Incredible grounds for continuation of detention: e.g. Ahmet Şık's induction date at the paper

Detention has been turned into torture in the operation to silence Cumhuriyet. Our paper’s Publishing Consultant and columnist Kadri Gürsel was released at the third hearing of the trial. The continued detention was ordered of our Editor-in-Chief Murat Sabuncu, our Executive Board Chair Akın Atalay, our reporter Ahmet Şık and our accounting employee Emre İper.
 
Detained on suspicion of guilt
Istanbul Serious Crime Court No 27 which is conducting the proceedings, instead of clearly setting out its grounds, premised its order on 100/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. “strong suspicion of guilt”.
 
100/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
“Article 100 – (1) Should there exist facts pointing to the existence of strong suspicion of guilt and grounds for detention, the detention of a suspect or defendant may be ordered. If the importance of the affair is not proportionate to the penalty that is expected to be handed down or the security measure, detention may not be ordered.”
 
With reference to this wording, the court pointed to the capacities that Akın Atalay and Murat Sabuncu exercised. Noting that attention had been given to their causal relatedness to the foundation deed that was referred to as the Cumhuriyet Foundation’s Constitution and their duties and responsibilities of oversight, it went on to state that a decision had been rendered for the continuation of detention pursuant to Article 100/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 
 “Induction date at the newspaper” grounds for strong suspicion of guilt
The court made the following assessment about Ahmet Şık in its interim decision: “His induction date at the newspaper, his connections with the other defendants in relation to his induction date and the nature of reports submitted to the newspaper” were adduced as evidence.


“Detention is necessary and proportionate”
Another comment contained in the interim decision refers to the inadequacy of conditional release measures as far as the defendants are concerned. The court ruled, “In view of the opinion that the measure of detention is necessary and proportionate when consideration is given in conjunction to Articles 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 6 and 10/2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and 28/2 of the Constitution, for the defendants’ detention status to continue.”
 
Another 36 days in detention despite expert testimony
The police, unable to find ByLock on the telephone of Emre İper, who has been in detention since 18 April 2017 charged with using ByLock, have stuffed the file full of his conversations on the Whatsapp program in violation of the secrecy of private life. A judicial IT expert had also testified as a witness at the previous hearing that İper was not a ByLock user.
 
Detained on grounds that could be established in one day
Further grounds in the order for İper to remain in detention, even though it could be established whether he was a ByLock user in one day, was that an application in this regard had been made to the police and it had not yet reached the court.
 
Fresh expert examination will be conducted
The court ruled at the end of the third hearing for a committee appointed from technical universities to be set up and examination to be conducted into the digital evidence relating to Emre İper’s telephone. The allegations that İper from time to time connected to ByLock while commuting to and from work on the municipal bus will be re-examined.