Trial of 48 police implicated in the assassination of the journalist Metin Göktepe
Assize Court, AFYON
6 February 1997
Nathalie BOUDJERADA Barrister, Paris
International Federation for Human Rights (Paris)
REPORT
I was mandated by the F.I.D.H. {International Federation for Human Rights} to attend, as a judicial observer, the trial of 48 police implicated in the assassination of Metin GÖKTEPE which was held on 6 February 1997 before the Assize Court, AFYON, 300 km from ISTANBUL.
To this end, I went to ISTANBUL the 5, 6, 7, and 8 February 1997.
On 5 February I met:
The representatives of the I.H.D and especially Mr. ERCAN KANAR who cited his concerns, particularly:
He indicated that it had worsened considerably; that in 1995 three prisoners had died in detention and that in 1996 there were four new deaths.
He also observed that:
the authorities had done nothing to prevent the hunger strikers from dying.
of the 60,000 detained in Turkey, 11,000 were prisoners of conscience.
Mr. ERCAN KANAR cited the 20,000 deaths, both civil and military combined, since the start of this conflict and that of 5,000 Kurdish villages, 2,500 had been burned down.
One of the important consequences on the human rights front was the massive uncontrolled immigration of the Kurdish population towards towns in the rest of Turkey; some of these had seen their population multiplied by 7.
These were more and more the recipients of prison sentences which were very heavy in comparison to the charges against them.
He evoked the acts of torture which these children suffered in detention.
He also recalled the "MANISA" trial, a case in which the police had tortured children at the time of their arrest; these police were prosecuted by the authorities, while they were charged they never appeared at the hearing to which they had been summoned. Only one policeman appeared but he was simply heard as a witness.
On the other hand the children themselves were given very heavy sentences.
Finally concerning the case of Metin GÖKTEPE, on which subject the author posed questions regarding procedure.
This question is regulated by a decree of the Council of Ministers dating from 1913, written in the Ottoman language, never adopted by the Parliament, and which is nevertheless entitled "Provisonal Law concerning the procedure for bringing officials to justice for offences commited during the exercise of their duties", better known as "MMHK", which provides that no instruction can be issued by a Court without prior reference to the authority to which the official in question is answerable.
Article 129 Paragraph 6 of the 1982 Constitution reinforces this immunity as it also provides that criminal prosecution concerning offences committed by officials can not be undertaken without the authorisation of the Prefectoral Council.
These two texts prevent, in fact, the exercise of any opening of any action by the plaintiffs, especially the family of Metin GÖKTEPE and the EVRENSEL journal, especially against the decision of the Prefectoral Council to dismiss the case against the Director of Police in EYÜP, for lack of evidence.
These same texts provide that the preliminary investigation and the indictment of officials come under the exclusive remit of two inspectors from the Interior Ministry and one police inspector, and not that of the pre-trial judge as would normally be the case.
The indictment must subsequently be issued by the State Prosecutor, who transmits it to the Prefectoral Council headed by the Prefect and composed of six local representatives of various Ministries.
This means that the prosecution of officials for offences committed as part of their duties depends exclusively on the appraisal of their peers, and not of an independent authority.
The "Provisional Law" of 1913 also provides the possibility for the official to appeal to the State Council against the indictment by the Prefectoral Council; but this recourse is likely to hinder criminal prosecution and investigation.
The State Council rules on questions of law and not on facts.
This 1913 text, modified in 1992 after a decision by the Constitutional Council, is accompanied by a "clause of judicial stability"; it cannot be amended for 10 years.
The Prefectoral Council of ISTANBUL, on the basis of these texts, indicted the police who caused the assassination of Metin GÖKTEPE, and issued a dismissal for lack of evidence against the Director of Police in EYÜP.
On the other hand, none of the usual methods of duress at the disposition of pre-trial judges and Courts were used in this case, such as the committal order and summons to oblige the police to participate in the pretrial investigation and to appear before the Assize Court.
Since the events none of the police has been arrested or placed in provisional detention, nor even confronted with the two witnesses to the assassination of Metin GÖKTEPE.
In this regard, he detailed that the three "delocalisations" of the Metin GÖKTEPE case rested on a text concerning State Security. The author has not been able to obtain further information on this text.
INTRODUCTION RE METIN GÖKTEPE:
He was born 10 April 1968 in SIVAS, in south-eastern Turkey.
From a family of 7 children, he became a journalist in 1992, after having studied economics at the University of ISTANBUL.
After having worked for 3 years on the weekly "GERCEK", close to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey, henceforth banned, he began work on the extreme left daily EVRENSEL, launched 7 June 1995.
