Two Turkish rights advocates acquitted over ‘Armenian Genocide’ remarks
Two human rights advocates from the Human Rights Association (İHD) have been acquitted of charges of “insulting the Turkish state and nation” due to their remarks during a commemoration event for the Armenian Genocide in 2021.
The hearing for İHD Co-Chair Lawyer Eren Keskin and Güllistan Yarkın, a member of the İHD Racism and Discrimination Commission took place today at the 51st Criminal Court of First Instance at İstanbul Courthouse.
The trial was attended by Saturday Mothers and human rights defender Hanife Yıldız, Ümit Efe, the Secretary of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TİHV) İstanbul Branch, Leman Yurtsever from İHD İstanbul Branch, and Burcu Uçuran and Meral Çıldır from the Social Policy, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation Studies Association (SpoD).
Plainclothes police officers were not removed from the courtroom after the hearing began. Before the trial began, Lawyer Jiyan Tosun had requested the removal of the officers. The presiding judge stated, “I did not request security. Since the trial is open to the public, I cannot ask anyone to leave.”
Eren Keskin said, “I cannot defend freely. The presence of plainclothes police officers here puts pressure on me. I request their removal.” However, the judge again did not accept the request. The conversations were recorded.
At the start of the trial, the judge first asked, “Do you have any defense against the indictment?”
Güllistan Yarkın said she had no objection to the indictment.
“Debating will bring democracy to the country”
Then Keskin spoke, saying, “We did not insult anyone. We believe that what happened before the establishment of Turkey was a genocide. I also believe that the state continues this thought. We think this should be discussed. We believe it will liberate our region. It will contribute to the democratization of the country. No law prevents us from expressing this. Turkey was convicted on this issue.
“In a rule of law, when a prosecutor is faced with this accusation, they should say, ‘There is a decision from the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey has been convicted on this issue, I cannot open this case.’ It’s not a rule of law here anyway. I believe that 1915 was a genocide. I believe that the Turkish state should face this issue and compensate for the damages. I do not accept the accusation.”
“A tragicomic indictment”
Lawyer Sercan Korkmaz then spoke, saying, “I looked at the indictment and I did not see any legal arguments. I saw a tragicomic text. There is a victim-offender construct of a crime. It is not here.”
“I say this in terms of legal technique. What does 301 have to do with it? This issue needs to be discussed elsewhere. What is the connection, I know that. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code is only about the establishment of the Turkish state. It is not related to before that. It is not related to the Ottoman or Göktürk state.”
Lawyer Jiyan Kaya said, “We think this is not a legal but a political trial. We think a case was opened because of a tweet sent by Süleyman Soylu. A person in Trabzon reported to CİMER and a case was opened as a result. We had explained the legal dimension of Article 301. I also want to remind you of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. We demand acquittal.”
Lawyer Jiyan Tosun also drew attention to the concept of freedom of thought and said that Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code is about punishing thought. Tosun, saying that hundreds of people are tried under this article, stated, “Because we do not think the same as the state, we face many trials. This also prevents the advancement of society, it creates a homogeneous society. We will continue to oppose Article 301.”
“The judiciary is being instrumentalized”
Lawyer Gülseren Yoleri also stated that she agreed with all defenses, saying that there was a historical evaluation at hand.
“We are talking about a request made for the establishment of social peace; it is clear that all views except the official ideology are seen as a threat. This trial is a political trial. It is a trial aimed at intimidating human rights defenders. We see that the trial is also a tool of this oppression. The aim is to silence human rights defenders. It is clear that the judiciary is also being instrumentalized. There are also many judicial decisions resisting all this pressure. My clients’ duty is to tell the truth and demand it. They did it. We will continue to do so. In your discretion, I request your court to acquit.”
Finally, Keskin said, “I want to have the same freedom as those who say it is not genocide.” Yarkın also said, “I want my acquittal. In our press release, we stated that genocide denial was institutionalized. If a decision against me is made, this will be the case.”
The presiding judge announced the decision. Since the conditions of the offense were not established, he decided to acquit both defendants separately.
