Características de Villa 1

Sakarya-Geyve district. The juveniles had been detained for theft, but the commander presented them to the press in women clothes. The trial continues at Sakarya Criminal Court No. 1.

Major Sönmezoğlu had accused the journalists. He said that they had secretly taken pictures, although he had asked them not to. The journalists had asked the children to appear in their underwear, but they had stayed as they were.

X.X.: On 26 May Develi Criminal Court concluded the case against four police officers, charged with having tortured a person, detained on accusations of illegal possession of a gin. The Court sentenced Mustafa Özkan to 75 days’ imprisonment and Serdar Kaya and Osman Gezgen to 10 months’ imprisonment. The police officer Metin Durak was acquitted and the prison terms were suspended.

Behzat Örs: The case against the police officers Hayati Akça, Osman Mentese, Rıza Temir, Fikri Vidinli, Kadri Tuncel, Ali Tosun and Remzi Ekçi in connection with torturing Behzat Örs in Ankara in 1996 was dropped on the grounds of lapse of time. During the hearing held at Ankara Criminal Court No. 9 on 10 June, the presiding judge stated that the address of Behzat Örs could not be identified. Speaking on the merits of the case, the Public Prosecutor asked the Court to drop the case on the grounds of lapse of time. The Court followed his demand. The indictment had charged the defendant police officers under Article 243 TPC (torture). Behzat Örs had been arrested in 1996 on charges of being a member of an illegal organization, and was released in 2000.

Orhan Buyak: The Panel of Chambers at the Court of Cassation confirmed the suspension of the sentences given to the police officers Ramazan Aktaş and Turhan Sümertaş for torturing Orhan Buyak, who was detained in Bursa in 1997. Bursa Criminal Court No. 3 had originally sentenced Aktaş and Sümertaş to 10 months’ imprisonment and 5 months’ dismissal from duty and suspended the

sentences. The 8th Chamber at the Court of Cassation had confirmed the sentences, but quashed the decision of suspension.

The 8th Chamber put that there was no valid reason to suspend the sentences as the defendants had detained and tortured Orhan Buyak after his acquittal, only because he had complained about torture. However, Bursa Criminal Court No. 3 insisted on the original verdict. Now the Panel of Chambers had to deal with the case and confirmed the suspension by 15 to 8 votes.

This case was reflected in a column of Kürşat Bumin in the daily “Yeni Şafak” of 30 June 2003. He highlighted the low sentences and the formulation of the court for suspending the sentences. The court had argued that the defendants had learned their lesson and should be “gained for the State” (not society). The author also mentioned that sentences passed on the crime of torture could not longer be suspended, due to a change in legislation made in January 2003.

Şenol Gürkan: Ankara Penal Court No. 21 continued to hear the case of deputy superintendent Murat Dedeoğlu (son of İbrahim Dedeoğlu, on trial in connection with the death in detention of Birtan Altunbaş) and the police officers Rifat Dogru, Gürah Ayhan, Atanur Arslan, Erdal Şimşek, Ahmet Horoz, Tekin Taşlıova, Recep Cömert and Mustafa Usul charged with having tortured Şenol Gürkan, who had been detained in June 2001 in Ankara.

On 26 June, Gürkan identified Dedeoğlu at the hearing. He said, “After various kinds of torture, Murat Dedeoğlu and other police officers told me to undress. There were at least 10 persons in the room. One of them told me that he was going to rape me. They kept me naked for half an hour and then took me to my cell. 5 minutes later they blindfolded me with a towel and took me to an unknown place. They hosed me with pressurized water especially to my genitals. Two hours later they took me to my cell and forced me to sign a paper. They also made me drink water with detergent in it.”

On 4 November Şenol Gürkan identified further defendant and pointing at Kadri Tuncer, police officer from the anti-terror department at Ankara Police HQ, who was sitting among the spectators, he said that this officer was among the torturers, too. Tuncer protested stating that he was observing many trials against colleagues and each time he was identified as a perpetrator.

Although the 7th adjustment package had introduced the provision that trials against torturers can not be adjourned for more than 30 days the court determined 10 February 2004 as the day for the next hearing. In this trial the defendants are charged under Article 245 TPC.

