Became a grave for 6 people in the earthquake: 11-year prison sentence for the person responsible for that wreckage!

In the case heard at the Malatya 5th High Criminal Court, a 19-page reasoned decision was announced regarding the prison sentence given to the building's technical supervisor, Süleyman Dursun, for the crime of "causing the death and injury of more than one person through conscious negligence."

The announced decision included the statements of the defendant, who was tried without arrest, as well as the relatives of those who lost their lives in the earthquake and witnesses during the investigation and trial phases.

"THE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSIGHT"

The reasoned decision, which also included the expert report, stated that as the technical supervisor of the building, the defendant Dursun had the responsibility to conduct on-site inspections and audits to ensure whether the structure was built according to technical requirements and zoning regulations.

"IT IS IN THE PROJECT, BUT NOT IN REALITY!"

In the decision, technical explanations from the expert report noted that the basement and ground floor heights were incorrectly constructed differently from the project plans. Despite the presence of drawings in the project requiring stirrup reinforcement in columns and beams, wreckage images showed that stirrup spacing was excessively wide and that no hooks were made at the ends of the stirrups. It was also noted that nearly half of the foundations had insufficient reinforcement.

Stating that soil safety stress was not achieved in some parts of the foundations, the reasoned decision included the following:

"COLUMNS WERE NOT REINFORCED"

"It was concluded that, with the exception of 3 columns, all columns in the entire building had insufficient longitudinal reinforcement and did not meet the minimum reinforcement requirements, that there were deficiencies in terms of longitudinal reinforcement in the beams, that it was the responsibility of the defendant, as the technical application supervisor, to ensure these errors during the construction process were not made, were corrected, and were resolved, and that the completion of the construction in this manner, failing to meet even the minimum conditions specified in the regulations at the time of construction, led to the collapse following the earthquake."

The decision stated that the defendant's claims regarding the roof and terrace would not eliminate his responsibility arising from the technical and load-bearing system deficiencies that existed from the beginning and were the primary cause of the collapse, and the following was recorded:

"THE BUILDING WAS NOT EVEN COMPLIANT WITH THE OLD REGULATIONS!"

"It was concluded that the structure did not even meet the minimum requirements of the 1975 regulations; indeed, there were other buildings constructed during the same period that did not collapse in the same earthquake. Considering that the building collapsed at the moment of the earthquake due to the identified technical deficiencies and errors, the intensity of the earthquake does not absolve the defendant of responsibility, and it is the opinion and conclusion that the defendant is primarily at fault and the crime charged against him is proven."

"MY BROTHER, WHO DIED IN THE EARTHQUAKE, BUILT THE BUILDING"

In the reasoned decision, the non-custodial defendant Dursun stated that the building was constructed by his brother, Aliseydi Dursun, who lost his life in the earthquake, and that he accepted the role of technical supervisor at his brother's request so that a building permit could be obtained.

Dursun argued that his brother did not complete the construction in accordance with the project, that he built a house on the top floor that did not comply with the project, and that when he saw this, he did not sign for the occupancy permit, adding that his brother continued to use the building in that state.

"IN HIS DEFENSE, HE SAID 'NOTHING HAPPENED DURING THE ELAZIĞ EARTHQUAKE'!"

Stating that the building was constructed according to the 1995 earthquake regulations, Dursun said, "The building did not sustain any damage in the 2020 Elazığ earthquake. If I had not built the building in accordance with the rules and the project, it would not have remained undamaged in the Elazığ earthquake. 

The building met the requirements of the regulations in force at the time it was constructed," he stated.

"IT HAD BECOME A GRAVE FOR 6 PEOPLE IN THE EARTHQUAKE"

Following the investigation conducted by the Malatya Chief Public Prosecutor's Office into the Dursun Apartment, which collapsed on Namık Kemal Street in the Fatih neighborhood during the 7.7-magnitude earthquake centered in Pazarcık, and where Arife, İbrahim, Muhammed Ali, and Sevgi Yumuk, as well as Elif and Aliseydi Dursun lost their lives, a lawsuit was filed against the building's technical supervisor, Süleyman Dursun.

In the trial, Dursun was sentenced to 11 years and 3 months in prison, and it was ruled that judicial control measures would continue.