Ayşe Oyman

Ayşe Oyman was born in 1978 in Cizre, Şırnak. A graduate of the Faculty of Communication, Oyman worked as a reporter and editor for Özgür Gündem and DİHA. She continued her work as a journalist with the IMC TV until it was closed.

In December 2011, she was detained along with 49 journalists and media workers due to an operation named the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) against Kurdish media staff, targeting mainly Dicle News Agency (DİHA), the Özgür Gündem newspaper, Fırat News Agency and Roj TV. Oyman was placed in pretrial detention on December 24, 2011 on charges of “membership to a terrorist organization.”

She was released on March 3, 2014. Her trial is still ongoing. Oyman is facing from 7 years 6 months to 15 years of imprisonment.

The prosecutor’s office, has not yet presented its opinion as to the accusations in this trial that started at September 2012.

She continues her journalism with Jin News.

“KCK Press” Trial

On December 20, 2011, 49 journalists and employees of Kurdish media, especially the Dicle News Agency (DİHA), the Özgür Gündem newspaper, Fırat News Agency and Roj TV, were detained during police raids on houses and offices within the KCK operations in Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Van, Adana and Diyarbakır.

The next day, all the detained journalists were taken to the Counter-Terror Division (TEM) at the Vatan Police Station in Istanbul. In an investigation by the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office, the journalists in custody and their lawyers were not informed about the accusations on the basis that there was a ”restriction-confidentiality order” in the case.

Ayşe Oyman was detained in an operation organized by armed police on December 20, 2011 in Istanbul, where she stayed as a guest for a few days. After going through a mandatory medical checkup while in detention, Oyman was brought to the Istanbul Courthouse in Besiktas on December 23, 2011. Seven of the journalists were released after their interrogation with the prosecutor while 42 journalists, including Oyman, were referred to the court. Oyman was placed in pretrial detention on charges of “being a member of an armed terrorist organization.” She was taken to the Bakırköy Women’s Closed Prison.

According to the indictment, Oyman stated she was not the director of the Press Committee; she traveled back and forth to the Northern Iraq on different dates but did not attend the YRD meetings, that she worked for the Dicle news agency and Özgür Gündem; that Newroz was not her code name as the secret witness claimed but the first name her family gave her.

The indictment was completed on April 27, 2012 by the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office.

In summary, the indictment argued that the “KCK/PKK Press Committee” and the Democratic Enlightenment Union (Yekîtiya Ragihandina Demokratik - YRD)” directed the broadcasting policy and news of the Kurdish media. In the indictment, 44 journalists and media workers were accused of “being an executive of an armed terrorist organization” or “being a member of an armed terrorist organization.”

In the indictment, the prosecutor assessed that “KCK / PKK’s Press Committee has held regular meetings since 2001 in order to consolidate the hierarchy in the media network of the organization, and that the Press Conferences have gradually turned into YRD Conferences” as well as “The Press Committee’s publication policy aims to be in line with the goals of establishing independent Kurdistan.”

While the journalistic activities are defined as organizational activity; the indictment lined up assessments such as “so-called journalism”, “news that would disrupt the image of the state”, “news that would put the Turkish state in trouble”, “organizational journalism”, and that “an independent journalist would not be able to make these news ”,“ state members were insulted in the photographs found on the computer.”

Thirty-seven pages of the 800-page indictment described the KCK / PKK structure. In this section, the statements of the prosecutor, the three members of the organization and three secret witnesses who were arrested or surrendered were included. The meetings of Öcalan with his lawyers and their correspondence were also mentioned.

In the next 100 pages, the history of the Kurdish media, newspapers, magazines, radio, television and internet sites that have been broadcasting since the 1970s and the allegations about the relationship of these media with the organization are mentioned. The prosecution alleged that DİHA, ANF, Azadiya Welat and Roj TV were broadcasting in line with the goals of the KCK/PKK. It used the news, images, articles and interviews that these media organizations quoted from each other, secret witness statements, suspicious statements, and the KCK Convention’s chapter on press as evidence.

Journalists’ news, journalistic activities, their reports for the media outlets such as Roj TV and ANF were considered as evidence of a crime. Six-hundred and fifty pages of the indictment consisted of individual evaluations of 44 journalists.

Dicle News Agency (DİHA), Fırat Printing Publication and Distribution Company, Gün Printing (the printing house where papers Azadiya Welat, Denge Welat, Özgür Gündem, New Democratic Society, New Democratic Life, New Democratic Nation newspapers; Free People, Democratic Modernity, Patriotic Youth papers were printed) Fırat News Agency (ANF), Azadiya Welat newspapers, Özgür Gündem, daily and weekly newspapers published in Turkish; Roj TV, Medya TV, Mesopotamia Radio and various media and news sites were listed as organs of the “KCK / PKK’s press.

Six-hundred and fifty pages of the indictment consisted of individual evaluations of 44 journalists.

In the indictment, the 25 pages on Ayşe Oyman (page 587-612) involved Oyman’s 16 phone calls for interviews, emails from İsmet Kayhan, the ANF editor and one of the defendants of the case, six signed news reports, documents confiscated from the house where she was detained and confidential witness statements as evidence against her.

Under the title “Archive records,” Oyman’s detention history, one from 1998 and others not mentioned, was listed. In addition, the following statement was also involved in the indictment:

“The member of the organization code named Ahmet said in his statement that two (2) of the photographic films sent to him in the countryside for photo-processing were given to Ayşe Oyman.”

Oyman, whose international trips in 2003 were mentioned, was alleged to have gone abroad to attend the 2nd Press Conference organized by YRD in 2003.

