Supreme Court's reasoned decision on Atatürk Airport attack releases revealed: Why were 6 defendants released?

In its 21-page reasoned decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals emphasized that there was "insufficient evidence regarding the connection" of the 6 defendants, whose release was ordered, to the "Atatürk Airport attack." 

The High Court ruled that 5 of these defendants, who had been sentenced to 46 aggravated life sentences for "violating the constitutional order" and "intentional killing," should instead only be punished for the crime of "membership in the DAESH terrorist organization." The decision stated that for the released defendants, there was "no definitive and convincing evidence beyond any doubt to support a conviction regarding their involvement in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport." It was noted that the sixth released defendant should have been acquitted of all charges.

According to the report by Fevzi Çakır from Habertürk, 45 people lost their lives and 170 were injured in the terrorist attack carried out by three foreign militants of the DAESH terrorist organization at Atatürk Airport on June 28, 2016. The attackers died at the scene. Following the investigation launched after the incident, it was determined that the terrorists had entered Turkey three days before the attack and were placed in a private house for which the 3-month rent was paid by Djamel Slimani. It was determined that they conducted reconnaissance at Atatürk Airport before the attack and arrived at the scene by taxi on the day of the attack.

Detentions began as part of the investigation into the attack. On February 14, 2017, an indictment was prepared against 45 defendants, 42 of whom were in custody and 4 of whom were fugitives. During the proceedings, some of these detainees were released.

THE COURT REACHED ITS VERDICT IN 2018

The Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court, where the trial was held, announced its final verdict on November 16, 2018. It sentenced the detained defendants Rıza Coşkun, Levent Uysal, Ahmet Kaplan, Eyüp Demir, Ahmet Dizlek, and Djamel Slimani to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of "violating the Constitution." The same defendants were sentenced to 45 counts of aggravated life imprisonment for the "premeditated intentional killing" of 45 people. These defendants were also sentenced to a total of 2,202 years for the "attempted premeditated intentional killing" of 142 people and 402 years for 45 counts of "damaging property." The court accepted these defendants as being connected to the terrorists and as the primary perpetrators of the incident. While 6 defendants were sentenced for "membership in an organization or aiding an organization," 29 defendants were acquitted.

The file passed through the appellate court in this state as well.

THE SUPREME COURT REACHED ITS VERDICT ON DECEMBER 12

And on December 12, while there were still 7 detainees in the file, the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals finalized the file. The High Court upheld the acquittal decisions given for 29 defendants and some convictions for "membership in an organization."

RELEASE FOR 6 DEFENDANTS

The sentences of 6 defendants who were given 46 aggravated life sentences each, and one defendant who received 12 years for membership in an organization, were overturned. The release of the 6 defendants was ordered. The Supreme Court requested that 3 of the defendants who received 46 life sentences be punished for membership in an organization, one for "financing terrorism," and one for "aiding the organization." An acquittal was requested for one defendant who has been in prison for 8 years and 5 months.

THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT RELEASED

Djamel Slimani, who provided accommodation for the terrorists, was held responsible for all actions. While his aggravated life sentence for the crime of "violating the Constitution" was upheld, the sentence given for the crimes of "intentional killing and attempted killing" was overturned. It was requested that he be punished for aiding the terrorists regarding these two crimes. It was decided that the detention of the defendant Slimani would continue.

THE DECISION IS COMPLETE

This decision by the Supreme Court was highly debated regarding the released defendants. Many questions arose, such as "How can someone who received a life sentence be released? Why did the Supreme Court make a direct release decision? Is the Supreme Court whitewashing DAESH?" However, all these questions arose because the reasoning for the decision was reflected to the public before it was written. The expected decision was completed today.

The 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals wrote a 21-page justification regarding the Atatürk Airport attack. So, what justifications were included in that decision?

WHO WAS RELEASED AND WHY?

