Unlawful Trials without Perpetrator-Action Matching

There is No Claim About Where and How Those Who Lost Their Lives Were Shot!

In the General Staff Roof Case Indictment which covers case of 12 citizens who lost their lives around the General Staff Headquarters on the night of July 15, and 2 soldiers, 1 policeman and 42 civilians, who were allegedly injured, the defendants, who were alleged to have been inside the headquarters that night and had a gun in their hands, were jointly interpreted as perpetrators and they were demanded to be punished for the crimes of willful murder and willful attempted murder.

The prosecution has not made any claim as to who was martyred by any of the victims. He held the defendants in the General Staff Headquarters, who appeared to be holding a gun, responsible for the death of the victims. But the prosecution lifted the charges and demanded acquittal, although it was understood from the camera footage that some of the other defendants were armed. It acquitted some personnel who had weapons and did not have sufficient evidence that they had taken no action and excluded them from the investigation. However, by accusing all other personnel in the same situation of joint agency, he made an unfounded, unlawful and biased allegation.

In the indictment, a one-sentence claim was made about where and how Bülent Aydın, Yusuf Çelik, Resul Kaptancı, Mesut Avcu and Ziya İlhan Dağdaş were shot, among the 12 victims who lost their lives that night. The causes of death of the other 7 victims were stated only in the autopsy reports, but no claim or evidence was presented as to where and how these 7 victims were shot.

The prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence regarding where, how and by whom the victims were killed. The prosecution claimed about the 2 wounded soldiers, where and how they were injured, but did not make any claims or evidence regarding the scene, time, how and by whom of the other 43 injured (one policeman, 42 civilians). By making such an unfounded comment, the prosecution demanded to be punished 42 times on the charge of deliberate attempted murder for 42 civilians who were injured in the General Staff Headquarters. However, the identity of these 42 people could not be revealed in a way that leaves no room for doubt.

Soldier Has 5.56/9mm Rifles, But the Injured were Injured By Shrapnel or Shotgun!

In the file, it is claimed that all the injured were injured as a result of attempted murder with a firearm. In this case, the wounded must have been shot with intent to kill, but the action could not be concluded successfully, resulting in the injury of the victim. Considering that the weapons used are firearms, these injuries should be expected to be gunshot wounds. The weapons allegedly used by the military personnel working at the General Staff Headquarters that night were light weapons in the inventory of the headquarters, with diameters of 5.56 mm and 9 mm.

However, looking at the hospital reports of the persons alleged to have been injured that night, it was reported that particles smaller than 5.56 mm in diameter, such as objects, shrapnel or pellets, were removed from the bodies of the persons concerned or that they were injured by such objects. The entrance and exit wounds of the others in the hospital reports were examined and it was stated in the reports that they were injured by objects larger than 9 mm in diameter.

Since it is clear that guns were used by the police, civilian citizens and some groups, which are understood to be organized and stated in the police radios on the night of 15 July, it is clear that the perpetrator, gun, bullet, wound, wounded, place, and time sequence for each injured person should be clearly determined. There is no determination, information, document and evidence on this subject in the Evidence folder of the General Staff Roof case. It is obvious that the necessary investigations regarding the attempted murder with firearms were not carried out during the investigation phase. The sequence of perpetrator, gun, bullet, wound, wounded, place, time is not complete beyond doubt.

There are no Forensic Medicine Institute Reports in the Files

Since the hospital report alone is not sufficient evidence in heavy criminal proceedings, a Forensic Medicine Institute report should be prepared to be used in the proceedings. However, a report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute on the condition of most of the injured is not available in the file. Regarding the persons alleged to have been injured that night, their own statements were taken as the basis, and later contradictory hospital reports entered the file.

The One Who was Battered by His Relative was Also Shown Injured

As an example of this situation, when the media coverage about Adem Yiğit, who is mentioned among the complainants of the General Staff, are taken into account, it is understood that his own statements about the injury were accepted and added to the file without confirmation. However, although this person claimed that he was injured in the events that took place on the night of 15 July, it was later admitted that he had been beaten by a relative.

* This article was prepared with the help of the defense of Major Abdurrahim Aksoy, a member of the Special Forces Command.