Wiretapped phone calls were also added to the indictment as evidence.The phone calls that were included are listed as follows:

1- The recording of a phone call with a person who was understood to be a relative in January 2009.
2- The recording of a phone call with the secretary of an institution in January 2009.
3- The recording of a phone call in which a journalist from DİHA reported to Oyman in September 2009.
4 - The recording of a phone call in September 2009 when the other person called Oyman “Newroz.” The prosecutor did not include the records of this phone call but said it was revealed in this call that Oyman used Nevruz as a code name.
5- In January 2009, Oyman called the office of Öcalan’s lawyers and received information about their visit to İmralı.The prosecutor mentioned in the indictment that Oyman was trying to find out the names of the lawyers who would go to İmralı and whether they had departed or not.
6- A phone call made to DİHA in April 2009 and answered by Oyman. According to this recording, in response to the person who introduced himself as the “Turkish-Armenian President and US deputy foreign state official,” Oyman says she does not understand what he wants and the conversation ends.
7- May 2009, a person called Oyman to inform her about the hunger strikes in prisons.
8- In July 2009, the recording of a phone call where someone named S. called Oyman and asked her to edit a story by placing “Mr.” before Öcalan’s name.
9- In October 2009, Oyman spoke about news images and sound quality and commented on the topic of the news. In his assessment of this record, the prosecutor stated that Oyman had demonstrated her organizational stance upon the praise of a member of the organization.
10- The recording of a phone call in January 2009, when a reporter reported to Oyman about the clash between police and demonstrators. In his assessment, the prosecutor said “after the caller mentioned that some police officers were wounded, Oyman asked “Are any of you wounded?” and that the police’s injury did not hold any value as news for the institution.
11- The recording of a phone call between Oyman and a DİHA reporter who reported the updates on a protest intervened by the police in February 2009. In his assessment, the prosecutor stated that the reporter told Oyman how she should report about the protest.”
12- The recording of the previous phone call in which a DİHA reporter reported to Oyman on the call (phone call 11) in February 2009.
13. The recording of a phone call in February 2009: a reporter reported on the clashes between the police and the protestors on the anniversary of Ocalan’s arrival in Turkey after being arrested.
14- The recording of a phone call in March 2009 with Ertuş Bozkurt, the DİHA editor and a defendant in the case.
15- The recording of a phone call in March 2009 with İsmail Yıldız, a DİHA and ANF reporter, and also one of the defendants of the case who reported the news to Oyman on the phone.
16- In July 2009, a person named S. called Oyman and told her that he saw a photo of a woman wearing a handkerchief with the colors of the organization during the funeral of a member of the organization. He asked Oyman to report on it. The prosecutor, who did not include the records of this phone call, said that Oyman was “informed about the activities of the masses, supporting the organization, and was asked to cover the news accordingly.”

In the chapter where the evidence obtained as a result of the examination of the email addresses were evaluated, 23 separate emails between Oyman and İsmet Kayhan, one of the defendants of the case who the Prosecutor’s Office described as the person responsible for the Press Committee in Europe, were mentioned. In addition, the prosecutor also stressed two emails sent, one sent to Oyman’s personal email address and the other to DİHA’s İstanbul office email. The prosecutor emphasized how Oyman was referred to as Newroz in these emails.

The prosecutor listed the following as Oyman’s reports which allegedly involved “propaganda of a terrorist organization”:
1- A report titled “Independent Kurdistan Referendum” published in Özgür Gündem on Oct, 30, 2011.
2- A report titled “Women support the decision of the KCK in the Federal Kurdistan Region,” published inDİHA on Aug. 24, 2011.
3- A report published in DİHA on June 7, 2009, titled “Women Discuss the Kurdish Question - (3), Should Do Something for Peace.”
4- A news report titled “Tara Kadir, Member of the Women’s Branch of the PÇDK: The Polygamy Paves the Way for the Violence against Women,” published on Nov. 16, 2008 in DİHA.
5- A report titled “Ramazan Yüce is blamed for the Dağlıca operation” published in DİHA on Jan. 8, 2008.
6- A news article entitled “The decision to destroy the holiday card sent from a prison to the İmralı”, published in DİHA on Jan. 8, 2008.

As a result of the search at the residence where Oyman was detained, the evidence to the indictment were listed as follows:

1- A Word document titled “Final Declaration of the Women’s Conference by the Union of Democratic Working Women.” The prosecutor stated that the document contained “organizational aspects.”
2- An Excel document of the phone numbers of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) candidates for the 2011 General Election.
3- In the Word document named “Overview,” titled “Ill Treatment” were several DİHA articles and information about prisons.
4- A Word document with phone numbers.
5- A Word document that includes news sources’ expertise and contact information.
6- A Word document containing “the evaluation on the foundation of the PKK and the process until 2008.”
7- A Word document “praising and supporting the PKK.”
8- Photos of the protests with PKK flags and Ocalan posters.
9- A Kurdish music video where the female members of the organization appear, is defined as a content “praising the organization.”
10- A video file of a documentary which is stated in the indictment as “regarding the children throwing stones.”

As a result of the examination of the books, magazines and newspapers found in the residence where Oyman was detained, the following were added to the indictment:

1- 2003 “Free Women’s Voice” magazine September 2003 issue, March 2002 issue. In the indictment, it was stated there is a decision of confiscation from different courts regarding different issues of the magazine on different dates.
2- The January 2007 issue of the “Yeni Özgür Halk” magazine. It was stated that the Istanbul 11th Assize Court decided to seize the publication dated Jan. 24, 2007, and to suspend the publication for a month.
3- The 126th issue of the “Özgür Halk” magazine dated May 15, 2002. It was stated that the Istanbul 3rd State Security Court held a confiscation order dated May 25, 2002.
4- The March 2002 issue of the “Workers’ Forum.” It was stated that the Istanbul First State Security Court held a confiscation order dated March 15, 2002.
5- İsmail Beşikçi’s “Thoughts on the Kurdish Intellectuals” (2nd Edition) published by Yurt Publishing House. It was stated that the Ankara State Security Court had a confiscation order dated January 30, 1992.
6- İsmail Beşikçi’s book “The Resurrection of the Imaginary Kurdistan” published by Aram Publishing House. It was stated that the Istanbul Second State Security Court had a confiscation order dated February 2, 1998.
7- The third issue of “Free People and Democratic Modernity” magazine dated September-October 2011. It was stated that there was a confiscation order for the first and second issues of this magazine.
8- The “2006 Panorama” supplement of the weekly newspaper “Social Democracy.” In the indictment, it was mentioned that the issue of the newspaper was halted and a confiscation order was issued. It is also stated that the newspaper supplement had various handwritten names and telephone numbers on it.

