The veil of mystery behind Işıl Öykü Dinç's death, the AKP and TÜRGEV connection, and the family's call for justice

REPORT AND WRITING: SİNEM NAZLI DEMİR

Thousands of people lose their lives in traffic accidents in Turkey every year. However, some accidents raise the question in the public eye, "Is the same law applied for everyone?" due to the identity of the driver, the way evidence is collected, expert reports, and the sentences handed down.

Especially in fatal traffic accidents involving relatives of politicians or individuals in influential positions in public institutions, the fact that drivers are not arrested, prison sentences are converted into fines, or investigations only progress through the efforts of the families, repeatedly gives rise to similar debates.

This news series does not aim to pass a preemptive judgment that political influence interferes with judicial processes in these accidents; rather, it aims to reveal how judicial processes are conducted, from police reports to expert reports, and from detention measures to the execution of sentences.

On May 18, 2025, 14-year-old Işıl Öykü Dinç was struck by a car while trying to cross the road on Sahil Boulevard in Istanbul's Pendik district. While Işıl lost her life, a lawsuit was filed against 26-year-old Ömer Faruk Ballı, who was identified as the driver at the time of the incident, for "causing death by negligence." Ballı was arrested after the incident but was released four days later under judicial control conditions. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) subsequently launched an investigation into the judge of the İstanbul Anadolu 56th Criminal Court of First Instance who issued the release decision.

Işıl's parents, Özlem and Yunus Dinç, have been trying to understand not only how the collision occurred since their daughter's death, but also who was actually driving the vehicle and why the file has been handled in this manner.

Stating that they have wanted the judicial process to be conducted transparently from the very first day, the family opposes their daughter's death being evaluated as an ordinary "traffic accident."

"CAN AN INDICTMENT BE WRITTEN IN ONE DAY?"

The first of the issues the family objects to occurs at the initial stage of the investigation: according to the information obtained, the two people in the vehicle were employees of a private hospital and were not civil servants. Despite this, the investigation file was taken to the Bureau of Investigation for Crimes by Civil Servants. Father Dinç, who claims that three prosecutors were changed in three days during the investigation and that an indictment was prepared without taking the statements of the suspect and witnesses, described the process as follows:

"Both individuals in the vehicle were private hospital employees, not civil servants, but the file was opened at the Bureau of Investigation for Crimes by Civil Servants. Furthermore, even if they were civil servants, the primary duty description of this bureau involves dealing with financial crimes committed by civil servants while on duty. Why is this file moved to this bureau? Three prosecutors were changed in three days. An indictment is written in one day by the prosecutor of this bureau without taking the statements of the suspect and witnesses. Can an indictment be written in one day for such a fatal incident? What did our court's judge see in the indictment that came before him in four days to approve it?"

THE VEHICLE IS RENTAL BUT THE PROSECUTOR DOES NOT ASK "WHO RENTED IT?"

Another point the family draws attention to was that the car involved in the accident was a rental. Mother Özlem Dinç said that the prosecutor's office did not investigate who rented the vehicle and did not request GPS records:

"The vehicle that hit my daughter is a 'rent-a-car' vehicle. The prosecutor did not ask who rented this vehicle, did not request the GPS record. Without any investigation, they directly declared my daughter guilty and released the killer with an indictment. They write an indictment in one day and release them in one day."

THE SUSPECT'S POWER OF ATTORNEY IS WITH A TÜRGEV BOARD MEMBER LAWYER

Yunus Dinç said that while the suspect was in prison, he gave his power of attorney to Lawyer Fatih Sadullah Selman.

It is stated on the official websites of both institutions that Selman is a member of the AKP Central Decision and Administrative Board (MKYK) and the TÜRGEV Board of Directors. Dinç said, "After this person enters prison, they give power of attorney to Lawyer Fatih Selman, and from this moment on, the illegalities experienced in our file skyrocket. The most important example of this is the changing of three prosecutors in three days."

"WE THOUGHT FOR 26 DAYS ABOUT WHY OUR DAUGHTER DASHED INTO THE ROAD"

Yunus Dinç said that there was a MOBESE (CCTV) pole at the scene; there were a total of 15 cameras ahead and behind the road, three of which could take panoramic images. Despite this, Dinç stated that no footage showing the vehicle from the front came before the family, and explained that the nine-second motorcycle helmet camera footage, which could change the course of the file, did not enter the investigation file for 26 days.

"There is a MOBESE pole at the scene. There are a total of 15 cameras ahead and behind the scene, three of these cameras are panoramic, but none of them saw the car from the front. The motorcycle helmet camera footage also did not enter our file for 26 days. As soon as we started giving interviews, a friend sent me a link; the footage had been served by Ekol TV. They made us watch the footage that had not yet entered the file, the footage of my daughter's death, on social media."