He was one of the first journalists, in 1995, to interview Mrs. Tomris OZDEN, the widow of a colonel killed during the conflict which pits the Army against the PKK. The publication of this interview, which was judged to be scandalous, was the beginning of the difficulties of the EVRENSEL journal and Metin GÖKTEPE who received a sizeable number of anonymous telephone threats.
THE FACTS:
On 8 January 1996, Metin GÖKTEPE covered the funerals of two prisoners killed at the time of the suppression of a mutiny in ISTANBUL prison at the end of 1995. The Director General of ISTANBUL police, having banned all demonstrations at the time of the funerals, had encircled the quarter of the ALIBEY KOY cemetery.
After having found his colleagues at the morgue at 6 a.m., Metin GÖKTEPE was arrested at a roadblock set up by the police in this quarter.
Lacking a press card permitting him to cross the security cordons, Metin GÖKTEPE nevertheless tried to cross.
He was arrested at the same time as many hundreds of men and women. They were taken under duress and in a brutal manner to a stadium, where we arrived on 5 February 1997.
One of the colleagues of Metin GÖKTEPE, Kemal ERTAC, also arrested, saw Metin GÖKTEPE in the stadium.
A police officer, Metin KUSAT, admitted that Metin GÖKTEPE had been arrested and taken to the sports complex; that he himself had interrogated him and that other police officers had beaten Metin GÖKTEPE to death.
The official versions of these events were subsequently varied:
Metin GÖKTEPE had been questioned, then released, and died of an illness.
He had fallen from a wall of barely one metre in height, which is impossible from our observations of the location.
He had fallen from a chair in a nearby tea-room.
These theses were refuted by 21 witnesses who testified under oath in the framework of an investigation carried out by the Interior Ministry.
Moreover the results of the autopsy on Metin GÖKTEPE cited "the death of a person, having a fractured rib and many traumatic lesions, resulting from cerebral haemorrhage associated with cranial trauma caused by a `blunt' object".
The examination of photographs of the face of Metin GÖKTEPE, together with the autopsy report, reveals evidence of blows and bruises.
THE PROSECUTION:
On 15 February 1996, a Parliamentary Commission of Investigation of the assassination of Metin GÖKTEPE was established in ANKARA.
This commission comprised three deputies from the Prosperity Party, two from the True Vote Party, two from the Mother Country Party (ANAP), one from the Party of the Democratic Left (DSP), and one from the Republican People's Party (CHP).
An investigation was also opened by the Interior Ministry whose conclusions, transmitted on 7 February 1996 to the Prefectoral Council of ISTANBUL, confirmed that Metin GÖKTEPE died from a series of blows struck by several police officers.
Moreover from the 25 January 1996, 15 police officers were dismissed from their posts.
These conclusions call into question the irresponsible attitude of the police and the absence of aid for the victim.
On the basis of these conclusions, on 8 February 1996, the Prefectoral Council of ISTANBUL, indicted 48 police officers of whom 13 were directly implicated in the murder of Metin GÖKTEPE.
One of the police officers is prosecuted on the basis of Article 228 of the Penal Code which punishes with a sentence of 6 months to 3 years imprisonment "all officials who arbitrarily apply or authorise ill treatment".
One of the Directors of the anti-riot brigade is prosecuted on the basis of Article 482 of the Penal Code for "having uttered insults against the persons arrested and held against their will in the EYÜP sports complex".
11 police officers are prosecuted for "violence and assaults, non assistance to a person in danger, irresponsible conduct having lead to death".
The Commissioner of the sub-department of anti-riot brigades is prosecuted for ill treatment of two journalists of the Turkish television channel ATV.
The Prefectoral Council did not however judge it useful to prosecute the Director of Police in the EYÜP district, Ali AYDIN AKDEMIR, despite the overwhelming conclusions of the report of the Interior Ministry.
Due to the impossibility of determining the individual responsible for the homicide, Article 463 of the Penal Code applies.
The article provides that "if the offence has been carried out by several individuals and it is impossible to identify the one responsible, all the individuals concerned will be condemned to sentences reduced to a third or a half of the sentence incurred".
Thus in the case of the death penalty, the sentence will be commuted to 20 years in prison, and in case of life sentence, to 16 years.
Moreover, the police officers indicted made use of a delay of 5 days to appeal the decision of the Prefectoral Council before the State Council, which rules exclusively on points of law.