As a result of the examination of the written documents seized during the search of the residence where Oyman was detained, five documents regarding the text of the Third General Assembly of the People’s Congress of Kurdistan (KONGRA-GEL) and the text of the KCK agreement were listed. Oyman’s notes for articles were also included in the indictment. Among the notes, the sentence reading “Ahmet Şık (the journalist arrested in March 2011) will be interviewed (good journalist)” was marked in bold. Also notes taken during a meeting of the Turkey Peace Assembly, notes taken at a meeting of the Human Rights Association (IHD), two photos sent from the Diyarbakır D Type Prison have been included in the indictment.

The statements of witnesses, secret witnesses and suspects against Oyman were listed as follows:

1- The secret witness named Bahar “21- Nevroz Ayşe Oyman: She is an executive at the Özgür Gündem, acts within the Press Committee and operates on behalf of it. ”
2. The secret witness named Cemile: “… I know Ayşe Oyman has attended some of these conferences.”

As well as charging Oyman with “membership to the organization,” the prosecutor claimed “in the legal assessment” chapter that Oyman was operating in Turkey for the KCK Press Committee. Claiming that Oyman was working “on behalf of the Press Committee in the DİHA and Özgür Gündem,” the prosecutor said Oyman “was paying attention to write articles on the Turkish state exerting a policy of destruction and denial against the Kurds.” The prosecutor also stated that Oyman participated in the 2003 YRD meetings, used the “Nevruz codename” and alleged that she was in organizational liaison with senior executives.

The proceedings, which were marked by debates on the right to defense in the mother tongue, took place in the 15th Assize Court (10 chapters consisting of 32 sessions) from September 10, 2012 to March 3, 2014. On November 12, 2012, the hearings that began in the Caglayan Courthouse were moved to the Silivri campus courtroom. From March 26, 2014, to January 11, 2018, 16 hearings were held at the Istanbul 3rd Assize Court at the Çağlayan Courthouse.

All the detainees, including Ayşe Oyman, travelled back and forth from Silivri to different prisons for the trials that lasted for days. At the beginning of the trial, protests took place in the courtroom after the requests to make defenses in the mother tongue were rejected, and all journalists and lawyers in pretrial detention for the KCK started a hunger strike. The defendants continued to respond in the Kurdish and Zazaki languages during the identification sessions at the court.

There were often arguments and protests during the hearings, the microphones of the lawyers were turned off and the hall was evacuated. The 15th Assize Court denounced the audience, the lawyers and the defendants for applauding as a form of protest and for “the statements that went beyond the defense limits and constituted a crime.”

It took six hearings to finish reading out the 800-page indictment against 44 defendants and the 185-page indictment against two defendants, whose files were merged. The indictment was read out by two TRT presenters mostly to an empty hall. In January 2013, two more cases two other people who were on trial in another court and their 187-page indictment were merged with the KCK trial. When the reading of the indictments was completed on April 22, 2013 during the 12th hearing, 11 of the 37 detainees had been released.

Interpreters from the Kurdish Institute (Enstîtuya Kurdî) brought by lawyers for defense in Kurdish were also present at this hearing. The 25-page long defense in Kurdish, prepared on behalf of all the defendants, was read by the DİHA editor Ertuş Bozkurt, in the courtroom.

Following the joint defense, the defendants in pretrial detention made their individual defenses. The defense of the defendants in pretrial detention was completed in the 17th hearing on June 18, 2013. After the statements by the lawyers, the other defendants, who were not pending trial, began their defenses in the 19th hearing on September 25, 2013.

Lawyer Abdulbaki Binboğa, who took the floor during the 7th hearing on November 16, 2012, started his speech by reiterating that many detainees, including his client, were on a hunger strike for the right to a defense in their mother tongue. Binboğa said the evidence accusing Oyman of being an alleged member of the PKK/KCK press committee, was based on the reports and news sources of the agency she was working for.

Binboğa also said the evidence gathered during the house raid and added to the indictment did not belong to Oyman. He stated the residence where Oyman was taken into custody was not her own home, but that she stayed there as a guest for 2-3 days and it was the home of the former chair of the Human Rights Association (IHD) Malatya office.

Binboğa said that “The house search, confiscation and arrest warrant is against procedures and the law” and that they would not make a defense in this matter. Binboğa said the press releases, academic work, and personal letters of the host Ş.K. were seized and added to the file and Binboğa demanded the letters to be removed from the case immediately. He pointed out the reason for adding the private letters of Ş.K., an academician known as an expert in the media, to the file should be questioned.

The court rejected the request to remove the letters from the case on the grounds that “the documents would be evaluated during the discussion of the evidence, and which one should be respected and explained will be revealed in the reasoned decision.”
The lawyer Binboğa reminded the court that the detention records listed in the indictment were files that resulted in non-prosecution or Oyman was acquitted of. Referring to the travel details of Oyman, Binboğa said that the dates when Oyman was abroad for two months could not be associated with an 8-day conference and that no concrete evidence was submitted that she participated in the conference.

While answering the allegations that she used the code name “Newroz” in the indictment, Ayşe Oyman said that her family called her “ Newroz,” and that it was her first name, although it was not officially included in the official records. She added that if all the phone tapes were examined, it would be understood that Newroz was the name she had used since her childhood, not a code name. In the indictment, Binboğa stated that Oyman’s conversations with the agency reporters were presented as “organizational conversations” and that the evidence was presented in a way to create suspicions about Oyman.

She said “For example, one psychologically troubled person calls on 02/04/2009 and claims that he is an American state official and talks nonsense. Even this has been put in the case as evidence.” She said the news reports could not be considered as evidence.

Referring to the statements of the secret witness, Binboğa said that the secret witness Cemile’s “statements were formed in a hurry only three days before the KCK Press operation, ” and consisted of contradictions. “The secret witness statements also bear traces of the compilation and political conjuncture,” he said.