Stating that the statement of the friend who was with Işıl at the time of the incident was taken without her family and a pedagogue, Dinç conveyed that the phrases "Işıl always crossed at red lights anyway. I said 'Işıl stop, don't.' I held her from behind but she stepped onto the road and the car hit her" were written in the record in the young girl's own words. He said that the description of "Işıl, who dashed into the road from between the flower pots" was included in the crime scene report prepared by the police.

Dinç explained the difference between the first account and the recording after the footage emerged with these words:

"We thought for 26 days, 'Why did our daughter dash into the road?' When the helmet camera footage was served, we saw that her friend didn't even see the moment of the accident. My daughter is on the pedestrian crossing and right next to the traffic lights. She was dragged 38 meters after the impact. In the first hearing, my daughter's friend came to court and said, 'The police harassed me a lot that day.' That day, the police teams tried to put that young girl into an ambulance next to my daughter's body. When citizens reacted, the police said, 'Are you teaching us our job?' When the girl tried to jump out of the ambulance and run away, they took her arm and said, 'Let's not deal with your death too.'"

THE FIRST HEARING WAS SET FOR IŞIL'S BIRTHDAY

According to the family's account, the date in the first hearing notification that reached them 12 days after the incident was set as September 23, 2025. That day was Işıl's birthday. The mother and father submitted consecutive petitions to have the hearing date changed. Yunus Dinç, who said that their first two petitions were rejected, alleged that in their third application, the judge used the expressions "Ugh, this file again?" and later "I'm bored of this file." After the interviews given by the family were published and the case was carried to the headlines, the fifth petition they submitted was accepted within two days.

Dinç described what happened during that period as follows:

"The first hearing notification reached us 12 days after the incident. The date was September 23, 2025, and that day was my daughter's birthday. We said, 'Do not bring us face to face with those who killed our daughter on our daughter's birthday.' We submitted a petition, it was rejected. We submitted it again, it was rejected again. When we submitted the third petition, our court's judge said, 'Ugh, this file again?' and rejected it again. He said, 'I'm bored of this file.' When we gave our first interviews, our case became a headline; our fifth petition was accepted two days later."

HSK INSPECTORS: "THIS STATE OWES YOU JUSTICE"

The first hearing of the case was held on November 21, 2025, at the İstanbul Anadolu 56th Criminal Court of First Instance. According to the information provided by Yunus Dinç, three days after the hearing, the HSK launched an investigation into the judge of the case. The board inspectors called the family to the courthouse and asked if they had any complaints. The family reported that they were complaining about all public officials who took part in the process, from the police at the scene to the court judge. Dinç conveyed that the HSK inspectors told them, "This state owes you justice."

In the record reflected in the press regarding the HSK decision, it was stated that it was decided to conduct an investigation into the judge regarding the allegation that he acted contrary to established judicial practices by releasing the suspect with an interim decision four days after his arrest.

"WE WILL BURY YOU NEXT TO YOUR DAUGHTER"

The Dinç family said that they have been facing increasingly severe threats since the seventh-day memorial service for Işıl.

According to Yunus Dinç's account, two people visited the family during the memorial service and said, "The other side sent us, they have a message. We are relatives of the AKP councilwoman in Pendik Municipality, we want to come to offer condolences." Dinç reacted with the words, "Is a funeral invitation created like this? What politics? I have put my child in the ground."

Afterwards, messages containing "Withdraw from this case, we will bury you next to your daughter, we will scatter her grave" began to arrive from foreign numbers. Stating that the threats increased towards the second hearing on December 23, Dinç described what happened in the first days of January as follows:

THREATS RAINED DOWN, NO ACTION TAKEN ON CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

"We were called again and this time I answered the phone. The person on the other side first said, 'Am I speaking with Işıl Öykü Dinç's father?' First they cursed at my daughter, then at my wife and my family; they said they would burn my daughter's grave. Later, they sent a YouTube link from another foreign number. They had recorded and uploaded the phone conversation. They also started threatening our family members. We filed a criminal complaint with the images we had, nothing happened. One day we made news, then we were called to the police station. They complained to us, saying, 'I wish you had come to us first.' We said, 'We already filed a criminal complaint.' It turned out that the prosecutor who invited us was the press prosecutor. The threats continued anyway."

EVEN THE GRANDMOTHER WAS THREATENED

Yunus Dinç said that the threatening phone calls were also directed at his mother-in-law. According to the family's claim, the people calling from abroad made the threat, "Just as we killed your granddaughter, we will cut off your daughter's head and throw it at your door." Stating that his mother-in-law had a stroke four days after this call, Dinç explained that his mother-in-law, who was being treated in intensive care, passed away in June:

"We didn't just lose my daughter, we also lost my mother-in-law. We are already dead, there is no difference between us and the dead. But we are trying to keep our remaining child attached to life. From the first day, we wanted the judicial process to be conducted transparently."

