağırel's testimony stated the following:

“At the time of the incident, I had written a new book. I was invited to be interviewed about this book on the television channel where the complainant hosts a program. After the interview on the television program ended, I said I could drop the complainant off at his home since it was on my way. We set off around 23:00 in the vehicle I was driving. The road was already empty at that hour. Furthermore, the complainant had directed me to a shortcut that was also empty. We did not have any dispute with any other vehicle while traveling on the route. We reached the address while chatting normally. After the complainant got out of the vehicle, I continued on my way. About half an hour later, the police called me and said that the complainant had been assaulted. I wanted to return immediately, but they said they would take my statement later and that they were calling to check if I was in good health for the time being. I stopped on the road and reached the complainant's daughter to try and get information about his condition. I also informed our journalistic professional organizations about my colleague's situation. I did not see the defendants or the moment of the incident.”

After stating that Ağırel's testimony had arrived, the Court President asked the Prosecutor for their opinion. The Prosecutor requested time to present their final opinion.

Meanwhile, a defense lawyer for one of the defendants claimed that there were contradictions in Murat Ağırel's testimony, alleging that he had described a vehicle following and squeezing them in a television program he participated in after the incident, and requested that the file be given to the Prosecutor only after a transcript of this program is made.

Following the statements, the Court President announced the decision, stating that if the defense lawyer submits a petition regarding this request, an examination will be conducted before the next hearing and the evidence in question will be collected if deemed necessary; if it is concluded that the file is complete, the file will be submitted to the Prosecutor's Office to prepare the final opinion, and adjourned the hearing to January 23.

The Demirağ case is being heard in the High Criminal Court instead of the Criminal Court of First Instance upon the objection of his lawyer Erhan Tokatlı, who stated, “This is an attempted murder. The case should be heard in the High Criminal Court,” and it carries the nature of a precedent-setting case for such attack cases depending on the final verdict.

12punto