Lawyer Fırat Epözdemir presented Oyman’s contracts as a news director with the Yön Press and a correspondent with the DİHA on April 26, 2013 during the 15th session. Lawyer Özcan Kılıç said that Oyman was the news director of the Özgür Gündem and that it was a routine situation for reporters to have news written via telephone and email, but these were shown as an element of crime in the indictment.

Lawyer Sinan Zincir reiterated that the name “Newroz” was not a code name and said: “The client’s code name is not Newroz, it’s Ayşe.This code name was given by the official ideology of the Republic of Turkey, not the organization [the PKK]. Every Kurd has two names. All of her friends and we know Ayşe as Newroz.”

Oyman started her defense in Kurdish through an interpreter in the 17th session, criticizing the fact that the defendants had to pay for the defense in their mother tongue. She then explained that her name was “Newroz” but was changed to “Ayşe” when she was two years old as a result of “the denial policy against the Kurds.”

Oyman said the following and ended her defense:

“The indictment and the alleged charges against us show the 12 September mentality has not changed and it continues without a pause. We are on trial for revealing the AK Party’s policies and lies. Just how the free press has not deviated from its principles and ways, this trial cannot prevent us from our path. I wholeheartedly believe that the newspaper and agency I work for have always worked for democracy, freedom, equality, brotherhood and peace. That was their purpose. If I had a bit of contribution as a woman, as a Kurd, as a journalist, then I am happy and feel proud. I don’t accept the allegations. This case, which is filed based on politics, not on law, must end.

The president of the court began reading the numbers of the evidence folders. Oyman said the items collected in the residence where she was detained were put into record as if they belonged to her. She said that they submitted a petition with her lawyer on this issue. She also said that the personal belongings of the owner were confiscated and they should be returned. Alçık, the president of the court, told Oyman that “you say the items don’t belong to you and that they are personal.”

Oyman reiterated that the place where she was detained was not her residence and that the owner’s possessions were confiscated and that she was a guest in that house. The court then started evaluating the secret witness statements as evidence. Oyman told the court that she did not accept “the substitution of evidence by illegal means.”

The president of the court continued to ask for evidence files. Then the judge, began asking questions. Oyman reiterated that the substitution of evidence was unlawful. Lawyer Özcan Kılıç objected to the substitution of the evidence, adding that the telephone number that the delegation asked Oyman about was DİHA’s number.

During the 18th hearing on June 19, 2013, Sinan Zincir, who made a defense on behalf of all the defendants, repeated the statements of other lawyers regarding the name “Newroz.” At the end of the hearing, the court decided to obtain a report from the Forensic Medicine Institute to determine whether the handwritten documents confiscated during detention belonged to Oyman.

Speaking at the 29th session on December 6, 2013, the lawyer Binboğa said they had previously submitted petitions to the court on behalf of his client Oyman and that he would repeat the contents of these petitions. Binboğa reiterated the statements made during previous hearings regarding the evidence and secret witness statements in the indictment.

On the 30th hearing on January 13, 2014, the report from the Forensic Medicine Court stated “the handwriting samples taken from the defendants were inadequate and therefore no comparison could be made.” The Fifteenth Assize Court decided to take a handwriting sample from Oyman again.

At the hearing, the lawyers demanded the proceedings at the Istanbul 15th Assize Court be suspended and also demanded the release of the prisoners, arguing that the controversy on the possible abolition of the current Special Competent Courts (SCC) also made this court controversial. The court rejected this request. However, with the amendment of the relevant law on February 21, 2014, the SCCs were completely abolished.

The last hearing at the 15th Assize Court was on March 3, 2014. Ayşe Oyman was released in this last hearing. Then the case was sent to the Istanbul Third Assize Court. The remaining detainees were also released after routine detention investigations, and as of May 12, 2014, there were no detainees from the case.

After July 10, 2014, the trial continued in the Istanbul Third Assize Court at Çağlayan Courthouse. The travel ban against 37 defendants, including Ayşe Oyman, was removed during the first hearing of the Istanbul Third Assize Court.

At the tenth hearing, it was revealed that judge asked the police to cancel the passports of the journalists based on the decree law. The lawyers reiterated their demands for the acquittal of all defendants and awaited of the decision by the Constitutional Court.

Most of the law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges who were involved in the investigation, prosecution and judiciary process were either detained or they deserted after the failed July 15 coup attempt. The case was then transferred to the İstanbul Third Assize Court.

The lawyers demanded the legal proceedings against these figures to be added to the file. While accepting this request, the court ruled that all prosecutions and investigations against the accused journalists should also be included in the file.

Of the 46 defendants, only the deserted defendant Ismet Kayhan did not make his defense in court. The substitution of evidence has not taken place yet. The ongoing case against the law enforcement officers, who were involved during the investigation process and are on trial at the Istanbul 26th Criminal Court of First Instance, is expected to be attached to the case. At the same time, the arrest warrant against Ismet Kayhan is expected to be executed. The 16th hearing of the case was held on May 21, 2019. In the seven-year trial, the prosecution still did not disclose its opinion on the merits.

The next hearing of the case was scheduled for 10.00 am October 22, 2019.

17th hearing of the case took place at October 22nd, 2019. Next hearing is set to February 25th, 2020.

The 19th hearing of the trial took place on July 2nd. The president of the court stated that the writ sent to the General Secretariat of Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) about the progress in the trial was added to the case file. Accordingly, HSK demanded information from the court for the disciplinary investigation against Bilal Bayraktar, a prosecutor dismissed for alleged “membership of the Fethullahist Terror Organization.” Bayraktar was the prosecutor in charge of indictment and hearings at KCK Press Trial. Journalist Çağdaş Ulus’ lawyer Mehtap Acar Ulus stated that her client was included in the trial via manipulation. She demanded that his file be separated from the collective file and Ulus be acquitted. The court ruled to await the execution of the arrest warrant against İsmet Kayhan, who lives abroad.

The 20th hearing was held on December 1st, 2020. Two members of the panel of judges had changed.

