Administrative Investigation Reports Made Lives Miserable

Those whose names were not blacklisted in image review were favored 

Major. Murat Ertaş welcomed the first police team who came to the headquarters at the end of the night of 15 July without any difficulty, accompanying them and helped them do their duties. In the following period, he was declared a putschist by the Administrative Investigation Board formed by the General Staff and the delegation report was prepared for all personnel in the headquarters with this point of view. Regarding the report prepared Major Ertas says:

“Opposing comments were made by selecting instant images that lasted for hours, and images and comments in favor of the defendants were especially avoided. When the pictures in the report are examined, the persons who are not under suitable lighting conditions at the farthest point, even those who are only seen from behind are labeled if they are defendants (because they were blacklisted personnel), and the non-defendants are not labeled even if they are seen very closely and clearly, or it is seen that they labeled them with three question marks. This practice alone is enough to show that the panel of experts is trying to show the defendants guilty because they are under pressure.”

Images that could be in favor of the defendants were not included in the report

In the prepared report, there is not a single image of the cameras showing both the outside and the interior of the guardhouse that could be in favor of the accused. Some footage is intentionally omitted from the report. Since there were defendants acting in coordination with the police and many people who are currently acting as witnesses, these images were not taken into consideration and were not published.

The Administrative Investigation Board Report, which was prepared unlawfully, biased and far from being scientific, based on previously prepared lists, aimed at accusing people, did not have the quality of legal evidence, but was copied exactly and transferred to the indictment.

That night, many soldiers are not accused with the same accusation as Major Ertas many soldiers who were at the scene with a military reflex or by chance, Major. Ertaş was accused of being a putschist.

The Investigation report was simply copied for the police investigation report, which, in turn, was copied for the bill of charges and the prosecutor’s opinion.

      Major Ertaş, in his defense, said:

The bill of indictment was based on the administrative investigation report prepared by the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces.

It is a basic principle of law that an administrative investigation report cannot said to be impartial or unbiased when such report was ordered to be prepared or prepared by a person who could possibly also be prosecuted as a suspect: in this case, Hulusi Akar, the Commander of the Turkish Armed Forces, who has joined this case as a complainant-victim; Ugur Tarcin, who led the investigation report and has also joined the case as a complainant victim; Zekai Aksakalli, who strongly influenced the writing of the report and has also joined a complainant-victim.

According to Article 67 (3) of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code, the expert witness is prohibited to make legal evaluations in the written report or orally which shall be conducted by judges, and he is only allowed to make statements when a special or technical knowledge for the solution of the case is required.

Considering overall the administrative investigation report prepared by the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces, the expert witnesses made many statements, which were biased and intentional to demonstrate that the suspects were guilty and passed a judgment as if they were the court.

It is apparent that the administrative investigation report prepared by the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces cannot be accepted as evidence. However, at this point, the administrative investigation report was admitted as the police investigation report which was, in turn, was admitted as the prosecutor’s opinion without any reexamination.

When we take cognizance of the prosecutor’s opinion, which mimicked the bill of charges without any changes, the fact that people who prepared the investigation report should have been invited to be cross examined, or the report, itself, has never been brought up is the best example of why the evaluation of evidence was reliable was open to discussion.

The investigation report does not even include the names of people who prepared the report.

“Although each page must have included the signatures of investigation report- committee members, the names or signatures of members are not even in the last page. The report is vulnerable to any addition or deletion as is even after it is complete. The way the report was prepared is far away from the required technical support or scientificity.”

In short, the prosecutor has not put forward any evidence, he has simply admitted my dismissal from the Turkish Military as an evidence of being a member of a terrorist organization, and consequently being a member of a terrorist organization was presented as a fait accompli like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The administrative process was taken as a basis of criminal prosecution both violating the principle of legality and creating a path-breaking innovation in the name of law.

Finally, Major Ertas expressed the following in his defense:

“The General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces, which did not fire the military officers, who were tried in the Ergenekon, Sledgerhammer [tr: “Balyoz”], and Internet Memorandum [tr: “İnternet Andıcı] trials and let alone fire them after the Court of Cassation approved the convictions in the Sledgehammer case, somehow in 2016, decided to fire thousands of military personnel just because they were arrested.”