So, according to this decision, which defendant was released and why? Here is the justification for the release, name by name…

DEFENDANT RIZA COŞKUN: (Regarding the crime of attempting to abolish the constitutional order)

Considering that defendant Rıza Coşkun contacted Rakhim Bulgarov, one of the perpetrators who carried out the Istanbul Atatürk Airport attack, a total of 3 times on 27.06.2016 and 28.06.2016 from a payphone in Pendik District, that the payphone card he used was seized from the defendant's vehicle, that he could not provide a defense consistent with the ordinary flow of life as to why he spoke with the attacker who carried out the armed and bomb attack, and that it was understood from the examinations of the seized digital materials that there were some photos, anthems, and documents related to the DAESH terrorist organization; it was determined that the defendant's action, which does not involve him in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016, and for which there is no definitive evidence beyond any doubt sufficient for conviction that he was an accomplice by aiding the crimes of qualified intentional killing and attempted qualified intentional killing, which are serious crimes, constitutes the crime of membership in an armed terrorist organization regulated in Article 314/2 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), and considering his activity within the organization and the danger he created, a decision should have been made to punish him by moving away from the lower limit at a reasonable rate in accordance with equity, whereas the decision was made in writing due to an error in the classification of the crime and an unfounded justification,

(Regarding the crimes of qualified intentional killing, attempted qualified intentional killing, qualified damage to property, and qualified damage to public property) Since it was understood that there was no definitive and convincing evidence beyond any doubt that the defendant was involved in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016 and that he participated in the tool crimes, the decision to convict him in writing as a result of an error in the evaluation of evidence instead of his acquittal of the charged crimes was considered a reason for reversal. (1 member dissented from this decision.)

DEFENDANTS LEVENT UYSAL AND HALIL DURSUN: (Regarding the crime of attempting to abolish the constitutional order)

Considering that the defendants Levent Uysal and Halil Dursun went to and returned from Akçakale district of Şanlıurfa province, where DAESH was active on the date of the incident, with two separate vehicles, one as a lead vehicle and the other as a tail vehicle, between 17.06.2016 and 19.06.2016 for an undetermined reason, that they did not take the GSM lines they used in daily life with them during these journeys, and that it was understood from the examinations of the defendants' digital materials that there were some photos, audio recordings, and documents related to the DAESH terrorist organization; it was determined that the defendants' actions, which do not involve them in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28/06/2016, and for which there is no definitive evidence beyond any doubt sufficient for conviction that they were accomplices by aiding the crimes of qualified intentional killing and attempted qualified intentional killing, which are serious crimes, constitute the crime of membership in an armed terrorist organization regulated in Article 314/2 of the TCK, and the decision was made in writing due to an error in the classification of the crime and an unfounded justification without considering that…

(Regarding the crimes of qualified intentional killing, attempted qualified intentional killing, qualified damage to property, and qualified damage to public property) Since it was understood that there was no definitive and convincing evidence beyond any doubt that the defendants were involved in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016 and that they participated in the tool crimes, the decision to convict them in writing as a result of an error in the evaluation of evidence instead of their acquittal of the charged crimes was considered a reason for reversal.

DEFENDANT AHMET DIZLEK:

Considering that defendant Ahmet Dizlek used the GSM line numbered 0505 (...) (..) (..) registered in the name of Mohammed Khalıfeh in addition to his own GSM line, that this line gave a signal from the Sultançiftliği district of Istanbul on 27.06.2016 together with the mobile phone numbered 0551 (...) (..) (..) used by Rakhim Bulgarov, one of the perpetrators of the act, that a weapon with a silencer thread and many bullets were seized in the common area of the building where he lived during the search of the defendant's residence, and that the defendant stated in his defenses that he did not commit the charged crimes; the decision to convict him in writing instead of his acquittal of all charged crimes, as there is no definitive and convincing evidence beyond any doubt that the defendant was aware of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016, that he was involved in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages, that he participated in the tool crimes, and that he entered into an organic bond with the organization and engaged in continuous, diverse, and intense actions, was considered a reason for reversal.

