WHY WAS THE SELF-DEFENSE TIME OF SOLDIERS RESTRICTED IN THE JULY 15 TRIALS?

Colonel Eşref Mert: Atom Ant – “Little Giant Man”

With the July 15 trap, the Turkish Armed Forces lost not only its corporate reputation and its credibility in the eyes of the society, but also its very valuable, experienced and talented bright officers that it has trained over the years with a lot of effort and investment. We would like to explain some of the facts in the defense of Staff Colonel Eşref Mert, who is known as one of these officers.

Colonel Eşref Mert became a person who was appreciated by his superiors, colleagues, and everyone who knew him in all places he served. He was one of the officers pointed out as the future Chief of General Staff, as he took first place in all the schools he completed. In a more sincere expression, those who knew him used to commemorate Eşref Mert with the nicknames "Atom Ant", "Double Core", "Hep Yek". In fact, the Commander of the Land Forces (Retired) General Salih Zeki ÇOLAK also nicknamed himself as "Little Giant Man".

In order for those people whose personal ambitions are more important than the country/nation to become winners in domestic and foreign policy, hundreds of well-equipped, knowledgeable, virtuous and bright-minded members of navy, air forces, gendarmerie, and land forces like Colonel Mert had their future stolen, their families threatened, and their little children subjected to discrimination. These soldiers were prevented from defending themselves in the courts for a sufficient period of time, and their right to speak was restricted.

We are citing the issues that many soldiers try to make their voices heard in the courts, with quotations from Colonel Eşref Mert's defense, so that they can find a place in your mind and conscience.

Soldiers' Self-Defense Was Restricted

Colonel Mert's words that he sought justice by saying "I would like to point out that I had to shorten my defense because you limited my defense to seven hours and this situation means a clear limitation of my right to defense" appeared in almost all July 15 trials. Colonel Mert was not allowed to use computers in prison for 5 months, starting from the beginning of March 2020, due to the pandemic. He was able to start using the computer again in July 2020, after the hearings resumed, and therefore, for 5 months at that time, it was not possible for him to both access the contents of his file and make additions to his defense. From that date on, he tried to prepare his defense without being able to use a computer for about 1 month (since he was also ill because of COVID-19), without enough time between the hearings.

According to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);

- Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial:

1. Everyone has the right to have their case heard within a reasonable time.

2. Anyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

3. Anyone charged with a crime has the following minimum rights:

a) To have the necessary time and facilities to prepare his defense;

b) To defend himself personally or to benefit from the help of a lawyer of his choice;

c) To interrogate or have the witnesses of the allegation interrogated, to request that the witnesses of the defense be invited and heard under the same conditions as the witnesses of the allegation;

No sentence of Article 6 of the ECHR contains a provision to limit the duration of the defense to a certain time. Neither the only restriction condition stated in this article regarding the courtroom nor any provision of the national legislation (Constitution, Turkish Penal Code or Law of Criminal Procedure) gives the right to limit the duration of the defense to a certain time. In his defense Colonel Mert gives a law lesson to the court by saying "I searched all the legislation I could find with the word ‘defense’, the word ‘limitation’, the word ‘restriction’, and could not find any relevant article.”

The Related Article of the ECHR is a regulation in favor of the person prosecuted.

Apart from this, the statement that the court interprets the case to be completed in a reasonable time, which is thought to be intended to limit the duration of the defense, is an arrangement made in favor of the person on trial. The statement is as follows:

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

- "Everyone has the right to have his or her case heard in public and within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, which will decide on the merits of any civil rights or obligations or criminal charges brought against him."

Interpreting the expression "reasonable time" here as "restriction of the person's defense time so that the case can be completed in a certain time" or "the person's defense within a reasonable time" is to distort the meaning of this article. At the same time, completely contrary to the spirit of this article, it is to turn the judgment in favor of the person on trial against him. This approach is an effort to forcibly seek a basis for unlawfulness. Colonel Mert draws attention to one more issue in his defense. “Now a question comes to mind: Dear delegation; Why don't you put forward any justification from our national legislation, including the Constitution? The answer to this question is also clear: Because there is no such regulation in the Legislation. This practice is completely illegal.”

There Are Those Who Defended in The Ergenekon-Sledgehammer Cases For 26 Days

A lot of unlawfulness is considered as reasons for the rescission of the Ergenekon-Sledgehammer cases. However, in the cases in question, there was no claim regarding the restriction of the rights of the defense. Because in those cases, there were those who defended for 26 days.

For example, while Kemal Kerinçsiz defended himself for 26 days, Doğu Perinçek could defend himself for 10 days. Hurşit Tolon had the right to defend himself for five days and Mehmet Ali Çelebi for about five days. Total defense time for the 12 defendants in this example was almost 100 days.

What reason, conscience and measure of justice fit the limited time for self-defense, such as seven hours, given to soldiers sentenced to life imprisonment?

While the defense periods were not touched in the cases such as Ergenekon, what is the reason to silence the soldiers and limit their defense in the July 15 trials?

Was it feared that the soldiers would express in their defense the unlawfulness they witnessed in their past assignments? Our people, who are thirsty for justice, will one day see the truths that the presidents of the courts try to hide behind this behavior.