|
 Vahit Bıçak, a professor of criminal law, said he found the delay in the court"™s reasoned opinion particularly unnerving because the speed of the trial was of key importance to the concept of a fair trial. Noting that the trial process could take a maximum of four years according to a precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights, Bıçak said: "These four years include the investigation and the trial process and any appeals process that might follow. For this reason, both the Supreme Court of Appeals and other courts have to have a restricted time period to act. This could be seen as a football match. Just as any match is limited to 90 minutes, judicial organs have a limited amount of time. There can be no criminal trial that lasts forever."
Fair trial, judicial restrictions on trial duration
He said further delays could end with Turkey having to compensate the suspects for the excessive duration of the trial. He also noted that a statute of limitations applies. "Furthermore, there is a statute of limitations. The file here is already very comprehensive. Any loss of time unnecessarily increases the risk of the statute of limitations running out. For this reason, if the judiciary does not step up, it is a possibility that the suspects will walk away unpunished." Although in some cases the statute of limitations kicks in on the date when certain conditions are met, "even if this is the case, a trial has to end at a certain point," Bıçak said, adding that the limited time should be used wisely. "The relevant institutions have to absolutely act fast both due to principles of a fair trial and time pressure emerging from the statute of limitations. The reasoned opinion on the ruling merging the Ergenekon case with the Council of State trial should be announced as soon as possible."
(Todays Zaman, 27 December 2008) Jurists have expressed concern over legal proceedings moving too slowly in the aftermath of a high court ruling to merge a case involving an attack on the Council of State with the Ergenekon trial, in which 86 suspects are charged, among other things, with plotting to overthrow the government.
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court of Appeals declared a mistrial in the case of an armed attack on the Council of State in 2006 that left a senior judge dead. The court further issued to merge the cases, noting that the Ergenekon indictment makes references to the 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 Supreme Court of Appeals did not specify which court should hear the merged case. It also has yet to issue its reasoned opinion on the ruling.
Vahit Bıçak, a professor of criminal law, said he found the delay in the court"™s reasoned opinion particularly unnerving because the speed of the trial was of key importance to the concept of a fair trial. Noting that the trial process could take a maximum of four years according to a precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights, Bıçak said: "These four years include the investigation and the trial process and any appeals process that might follow. For this reason, both the Supreme Court of Appeals and other courts have to have a restricted time period to act. This could be seen as a football match. Just as any match is limited to 90 minutes, judicial organs have a limited amount of time. There can be no criminal trial that lasts forever."
Fair trial, judicial restrictions on trial duration
He said further delays could end with Turkey having to compensate the suspects for the excessive duration of the trial. He also noted that a statute of limitations applies. "Furthermore, there is a statute of limitations. The file here is already very comprehensive. Any loss of time unnecessarily increases the risk of the statute of limitations running out. For this reason, if the judiciary does not step up, it is a possibility that the suspects will walk away unpunished." Although in some cases the statute of limitations kicks in on the date when certain conditions are met, "even if this is the case, a trial has to end at a certain point," Bıçak said, adding that the limited time should be used wisely. "The relevant institutions have to absolutely act fast both due to principles of a fair trial and time pressure emerging from the statute of limitations. The reasoned opinion on the ruling merging the Ergenekon case with the Council of State trial should be announced as soon as possible."
Mehmet Elkatmış, a former deputy who also led the parliamentary investigation commission into the Susurluk affair of 1996, in which suspicious relationships between the mafia, state and the police had been exposed, drew attention to the fact that the Ergenekon trial appeared as if it were going to expand even further, adding that the judiciary should do its best to keep it from turning into chaos. "There are too many suspects and too much information and documents. These are already very time-consuming issues. Some of the people under arrest as part of the Ergenekon investigation have not yet been formally indicted. Will the same court hear these particular people"™s cases? These indictments also have to be merged with the Ergenekon trial. For this reason, at the end, although we would hate for it to happen, if it turns into something inextricably complicated, it might simply lose the significance it has," Elkatmış said, adding that he wished the information flow could have been managed better from the start. "There wouldn"™t have been chaos. It also doesn"™t look very good now. I hope the result will not be bad," Elkatmış told Today"™s Zaman.
The process should go smoothly
Elkatmış, as a former deputy who has seen many trials involving suspect networks nested within the state end without producing any real results, said it was crucial for the process to function smoothly and healthily in the Ergenekon trial in order not to miss this opportunity to incriminate and convict those who are really responsible.
He said he worries that the ruling to merge the Council of State case might prolong the process more than necessary. Elkatmış also noted that Ergenekon was a very high profile case closely monitored by the public and added that he would like to see Turkey managing it well.
Emin Karaa, a former president of the parliamentary Justice Commission, called on the high court to clarify as soon as possible why a trial such as the Council of State attack, where the legal process was functioning smoothly, was merged with Ergenekon. "I haven"™t been able to grasp what"™s going on. I find it odd that the two cases are being merged. The Council of State is a case which was individually already decided. Merging the two is unacceptable."
27 December 2008, Saturday
ALİ ASLAN KILIÇ ANKARA |