DEFENDANT EYYÜP DEMIR: (Regarding the crime of attempting to abolish the constitutional order)

In the incident where defendant Eyyüp Demir went to the workplace of his cousin, defendant Ahmet Kaplan, on 27.06.2016, said that his phone battery was dead, called the perpetrator Rakhim Bulgarov from defendant Ahmet Kaplan's phone, and they spoke in Arabic, and after the conversation, upon Eyyüp Demir saying that he needed to give money to someone, they went by car to near the BİM market near the Istanbul Kağıthane IETT garage, defendant Eyyüp Demir stayed in the car, and a certain amount of money he gave was given by defendant Ahmet Kaplan to the perpetrator Rakhim Bulgarov, whom he had never seen before; it was determined that the defendant, for whom there is no concrete evidence that he was aware of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016, who was not involved in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the act, who was not in a position to prevent the realization of the act during its occurrence, and for whom there is no definitive evidence beyond any doubt sufficient for conviction that he was an accomplice by aiding the crimes of qualified intentional killing and attempted qualified intentional killing, which are serious crimes, did not have any organizational actions and activities showing diversity, continuity, and intensity regarding his entry into the hierarchical structure of the organization and committing the crime of membership in an organization, however, while communicating with the members of the organization, he used the phone belonging to his cousin, defendant Ahmet Kaplan, instead of his personal mobile phone, and conducted his conversations with these people in Arabic, and although he stated in his defense regarding this that he gave the money to be delivered to Ömer, a worker who went to Syria whose name he knew but whose surname he did not know, as a loan, it is contrary to the ordinary flow of life to send money to someone he does not know through a person whose surname he does not even know, and the defendant's defenses in this direction were not found convincing, and in light of all these explanations, the decision to convict him in writing due to an error in the classification of the crime and an unfounded justification, without considering that the defendant's action, who was understood to have given money in exchange for 1500 dollars to Rakhim Bulgarov knowing that he was a member of the organization, constitutes the crime of financing terrorism by providing funds to terrorist organizations or their members regulated in Law No. 6415, was considered a reason for reversal, (Regarding the crimes of qualified intentional killing, attempted qualified intentional killing, qualified damage to property, and qualified damage to public property) Since it was understood that there was no definitive and convincing evidence beyond any doubt that the defendant was involved in the preparation, planning, organization, and execution stages of the armed and bomb attack carried out at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016 and that he participated in the tool crimes, the decision to convict him in writing as a result of an error in the evaluation of evidence instead of his acquittal of the charged crimes was considered a reason for reversal.

DEFENDANT SEYHUN ALİ AKÇAY:

The rejection of other appeal objections of the defendant and his counsel that were not found appropriate, however, within the framework of the provision of Article 138/1 of the Constitution, the criteria regarding the determination and individualization of the penalty regulated in Article 61 of the TCK, and the principle of proportionality regulated in Article 3/1, in the context of the manner of committing the crime and the severity of the fault based on intent, considering the defendant's position within the organization, the duration of his stay, the nature, continuity, and diversity of his activities, and his field of activity, the decision to impose an excessive penalty by falling into error in the degree of aggravation with insufficient justification instead of imposing a fair penalty in accordance with the scope of the file and equity was considered a reason for reversal.

ALGERIAN DEFENDANT REMAINED IN CUSTODY

Defendant Djamel Slimani remained as the only detained defendant in the case. Djamel Slimani, who provided accommodation for the terrorists, was held responsible for all actions. However, it was requested that he be punished not for "violating the Constitution" and "intentional killing," but for aiding these crimes (aiding the terrorists). It was decided that the detention of the defendant Slimani would continue.

SO WHAT WAS SAID IN THE SUPREME COURT DECISION FOR SLIMANI?

“…Considering that it was determined that the defendant had full supervision and control over the DAESH houses in Istanbul, coordinated the work of sending militants from Istanbul to Syria, and mediated the placement of the DAESH terrorist organization members who carried out the armed and bomb attack at Atatürk Airport on 28.06.2016 into a clean house that had not been used before, instead of placing them in one of the DAESH houses in Istanbul, so that they could plan and prepare for the act comfortably and safely; the decision to establish a verdict in writing without considering that the defendant's action, who could not be held responsible as a joint perpetrator because he did not establish joint dominance over the act by acting together with the organization members who carried out the armed and bomb attack from the moment the execution movements began or by participating with an action that had a direct effect on the result during the incident, but who was understood to have aided by facilitating its execution by providing assistance before the tool crimes were committed, falls within the scope of Article 39/1 through Article 39/2-c of the TCK, was considered a reason for reversal.”

News Source: 12punto