The Performance of the Constitutional Court in the July 15 Trials
The Performance of the Constitutional Court in the July 15 Trials
The performance of the Constitutional Court in the July 15 trials further reinforces the lost perception of justice. You can call the contradiction in the decision of the judge in a small county just starting his/her job as inexperience. However, if the contradictions in the decisions of the court, which is constitutionally accepted as the highest jurisdiction, are not the result of inexperience - which is not - then we are talking about bad faith or cowardice.
As it is said in a Turkish saying, "If the meat smells, we salt it, what do we do if the salt smells?" The Constitutional Court gave up its mission of being the last insurance of the rule of law and turned its back on innocents waiting for justice. We see this in the application of Judge Colonel Mehmet Oğuz Akkuş. The Constitutional Court rejected the claim of the applicant, who is also a legist, that he was arrested unjustly and arbitrarily, with the following justification.
… it is seen that the applicant's assignment as "Martial Law Military Prosecutor No. 2 in Ankara" is based on the list of martial law courts in the annex of the published martial law directive. In this respect, it cannot be said that the symptoms confirming the existence of suspicion of crime on the part of the applicant are not within the scope of the file… It cannot be said that it is baseless and arbitrary that the applicant's name was found in the martial law courts assignment list, considering that the investigation authorities used this to decide that the applicant had contact with FETÖ/PDY…
What we understand from this expression is that; the only evidence for the arrest is that the applicant's name is on the martial law assignment list and that the decision of the court that made the arrest was appropriate. The evidential nature of the martial law directive, which is a document that has not yet been proven even by whom it was sent, is already controversial. However, the main focus in this article is whether this evidence is used as a fair and equal evidence for everyone mentioned in the directive, even if it is used as evidence. In other words, if being assigned under the martial law directive was a sufficient reason for arrest according to the Constitutional Court, everyone named on the list should have been arrested. However, we see that many people were not arrested despite being assigned in the directive. In the table below, some of these people selected as examples can be seen.
| SOME OF THOSE WHOSE NAME WERE ON THE MARTIAL LAW DIRECTIVE BUT WERE NOT ARRESTED | ||
| Name Surname | Rank | Role in the Martial Law Directive |
| Aydoğan Aydın | Brigadier General | 1st Commando Brig. Commander/Kayseri-Continue |
| Levent ERGÜN | Brigadier General | Tunceli Martial Law Commander |
| Abdullah Aslan | Judge Major General | President of AYİM |
| Gürbüz Gümüşay | Judge Colonel | AYİM Attorney General |
| Hakan Kutlu | Judge Colonel | Member of the Military Supreme Court |
As can be seen, the inclusion of their name in the directive was accepted as evidence for some, but not for others. In a situation where it is said that this is the only evidence, what is the decision to be arrested or not to be arrested based on?
Also, Levent Ergün, who is mentioned as Brigadier General in the table above, did not even go through an investigation and was promoted to Major General in the ongoing process. We also remember him as the defendant in the Balyoz Case. -According to the arguments of the regime- the so-called coup plotters and the Balyoz team are completely against each other. So, is it reasonable for them to have assigned one of the members of the Balyoz team to the critical appointment of the Martial Law Command? Doesn't it also raise doubts about the martial law directive?
In the table below, we see those who were tried and acquitted despite their names being included in the martial law directive. The Constitutional Court decided on Mehmet Oğuz Akkuş's application in June 2020. However, the names in the table below were acquitted before this date. Despite this, the Constitutional Court considered the presence of his name in the martial law directive as a criterion and ruled that the arrest warrant was appropriate.
| THOSE WHOSE NAME WERE ON THE MARTIAL LAW DIRECTIVE BUT WERE ACQUITTED | ||
| Name Surname | Rank | Role in the Martial Law Directive |
| Erdal Öztürk | Lieutenant General | Istanbul Martial Law Commander |
| İbrahim YILMAZ | Lieutenant General | Diyarbakır Martial Law Commander |
| Abdullah BAYSAR | Major General | Şırnak Martial Law Commander |
| Avni ANGUN | Major General | Malatya Martial Law Commander |
| Adnan ARSLAN | Brigadier General | Tokat Martial Law Commander |
| Birol ŞİMŞEK | Brigadier General | Zonguldak Martial Law Commander |
| Şahin KESKİNKILIÇ | Colonel | Uşak Martial Law Commander |
| Metin KARAGÖZ | Colonel | Antalya Martial Law Commander |
It is not our intention to say that everyone whose name is on the list should be arrested. However, if name on the assignment list was an evidence, it should have been applied equally and fairly to everyone. Unfortunately, we do not see this, and this situation strengthens the opinion that the trials are made within the framework of filing lists rather than legal evidence.
We know very well the MIT agents roaming the court corridors, the politicians or advisors who attend the hearings and intimidate the judges, and the judges who ask the President's advisors what to do before making a decision.
But it seems that the specter of the regime of fear and interest also haunts the Constitutional Court campus…
