Reasoned decision in H.K.G. case announced: Father Gümüşel approved the abuse

In the case over the scandal involving İsmailağa Congregation-affiliated Hiranur Foundation founder Yusuf Ziya Gümüşel's daughter H.K.G being “married off” at the age of 6 and H.K.G. being subjected to sexual abuse for years, the reasoned decision was announced for the prison sentences of 30 years given to Kadir İstekli, to whom H.K.G. was forcibly married, 20 years given to father Yusuf Ziya Gümüşel and 16 years 8 months given to mother Fatıma Gümüşel. 

RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED IN HER ABSENCE

According to Alican Uludağ of DW Türkçe, who obtained the reasoned decision in the case first brought to public attention by BirGün columnist Timur Soykan, the court completed the reasoning for the decision issued on October 23.

In the reasoning, it was stated that defendant Kadir İstekli was a member of the foundation founded and managed by defendant Yusuf Ziya Gümüşel and that he provided religious education at the madrasa. Referring to the audio recordings H.K.G. submitted to the case file, the decision stated that when H.K.G. reached the age of 6 and had suitors who wanted to marry her, defendant İstekli, without his own family’s knowledge, asked the people who also served as witnesses during the marriage ceremony to ask for the victim’s hand. It was stated that, upon İstekli’s insistence, these people asked defendant Yusuf Gümüşel for the complainant.

The decision stated that defendant Gümüşel then told his daughter to stand next to the electrical outlet, measured her height and asked “are you grown up now”; when H.K.G. said “I have grown up,” Gümüşel solemnized an “imam marriage” between the complainant and defendant Kadir in her absence when the complainant was still 6 years old.

“THE ABUSE BEGAN AT THE MADRASA”

It was recalled that the witnesses to this marriage, who were also heard by the court as witnesses, stated in their testimony that they witnessed the marriage ceremony but did not see the complainant during the ceremony and did not know her exact age. The decision recorded that a few days after the imam marriage, defendant İstekli first began simple sexual abuse at the madrasa, where he gave the complainant religious education, by telling her that they were now husband and wife.

The decision summarized what happened afterward as follows:

“In the subsequent period, the defendant continued his sexual acts in the nature of simple abuse in this way. Indeed, according to the content of the audio recordings, because the complainant did not want it, defendant Kadir at times punished the complainant at the madrasa. Within the family, defendant Kadir began to be accepted and addressed as the groom and brother-in-law. He also came to family meals and breakfasts. After the imam marriage, the defendant bought the complainant a gold necklace, had a special wedding dress made, took her to a photographer and had her photograph taken holding a bridal bouquet. Along with the photograph in a wedding dress submitted to the file by the complainant, he also had photographs taken during the same period, when she was 7-8-9 years old, cheek to cheek with the defendant, containing an intimacy far beyond a teacher-student relationship, especially for the defendant and the complainant, who lived in a closed and conservative community.”

“THE DEFENDANT’S DEFENSE IS AIMED AT ESCAPING LIABILITY”

The decision recalled that defendant Kadir İstekli said in his defense, “I had such intimate photographs taken with H.K.G. at the insistence of her brother, who was 2 years older. We also have such intimate photographs with her other sisters.” The decision stated that the court then requested these photographs, and that the defendant then declared that these photographs had been torn up. The decision emphasized that “the defense by the defendant, who was around 30 years old at that date, that he had such photographs taken because of the insistence of a child who was then around 10 years old was aimed at saving himself from the offense.”

The decision also emphasized that in the other photographs submitted to the file by the complainant, it was clearly apparent that the complainant was young, and that the defendant did not have such intimate photographs with any child, student or person other than the complainant; this situation was clear evidence that there was a relationship between the defendant and the complainant different from a teacher-student relationship.

“THE ABUSE CONTINUED FROM AGE 7 UNTIL 2020”

The decision, which stated that the defendant committed the first act of aggravated sexual abuse when the victim was 7-8 years old one evening when her mother was in Istanbul, at their home in Sapanca, continued as follows:

“Subsequently, until the period when they began living in the same house after holding a wedding within the family when she was 14, he committed aggravated sexual abuse against the complainant more than once, from when the complainant was 7-8 years old until she was 14. When the complainant reached the age of 13, an engagement was first held within the family, and at 14, a wedding. From the wedding onward, the defendant and the complainant began living together in the same house. In his defense, defendant Kadir admitted that they had their first sexual intercourse on the wedding night. According to the complainant’s date of birth, she was under 15, still 14, on the date stated as the date they married and the first sexual intercourse took place; when the complainant became pregnant at 17, a civil marriage was performed; and the acts of sexual abuse continued until the date in 2020 when the complainant fled the house and filed a complaint...”