Abdülvahap Kavak: On 6 May, Diyarbakır Criminal Court No. 2 acquitted the police officers Birol Yaman, Recep Kaplan, Orhan Serçi, Ayhan Koç, Ethem Aras and Hüseyin Demir, charged with torturing Abdülvahap Kavak, who had been detained in February 1996 in Diyarbakır. Kavak had been arrested after transfer to İstanbul on 21 March 1996.

Kavak had filed an official complaint against the police officers in May 1998 stating that he had been subjected to the bastinado (falanga) for 13 days, had been suspended by his arms, had been kept standing in his cell for long hours, while being naked and wet. He had also stated that the police officers had taken him to Dicle River and attempted to drown him. Torture had continued at İstanbul Police HQ for 10 days. At that time the Governor for a State of Emergency Region had not granted permission to prosecute the police officers. After Diyarbakır Administrative Court quashed this decision, the public prosecutor in Diyarbakır launched a case against the police officers in July 2002.

In summing up the case, the prosecutor reminded that the report of the İstanbul Forensic Institute, dated 21 February 2000, stated that Kavak had a loss of strength in his arms. The prosecutor asked for acquittal of the defendants for “lack of evidence” on the grounds that the report did not determine the exact time for this handicap. The Court followed the argument of the prosecutor.

Fatma Deniz Polattaş, Nazime Ceren Samanoğlu: İskenderun Criminal Court continued to hear the case of the police officers Murat Çikar, Halil Özkan, Aysun Yüksel and Gürkan İlhan, head of the political police, in connection with the torture of Fatma Deniz Polattas and Nazime Ceren Samanoğlu, who were detained in İskenderun in March 1999. The hearings were adjourned awaiting a report by the Forensic Institute. The Court has been waiting that report for the last two years.

Meanwhile, Bülent Akbay, lawyer of Polattas and Samanoğlu told journalists after a hearing in October that the defendant Gürkan İlhan was appointed to the Department to Fight Terrorism at in Kahramanmaraş Police HQ.

Bülent Akbay stated that the Interior Ministry covered the defense expenses in this trial. He said: “It is unreasonable that the defense of torturing police officers is paid by Interior Ministry with our money. This shows that the Ministry has taken side with them and effects the trial. The case is delayed as the defense is made by the Ministry. It is not possible for a person working at the Forensic Institute to be neutral in her/his assessment of a case undertaken by the Ministry”.

Mehmet Desde: In August the public prosecutor in İzmir indicted four police officers: Muhteşem Çavuşoğlu (at the time leading the anti-terror squad at İzmir Police HQ and now Deputy Chief of Aydın Police) and the police officers Mesut Angi, Alim Erçetin and Hürriyet Gündüz in connection with the torture of German citizen Mehmet Desde, who had been detained in July 2002. The trial against them under Article 243 TPC started at İzmir Criminal Court No. 7 on 2 October.

Mehmet Desde and his lawyer had filed two official complaints about torture, but the prosecutor did not bring any charges. But on 22 October 2002 the German General Consulate wrote to the administration of Kırıklar F-type Prison and asked that the German prisoner should not be held in isolation. Regarding the allegations of torture the Consulate suggested an examination by an independent institution. Yet it took more than three months, before Mehmet Desde was sent to the hospital of the medical faculty of the Aegean University. He was examined on 6 February 2003 and the faculty presented the report on 11 March. The report stated that after such a long time traces of torture could not be found. Certifying strong depressive disturbances and post-traumatic stress disorders the report agreed that this might be the result of what the patient alleged to have been through.

On 21 July 2003 İzmir Medical Association presented a 15-page report presented detailed statements of the patient and the following examinations. The commission concluded that the examinations in psychiatry, neurology, orthopedics and internal surgery were in complete agreement with the narrated incident (anamnesis). The commission was absolutely convinced that the patient had been tortured physically as well as psychologically. Based on this report the court case was opened.

During the hearing of 31 October the defendants Mesut Angı, Alim Erçetin and Hürriyet Gündüz pleaded not guilty. They had been asked to sign the statement of Mehmet Desde, but had not been present during interrogation. Mehmet Desde recognized one of the police officers from his voice. The Court did not ask the defendant Muhteşem Çavuşoğlu to appear (for identification), and put a written statement of “not guilty” into the file.