Of the defendant journalists, only İsmail Yıldız (Rawin Sterk) attended the hearing. İstanbul 34th High Criminal Court had decided to merge the case file for “membership of an armed terror organization” and “spreading propaganda in a continuous manner for a terror organization” with the case file of the “KCK Press Trial”. The court stated that it had received the said file.

Lawyer Özcan Kılıç demanded the cancellation of İsmail Yıldız’s overseas travel ban. He requested that Yüksel Genç be relieved from the obligation to attend the hearings. The court accepted both requests.

Mehtap Acar Ulus, the lawyer of journalist Çağdaş Ulus, requested that her client’s trial be separated from the main file. The request was rejected.

The court ruled to lift Yüksel Genç’s obligation to attend the hearings.

The trial was adjourned until the 21st hearing on March 4th, 2021.

In this case, which is underway since September 2012, prosecution has not provided their opinion as to the accusations, yet.

European Court of Human Right Process

At November 20th, European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) denied the request regarding the case in which the journalists were being tried, with the reasoning that making a personal appeal to the Constitutional Court was still possible. The attorneys had made the request due to false imprisonment. However, at the time of the arrests and the request to the ECHR, the requirement to make the individual appeal to the Constitutional Court prior to the application to the ECHR, had not come into force.

21. Standing - March 4, 2021

Mahkeme heyetinin yerini almasıyla birlikte duruşma, daha önceden belirlenen saatinde başladı. Yargılanan gazetecilerden Rawin Stêrk Yıldız ve avukatlar duruşmada hazır bulundu.
Duruşma savcısı dosyadaki eksik hususların tamamlanmasını istedi.

Avukat Sercan Korkmaz, müvekkili Rawin Stêrk Yıldız’ın el konulan telefonun iade edilmesini talep etti. Davanın diğer avukatları da dosyadaki eksiklerin giderilmesin talep etti.

Mahkeme heyeti, İsmet Kayhan hakkındaki yakalama kararının devamı yönünde karar verdi. Gazeteci Rawin Stêrk Yıldız’ın el konulan telefonun iade edilmesini yönündeki talebin sonraki duruşma karara bağlayacağını açıklayan mahkeme heyeti, eksik hususların tamamlanmasının beklenilmesine karar verdi.

Mahkeme, duruşmayı 22 Haziran 2021 tarihine, saat 10:30’a erteledi.

Duruşma Öncesi

Adliyeye girişler Covid-19 salgını nedeniyle tek sıra halinde yapıldı. HES kodu sorgulaması yapıldı. Kapıların girişleri bariyer ve uyarı yazıları ile bir birinden ayrıldı. Yurttaşlar, gazeteciler ve avukatlar X-Ray cihazından geçirildi. Yurttaşlar, ateş ölçümü yapılarak adliyeye alındı. Duruşmanın yapıldığı salonunun önü çok kalabalık değildi. Gazetecilerin duruşma salonu önüne geçmesine engel çıkarılmadı.

Mahkeme Salonu Koşulları

Mahkeme salonu, adliyedeki standart salonlardan bir tanesiydi. SEGBİS için iki ayrı ekran kurulmuştu. Gazeteci ve izleyiciler için ayrı bir yer, avukat ve sanıklar için ayrı yer ayrılmıştı. İzleyici sıralarına pandemi dolayısıyla uyarı yazıları asıldığı görüldü. İzleyiciler duruşma salonuna alınmadı.

Duruşmaya Katılım

Duruşmayı P24 ve bazı internet haber siteleri izledi.

20. Standing - Dec. 1, 2020

Saat 09.50’de başlaması gereken duruşma, yaklaşık 15 dakika gecikmeyle, saat 10.05’te başladı. Mahkeme heyetinden iki üyenin değiştiği gözlendi.

Duruşmaya, yargılanan gazetecilerden sadece İsmail Yıldız (Rawin Sterk) katıldı. İstanbul 34. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi, Yıldız hakkında “silahlı terör örgütüne üye olmak” ve “zincirleme şekilde terör örgütü propagandası yapmak” suçlaması ile açılan davanın yargılama dosyasının “KCK Basın Davası” yargılama dosyası ile birleştirilmesine karar vermişti. Bu dosyanın mahkemeye geldiği belirtildi.

Duruşma savcısı, dosyadaki eksiklerin giderilmesini talep etti.

Avukat Özcan Kılıç, İsmail Yıldız hakkında uygulanan yurt dışına çıkış yasağının kaldırılmasını talep etti.

Gazeteci Çağdaş Ulus’un avukatı Mehtap Acar Ulus ise, Ulus hakkındaki yargılama dosyasının ana dosyadan ayrılmasını talep etti.

Mahkeme heyeti, duruşmaya kısa bir ara verdi.

Mahkeme, Yüksel Genç’in duruşmalara katılma zorunluluğunun kaldırılmasına karar verdi.

İsmail Yıldız’ın da yurtdışına çıkış yasağının kaldırılmasına karar verildi.

Çağdaş Ulus hakkındaki yargılama dosyasının ayrılması talebi reddedildi.

Yargılamanın, 4 Mart 2021 tarihinde görülecek 21. duruşma ile devam etmesine karar verildi.

Duruşma Öncesi

Koronavirüs karşısında alınan önlemler kapsamında, adliyeye; tek sıra halinde girilebildi. Bu düzen, bariyerler ve uyarı yazıları ile sağlandı. Ateş ölçümü ve X-Ray taraması yapıldı.

Duruşmanın yapıldığı salonun önü çok kalabalık değildi. Gazetecilerin, duruşma salonunun önünde beklemesi engellenmedi.

Mahkeme Salonu Koşulları

Mahkeme salonunda; gazeteciler, gözlemciler, avukatlar ve sanıklar için hazırlanan yerler birbirinden ayrıydı.

İzleyiciler için ayrılan her iki oturma yerinden biri, koronavirüs karşısında alınan sosyal mesafe önleminin sağlanması için uyarı yazıları ile kapatılmıştı.

Duruşmaya Katılım

Duruşmayı, Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA) gözlemcisi ve bazı internet haber sitelerinin muhabirleri takip etti.

