23/02/2023 | Writer: Yıldız Tar
The verdict wasn’t passed in the Eryaman-Esat case at the ninth trial, since the prosecutor didn’t present his final opinion again. The court tried to prevent the audience. The intervention request of the Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center was rejected. The case was postponed to May 25, at 2.00 pm.
The ninth hearing of the case, in which four people from the gang are being judged on the grounds of assaulting trans women in Ankara, in 2006, was held today (February 22). The case, which has been shuttling between Supreme Court and the other courts for more than 10 years and resulted in a sentence against the attackers, is being heard again following the reversal of the judgment by the Supreme Court.
The trial at the 30th Ankara Criminal Court was held in the great hall upon the request of the attorneys of trans women. May 17 Association, Kaos GL, Red Umbrella Association for Sexual Health and Human Rights, UniQueer, Life Memory Freedom Association, Delegation of European Union to Türkiye, Embassy of Denmark, Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association (SPoD), Toplumsal Hukuk (Social Law), and Ankara Bar Association Center for LGBTIQ+ Rights followed the trial with the call of Pink Life LBGTI+ Solidarity Association beside LGBTI+ right defenders.
Audiences were exposed to prevention, and a lawyer was subjected to verbal violence
Earlier in the hearing, which began half an hour late, it was told that the audience would not be allowed in. Audiences were allowed to attend hearings, upon objections. The court board told Att. Seher Duygu Cildoğan, who was taking notes via the smartphone, removed her phone, during the hearing. Att. Cildoğan said, “I am not recording. Surely I know that recording is not allowed.” Then the bailiff walked all over her and said, “Cut that out!” The other lawyers reacted against the verbal violence targeting their colleague.
The intervention request of the Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center was rejected
At the beginning of the hearing, the Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center presented an intervention request to the case. While Att. İrem Esra Kömürcü was talking on behalf of the Center, and saying “We are here with the authority we receive from the Constitution, Turkish Penal Code, İstanbul Convention and CEDAW”, she was interrupted by the judge and told “We are not a part of the İstanbul Convention.” Thereupon Att. Altun said: “The judicial process regarding the withdrawal from the İstanbul Convention hasn’t been completed yet. There is a crime against humanity. The concepts of victim and wronged parties are regulated within the scope of the mentioned laws and conventions. Therefore we present and intervention request.”
The court, which had rejected the intervention request of the Diyarbakır Bar Association at the previous hearing, also rejected the request of the Women’s Rights Center.
Attorney of trans women, Senem Doğanoğlu stated that they had not realized a shortage at the expert’s report and added: “The expert’s report reflects the truth in terms of the crime of looting and reveals that they are a gang. It also justifies that they are gang members.” On the other hand, the defendant lawyers claimed that there was no gang and no hierarchical structure.
The prosecutor demanded that expert’s report to be deemed invalid
Claiming that only one GSM number was considered at the expert’s report, the prosecutor demanded that the report to be deemed invalid at his interim opinion regarding the expert’s report. Moreover the prosecutor stated that the letters written by the court to the relevant institutions fell short of the considerations of the reversal order ruled by the Court of Cassation and he demanded to rewrite them.
Following the interim opinion expressed by the prosecutor, the court board took a break and evaluated the requests. The intervention request of the Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center was rejected. On the other hand the court accepted the prosecutor’s request for a new expert’s report and passed a verdict that an expert’s report should be prepared by considering whether the phones looted were used after the date of the crime. The case was postponed to May 25, at 14.00 pm since the prosecutor didn’t present his final opinion on the merits, just as in the last two hearings.
What happened at the eighth hearing?
The trial, which was heard on November 21, 2022 at the 30th Ankara Criminal Court, was held in the great hall upon the request of the attorneys of trans women. About fifty LGBTI+ right defenders followed the hearing with the call of Pink Life LBGTI+ Solidarity Association, Buse Kılıçkaya and Duru Tatlıoğlu beside the representatives from the Delegation of European Union to Türkiye and Embassy of Denmark.
May 17 Association, SPoD and UniQueer associations and lawyers from the Diyarbakır Bar Association LGBTI+ Rights Commission and the Ankara Bar Association Center for LGBTIQ+ Rights were there as observers.
The trial began with the intervention request of Att. Okan Altekin on behalf of Diyarbakır Bar Association. Att. Okan Altekin took the floor and said: “Since the incidents, publicly known as Esat-Eryaman case and violated the right to life of trans people, may directly affect trans people living in Diyarbakır, we, on behalf of Diyarbakır Bar Association, submit our intervention request in the case.”
The court rejected the request of the Bar Association stating: “There is no possibility neither for the Bar Association, nor for trans people living in Diyarbakır, to be directly damaged because of the crime.”
The case was postponed to February 22, 2023 as the final opinion has not ready yet. On the other hand, the Court Board claimed that the journalists would not be allowed to bring laptops to next hearing. When the press members objected to the claim by reminding the laws and regulations, The Court Board said: “You can take notes by using pen and paper, we will not allow.”