Having asked for a comment by the Forensic Institute in İstanbul the Court adjourned the hearing to 19 January 2004. 39

Leyla Bozacı: The Court of Cassation quashed the verdicts against the police officers Kerem Döndü, who raped Leyla Bozaci on 31 August 2001 in Sile district of İstanbul, on the grounds that “the penalty had to be increased”, and Benal Demir on the grounds that he had to be sentenced as “main offender”. The court confirmed the acquittal of Mehmet Pot. On 31 December, Üsküdar Criminal Court No.1 had sentenced Döndü to 15 years’ and 4 months’ imprisonment and acquitted Demir and Pot.

Şükran Esen, İ. Esen: In October the Public Prosecutor in Mardin launched a court case against 405 soldiers 40 (64 ranked soldiers and 341 privates) for raping Şükran Esen, who had been detained in 1993 and 1994. The indictment wanted the defendants to be sentenced according to Articles 416 and 417 (rape) and 243 (torture) of TPC.

The case developed as follows:

In 1999 Şükran Esen had related to responsibles of the Legal Aid Project against Sexual Assault and Rape in Detention during a conference in Germany, that she had been raped in Mazıdağı and Derik districts of Mardin. Subsequently the lawyer Eren Keskin had filed an official complaint. In her complaint Eren Keskin had noticed that Şükran Esen had been detained in Dagköyü village of Derik in November 1993 by soldiers, kept 7 days naked, blindfolded in detention, subjected to falanga and raped with hand and sticks. She had only narrated the incident to her mother.

39 _{On 24 July 2002 İzmir SSC sentenced Mehmet Desde, Maksut Karadağ, Hüseyin Habip Taşkın, Şerafettin}

Parmak and Mehmet Bakır “as founders of the Bolshevik Party Northern Kurdistan/Turkey” to 50 months’ imprisonment and fines of TL 7.27 billion according to Article 7/1 of the LFT. Metin Özgünay, Ömer Güner and Ergün Yıldırım were sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and fines of TL 662 million for supporting the organization. Hatice Karadağ and Fatma Tufaner were acquitted.

40 _{Commander Musa Çitil, one of the 405 defendants, had been prosecuted on charges of raping Şükran Aydin in}

detention in 1993 but he had been acquitted. In the Şükran Aydin case, public prosecutor first decided in non- prosecution but a case had been launched against Çitil after Turkey was sentenced to pay compensation when the case had been brought to ECHR. However, Mardin Criminal Court acquitted Çitil because of the lack of evidence.

An official complaint was filed against Musa Çitil in 1993 on the grounds that he had tortured Salih Tekin, journalist for the newspaper Özgür Gündem, and his family. Nevertheless, the public prosecutor in Derik had not launched a case against him. Tekin had appealed to the ECHR. The ECHR sentenced Turkey to pay a fine of 25.000 Sterling to Tekin.

According to the complaint in March and August 1994 she had been detained twice and raped by a lieutenant and many soldiers. Soldiers had also put salt in her mouth. The investigation, which started after the official complaint, concluded in a decision not to prosecute anyone. On objection to a court the prosecutor had finally launched a case according to Articles 416 and 417 (rape) and 243 (torture). The testimonies of the witnesses Ahmet Gören, Süleyman Dölek, İsmet Yıldız, Seyho Gövsa, Seyhmus Başaran, Piro Yıldız, Bedri Ay, Hüseyin Çin, Mehmet Gören and three defendants were quoted in the indictment. The defendant private F.Ö. testified to the effect that a female terrorist had surrendered to Bozok Police Station and kept there for 7 or 8 days. He stressed that the commander of the station had taken her to an unknown place. Private M.Y. said that he had participated in the operation, during which Esen had been captured, but had not interrogated her. M.K. alleged that he only had heard about the incident.

Meanwhile, Şükran Esen’s mother I. Esen also announced that she had been raped in detention. I. Esen said: “The soldiers had gathered the villagers in a house after a clash that had occurred in the region. They had been torturing my daughter and I had to listen to her screams. They continued the whole day torturing her. Some time later the voices stopped. Later I learnt that she had fainted. I was tortured, too, in another room by two soldiers. They shot to threaten me. They also beat me with sticks and sexually harassed me.”