Genel Gözlemler

Koronavirüs pandemisi karşısında alınan tedbirler kapsamında, gazetecilerin ve gözlemcilerin duruşma salonuna alınmayacağı belirtildi. Ancak, bu sırada duruşma başlamış, gazeteciler ve gözlemciler duruşma salonundaki yerlerini almıştı. Gazeteci ve gözlemcilerin, bir seferliğine duruşmayı izlemelerine izin verildi.

Mahkeme başkanı gergindi. Taleplerini dile getiren Avukat Özcan Kılıç’a karşı iki kez sesini yükseltti.

19. Standing - July 2, 2020

Duruşma, gelen evrakların tutanağa geçirilmesiyle başladı.

Mahkeme heyeti başkanı; Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulu (HSK) Genel Sekreterliği’nden bu yargılamanın geldiği aşama ile ilgili bilginin istendiği yazının dosyaya eklendiğini açıkladı. Buna göre, HSK; “Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü üyesi olduğu” iddiasıyla meslekten çıkarılan savcı Bilal Bayraktar ile ilgili disiplin soruşturması için mahkemeden bilgi istiyordu. Savcı Bayraktar, “KCK Basın” yargılamasının soruşturma ve iddianame savcısıydı.

Gazeteci Çağdaş Ulus’un avukatı Mehtap Acar Ulus, Çağdaş Ulus’un bir manipülasyon yoluyla bu davaya dahil edildiğini söyledi. Çağdaş Ulus hakkındaki dosyanın, bu dosyadan ayrılmasını ve Ulus’un beraatini talep etti.

Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulu‘nun (HSK) savcı Bilal Bayraktar hakkındaki disiplin soruşturması kapsamında, “KCK Basın” yargılamasıyla ilgili gelişmelerin ve kararın HSK Genel Sekreterliği’ne bildirilmesine yönelik yazı, dosyaya eklendi.

“FETÖ üyesi olduğu” iddiasıyla meslekten çıkartılan savcı Bayraktar, “KCK Basın” dosyasının da soruşturma ve iddianame savcısıydı.

Çağdaş Ulus müdafii avukat Mehtap Acar Ulus, müvekkili hakkında beraat talebiyle yazılı beyan sundu. Ulus’un dosyasının KCK Basın dosyasından ayrılmasını talep etti.

Diğer sanık müdafiileri, bu aşamada bir talepleri olmadığını söyledi.

Mahkeme, Çağdaş Ulus’un dosyasının ayrılması yönündeki talebini reddetti.

HSK’nın iddianame savcısı Bilal Bayraktar hakkında yürüttüğü disiplin soruşturması için, yargılamanın her aşamasının HSK Genel Sekreterliği’ne bildirilmesine karar verildi.

Ayrıca, sanıklardan yurtdışında ikamet eden İsmet Kayhan hakkındaki yakalama kararının yerine getirilmesinin beklenmesine karar verildi.

Yargılamanın, 1 Aralık 2020 tarihinde görülecek 20. duruşma ile devam etmesine karar verildi.

Duruşma Öncesi

Güvenlik görevlisi, bariyerlerin geçilmesine izin verdi. Duruşma öncesi salonun önü boştu. Avukatlar tam duruşma saatinde, salonun önüne geldi.

Avukatlardan birinin beklenmesine karar verildi. Avukatın, o sırada başka bir mahkemede karar beklediği için geciktiği belirtildi.

Duruşma 10 dakika gecikmeli başladı.

Mahkeme Salonu Koşulları

Mahkeme salonunda yaklaşık 25 kişilik oturma alanı vardı. “Koronavirüs” pandemisi karşısında alınan tedbirleri kapsamında, sosyal mesafenin sağlanması için sandalyelere birer aralıkla bantlar çekilmişti.

Duruşmaya Katılım

Duruşmaya, Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA) ve Türkiye Gazeteciler Sendikası’ndan gözlemciler katıldı.

Genel Gözlemler

Duruşma 18 dakika sürdü.

Pandemi nedeniyle izleme alanında fiziksel mesafe önlemleri alınmıştı ancak salonda bulunan mahkeme başkanı, iki heyet üyesi, savcı ve katip arasında sadece bir mahkeme heyeti üyesi maskesini takıyordu.

Mahkeme başkanı duruşma boyunca mikrofonunu kullanmadı ve kısık sesle konuştu. Söyledikleri izleyiciler tarafından duyulmadı.

18. Standing - Feb. 25, 2020

Duruşma öngörülen saatten 10 dakika sonra başladı, karar için verilen 5 dakikalık ara dahil, toplam 35 dakika sürdü.

Duruşmaya, Ses ve Görüntülü Bilişim Sistemi (SEGBİS) ile katılması beklenen Yüksel Genç, mahkeme salonunda hazır bulundu. Genç, yaptığı savunmayı ayrıca yazılı olarak da sundu.

Genç savunmasında, hakkında İstanbul 14. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülen ve daha sonra “KCK Basın” ile birleştirilen dosyanın iddianamesine tepki gösterdi. Demokratik Toplum Kongresi (DTK) kuruculuğuyla suçlandığı bu dosyadaki deliller arasında hakkındaki teknik takip delillerinin de gösterildiğini, ancak kendisinin o tarihlerde “KCK Basın” davasından tutuklu olduğunu açıkladı.

DTK’da 2009-2011 arası görev yaptığını ve DTK’nın yasadışı bir yapı olmadığını söyledi, suçlamaları reddetti. TBMM Anayasa Komisyonu’nun DTK’dan resmi olarak görüş istediğine dair belgeyi mahkemeye sundu.

Sanıklardan Hüseyin Deniz de salonda hazır bulundu. Deniz bu aşamada söyleyecek bir şeyi olmadığını ifade etti.

Ardından Çağdaş Ulus’un avukatlığını üstlenen eşi sözü aldı. Ulus’la 5 senedir tanıştıklarını, çocuklarının 1 yaşında olduğunu ancak bu davanın halen devam ettiğini söyledi. Ayrıca eşi Ulus’un 2011’de gözaltına alınmadan birkaç ay önce zorunlu askerlik hizmetini yerine getirdiğini anlattı; teröristlikle suçlanmasına tepki gösterdi. Dosyasının ayrılmasını talep etti.

