Reaction from Istanbul Bar Association President Kaboğlu to the Hearings Lasting Until Midnight in the IMM Case

The trial of the IMM Case, which includes 414 defendants, 53 of whom are detained, including Presidential candidate and IMM President Ekrem İmamoğlu, continues.

The second hearing of the case, which was held in the new courtroom built by the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court in the Marmara Closed Prison in Silivri, started on August 17 and the defenses of the defendants who were not detained were taken until the late hours of the night.

Istanbul Bar Association President Prof. attended the 80th day of the case together with the bar association administrators. Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu took the floor at the hearing and stated that hearings lasting until midnight were unacceptable.

Stating that it is not humane for the hearing to end at 22.00, Kaboğlu emphasized that the hearings should be held between 19.00-19.30 at the latest.

After the hearing, which ended at 22:00, İbrahim Kaboğlu made a statement together with bar association managers and lawyers.

Kaboğlu stated that they made a long and detailed application on September 9, stating that the hearings should be completed at a reasonable time, and said:

"We have listed one by one the disadvantages that hearings lasting beyond midnight create, both for the defense, for the defendants, for the detainees, in short, for the right to a fair trial. Today, we are here as the elected members of the board of directors, and we intervened verbally again. We said, 'This is not sustainable.' We intervened verbally and demanded that uncertainties such as the minimum conditions of the right to a fair trial; the right to defense, adversarial trial, predictability of hearings, which defendant will be given the right to defense and when, should be eliminated.

We stated that this process should be carried out fairly. Our demands were partially met, but it is not reasonable and not proportionate for it to last until 22:00. Conducting it in this way is incompatible with the nature of such a case. We declared that we are followers of this, that we will always be here, observe and report, and that we will continue to do this from now on. We express this determination here, too.

Because bar associations are public institutions responsible for defending and protecting the rule of law and human rights. Istanbul Bar Association is a bar association of which one in three lawyers in Turkey is a member, but Istanbul is a city where almost all political cases in Turkey are centralized and gathered. For this reason, we, as the Istanbul Bar Association, make a public statement that we will always strive to ensure that the law prevails in order to maintain the democratic state of law in Turkey.”

“NOT LAST 19.30”

Evaluating the situation in terms of the defendants, Kaboğlu continued his words as follows:

"It is tiring, tiring, and does not even recognize the right to rest; Ekrem İmamoğlu and other detained defendants are brought here at 07:00 in the morning. They are taken out of the prison and brought here in the following minutes and hours. However, the trial starts after 11:00. Of course, there are serious humanitarian problems such as the passage of time, waiting area, hall capacity, meeting biological needs there.

At the same time, problems regarding the sound defense are constantly expressed. As a matter of fact, on Wednesday last week, the president of the court, while concluding the session, said "I am ending it in order to be humane" before 22.00, but in our opinion, 22.00 is not humane in any way. Our request is that these hearings should not exceed 19.00-19.30 from tomorrow (today); The aim is for defendants, detainees and lawyers to be heard, to prepare their defenses, and to have a truly transparent, contradictory trial and to reveal the truth.

As long as this process continues like this, it is not possible for the truth to emerge. Conducting hearings quickly and expedited hearings do not serve the administration of justice. "Conducting the hearing in accordance with the requirements of the right to a healthy and fair trial can only ensure that the truth comes out and justice prevails."

“WE CONDEMN THIS ATTITUDE”

Regarding the statement of the president of the court, "If you had not taken him as a client" after the objection of the lawyers, Kaboğlu said, "We, as the administrators of the Istanbul Bar Association, absolutely condemn this attitude. He does not have such a right or authority. Because the trio of argument, defense, judgment; prosecutor, lawyer and judge are in an equal position. Therefore, a judge, even if he is the president of the court, does not have the right and authority to give such a warning to the subject of defense in such a way of addressing. Here too, I clearly declare that this statement of the esteemed president is not appropriate. I wish and hope that this is the case." "He will refrain from making statements from now on," he said.

“I FACED THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AT NIGHT”

Cansu Çifçi, one of the lawyers in the case, explained their grievances as follows:

"It causes us to lose motivation and lack of attention. While the defendants are waiting downstairs, they cannot access anything warm. They do not have a rest area, and being in a stuffy environment creates a lot of trouble for them in terms of being able to defend their rights at the hearing. This is an issue that should be considered as a violation of the principle of fair trial. I left the hearing late before, before the hearing ended. It was around 00:00.

I also had a lack of attention due to fatigue, and while driving at night, I ran the risk of an accident due to fatigue. I said this especially at the hearing that what happened to me today may happen to someone else tomorrow, God forbid. Because after all, we are human. We come here early in the morning and get ready. You have to listen to the hearing with full attention. Because you have to provide legal assistance to your clients in a healthy way.

Afterwards, as a human being, you become tired. By the way, we are not the only ones who are tired. The court panel itself says so. If there is such a state of mutual fatigue and this is an acceptance, pushing the hearing hours forward and finishing it so late is actually of no benefit to anyone.

I don't see any legal logic. Maybe after the incident that happened to me that day, there might have been a possibility of shifting to these hours, and he might have considered it. I hope more attention will be paid from now on. "I hope that it will be brought to a more reasonable hour, such as 19.30-20.00, especially after the bar association presidents come and the management comes and warns about this issue."