Events
The applicant, H.B.Y. E.T., who opened a banner at the exit of a metro stop near the Presidential residence in Istanbul, and against whom an investigation/prosecution was carried out within the scope of the terrorist organization. and A.U. He was caught by law enforcement officers and taken into custody on the same day, on the grounds that he chanted slogans about people named and continued the protest despite the warnings.
Attorney General’s Office; referred the applicant to the 11th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (Judgement) with the request of being arrested on charges of being a member of an armed terrorist organization and violating the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations No. 2911; The judge decided to arrest the applicant for the alleged crimes.
The applicant objected to the arrest decision, and the 12th Criminal Judgeship of Peace decided to reject the objection definitively. The applicant’s request for release was also rejected by the 2nd Criminal Court of Peace. The appeal made against the aforementioned decision was definitively rejected by the 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
Attorney General’s Office; filed a public lawsuit against the applicant in the same court, demanding that he be punished for being a member of an armed terrorist organization, making propaganda for a terrorist organization, and violating the Law No. 2911. At the end of the hearing, the 29th High Criminal Court (Court) decided to release the applicant by applying a judicial control measure in the form of a ban on leaving the country. As a result of the trial, the Court decided to acquit the applicant of the crimes charged and to lift the judicial control measure applied. The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal against the crime of violating the Law No.
allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to personal liberty and security was violated because the detention was unlawful.
Court’s Evaluation
When the investigation documents against the applicant are examined, it is seen that the applicant’s actions in the form of opening a banner and shouting slogans are the basis of the accusations that form the basis of the detention measure. investigative authorities; He claimed that these actions were mainly carried out in line with the orders and instructions of the organization in order to serve the purpose of the organization and to make its propaganda. investigative authorities; In this context, by referring to the activities of formations related to the terrorist organization, E.T. and A.U. He stated that the death fast carried out by people named .
It is clear that hunger strikes and sit-ins, which can be considered as one of the manifestations of freedom of expression under certain conditions, or actions such as shouting slogans, making press statements or opening banners by third parties in support of these actions should not be the subject of accusations in themselves. However, if there are facts indicating that the execution of the aforementioned acts is a terrorist-related activity, or if behaviors such as praising, legitimizing or encouraging the terrorist organization’s methods containing force, violence and threats are exhibited, such activities may be considered as a crime.
In this context, the facts relied on by the investigative authorities that the applicant’s actions, which are the subject of the crime and constitute the basis of the detention measure, were carried out with the instructions of the terrorist organization and in line with the aims of this organization, are generally the defense and support of the said actions in some platforms that are considered to be related to this organization. On the other hand, there is no concrete fact or determination in the investigation documents that the applicant carried out these actions in an organizational relationship or that this was exhibited as an organizational behavior for the applicant.
On the other hand, the applicant; She stated that she was the aunt of E.T. who participated in the death fast action, that she did these actions in order to support her nephew E.T. Therefore, it has been understood by the investigating authorities that concrete facts could not be demonstrated that the applicant carried out the aforementioned acts, which was the subject of the accusation, on the orders of the organization or that the applicant had a connection with the said organization.
In this respect, it has been concluded that, according to the defense of the applicant and the scope of the file, the strong indication that the crime required for the arrest has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the concrete case.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to liberty and security of person has been violated for the reasons explained.