Ardından söz alan diğer tüm sanıklar müdafii Özcan Kılıç, öncelikle Yüksel Genç’in duruşmalardan vareste tutulmasını talep etti. Sanıklardan Ziya Çiçekçi hakkında açılan başka bir dosyanın birleştirilmesini de istedi.

Kılıç, müvekkillerinin DTK üyesi olmakla suçlandığını, ancak DTK’nın yasadığı bir yapı olmadığını anlattı. DTK’nın yasadışı bir örgüt olup olmadığının tespit edilmesini talep etti.

Avukat Kılıç, “KCK Basın’ dosyasının soruşturma aşamasında gözaltına alınan, o dönem AFP (Agence France Presse, Fransız Haber Ajansı) muhabiri Mustafa Özer’in MİT ajanı olduğunun ortaya çıktığını” iddia etti. İlk başta şüpheli listesinde yer alan ancak şu an dosyada bulunmayan Özer’in mahkeme huzurunda dinlenmesini talep etti.

Mahkeme karar için 5 dakika ara verdi.

Mahkeme sanıkların ve müdafilerinin tüm taleplerini reddetti.

İsmet Kayhan hakkındaki yakalama emrinin infazının beklenmesine karar verdi.

Bir sonraki duruşma 2 Temmuz 2020 saat 10.00’da görülecek.

Duruşma Öncesi

Duruşmadan birkaç dakika önce polis barikatı açılarak gazetecilerin salon önüne geçişine izin verildi.

Mahkeme Salonu Koşulları

Mahkeme salonu yaklaşık 30 kişilikti. Mahkeme başkanı mikrofon kullanmadı ve duruşmada konuşulan hiçbir şey izleyici bölümünden duyulmadı.

Duruşmaya Katılım

Duruşmaya sanık müdafii olarak sekiz avukat katıldı. Duruşmayı; Gazetecileri Koruma Komitesi (CPJ), P24 ve Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA) temsilcileri takip etti.

Genel Gözlemler

Duruşma öngörülen saatten 10 dakika sonra başladı, karar için verilen 5 dakikalık ara dahil, toplam 35 dakika sürdü.

Duruşma devam ederken, bir sonraki duruşmanın SEGBİS bağlantısı kuruldu ve SEGBİS’le bağlanan kişi kendi duruşmasını bekledi.

Duruşma esnasında mahkeme başkanının sanıklardan Yüksel Genç’e “sen” diyerek hitap etmesine bir avukat itiraz etti. Mahkeme başkanı “Bu sen-siz tartışması yıllardır sürüyor” dedi ve “sen” ifadesinin sıkıntılı bir ifade olmadığını söyleyerek duruşmaya devam etti.

Mahkeme karar için ara verdiğinde salon boşaltıldı. Ancak savcının salonda oturuyordu. 5 dakika sonra salonun kapısı açıldı. Mahkeme başkanının bir sonraki duruşma tarihini söylemesiyle duruşma sona erdi. Mahkeme başkanı erkek, heyetin iki üyesi kadın hakimdi.

17. Standing - Oct. 22, 2019

Bir önceki duruşmada, sanıklardan Yüksel Genç hakkında İstanbul 14. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülen dosyanın KCK Basın dosyasıyla birleştirilmesi talebi, İstanbul 3. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi tarafından reddedilmişti.

İki duruşma arasında, İstinaf Mahkemesi; Genç hakkındaki iki dosyanın İstanbul 3. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde birleştirilmesine resen karar verdi.

Yargılamanın 17. duruşması, bu kararın dosyaya eklenmesiyle başladı. Yeni dosya eklendiği için Genç’in tekrar savunma sunması istendi. Avukat Özcan Kılıç, Genç’in savunması için Diyarbakır’da hazır edileceğini ifade etti.

Sanıklardan Ziya Çiçekçi hakkında, “terör örgütü yayınlarını basmak ve yayınlamak” suçlamasıyla İstanbul 15. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülen dosyanın İstanbul 3. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde birleştirilmesi için muvafakat (kabul etme) yazısı geldi. Avukat Özcan Kılıç da dosyaların birleştirilmesi talebinde bulundu.

Avukat Mehtap Acar Ulus, FETÖ suçlamasıyla yargılanan ve etkin pişmanlıktan yararlanan bir emniyet müdürünün, müvekkili Çağdaş Ulus’un sahte delillerle tutuklandığına dair ifadelerinin olduğunu belirtti ve bu konudaki delilleri mahkemeye sundu. Müvekkili Ulus’un dosyasının ayrılmasını talep etti.

Mahkeme, sanıklardan Yüksel Genç’in bir sonraki duruşmada savunmasını Ses ve Görüntü Bilişim Sistemi üzerinden (SEGBİS) sunmak üzere Diyarbakır’da bir mahkemede hazır edilmesi için talimat yazılmasına karar verdi.

Çağdaş Ulus’un dosyasının ayrılması yönündeki talebi reddetti. Ziya Çiçekçi’nin dosyasının birleştirilmesi talebini de reddetti.

İsmet Kayhan hakkındaki yakalama kararının infazının beklenmesine de karar veren mahkeme bir sonraki duruşmanın 25 Şubat 2020 saat 10.30’da görüleceğini açıkladı.

Duruşma Öncesi

Duruşma öncesi gazetecilerin bir kısmının barikattan geçip mahkeme salonu önünde beklemesine izin verildi.

Mahkeme salonu önü kalabalıklaştıktan sonra ise barikattan geçişler kapatıldı. İki gazetecinin salon önüne yaklaşkasına duruşma başladığı ana kadar izin verilmedi.

Gazeteciler ve güvenlik görevlileri arasında tartışma yaşandı. Gazetecilerden biri, güvenlik görevlisine “keyfi davrandığını” söyledi. Bunun üzerine güvenlik görevlisi barikatı kapatarak “Sadece senin geçişine izin vermiyorum, keyfi değil mi” dedi.

Duruşmanın başlamasıyla, güvenlik şefi gelerek, gazetecilerin içeri girişini sağladı.

