Soma trial adjourned to February 27

The third hearing of the 'misconduct in office' trial, opened 10 years later at the Soma 2nd Civil Court of First Instance against 28 public officials following the Eynez Mine disaster that occurred in Soma on May 13, 2014, has concluded. While the absence of the defendants at the hearing was noted, defense attorneys requested that a new expert report be prepared, arguing that their clients were public officials whose duties and authorities were clearly defined and that they could not have acted outside of them.

REQUEST REJECTED BY THE COURT PANEL

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that it was incorrect to open the case under a “misconduct in office” indictment and requested that the court issue a “lack of jurisdiction” ruling and transfer the case to the high criminal court, as the incident involved the death and injury of multiple people. The request by the plaintiffs' lawyers was rejected by the court.

During the hearing, an arrest warrant was also issued for A.Y., who was assigned as an inspector at the mine, in order to obtain their testimony.

TRIAL ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 27

Speaking after the trial, Ankara Bar Association lawyer Murat Kemal Gündüz said, “We have been raising an objection regarding lack of jurisdiction for three sessions. We are requesting that the file be sent to the Soma High Criminal Court with a ruling of lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the public officials should be tried not for misconduct in office, but for causing the death and injury of multiple people. We reiterated our requests in this session as well. However, the court rejected our objection at this stage, reasoning that a ruling of lack of jurisdiction is a verdict that can be issued at a later stage in the process. It adjourned the hearing to February 27.”

"THEY DID NOT CONVICT FOR MURDER WITH PROBABLE INTENT"

Reminding that no new expert report would be obtained for the file, Gündüz stated:

“There are partial deficiencies in the file. There are defendants whose testimonies have not been taken. However, the court also rejected the requests of the defendants' attorneys to obtain a new expert report instead of the expert report in the Soma High Criminal Court file. A new expert report will not be obtained. The responsibilities in the expert reports are very clear. All public officials are pointed to by the Court of Cassation's acceptance and reversal decisions. Because the public officials did not perform their duties as required, the main defendants of the Soma case were not convicted of murder with probable intent; they were convicted of conscious negligence.

The reason was this; because the public officials responsible for supervising these defendants did not perform their duties as required, did not issue warnings, and did not keep records, the provisions for probable intent were not applied. Public officials need to be tried for the crime of causing the death and injury of multiple people. The court rejected this at this stage. A defendant for whom an instruction was written to Ankara to obtain their testimony had said they would come to the main trial and make a statement, but they did not come. A warrant was issued for their interrogation. The warrant will be lifted after their interrogation is completed."

News Source: 12punto