AUDIO RECORDINGS DEEMED EVIDENCE

The decision recalled that H.K.G. had recorded the conversations between them, and emphasized that “because the complainant had no other means of obtaining evidence regarding the sexual abuse she experienced within a conservative and closed family structure in a family apartment building where even the doors were opened by card, the conversations were accepted by the court as evidence.”

“CONSENT CANNOT BE SPOKEN OF EVEN DURING THE PERIOD WHEN SHE WAS OF LEGAL AGE”

The decision, which included transcripts of the audio recordings, noted that defendant İstekli had accepted during the prosecutor’s questioning the recordings that he denied in court.

The decision also pointed to the Forensic Medicine report stating that the voice in the recording belonged to İstekli, and said that “the act of sexual abuse that began when the complainant was 6 years old continued until one week before November 30, 2020, the date of the complaint.” The decision stated: “It has been concluded that because of the social and cultural environment and closed family structure in which the complainant lived due to the acts that began at a young age, her will was under pressure, and when the events the complainant experienced throughout the process are considered as a whole, consent cannot be spoken of even during the period when the complainant was of legal age.”

FATHER GÜMÜŞEL APPROVED THE ABUSE

In the decision evaluating Yusuf Ziya Gümüşel’s offense, it was recalled that “the defendant married the victim, who was still 6 years old as of the date of the offense, through an imam marriage in the victim’s absence to defendant Kadir, who was 29 years old at that date and served as a teacher at the madrasa.” The decision stated that he subsequently also gave consent for defendant Kadir to have sexual intercourse with the victim, and said that “after rumors began that the defendant and the victim were married, he held an engagement when the victim was 13 and a wedding when she was 14, and turned a blind eye to the defendant and the victim living in the same house from the age of 14 onward.”

NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LIFE

In the court decision, which did not find Gümüşel’s defense credible, it was recorded that “the defense that the defendant and the victim, who lived in a closed and conservative structure, saw and liked each other is not consistent with the ordinary course of life, considering also the age difference between the defendant and the victim.” The decision recalled that “indeed, defendant Yusuf Gümüşel stated in his defense that when the complainant reached the age of 10, he ended the lessons on the grounds that it would no longer be appropriate for defendant Kadir to teach her, and enrolled her in a boarding Quran course in Sapanca,” and emphasized that “for this reason, the social and cultural structure in which the defendant and the complainant lived was not of a nature that would allow them to see and get to know each other.”

“HE BECAME A PARTY TO THE CRIME BY SOLEMNIZING THE MARRIAGE”

The decision assessed Gümüşel’s role as follows:

“When defendant Yusuf Gümüşel’s role in the commission of the offense, in the form of personally solemnizing the marriage and consenting to sexual intercourse, and the importance of his contribution to the commission of the offense are evaluated together with the entire case file, it is understood that it is established by the contents of the file that defendant Yusuf Ziya acted in unity of thought and action with defendant Kadir; therefore, it has been decided that he be punished for the proven offense of sexual abuse of a child, which corresponds to his act, pursuant to Article 103/2 of the TCK, which is in force after the amendment made by Law No. 6545 through the reference of Article 37 of the TCK and is more favorable, and that the sentence imposed be increased by 1/4 pursuant to Article 43 of the TCK.”

THE WORDS “HE IS YOUR HUSBAND, OBEY HIM” WERE DEEMED CRIMINAL

The decision also addressed the role of her mother, Fatma Gümüşel, who was sentenced to 16 years 8 months in prison.

It was stated that although defendant Fatıma Gümüşel initially opposed the marriage, in the following period she began to see defendant Kadir İstekli as her son-in-law. The decision said the defendant invited İstekli to breakfasts and meals held within the family; afterward, when the victim was still 13, she held her engagement, and when she was 14, held her wedding within the family, marrying her to defendant Kadir İstekli. The decision recorded that after the wedding held when she was 14, the complainant, who began living in the same house with defendant Kadir İstekli, told the defendant, her mother, that she did not want to go to the house where she lived with the defendant, but defendant Fatıma responded by saying “He is your husband; if you do not obey him, the angels will curse you”.

The decision stated that the defendant mother combed H.K.G.’s hair and sent her to the defendant, and that, as understood from the audio recordings, she also pressured the complainant not to cry at her wedding. The decision stated that it was not possible for the photographs of defendant Kadir İstekli with the complainant, taken when she was still 8-9 years old in a manner containing intimacy beyond a teacher-student relationship, to have been taken without the knowledge of the defendant mother.

The decision said, “It has been understood that the defendant mother did not prevent the actions of the other defendants Kadir and Yusuf toward the complainant; on the contrary, considering her words to the complainant that she had to obey her husband and her conduct in sending her to defendant Kadir, and that it is not consistent with the ordinary course of life for the complainant to slander especially the defendant who is her mother, she acted in unity of thought and action with the other defendants.”

News Source: 12punto