Mahkeme Salonu koşulları

Mahkeme salonu katılımcı sayısına göre genişti. Mahkeme başkanı mikrofon kullanmadı ve duruşmada konuşulan hiçbir şey izleyici bölümünden duyulmadı.

Duruşmaya Katılım

Duruşmaya sanık müdafii olarak altı avukat katıldı. Duruşmayı, P24 ve Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA) temsilcileri ve gazeteciler takip etti.

Genel Gözlemler

Duruşma öngörülen saatten 40 dakika sonra başladı, 25 dakika sürdü.

Salona girdikten sonra yaklaşık 10 dakika boyunca mahkeme katibi dosyayla ilgili telefonda konuştu. İzleyici bölümünden sadece “Burası terör mahkemesi değil” cümlesi duyuldu.

Avukatlar, konuşmanın; sanıklardan Yüksel Genç’in İstanbul 14. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde açılan dava dosyasının KCK Basın dosyasıyla birleştirilmesiyle ilgili olduğunu açıkladı.

Duruşma başladığında, avukatlardan biri başka bir adliyede de duruşması olduğu için ayrılacağını ifade etti. Bunun üzerine mahkeme başkanı öfkelendi, birkaç dakikalık bir tartışma yaşandı.

Mahkeme karar için ara verdiğinde salon boşaltıldı. Beş dakika sonra salonun kapısı açıldı. Mahkeme başkanının bir sonraki duruşma tarihini söylemesiyle duruşma sona erdi.

Mahkeme heyeti üyelerinden biri değişmişti. Mahkeme başkanı erkek, heyetin iki üyesi kadın hakimdi.

16. Standing - May 9, 2019

Mahkeme Başkanı, mikrofon kullanmadığı için 10 dakika süren duruşma boyunca katılımcılar çok az şey duyabildi.

Daha sonra duruşma tutanağından edinilen bilgiye göre, İstanbul İl Emniyet Müdürlüğü’nün sanık Dilek Demiral’ın pasaportu üzerindeki şerhin kaldırılması şeklindeki işlemlerin devam ettiği yönünde cevabı dosyaya eklendi.

Ayrıca “KCK Basın” soruşturmasını yürüten emniyet görevlileri hakkında görevi kötüye kullanma suçlamasıyla İstanbul 26. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinde görülen yargılamanın devam ettiğine dair cevap ve duruşma zaptı örneği de mahkemeye ulaştı. Avukat Özcan Kılıç, Ocak 2019’da görülen bir önceki duruşmada bu davanın akıbetinin öğrenilmesini talep etmişti.

Mahkeme Başkanı, sanıklardan Yüksel Genç hakkında İstanbul 14. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde bir dava açıldığını ve İstanbul 14. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nin kendilerine birleştirme kararı gönderdiğini söyledi. Mahkeme Başkanı, İstanbul 3. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi heyeti olarak birleştirmeye onay vermediklerini söyledi.

Duruşma savcısı, bu duruşmada da esas hakkındaki mütalaasını açıklamadı; eksiklerin giderilmesini mütalaa etti.

Mahkeme ara vermeden, kararını açıkladı.

Sanıklardan Yüksel Genç hakkında İstanbul 14. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde açılan davanın İstanbul 3. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’ndeki dosyayla birleştirilmesini kabul etmeyen mahkeme, dosyayı İstanbul Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi’ne gönderdi.

Bir sonraki duruşmanın 22 Ekim 2019 saat 10.00’a bırakılmasına karar verildi.

Duruşma Öncesi

Avukatlar ve iki muhabirin salona girmesinin ardından salonun kapısı kapandı. Kapı kapandıktan sonra gelen izleyicilerin içeri alınmasına zorluk çıkarıldı.

Duruşmaya katılım

Duruşmaya altı avukat katıldı. Duruşmayı; P24, Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA) ve Türkiye Gazeteciler Sendikası’ndan temsilciler ve muhabirler takip etti.

Genel Gözlemler

Mahkeme başkanı mikrofon kullanmadığı için, izleyici alanından sadece, sanıklardan Yüksel Genç’in dosyası ile ilgili konuşmalar ve bir sonraki duruşma tarihi duyulabildi.

Duruşma 10 dakika sürdü.

15. Standing - Jan. 11, 2019

Duruşma saatinde başladı ve 10 dakika sürdü.

Avukat Özcan Kılıç “KCK Basın” soruşturmasını yürüten emniyet görevlileri hakkında “görevi kötüye kullanma” suçlamasıyla İstanbul 26. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi’nde açılan davanın akıbetinin öğrenilmesini talep etti.

“KCK Basın” soruşturmasını yürüten emniyet görevlileri hakkında “görevi kötüye kullanma” suçlamasıyla İstanbul 26. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi’nde açılan davanın akıbetinin sorulmasına karar verildi.

Dava, 9 Mayıs 2019 gününe bırakıldı.

Duruşma Öncesi

Duruşma öngörülen saatte başladı. Öncesinde sanık gazeteciler ile duruşmayı takibe gelen gazeteciler sohbet etti. Duruşma öncesi herhangi bir destek açıklaması yapılmadı.

Mahkeme Salonu Koşulları

Mahkeme salonu katılımcı sayısına göre genişti. Mahkeme başkanı mikrofon kullanmadı ve sözleri katılımcılar tarafından duyulmadı.

Duruşmaya Katılım

Duruşmaya iki sanık ve dokuz avukat katıldı. Dört muhabir duruşmayı haber/rapor amacıyla takip etti.

Genel Gözlemler

Duruşma yıllardır sürdüğü, halen esas hakkında mütalaa verilmediği ve davada ilerleme olmadığı için duruşmaya katılım çok düşüktü.

“KCK Press” Trial 15. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

“KCK Press” Trial 16. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

“KCK Press” Trial 17. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

“KCK Press” Trial 18. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

“KCK Press” Trial 19. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

“KCK Press” Trial 20. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

“KCK Press” Trial 21. Standing (Minutes of the Hearing)

Contact: pressinarrest@gmail.com

Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.