A new development has occurred in the investigation into the armed attack at Ayser Çalık Secondary School in Kahramanmaraş on April 15, in which 9 students and teacher Ayla Kara lost their lives.
Onikişubat District Governorate, school principal C.K., deputy principal F.B., teacher A.T. and guidance counselor E.İ. authorized an investigation against him for the crimes of "abandonment", "failure to report the crime" and "abuse of office".
The decision included findings that school administrators did not fulfill their obligations to ensure the safety of students during the attack, and that the guidance counselor did not take the necessary steps despite the warnings given to her before the attack.
9 STUDENTS AND ONE TEACHER LOST THEIR LIVES
In the armed attack carried out by eighth grade student İsa Aras Mersinli at Ayser Çalık Secondary School on April 15, teacher Ayla Kara and 9 students lost their lives and 15 students were injured.
Following the attack, the Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office launched an ex officio investigation against the school principal, deputy principal and two teachers.
The reports prepared by the inspectors of the Ministry of National Education, the letters of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and the documents prepared as a result of the preliminary examination carried out by the Kahramanmaraş Governorship were evaluated by the Onikişubat District Governorate.
The district governorship decided to grant permission for an investigation against four education personnel.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL LEFT THE SCHOOL AFTER SAW THE ATTACK.
In the district governor's decision, school principal C.K. It was stated that after hearing the gunshots, F.B. and deputy principal F.B. went from the ground floor to the first floor where the attack was carried out.
It was reported that security camera footage showed that the two administrators quickly ran out of the school building after seeing the armed attack at the entrance of the corridor.
It was noted that the principal and deputy principal confirmed in their statements that they had left the building.
In the decision, it was emphasized that school administrators are primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of students by pointing out the provisions of the Teaching Profession Law No. 7528 regarding the security of educational environments.
"INSTEAD OF TAKING THE STUDENTS TO THE SAFE AREA, THEY LEFT THE INSTITUTION"
In the district governor's decision, it was stated that the principal and deputy principal have a legal obligation to protect the lives and physical integrity of students.
In the decision, it was stated that administrators were not expected to take action against the armed attacker, but that they should take measures to protect students under the current conditions.
The following evaluation was included:
"What is legally expected from C.K. and F.B. within the framework of their guarantor obligation is, of course, not to respond to an armed attack, but to intervene in the attack within the framework of existing conditions and possibilities."
In the decision, it was stated that the administrators did not take steps to take the students to safe areas, evacuate them or organize the evacuation and said:
"It was understood that C.K. and F.B, instead of doing all this, went outside the school building and left the institution."
It was reported that the principal and the deputy principal called the 112 Emergency Call Center after leaving the school, but the decision was made that they did not fulfill their obligations to protect the students.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE TEACHER RUNNED DOWNSTREAM WITHOUT WARNING THE STUDENTS
It was stated that Religious Culture and Ethics Teacher A.T., who was given permission to investigate, opened the door of the 5/G class where he was working during the attack and looked in the direction of the gunshots.
In the decision, it was noted that after the teacher realized that there was an armed attack, he ran towards the ground floor without warning the students or taking any protective action.
It was reported that A.T. confirmed this situation in his statement.
The district governor's office pointed out that the judicial authorities should evaluate whether the teacher's behavior constitutes the crime of "abandonment" regulated in Article 97 of the Turkish Penal Code.
A WARNING WAS GIVEN TO THE GUIDE TEACHER TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK
One of the striking parts of the decision is the guidance counselor E.İ. There were findings about.
According to the district governor's decision, about two months before the attack, some students studying in the same class conveyed their concerns to the guidance counselor about İsa Aras Mersinli's tendency towards violence.
It was stated that the students made the same statements without having the opportunity to meet each other at the police station, and it was evaluated that the warnings were made to the guidance counselor.
In the decision, it was stated that the guidance counselor was aware of Mersinli's self-harming behavior, but did not take the necessary steps.
EVALUATION OF THE GUIDE TEACHER WITH "NO WAY"
The district governor's decision also included the information that the student who organized the attack had previously been provided with guidance services 29 times.
While it was evaluated that the counselor did not fulfill his obligation to notify about the student's situation, attention was drawn to the relevant provisions of the Child Protection Law.
In the decision, it was stated that E.İ. assumed that the parents of the student who carried out the attack were more conscious since they were public officials.
It was evaluated that the guidance counselor's negligent behavior was carried out with the intention of "no matter what".
It was emphasized that judicial authorities should investigate whether there is a causal link between these behaviors and the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of the attack.
LAWYER CİNKARA: "THE PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO FOUR PERSONNEL"
Furkan Mehmet Cinkara, the lawyer of the students who lost their lives and were injured in the attack, evaluated the investigation permission decision as "an important step towards the manifestation of justice" in his statement.
Cinkara stated that responsibilities should not be limited to only four education personnel and said:
"The physical security deficiencies in the school, especially fire escapes and escape routes, why these deficiencies were not detected and corrected in a timely manner, and the supervision and management responsibilities within the institutional chain to which the school is affiliated should be clarified in all aspects."
Stating that it should be investigated what precautions were taken in the schools in the region after the similar attack in Şanlıurfa, Cinkara asked for it to be revealed whether a risk assessment was made or not.
"WE WILL FOLLOW EVEN THE SMALLEST NEGLIGENCE"
Cinkara emphasized that ensuring security in educational institutions is among the basic responsibilities of the state.
"One of the most fundamental duties of our state is to ensure complete security in educational institutions. The safety of our children and teachers under the roof of the school is a right guaranteed by the Constitution," said Cinkara and continued his statement as follows:
"We will follow up to the end to ensure that everyone who has even the slightest negligence, fault or responsibility in the incident is held accountable before the judiciary and that all necessary administrative and legal steps are taken to prevent similar suffering from occurring again."
AN OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THE GUIDE TEACHER BEING HEARD AS A WITNESS
In the first hearing held at the Kahramanmaraş 3rd High Criminal Court on September 4, guidance counselor E.İ. He was heard as a witness.
Furkan Mehmet Cinkara, one of the family lawyers, objected to E.İ. being heard as a witness due to the suspicion that he might be responsible for the incident and requested that a criminal complaint be filed against him to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.
On the other hand, the four people who were subjected to a preliminary investigation against the investigation permission decision have the right to appeal to the Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court.