I. Esen added that she had taken her daughter to a doctor in Kızıltepe after the second detention and rape in 1994 and continued: “When we had arrived in Kızıltepe bus station 4 persons came. I was blindfolded and taken somewhere with a car. I was interrogated there and stripped naked. Afterwards they took me back to Mardin. I was interrogated, stripped naked, given electricity and raped with a truncheon. I was taken to Kızıltepe and kept in detention for 3 more days. After all they had released me.”

The trial commenced on 10 October. Şükran Esen, who lives in Germany, didn’t attend the hearing. The court rejected the public prosecutor’s demand for the case to be heard confidential but decided on the renewal of the license given via the German authorities to the lawyers of Şükran Esen, according to the demand of the public prosecutor. The hearing was adjourned to 6 November.

The mainstream media was interested in this case, quite contrary to its usual attitude. Thus the case attracted more public interest. The General Command of the Gendarmerie made an official statement on 10 October concerning the issue and claimed that the news appeared were distorting the truth. It was said: “The news, comments, the titles used for the articles and the slogans may be the results of the efforts of separatist organizations and their collaborators. The indictment, which depends on the ‘exaggerated’ allegations of the complainant that 405 soldiers raped her, was presented as a definite decision of judgment”.

“The complainant alleged 1998 that she had been raped and tortured by the gendarmerie soldiers when she was in detention between 1993 and 1994, and the indictment depended just on this allegation. During the preliminary investigation of the public prosecutor, no documents from security, judicial or medical institutions were inspected.”

The lawyers Fatma Karakaş and Eren Keskin, working in the Legal Aid Project against Sexual Assault and Rape in Detention, organized a press conference on 15 October commenting on this statement. Eren Keskin stated that the General Command of the Gendarmerie tried to present journalists, who made the torture allegations public, as collaborators of KADEK, which threatened the press and the court. Keskin stressed that Şükran Esen was given two different reports by the HRFT and the medical institution, where she was treated in Germany.

On 6 November, Mardin Criminal Court No. 2 continued to hear the case. Lawyer Meral Beştaş, acting as sub-plaintiff, stated: “We know that not all of the 405 defendants raped Şükran Esen. We fear that the real perpetrators will escape among this very crowded group of defendants. The victim has made clear descriptions. We have seen arrests even in simple cases of theft. It is surprising that no arrest warrant has been issued in this case although sentences of 37 years in prison are sought for the defendants.” Beştaş demanded to hear Dr. Adnan Halitoğlu, who had written a medical report certifying that Şükran Esen had been tortured.

During the hearing held on 20 November, the lawyer Reyhan Yalçındağ stressed that 56 ranked soldiers were still on duty despite the case against them and wanted them to be arrested. The court rejected the demand. Yalçındağ added that there was another case at Mardin Criminal Court No. 1 against 40 soldiers on charges of raping Şükran Esen. She said that the case was launched in March, the court started to hear the case in April, and they were not informed about the case. The court decided to write a letter to Mardin Criminal Court No. 1 to combine the cases and adjourned the hearing to 24 February 2004.

Mehmet Dinç, İlhan Aktaş, Şükrü Eryılmaz: A court case was launched in October against Şerafettin Bural, Director of Financial Affairs Bureau at the Smuggling and Organized Crimes Department in the General Directorate of Security, on charges of ill-treating three police officers.

The information on this case shows that after a smuggling operation the CD dealer Metin Yıldırım, owner of the stolen goods, appealed to Şerafettin Bural, the Director of Smuggling and Organized Crimes Department alleging that the superintendent Mehmet Dinç and the police officers İlhan Aktaş and Şükrü Eryılmaz asked him for a bribe. The police officers were caught red-handed when took the bribe. The police officers filed an official complaint against Bural on allegations of tortured. Bural was indicted under Article 245 (ill-treatment). The case will be heard at a penal court in İzmir.

Görgü Koçlardan, Sadrettin Sosan, Atik Peker: On 16 October, Muş Criminal Court started to hear the case of NCO Mahir Özbayrak on the grounds of torturing Görgü Koçlardan, Sadrettin Sosan and Atik Peker, who had been detained on allegations of “being members of Hezbollah”. Koçlardan stated at the hearing that he was kept blindfolded and was frequently beaten during his 4 days under interrogation. He put that both the clinic and the state hospital established the blood on his clothes.