What happened in the case?
In April 2006, a gang attacked trans women in Eryaman, Ankara. Many trans women were forced to leave their homes in Eryaman. Some of them changed cities, some moved to the Esat District of Ankara. The attacks continued in Esat.
The establishment of the Pink Life Association was an attempt of an organization against these attacks. The trans women who were attacked filed a criminal complaint, charges were pressed. The case that was monitored by lawyers Senem Doğanoglu and Hakan Yıldırım was concluded in 2008. One of the defendants, Şammas Taşdemir, was sentenced to 45 months for wounding with a weapon during a raid on a hairdresser that was frequently used by trans women; The other defendants, Harun Çardak and Ahmet Günay were sentenced to 40 months each, and Ahmet Günay for 34 months for wounding with a weapon against trans women in the Kurtuluş District of Ankara.
The court ruled that the attackers were qualified as gangs, but sentences were all from the lowest limit. There was no sentence for the allegations of pillaging. The verdict was appealed.
Since 2008, the judicial process has turned into a labyrinth. The Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in 2011. In the meanwhile, the courts that handled the case changed. With the Criminal Procedure Code changes, the case went back and forth between the courts. Finally, in 2018, the case went to the Supreme Court of Appeals, again.
Verdict to overturn stated the attackers should be investigated on their gang qualifications and demanded an investigation regarding the phone call records. The 30th High Criminal Court also complied with the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision and asked the Information Technology and Communications Authority (BTK) for information on whether the attackers communicated.
Endless chase of justice: Eryaman-Esat case
The Eryaman-Esat case has become an endless game of chase due to the changes in the judicial system. The attackers were sentenced in 2008 for extortion, wounding, and wounding as part of organizational activity, but were acquitted of looting. The decision included the definition of 'a gang that came together with thoughts triggered by social prejudices'.
Both the attackers and the trans women who were attacked appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, saying that 'the court has to make a judgment on looting'. The process after the Supreme Court's overturn decision is a complicated story. With the changes in the legislation, the case has been going back and forth between the courts for years. Att. Doğanoğlu explains this process as follows:
“There were courts authorized with Article 250 of the Turkish Penal Code, but they are now removed. Then they said that it was necessary to appeal to the general court, then those established with TPC Article 10 came into force, and it was said that they have the authority. The case went back and forth too many times. At the end of 2018, with a very absurd justification, the case was returned to the 30th High Criminal Court of Ankara. The reason was that a defendant was not notified. They returned the case because they couldn't locate a person's procuration. After all those transfers the case probably is not intact now. After years, we filed the procuration again, and the case was back on the Supreme Court of Appeals. Then the Supreme Court overturned the decision and the trials began from the beginning…”
What happened in Eryaman and Esat?
Senem Doğanoğlu explains the attacks on trans women and their forced migration as follows:
“The reason the case is called Eryaman is that the events took place in Eryaman, but in fact, the case that we're talking about now includes the events that took place in Esat. The construction industry was on the rise in Eryaman, and organized gang attacks against trans women living there began. Over time, the men hired by these construction companies increased attacks on trans women as a gang, in cooperation with the police. After a while, the paramilitary force said, 'you will pay tribute to us'. But the main goal was to exile. Many of the girls fled to Mersin when the attacks on the houses began. Another group settled in Esat.
“We were able to make a case about Şammas Taşdemir in Eryaman. Dilek İnce, who was killed in 2008, was among the complainants. We also monitored a case in which Şammas Taşdemir was tried for property damage. Şammas was sentenced, but it was converted into a fine. He paid. The decision was finalized and over. He was sentenced to a criminal sentence and the motivations of the attackers were not investigated.
“Law enforcement did not take any action for a very long time when the Esat events started simultaneously. It turned into a process where every night someone gets hurt, properties are getting damaged, people were getting threats over phone calls, and that's the time when the shroud demonstrations started. 'If this violence is not prevented we are going on hunger strike,' they said.
“Silent protests began where LGBTI+ organizations and women's organizations participated, and after a while, the police of Çankaya District of Ankara called us. In short, it was a process in which social pressure was very effective, without social pressure, no one would have instructed The Çankaya police on the issue.
“They were assaulting, wounding people. There were raids on hairdressers. Again, damaging vehicles was very common. There were a lot of incidents at night where they get out of their vehicles with machetes on their hands, run onto the girls, and wounding them. We gathered all these incidents together. Complaints were collected from the victims one by one. Then the perpetrators were all picked up. They've been arrested and the trial process has begun.
“The case was first filed in the general court. It was subsequently transferred to the High Criminal Court due to the allegations of looting. Most of the girls came at the first trial and reported their complaints. They talked about the incidents in detail. In the first trial, we explained that it was an organized crime and that they were a gang. We also changed the face of the courthouse at that time. It was important to see the subject there, see a subject seeking their right, and see what was legitimate.”
Translation: Selma Koçak
Tags: human rights, women
