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.
At the verdict hearing at Kahramanmaraş 4th High Criminal Court, contractor and technical officer Rafet Küsmüş and static project designer Sıtkı Okumuş were sentenced to 13 years and 4 months in prison with a good behavior reduction for "causing death and injury through conscious negligence". While it was decided to arrest the two defendants with the verdict and ban them from profession for 2 years, an arrest warrant was issued for Rafet Küsmüş.
While public officials Hacı Mehmet Güner and Zeynel Abidin Şerefoğlu were sentenced to 6 years and 8 months in prison with a reduction for good behavior for the crime of "causing death and injury by negligence", other public officials Mehmet Dışçeken and Emre Arıkan were acquitted.
In the reasoned decision reached by the ANKA News Agency reporter, the concepts of "negligence", "conscious negligence" and "possible intent" were evaluated from a legal perspective and the responsibilities of the defendants were examined separately.
"THEY ACT WITH THE THOUGHT OF 'NO WAY IT HAPPENED'"
In the decision, it was stated that the contractor and technical officer Rafet Küsmüş "used concrete and steel reinforcement materials that did not comply with the standards and implemented the static project that contained deficiencies", while the static project designer Sıtkı Okumuş "was 'primarily at fault' in the demolition of the building due to his preparation of the project without taking into account the provisions of the 1998 Regulation on Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas and the inconsistencies between the calculation report and project drawings".
In the evaluation regarding the responsibilities of Küsmüş and Okumuş, the reasoned decision noted that "Although the intensity of the earthquake was high, this would not eliminate the responsibility of the defendants" and the following statements were made:
"It is understood that it is undisputed that the existing deficiencies had an impact on the demolition of the building, that the defendants acted against their duty of care and attention while carrying out these actions, and although they predicted that people might die or be injured, they built the building in question defectively, relying on their luck or other coincidental factors, designed the static project and are responsible for the damage that occurred.
Considering the intensity of the damage caused and the fault of the defendants, Article 85/2 of the Turkish Penal Code. "Although they were punished in accordance with the article and did not want the outcome they had foreseen when committing the action, it was concluded that they were responsible at the level of 'conscious negligence' by acting with the thought of 'it could not happen anyway', considering their position, professional knowledge and experience."
In the decision, it was stated that a discretionary reduction was applied to the sentence "taking into account its possible effects on the future of the defendants."
"THE MUNICIPALITY HAS NOT FULFILLED ITS PUBLIC INSPECTION OBLIGATIONS"
In the reasoned decision, Hacı Mehmet Güner, Deputy Director of Development Affairs at the time, checked and found the static project based on the building permit dated June 26, 2000, which was contrary to the provisions of the Regulation on Buildings to be Built in Disaster Areas dated 1998, contained incomplete and erroneous calculations, and contained incompatibilities within itself and with the calculation reports; It was reported that Deputy Director of Zoning Affairs Zeynel Abidin Şerefoğlu also approved the same project.
"Although the first calculations of the static projects were made by the author engineer," the decision stated that "while the municipality should have checked the project's compliance with the ground survey, regulations and architectural project within the scope of its public inspection obligation, it did not fulfill this obligation and was at fault in the demolition of the building."
The sentences of defendants Güner and Şerefoğlu were not increased on the grounds that "no evidence could be obtained that they acted with conscious negligence". Discretionary reductions were applied to the sentences given, taking into account the "possible effects on the future of the defendants". While the provision regarding the deprivation of the defendants from exercising certain rights on the grounds that they did not currently hold public office was implemented, it was decided that there was no need to convert their prison sentences into judicial fines due to the large number of cases against them for similar crimes.
It was decided to acquit the defendants Emre Arıkan and Mehmet Dışçeken on the grounds that they were not responsible for the construction process of the building due to the actions they carried out within the scope of their duties and that no concrete, definitive and convincing evidence could be obtained against them, free from any doubt.
While it was determined that Ali Özcan Kurt, who was out of the case, had administrative responsibility for reviewing the static project dated June 26, 2000, which was prepared without taking into account the provisions of the 1998 regulation and contained incompatibilities within itself and with the account reports, it was stated that no criminal complaint was filed against him since it was understood that he had passed away from the civil registry.
