Akın Öztürk's sentence upheld: Supreme Court rules on 'cutting vacation short' for July 15

The Supreme Court of Appeals has detailed the reasons for upholding the sentence of former General Akın Öztürk, a former member of the Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) and former Air Force Commander, in its ruling on the General Staff 'Main Case' regarding the July 15 coup attempt.

SENTENCES OF 17 DEFENDANTS UPHELD

According to the report by Alican Uludağ from DW Turkish; the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals completed its appellate review of the General Staff 'Main Case' regarding the July 15 coup attempt on May 17. In its 757-page reasoned decision, the Chamber upheld the sentences of 17 defendants, including Akın Öztürk, who was accused of being a member of the 'Peace at Home Council', as well as former generals Mehmet Dişli, Hakan Evrim, and Mehmet Partigöç. These defendants had been convicted of the intentional killing of 136 people, violating the Constitution, and attempting to assassinate the President, and were each sentenced to 138 aggravated life imprisonment terms. Furthermore, the 416-year prison sentences given to these defendants for 26 counts of attempted intentional killing were also upheld.

WEDDING DETAIL

The Supreme Court's decision explained the reasoning behind why Akın Öztürk was punished for the crime of attempting a coup. It was recalled that Öztürk served as Air Force Commander between 2013 and 2015 and was appointed as a member of the Supreme Military Council in 2015. The decision stated that despite being invited to the wedding of Air Lieutenant General Mehmet Şanver's daughter in Istanbul on the day of the incident and being offered the role of wedding witness, Öztürk traveled from İzmir to Ankara on the plane of Land Forces Commander Salih Zeki Çolak, and from there went to his daughter's house located at the Akıncı Air Base.

The reasoned decision, which stated that then-Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar was forcibly taken to the Akıncı Base after refusing to accept the Presidency of the 'Peace at Home Council', explained the following:

"As stated in the testimonies of defendant Fahri Kafkas, defendant Mehmet Partigöç's orderly Hasan Hüseyin Sarıtarla handed a mobile phone to Mehmet Partigöç, saying 'Commander, Akın Pasha is calling,' and defendant Mehmet Partigöç said to defendant Akın Öztürk on the phone, 'Commander, we have evacuated the commander to Akıncı, you should come there too.' Furthermore, defendant Hakan Evrim called Hakan Karakuş—who is the defendant's son-in-law and was being tried as a defendant for allegedly organizing coup activities on the night of the incident—and asked, 'Where is Akın Pasha?' to which Hakan Karakuş replied, 'He is at our house, commander,' and Hakan Evrim ended the conversation by saying, 'Okay, I've got it'…"

'AKIN ÖZTÜRK TRIED TO STALL ABİDİN ÜNAL...'

The decision alleged that around 23:00 that night, Air Force Commander Abidin Ünal called the defendant but could not reach him. Upon this, when Air Lieutenant General Mehmet Şanver called the number from which the defendant had called to congratulate him, Abidin Ünal asked Akın Öztürk, "Akın Pasha, where are you?" The decision noted that Öztürk stated he was at the Akıncı Air Base with his grandchildren. The reasoning continued as follows:

"When asked if he heard the sound of planes, the defendant said there was a night flight. Abidin Ünal replied, 'Akın Pasha, on what date has there ever been a night flight at this hour on a Friday until now? They are staging a coup, go look and report back.' This matter was stated by Abidin Ünal during the hearing, and it was noted that although defendant Akın Öztürk had knowledge of the coup attempt, he tried to stall Abidin Ünal by claiming he had no information…"

"COMMANDER AKIN ÖZTÜRK PASHA"

The decision recounted that when defendant Bayram Akpan asked, "Where is the commander?" referring to the Chief of General Staff, defendant Mehmet Akçara replied, "There is no commander, the commander is Akın Öztürk Pasha." The decision included the following assessment:

"When all these are evaluated together, it is understood that the defendant was brought to the General Staff by the organization after Hulusi Akar refused to accept the coup, that the defendant was also appointed to the position of Deputy Chief of General Staff in the so-called appointment list, that by accepting the position of Chief of General Staff, the defendant went to the Akıncı Air Base, which was one of the important management centers of the coup attempt, and took part in the management and organization of the coup activity, and in this context, together with defendants Mehmet Dişli, Ömer Faruk Harmancık, Kubilay Selçuk, and Hakan Evrim, they tried to persuade Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar to support the coup attempt…"

HULUSİ AKAR DEFENSE

The decision recalled that in his defense, Öztürk claimed he only learned of the coup attempt at the Akıncı Air Base upon being told by the Chief of General Staff, and that he went to the 143rd Fleet and met with the managers involved in the coup attempt in accordance with Akar's orders. However, it was noted that Öztürk specifically avoided naming the individuals he met with, other than those mentioned in Akar's testimony, and did not mention them in his defense despite their identities being clear on camera recordings.

'ACTED WITH THE COUP PLOTTERS'

The decision reached the following conclusion:

"As understood from the camera footage available in the file, it is clear that the defendant moved around freely given his rank and position, and although he knew that other commanders who had been detained were being held at the Akıncı base, he made no attempt to rescue them throughout the night. It is understood that he acted together with the managers who were staging the coup at the Akıncı Base; therefore, the defendant's defense in this regard was not deemed credible. It was understood from the trial and the entire file that on the day of the incident, he gathered at the 143rd Fleet with FETÖ's civilian managers Adil Öksüz, Kemal Batmaz, Nurettin Oruç, Harun Biniş, and Hakan Çiçek, and military managers Ahmet Özçetin, Kubilay Selçuk, Hakan Evrim, Ömer Faruk Harmancık, Mustafa Barış Avıalan, Muzaffer Düzenli, Bilal Akyüz, Mehmet Dişli, Turgay Sökmen, Murat Koçyiğit, and Osman Kılıç, and that the defendant coordinated the coup attempt actions together with other FETÖ/PDY Armed Terrorist Organization managers."

While the decision alleged that the defendant was an "organization manager," it stated, "The defendant coordinated the actions at the Akıncı Base, one of the management centers of the coup attempt, together with other FETÖ/PDY Armed Terrorist Organization managers, and thus attempted to abolish the order envisioned by the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey by using force and violence."

OVERTURNING ON THE GROUNDS OF 'CUTTING VACATION SHORT'

The 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the convictions of 29 defendants for various reasons. Among these were the convictions of former Lieutenant General Mustafa Özsoy, the then-Chief of General Staff Intelligence, and former Lieutenant General Satı Bahadır Köse, the Chief of General Staff Operations.

According to the decision, defendant Mustafa Özsoy came to Ankara on July 15 by cutting his vacation short, despite being on leave at the Foça Military camp until July 17 at the time of the incident. Özsoy was appointed as the Undersecretary of the Prime Ministry in the appointment decree related to the coup.

Defendant Satı Bahadır Köse also cut his vacation at the Marmaris-Aksaz Military camp short and went to Istanbul for the position of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor on the coup appointment list.

The Supreme Court's decision pointed out that Mustafa Özsoy's "cutting his vacation short and coming to Ankara" and Satı Bahadır Köse's "cutting his vacation at the Marmaris-Aksaz military camp short and going to Istanbul to take over the duty" were accepted by the local court as executive acts in themselves. The decision explained the grounds for overturning as follows:

"First of all, it should be thoroughly investigated whether the defendants knew about the coup action in advance and whether they took part in its organization and planning; if it cannot be determined that they took part in the plan and organization of the coup action, it should be determined whether they had any executive acts of a suitable nature that contributed to the coup crime in any way on the day of the incident when the coup action was carried out, and if so, it should be discussed and evaluated whether their actions should be accepted as joint perpetrators or accomplices to the crime of violating the Constitution according to the nature of the activities; in this state, considering the importance of the civilian duty they accepted, which is reflected in the file, their actions would constitute the crime of being a member of an armed terrorist organization…"

News Source: 12punto