24/01/2024 | Writer: Gözde Demirbilek
We asked lawyer Yağmur Birdal, of the Hevi LGBTI+ Association, for her views on the latest hearing in the case of Ahmet Yıldız and the course of the trial.
The lawsuit which was brought after Marmara University student Ahmet Yıldız’s murder by their father in 2008 due to being gay, has been dragging on for years. The search for justice for Ahmet Yıldız is now in its fifteenth year and right back where it started. On September 8, 2009, the first hearing of the case was held and it has been expected that the fugitive murderer, father Yahya Yıldız, would be found since then.
The 39th hearing of the case was held at the Istanbul Anadolu Courthouse, Kartal 5th Heavy Penal Court on January 11. We asked lawyer Yağmur Birdal her opinions on the case in which the court did not allow the press and the public to attend the hearing without any justification and the judge rejected the requests regarding hearing the family and getting involve to the case made by the Hevi LGBTI+ Association.
Has there been any change in the attitude of the judge during the hearings, after the repeated refusal of the request that family be heard?
From the beginning of the trial, the lawyers demanded that the family be heard, but the court rejected the request to hear the family in all hearings without any justification. All the changing and retiring panels of the court maintained the same opinion. And they did not hear the testimony of the family members.
The court had considered a request to hear the defendant’s post-incident contacts and decided to hear them after his arrest in one of the first hearings. In 2022, as the defendant had not been caught for many years, the court had to reverse this interim decision and heard the witnesses. However, the court insists that it will not reverse this decision and rejected to hear the family members without any justification. Whether this is a change of attitude or a hiding of the unjustifiable, we do not know.
What was the Court’s assessment of the precedent you set at the 39th hearing on 11 January, where the family was heard?
Since the incident took place in 2008, the testimonies of the defendant’s wife and daughters were not taken at either the investigation or the prosecution stage, nor were they heard by the court. According to the principle of examining the facts of the case ex officio the court is not bound by the evidence presented by the prosecutor, and even if the prosecutor is not present, the court is obliged to conduct all necessary investigations for the verdict and to protect the rights of the parties. However, the court persistently ignores the principle of ex officio investigation. For this reason, we submitted to the court a decision in which the mother’s testimony was taken in an almost identical precedent case. We thought that they would consider such a precedent, since they do not respect the principle of ex officio investigation. Unfortunately, they didn’t consider the decision and rejected our request.
“As the courtroom becomes more crowded, they increase the number of police officers”
What do you think of the bailiff’s aggressive attitude towards the public and the press, and the increase in the number of police officers who track the human rights defenders every time they attend the hearing?
The attitude of the bailiff cannot be disassociated from the attitude of the court panel. If the panel had not given him this authority, he would not be able to be so harsh with the press and the public. The presiding judge said: “What is the press doing here? It will take 5 minutes anyway”, which already legitimizes the bailiff’s attitude. They prefer the trial to have any importance, they don’t want the trial to have any followers. As the crowd outside the courtroom grows, they get tougher, increase the number of policemen and they keep tabs on the people attending the hearings.
What course of action can rights defenders, who want to show solidarity and follow the trial together for the 40th hearing on June 27th, follow?
We must preserve the memory of Ahmet Yıldız and lay claim to the case. Will a father go unpunished if he kills his son because he is gay? Is he going to be arrested months later? Will there be no effort on the part of the police to have him in custody?
As human rights defenders, we are fighting to prevent this from becoming part of society’s memory. It may be difficult, but it will be done. We will continue to struggle until one more LGBTI+ will be killed because their sexual identity. We urge everyone, who is aware that this case is not just a murder, to stand with us that day in a more crowded and stronger manner. Even if the press or spectators are not allowed in, we want dozens of lawyers who are following this case to be in the courtroom.
40th trial of the Ahmet Yıldız case will be heard at the Istanbul Anadolu Courthouse, Kartal 5th Heavy Penal Court on Thursday, June 27, at 13:35.
Translation: Selma Koçak
Tags: human rights