The decision of the Prefectoral Council was transmitted to the Security Department of ISTANBUL on 13 February 1996. However the Security Department of ISTANBUL did not consider it useful to inform the family of Metin GÖKTEPE, nor their lawyers.
THE HEARING OF 6 FEB 1997 AT THE ASSIZE COURT, AFYON:
The authorities had for "security" reasons chosen to hold this action in the town of AFYON situated 300 km from ISTANBUL, known for its loyalty to authority, its nationalist tradition, and conservatism.
It was probably also for reasons of "security" that the legal action was not held within a court, but in a sports complex situated at the edge of the town.
The gymnasium inside which the hearing was held was surrounded by a wall of about 4 metres in height, whose access was placed under the surveillance of sizeable forces of law, police, gendarmes, Army, ready to counter any demonstrations...
These police had to confront a movement of about 2,000 sympathisers chanting slogans suitable for endangering their lives. These were mainly workers who had come from all over Turkey, under the auspices of their union.
Access to the sports complex was very heavily controlled.
The hearing was packed, the atmosphere tense due to the impressive deployment of police.
In the audience, the public brandished photos of Metin GÖKTEPE.
A hundred lawyers representing the parties had come from all over Turkey, accompanied by numerous journalists from both press and television.
International observers were also present:
Jean CHICHIZOLA, journalist from Reporters Without Frontiers
Thierry FIORILLI, Belgian journalist from "LE SOIR", a team of Swiss journalists
Brigitt LUBEN (Germany) from the Union of Republican Lawyers
Siegrid TOPFER (Germany), lawyer from HAMBURG
Cornella GANTEN LANGE (Germany), lawyer from HAMBURG
Bjorn CDEHN, lawyer from HAMBURG
Pierre MAKLAY, from the UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. BAUTHIER AND Mr. HERMAND representing the Association of Lawyers Without Frontiers
Kevin ROBINSON and Billy JENKINS representing the LIVERPOOL dockers.
Turkish deputies and numerous presidents of Turkish workers unions had also travelled to the event.
When the hearing had begun, the three Judges and the Public Prosecutor decided to use the military to clear out the journalists.
The five defense lawyers virulently supported this decision.
One of the lawyers for the family of Metin GÖKTEPE begged the Court to allow the journalists to do their work.
After public protests, the Court reconsidered its decision and demanded that the journalists use the seats intended for the 48 defendants, knowing in advance that they would not be coming.
The journalists were installed behind a double row of soldiers.
One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs then requested the opening of the process.
The President of the Court demanded silence and threatened to postpone the hearing for two months.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs again intervened to plead that the hearing be held.
The hearing began in the absence of the defendants, the Court claiming that none of them could have been reached by the subpoenas which were returned "Address Unknown".
As the audience gradually increased, the military presence grew.
The Court proceed to call the lawyers of the plaintiffs for about an hour.
The five lawyers for the defendants caused an incident, and made racist remarks, in respect of the presence of Mr. BAUTHIER and Mr. HERMAND, in robes at the side of the plaintiff's lawyers.
On 8 February 1997, a Turkish journalist revealed in the daily "YENI YUZYIL" that he had recognised one of the defense lawyers who had tortured him seven years previously.
This referred to a Mr. Needet KUCUKTASKINER.
One learned from this article that this lawyer had been struck off precisely on account of the occurence of torture.
One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs put to the Court the question of why the previous week the police had been heard without contradiction {i.e cross examination}, that hearing taking place without the presence of the plaintiffs and their lawyers.
The same lawyer asked the Court to explain the reasons for the failure to compare the police evidence with that of two witnesses present in the audience.
A lawyer for the defense intervened violently to explain that the secret hearing should not raise any difficulty, the essential point was that the police had been heard.
The President of the Court, evidently overtaken by events, once again threatened to adjourn the hearing due to the movement of the crowd. The hearing resumed and one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs demanded that the President give an account of the secret police hearing which had still not been communicated to the plaintiffs' lawyers at the time the (current) hearing opened. The President did not respond to this question.
Then the President proceded to hear Mr. Deniz OZCAN, a 17 year old student at the time of the events, taken in for questioning when he was on his way to the funerals of the two prisoners killed in detention.
He stated that at the moment of his arrest, he had been insulted, savagely beaten with truncheon blows to the soles of his feet and on the hips by a dozen police and that he had witnessed the blows, with a truncheon and an object resembling a pickaxe handle, which landed on the person of Metin GÖKTEPE.
He stated that Metin GÖKTEPE did not stop explaining that he was a journalist. That when the police had learned his position as journalist, they declared that they would reserve a "special treatment" for him. The witness later heard certain police inquire about the state of Metin GÖKTEPE, and agree that in case of Metin GÖKTEPE's death they would explain that the latter had fallen from a car.
