|
 Vahit Bıçak, a professor of criminal law, says the most important element in deciding where the trial should be held is the location of the latest crime committed. "We are faced here with an ongoing series of crimes. In such crimes, the files should be merged at the court located in the last place criminal activity was carried out. For this reason, they have to chronologically list the crimes and then give it to the court hearing the latest crime. Since there are a number of crimes here, it is possible to reach differing conclusions. If the essential crime is plotting against the government, then the Ankara court should hear it. Currently the Ankara 11th Higher Criminal Court has the initiative. If they send it to the İstanbul court, the İstanbul court will continue hearing it. In other alternatives, there will be a lengthy process to resolve the differences in opinion."
(Today's Zaman, 17.12.2008) The Supreme Court of Appeals has overruled a local court's decision regarding a shooting that left a senior judge of the Council of State dead in 2006 and demanded that links between the shooting and Ergenekon, a criminal network accused of attempting to overthrow the government, be investigated.
The 9th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals voted unanimously against the Council of State ruling of the Ankara 11th Higher Criminal Court. The high court ordered that the Council of State shooting and a hand grenade attack at a newspaper be merged and investigated in light of a suggested link established between them and the Ergenekon network.
Turkey's top public prosecutor, who unsuccessfully attempted to shut down the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) earlier this year on charges of anti-secularism, in October demanded that alleged links between the 2006 Council of State shooting and Ergenekon be investigated. Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya demanded that the decision of the Ankara 11th Higher Criminal Court on the 2006 Council of State shooting be overruled and that the court investigate the shooting's links with Ergenekon. The Ankara court sentenced shooter Alparslan Arslan and other suspects in the case to life in prison.
An Ergenekon prosecutor established in the course of an official investigation that Ergenekon may have played a role in the 2006 shooting. Council of State hit man Arslan was also charged with bombing the secularist Cumhuriyet daily in 2006; the hand grenade used in the attack was part of a batch produced by the state that was found in a stockpile of ammunition and explosives discovered at a house in İstanbul belonging to an Ergenekon suspect.
The Supreme Court of Appeals' statement on the ruling noted that the Ergenekon indictment makes references to the armed attack on the Council of State. It also urged prosecutors to establish the character of the organization formed by the suspects of the Council of State shooting and evaluate evidence from the shooting together with evidence obtained in the Ergenekon investigation. However, the court did not specify what court should hear the merged case.
If the Ankara 11th Higher Criminal Court, which made the initial ruling, submits to the high court's ruling, it will have to send the case to the İstanbul 13th Higher Criminal Court, which is hearing the Ergenekon case. If the court insists on its initial ruling, the case will be referred to the Criminal General Council of the Supreme Court of Appeals. If the court insists the case is under its jurisdiction, it will have to request the Ergenekon case indictment and addendums from the İstanbul court on the case. If the İstanbul court does not send the files, insisting that the Ergenekon trial is part of its jurisdiction, the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals will ultimately decide which court will hear the case.
Legal experts believe the Ankara court should obey the Supreme Court of Appeals ruling and refer the case to the İstanbul court. Retired military judge Ümit Kardaş said: "Ergenekon is an organization. There are various attacks, one of which happens to be the Council of State shooting. If the court in Ankara decides to keep the case, this would fall outside the logic of law. The main case is in İstanbul. How will Ankara establish that organizational link? In addition, there is already an investigation going on in İstanbul. It goes against legal logic to bring in a case that is under way elsewhere to Ankara."
Vahit Bıçak, a professor of criminal law, says the most important element in deciding where the trial should be held is the location of the latest crime committed. "We are faced here with an ongoing series of crimes. In such crimes, the files should be merged at the court located in the last place criminal activity was carried out. For this reason, they have to chronologically list the crimes and then give it to the court hearing the latest crime. Since there are a number of crimes here, it is possible to reach differing conclusions. If the essential crime is plotting against the government, then the Ankara court should hear it. Currently the Ankara 11th Higher Criminal Court has the initiative. If they send it to the İstanbul court, the İstanbul court will continue hearing it. In other alternatives, there will be a lengthy process to resolve the differences in opinion."
Ninety individuals, including retired generals, are currently standing trial in the Ergenekon terrorist organization case. İstanbul Today's Zaman
17 December 2008, Wednesday
METİN ARSLAN, BÜLENT CEYHAN ANKARA, İSTANBUL |