THE 94.40 KILOMETER DEBATE BETWEEN TWO REPORTS

The Dinç family requested a crime scene reconstruction during the first two hearings, but their requests were rejected. The court announced that a crime scene report and speed detection would be requested from the Council of Forensic Medicine. Upon this, the family applied to an independent organization. In the report prepared as a result of the examination conducted at the scene by a delegation from Ankara, it was determined that the vehicle passed through a red light and its speed was at least 94.40 kilometers.

Özlem Dinç described the results of the independent report and the call she made to the suspect in court as follows:

"We requested a reconstruction for two hearings, it was rejected. It was said that a crime scene report and speed detection would be requested from the Council of Forensic Medicine. We also received a report from an independent organization. A delegation came from Ankara and examined it. It was determined that the vehicle passed through a red light and its speed was at least 94.40 kilometers. I said to the suspect in court, 'Rent the same car, come and hit me at 50 kilometers per hour. If I die, I will give up my daughter's case.' This is still my open call. There is already a reality that the eye sees; there is dragging on the ground."

Mother Dinç said that they were initially unaware that the Forensic Medicine report had been issued, and that the report was hidden from them so they wouldn't be upset. Stating that their lawyer asked the suspect in the hearing, "You are a healthcare worker. Now I will read the Forensic Medicine report to you. Can a vehicle going at 50 kilometers per hour cause this much damage to a person?" Dinç said about the suspect, "No answer. For three hearings, he says, 'I do not accept what is said against me.' Everything is against them."

"THE TWO PEOPLE IN THE CAR THAT HIT MY DAUGHTER ARE BOTH INTENSIVE CARE NURSES BUT THEY DIDN'T INTERVENE!"

The third hearing of the case was held on April 17, 2026. Two police officers who signed the crime scene sketch and a police officer who was in the team that went to the scene were heard. The court decided to continue the suspect's judicial control measure and to wait for the report of the Council of Forensic Medicine Traffic Specialization Department, and adjourned the hearing to September 11, 2026. Yunus Dinç stated that the nine-second footage could not be examined for five months at that date and the report still had not reached the file, saying, "It cannot be watched somehow. They are in the calculation of how to load a fault onto my daughter from here."

Father Dinç also emphasized the medical negligence that occurred at the very beginning of the file, noting that the two people in the car that hit his daughter were also healthcare workers:

"Both people in the vehicle are intensive care nurses. They neither called 112 nor intervened with my daughter whom they hit. We also filed a criminal complaint with the Ministry of Health regarding this issue. In the defense they gave, they said, 'We had no obligation to intervene because we did not have surgical materials with us.' This defense was notified to us in February and we included it in the court file. I also brought up this issue in the hearing and said, 'If they had surgical materials with them, they would have operated on my daughter.'"

After a while, the Council of Forensic Medicine report entered the file with the assessment that the driver was faultless and Işıl Öykü Dinç was primarily at fault. The institution claimed that the vehicle's speed could not be technically determined from the images; that Işıl did not use the pedestrian crossing and entered the vehicle's movement area from a short distance. In the family's independent expert report, it was argued that although the speed limit of the road was 70 kilometers, the vehicle was moving at at least 94.40 kilometers, passed through a red light, and did not brake before the collision.

Yunus Dinç said that the report reached them on the first anniversary of his daughter's death; that the narrative in the crime scene report, which the family describes as fake, was passed exactly into the report, that Işıl's friend's first statement, which was considered invalid in court, was recorded again, and that it was stated that it was "thought" that the green light was on for the driver, even though a definitive determination could not be made from the images.

THE BROTHER OF THE TÜRGEV LAWYER WORKS AT THE COUNCIL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE

Mother Özlem Dinç announced that Lawyer Fatih Sadullah Selman's brother-in-law works at the Council of Forensic Medicine and said, "For me, that institution has already lost its validity." Father Dinç also asked, "Who is this Fatih Sadullah Selman? Where does he find the power to access every level of the state?"

Upon the family's objection to the report, the court requested in July 2026 that the file be sent to the Council of Forensic Medicine Traffic Specialization Department Extended Superior Board to redetermine the fault status. The new report has not yet reached the file.

"THEY ARE ACTING AS IF MY DAUGHTER COMMITTED SUICIDE"

Yunus Dinç described the other side's approach with the words, "They are acting as if my daughter committed suicide." The other side's lawyer called the family's lawyer and said, "You will get money from the insurance anyway," offered money to close the file, and used the expression, "Let's sweeten this business." Stating that the family's lawyer replied, "The family's concern is not money," Dinç said that the response from the other side this time was, "Işıl was already a fame-seeker, she threw herself in front of the car to become famous."

