The incident took place on April 21 at a rehabilitation center in the city. B.Y. and S.Y. The family became suspicious when the couple's autistic son, K.Y., did not want to go to the center where he had been studying for 2.5 years and exhibited restless behavior. After a while, the family noticed that there were marks of beating on their son's body and contacted the administrators of the education center and asked for the security camera footage. In the footage, it was revealed that instructor Seda Pırıl C. beat K.Y. Seda Pırıl C., who was taken into custody after the family's complaint, was arrested in the courthouse where she was referred. In addition, the moments when K.Y. was driving through the area where his school was located, recognized the school and the road, and started to cry were recorded by his family on his mobile phone.
Seda Pırıl C., who was sued for 'intentional injury to a person who is physically or mentally unable to defend himself', appeared before the judge for the 5th time today. The detained defendant Seda Pırıl C., the family of the autistic K.Y. and the lawyers of the parties attended the hearing of the case held at the 25th Criminal Court of First Instance of Mersin Courthouse.
A NEW INDICTMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED
The court judge stated that after watching the 6-month camera records traced back to the day of the incident, a new indictment was prepared within the scope of the criminal complaint made to the prosecutor's office by the Provincial Directorate of Family and Social Services regarding the change in the nature of the crime alleged against the defendant, who was stated in the expert report that he committed violence against the child on different dates. In the new indictment filed upon a criminal complaint, the judge announced that the defendant was requested to be punished for the crime of 'torture' due to acts of violence against children on various dates, and stated that the case files were combined.
'WORKING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM REQUIRES MUCH CLOSER CONTACT'
Seda Pırıl C., the defendant who took the floor at the hearing, said that it was very sad for her to face the accusation of cruelty in her 10-year career. Defendant Seda Pırıl C., who argued that working with autistic children requires much closer contact, said, "From time to time, I was asked to go a little beyond the limits of disabled children. Pushing the child and wiping the saliva from his mouth was perceived as hitting. I did not do anything to intentionally injure the child. My goal was to educate the child, to receive God's consent, and to make his family happy. I regret teaching the child something. I wish I had not made the effort. I have been trying to explain that I did not harm anyone for 5 months. "I want a decision to be released," he said.
K.Y's mother S.Y. He said, "The defendant finds a cover for everything, but what kind of education was he giving when he was pulling my child's ear? I don't understand this. I trust Turkish justice. I hope that those who will touch our children from now on will refrain from the decision of the court." Father B.Y. He stated that he trusted justice and demanded that the defendant be punished.
'TORTURE' OPINION FROM THE PROSECUTOR
Following the statements in court, the public prosecutor announced his opinion. The public prosecutor noted that when the indictment and the case file in question were examined, the defendant had the title of 'public servant' in the institution and work environment where he worked as a 'contracted personnel'. Providing the opinion that the defendant's actions should be evaluated within the scope of a 'catalogue crime' on the grounds that he persistently and systematically inflicted violence on the victim child in a way that is incompatible with human dignity, the prosecutor requested that the court decide to have no jurisdiction and send the file to the high criminal court on the charge of 'torture'.
The court judge, who also listened to the statements of the lawyers, gave a decision of lack of jurisdiction in line with the evidence and statements and ordered the case file to be sent to the High Criminal Court. The court decided to continue the defendant's detention.
