
The trial of the defendants in the Proton Apartment case, where 64 people lost their lives in the earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, continues.
A decision is awaited in the case where 6 defendants are on trial regarding the demolition of the Proton Apartment Building, which caused the death of 64 people in the February 6 earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş.
AI-generated summary
In the February 6 earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, the Proton Apartment in Onikişubat district collapsed and 64 people lost their lives.
In the February 6 earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, 64 people, including a 5-month-old baby, lost their lives as a result of the collapse of the Proton Apartment in Abdullah Çavuş District of Onikişubat district.
Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit against the contractor and technical responsible Rafet Küsmüş and the static project designer Sıtkı Okumuş for "causing death or injury through conscious negligence".
Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed against Hacı Mehmet Güner, Zeynel Abidin Şerefoğlu, Mehmet Dışçeken and Emre Arıkan, who worked in the Directorate of Development Affairs of Kahramanmaraş Municipality at the time the building was constructed, with the same accusation and the files were combined.
ADDITIONAL EXPERT REPORT REQUESTED
In the 8th hearing held at the Kahramanmaraş 4th High Criminal Court on September 23, 2025, the prosecutor demanded that all defendants be punished. In the 9th hearing on January 6, it was decided to obtain an additional expert report on public officials and the case was postponed.
In the additional expert report prepared by 7 academics from Pamukkale University, it was determined that Hacı Mehmet Güner and Zeynel Abidin Şerefoğlu, the Deputy Directors of Zoning Affairs at the time, were "administratively responsible", while it was determined that "causal ties could not be established by us" about the other two public officials.
A decision is expected in the case to be heard at the Kahramanmaraş 4th High Criminal Court on November 2, at 09.30.
Buğra Kağan Yıldız, who lost his parents in the earthquake, and Nilay Yıldırım Yaşar, one of the plaintiff's lawyers, evaluated the process.
Buğra Kaan Yıldız reminded that although the buildings around Proton Apartment remained standing on February 6, the apartment building where his parents lived was demolished and said:
"This situation is not a 'divine providence', but a clear crime of the contractors, inspectors and public officials. At the verdict hearing to be held on Monday at the Kahramanmaraş 4th High Criminal Court, we want the 'reward-like' criminal unlawfulness such as in Ezgi Apartmanı and Said Bey Sitesi to be put to an end and the defendants to be punished to the maximum extent.
If real justice is not provided today, we will continue to die in collapsed buildings while sleeping in our beds one night. The precedent decision that will come out of this trial will not only be an accounting for our losses and our past, but also the assurance of our spouses, children and future. "Justice must be applied without compromise for the future of all of us and the right to life."
"SUPPORT OUR FIGHT FOR JUSTICE"
Nilay Yıldırım Yaşar, one of the complainant's lawyers, claimed that the decisions of the same court in the Ezgi Apartmanı and Said Bey Sitesi cases "further increased the concerns of the families who lost their relatives regarding justice" and made the following statements:
"We believe that the penalties imposed in these cases in which dozens of people lost their lives should be proportionate to the severity of the fault and responsibility revealed. While 64 people lost their lives in the Proton Apartment, there is not a single defendant in custody today. Practices clearly contrary to the legislation and ignored vital risks cannot be accepted as inevitable consequences of the earthquake.
We demand that the defendants, who are legally proven to have acted by accepting this risk despite foreseeing the risk of death, be punished under the provisions of 'possible intent'. Even if an evaluation is made within the scope of 'negligence' provisions, punishments that are incompatible with the gravity of the fault and determined by deviating from the upper limit of the penalty deeply hurt the public conscience.
We are worried... That punishments are given that are incompatible with the weight of responsibility for the death of 64 people... This time, belief in justice will be buried under rubble... While it is expected that a little relief will be shed on the hearts of the grieving families, we are worried that those hearts will once again be hit by fire. We invite the public to support our fight for justice at the hearing to be held at Kahramanmaraş Courthouse on November 2. We will continue our fight for justice until 64 lives are accounted for. "We have not forgotten 64 lives, we will not let them forget."
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The decision is expected to be announced at the hearing at Kahramanmaraş 4th High Criminal Court.
Very likely · Within days
The Cyber Security Presidency is introducing age verification requirements on social networks as of November 1, 2026. While access to those under the age of 15 is restricted, a safe digital environment is targeted for the 15-18 age group. Verification will be done via e-Government.

At their 1127th week meeting, Saturday Mothers protested the dismissal of the 1995 Dargeçit custody disappearance case on the grounds of statute of limitations. Families reiterated their demand for those responsible to be brought to justice.
In the case of the couple in the process of divorce, the Supreme Court ruled on the return of the bracelets exchanged for the purchase of a car. The man could not prove that the bracelets were given with the intention of not being returned.

We Have No Other Lives Platform demanded that the 'possible intent' provisions be preserved in the Supreme Court and the ministry officials who are responsible be tried in the case regarding the fire in Kartalkaya Grand Kartal Hotel in which 78 people lost their lives.

The Vigie Liberte association, which defends freedoms in public spaces, applied to the Paris Administrative Court to lift the partial curfew declared by the Paris Police until November 2.
The Council of State annulled the lower court decision, which approved the route requested by the unions during the Yellow Vest protests in Paris, and decided that the march would be held on the ring road route.