Gülmen not freed although prosecutor seeks her release

The prosecutor sought Gülmen’s release citing the evidence having been gathered and the absence of a flight risk. However, the bench did not order her release, pointing to “strong suspicion of guilt.” The hearing was adjourned until 1 December. Gülmen, who joined the hearing via video link, described what she was undergoing in hospital as torture. Gülmen, saying they expected the State of Emergency Commission to issue a decision this week, said, “If I am restored to my duties, I do not wish to be treated under these conditions.”
 
Alican Uludağ
 
In the trial of detained academic Nuriye Gülmen, who is staging a hunger strike in a bid to return to her job, Semih Özakça, who is under house arrest, and Acun Karadağ, who is on release pending trail, Gülmen did not secure her release.
 
At the fifth hearing of the trial, the Republic prosecutor sought Gülmen’s release at the start of the hearing citing the evidence having been gathered and the absence of a flight risk. The application for the release of Nuriye Gülmen, who described her conditions in Numune Hospital as “torture”, was dismissed on the grounds of “strong suspicion of guilt and the severity of the penalty envisaged in the law” and the hearing was adjourned until 1 December.
 
With Özakça and Karadağ attending the hearing at Ankara Serious Crime Court No 19, Gülmen, conversely, joined via a video link from the convict ward in Numune Hospital where she is being held. The Republic prosecutor, addressing the court at the start of the hearing, stated that he reiterated the opinion he had presented at the previous session and said, “I seek the rendering of a decision for the release under such measures as the court sees fit of the defendant Nuriye Gülmen, given that no evidence remains to be gathered in the file, there is no risk of the defendants tampering with evidence or fleeing and the stage reached by the proceedings.”
 
Gülmen’s attorney Murat Yılmaz said, “This is an overdue application. Given that nothing has changed in one week, we realise that Nuriye has been detained arbitrarily.” Yılmaz, saying that the transcript records of the 17 November hearing only became available to them yesterday morning, stated that they could not submit a defence on the merits without reading the 45-page transcript records, and requested a time extension on account of this. Yılmaz, noting that the court wrote a letter to Ankara Chief Prosecution at the last hearing for it to meet with her lawyers at an opportune time and setting for them to prepare Gülmen’s defence, stated that despite this the prosecution was creating difficulties over the matter. Yılmaz, recalling that the prosecutor had told Berk Ercan and Fatih Solak who were testifying against Nuriye and Semih, “There is no need to cast aspersions against the defendants,” recounted that Deputy Prime-Minister Bekir Bozdağ had said with reference to the Reza Zarrab trial, “This trial is political. It is a conspiracy against Turkey. The defendants in the trial have been subjected to duress.” Yılmaz, indicating that with Bozdağ saying that no credence could be attached to the testimony of informers, commented, “We have also said that Ercan and Solak’s testimony is untrue. Even if Fatih Solak has testified against Nuriye, he is currently in prison. Berk Ercan was released on 30 October. A defendant apprehended with a long-barrelled firearm avails himself of contrition provisions and is released at the first hearing having been sentenced to one year six months’ imprisonment. This is precisely where the interest lies. He admits to the firearms in his first statement, but does not admit to them in his second statement.”
 
Allegations rebutted
 
Yılmaz, recalling that the two informers had said that Gülmen alleged she had made explosives and thrown them at the Berkin Elvan protest in Eskişehir, countered this by adducing as evidence police records on Gülmen in files opened at serious crime and first-instance crime courts in Eskişehir in connection with these protests. Yılmaz, noting that there was nothing at all in these records as to Gülmen in any way resisting the police or throwing explosive substances, stated that at the same time Gülmen was under technical surveillance by the police in 2013-2015 and all of her actions were monitored.
 
Yılmaz, recounting that Berk Ercan and Fatih Solak’s statements appeared in October, commented, “How and on what grounds did Nuriye and Semih remain in detention until that date? There is no evidence that Nuriye went on hunger strike at an organisation’s instruction.”
 
She could not have gone to Istanbul
 
Attorney Mehmet Refik Atalay, in turn, exposed with evidence the untruthfulness of the claim that Nuriye Gülmen went to Istanbul after being released from prison and gave her CV to the organisation. Atalay, recalling that Gülmen had been released on condition that she “did not leave a specified place of residence” in Eskişehir, said, “Nuriye could not leave Eskişehir due to this release condition order. There is no evidence that she violated the release condition, either. So, the claim that she went to Istanbul and gave her CV is untrue.”
 
CHP MP witness
 
CHP Ankara MP Ali Haydar Hakverdi, who was observing the hearing at the request of the defence attorneys, recalling how Gülmen and Karadağ had come to Parliament and applied to him, commented, “At this point in time, they had started the sit-down action. They said they would also go on hunger strike if they could not make their voices heard.” Following the ruling, a six-person group staged a sit-down action outside the prison. The police brutally arrested the group.