Prosecutor fills empty file and seeks imprisonment of up to twelve years and nine months on “Tweet” charges against Oğuz Güven

The Istanbul Republic Prosecutor, expressing his opinion on Oğuz Güven, who remained in detention for 32 days after being targeted by Sabah newspaper in connection with an announcement Tweet that was deleted within 55 seconds, has cited comments made on Twitter in reaction to the news report in support of the charges raised.
 
The following comments are included in the prosecutor’s four-page opinion:
 
The prosecutor, stating that the Gülenist formation was a terrorist organisation, said, “When we look at the comments made on the same platform regarding the post that a truck mowed down Mustafa Alper, the chief prosecutor who drafted the first FETO indictment, the perception was created that the fight against a terrorist organisation that had infiltrated all the organs of the Republic of Turkey by exploiting hallowed values like religion and justice and that dared to engage in a bloody coup attempt in the country at the behest of foreign nexuses who were their collaborators was little more than injustice and tyranny, and especially comments made in reaction were along these lines.”
 
The prosecutor, who devotes a great deal of space to the comments in his opinion, states that they are pointers as to whether “the offence of organisational propaganda” was committed. Reference is made to both European Court of Human Rights and Court of Cassation rulings as the opinion progresses and it is stated, “The statement constituting an offence was posted on Cumhuriyet newspaper’s official Twitter page. The defendant, for his part, was the editor-in-chief of the internet news page, and the person officially responsible. At the same time, he had objective liability. However, according to his own statement, the post was made at his instruction. The upshot was that it was stated by the defendant that a truck mowed down Chief Prosecutor Mustafa Alper, who lost his life in a traffic accident that took place, due to his being one of the symbolic names in the fight against the FETO/PDY armed terrorist organisation and as a result of the investigations he conducted, the indictments he drafted and the decision he took by virtue of his duties, and in this way his actions in pursuit of his duties were the cause of his death. Eliminating public sensitivity over the fight against the FETO/PDY armed terrorist organisation created the perception that the ongoing investigations would remain without result and the organisation was fighting for legitimate goals and the offence of making organisational propaganda with which he was charged was committed in excess of the bounds of the free expression of ideas.”

In conjunction with this, it is stated that Güven’s Facebook and Twitter social media accounts were examined in the course of the investigation, and that he is also charged for his posts on Ahmet Şık’s Qandil interview, “Harsh response from Qandil and the expectation that arms will be laid down comes to naught,” “The KCK Co-Chair spoke at Qandil: No laying down of arms until Öcalan is released,” and “Either Apo to Qandil or we to İmralı.”

The Ahmet Şık interview was considered to amount to the exercise of the freedom of thought
 
The prosecutor stated that Şık’s interview should be considered to amount to the exercise of the freedom of thought since it did not contain duress and violence. Conversely, punishment was sought for the other posts at issue in the trial with them stated to contain duress and violence. The prosecutor sought imprisonment of up to twelve years and nine months on the charge of making organisational propaganda and “printing and publishing terrorist organisations’ publications” against Güven. The trial at Istanbul Serious Crime Court No 28 was adjourned until 21 November 2017 for the defence on the merits to be made ready.
 
A story entitled “Disgrace against humanity” was run with reference to the comments at issue in the trial
 
Oğuz Güven had said in the defence he previously made in the proceedings that a story entitled ‘Disgrace against humanity” had been run with reference to the comments that were posted.

Güven’s statement, in which he stressed that the law also envisaged the gathering of documents that are in the defendant’s favour when evidence is gathered, read as follows:
 
“Because, if he looked at the page, he would have seen that we ran a story entitled ‘Disgrace against humanity’ and criticised the comments made on Twitter by people who today are on the run and are known to everybody who made immoral comments about this news. But the prosecutor had no such intention. If the learned prosecutor looked at Tweets I have written in the past, he would see the extent to which I battled with FETO when current administrators and ministers had nothing but adulation for Fetullah Gülen and saw no fault in him. But, having dredged through my Tweets and being unable to find any component of a crime, it did not suit him to see them. If the Tweet in question had been examined in conjunction with the content of the report, it would have emerged that there could not even be a question of any incitement to violence or praise, serving the purposes or encouragement of a terrorist organisation at all.”