Deniz OZCAN, after having been released the next day, had recognised the photo of Metin GÖKTEPE in the newspapers.
He let the Court know that he could recognise the police on being shown their photo.
The President asked him whether he had noted the identity numbers of the police?
A lawyer for the defense intervened to claim the witness was a terrorist. The witness then explained that he was not a terrorist, and that before this affair he had never had any dealings with the police.
That on the other hand, since he had agreed to give evidence within the framework of the inquiry opened by the Ministry of the Interior, he had been arrested on three occasions during March 1996.
The first was when he took part in a student demonstration. He had on this occasion been threatened with death, tortured with electricity and suspended from a hook. He had moreover obtained a medical certificate of incapacity for work for three days after having been set free by the State Prosecutor.
The second time, on 13 March 1996 the police had stopped his vehicle while uttering threats that he must return home with his mother.
The third time, 16 March 1996, he had been lifted by the plain clothes police who had forced him to get into a vehicle for several hours during which time they had not stopped threatening and insulting him.
The second witness, 40 years old, Mr. Ali EKBER PALABIYIK, explained to the Court that he was following the funeral convoy and that he had been brutally questioned. He indicated that he had heard a journalist tell the police that he was from the daily EVRENSEL, which remark unleashed a rain of blows. The group of arrested people taken to the sports complex had equally been struck with force.
He specified that since he had agreed to give evidence, he had been the object of threats from the police on five occasions, to the point of having been forced to close his restaurant.
The lawyers for the defense intervened to state that the phrases used by the new witness were not credible, in so far as they were used by a terrorist.
After the testimony of this witness, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs began a brief appeal, a veritable indictment of the functioning of Turkish justice.
He asserted that in an ordinary matter the accused would have already been condemned to imprisonment.
He evoked the three successive postponements of this affair and indicated that in reality this process did not respond to a real wish for justice.
He demanded the Court proceed to summon the police for hearing and confrontation with witnesses.
The defense lawyers protested, stating that the lawyers for the plaintiffs and the observers were motivated by secessionist sentiments. They asserted their confidence in justice, and confirmed that the procedure of secret hearing of police officers was perfectly justified and that moreover only these statements must be taken into consideration by the Court as being credible, the spontaneous confessions of the police at the moment of their custody in January 1996 having been obtained under constraint and torture.
The Court, without retiring, deliberated while sitting and decided to adjourn the matter once more for hearing on 11 April 1997.
It ordered that in the interval the police be heard once more, and that they be confronted with witnesses in the public hearing in ISTANBUL.
IMPRESSIONS
It seemed obvious to me that the Turkish population wholeheartedly desires with courage and determination the holding of this legal action which is emblematic
of the unsanctioned attacks which are carried out, in general, on public freedoms and notably the freedom of expression
(Metin GÖKTEPE is the 20th Turkish journalist killed since 1988, but he is the first who succumbed in the course of a muscular arrest under the eyes of witnesses.
In 1996 the lot of journalists has in no way improved, 31 journalists were tortured in detention, 53 brutally interrogated, 69 attacked, threatened, harassed) and of the malfunctioning of justice which treats in an unequal manner political personalities, officials, and the rest of the population.
The Court did not seem prepared for this action, which it had immediately decided to postpone.
The Court agreed to indulge in this sham trial, exclusively because of the presence of foreign observers, the number of impressive lawyers engaged by the family of Metin GÖKTEPE, and numerous sympathisers.
The author was shocked by the violence of the words used by the defense, notably with regard to the observers accused of secessionism, and of anti-Turkish behaviour.
CONCLUSIONS
The action without the presence of the accused made no sense.
Certain participants in the hearing whispered that what the Court wished, in reality, was to postpone the affair many times until further pursuit of the police was proscribed.
The author is concerned for the fate of the witnesses, victims of repeated pressure who are perhaps only alive because foreign observers know that they exist.
The author fears greatly for their security and even their survival.
The author approves the decision taken by the German lawyers that their association adopt these two witnesses.
It would seem desirable that foreign observers be more numerous at the hearing which will be held 11 April 1997.
The presence of observers has an incontrovertible effect on the court which tries hard to organise the arguments, even if these don't lead very far.
The Turkish authorities count on the weariness and forgetfulness of the press, international observers and public opinion.
They imagine in this way to arrange that the action never took place.
In contrast with other countries, coverage of the arguments inside the Court has been relayed by many journalists.