Özlem Dinç said, "We are being subjected to psychological torture as a family," and stated that one of the latest examples of this process was the demand for the damage cost of the car involved in the accident from the family with interest. According to information reflected in the press, the insurance company sent a payment order to the family for the 63 thousand lira damage cost. Mother Dinç conveyed that after the incident was reported, the insurance company's lawyers called and said, "We are sorry for what happened, we are withdrawing the file, we have no demands."

Another debate that emerged later in the file was about who was driving the car. According to information reflected in the press, five eyewitnesses who reached the family claimed that the suspect Ömer Faruk Ballı was not at the wheel during the collision, but his fiancée A.B., who was with him, and that the two changed places after the accident. A.B., who was heard as a witness at the police station on the day of the incident, had said that Ballı was driving the vehicle and she was sitting in the passenger seat.

Yunus Dinç said that they would request that the new eyewitnesses be heard in court and that they would demand that the legal nature of the file be changed:

"We will request that our new eyewitnesses who have emerged be heard. We want this file to move out of death by negligence and be transformed into a homicide case, that is, murder, due to their failure to fulfill professional requirements. We only requested that the judicial process be conducted transparently."

"WE WANT JUSTICE FOR OUR DAUGHTER"

Stating that she will not be silent until the file is clarified, Özlem Dinç said, "I will not be silent. Until my last breath, until this file is clarified, I will not be silent. I went to the door of the Ministry of Justice, I will sit there again if necessary. They will show us the MOBESE footage. I want the dirty hands in these files to be withdrawn. You cannot scare a family whose child you have taken with death. That family is already dead, but people need to stand up, let's be a voice. Let them be afraid of covering up a file now. Let Işıl's not die. Be with us in court processes, be involved. If you live in this country, one day you will all look for justice. It would never cross my mind that a vehicle would hit my child. We are making an effort so that other families do not wake up to the same void every day like us. We are waiting for support so that we do not put other lives under the ground."

Yunus Dinç emphasized that not only their family but also the country has a debt of justice to their daughter:

"As a country, we owe our daughter a debt of justice. We want a precedent-setting decision to come out. We cannot just say 'traffic accident' or 'death by negligence' to everything. We have our fourth hearing on Friday, September 11, at 11:00 AM at the İstanbul Anadolu 56th Criminal Court of First Instance. We ask for support from our citizens to be the voice of my daughter that does not come out, and to be the voice of my son who cannot be there. We want justice for my daughter."

THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN TURKEY HAS INCREASED, THE DEATH TOLL IS STILL HEAVY

The fatal traffic accidents that have come one after another recently have brought the debates on traffic safety and impunity back to the agenda. According to TUIK, 1 million 549 thousand 574 traffic accidents occurred in Turkey in 2025; 288 thousand 321 of these were fatal or resulted in injury. 6 thousand 35 people lost their lives in the accidents, and 403 thousand 937 people were injured. Although the number of deaths decreased by 5 percent compared to 2024, this data means that an average of approximately 16.5 people lose their lives in traffic accidents every day.

In the first six months of 2026, the total number of traffic accidents in police and gendarmerie responsibility zones increased by 4.5 percent compared to the same period of the previous year, rising to 353 thousand 495. In the same period, the loss of life decreased by 15.1 percent to 1,303, and the number of injured decreased by 1 percent to 206 thousand 572. In other words, while the number of accidents increased, the number of deaths decreased; despite this, the resulting picture of loss of life and injury maintained its weight.

Every death that occurs in traffic does not fall into the same type of crime. Legal characterization is made by the court according to the driver's behavior, whether they violated the rules, whether they foresaw the result, whether they remained indifferent to the result they foresaw, and all the circumstances of the incident.

According to Article 85 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), the penalty for causing the death of a person by simple negligence is imprisonment from 2 to 6 years. In case of the death of more than one person or the injury of one or more people along with death, the penalty is regulated as imprisonment from 2 to 15 years.

If the driver acted by trusting that it would not happen even though they foresaw the result of death, the act can be evaluated within the scope of conscious negligence. According to Article 22 of the TCK, in this case, the penalty determined for the negligent crime is increased by one-third to one-half. In terms of the death of a single person, the base penalty that the judge will first determine between 2 and 6 years is increased at this rate.

If it is accepted that the driver continued their action by accepting this result even though they foresaw that the result of death could occur, possible intent comes to the agenda. Although the base penalty for the crime of intentional killing is life imprisonment, in accordance with Article 21 of the TCK, when the crime is committed with possible intent, the penalty is applied as imprisonment from 20 to 25 years. The court determines the distinction between simple negligence, conscious negligence, and possible intent through the evidence of the concrete incident.

News Source: 12punto