There has been widespread criticism both internationally and domestically in Turkey over the acquittal of three police officers in the murder case of Kurdish human rights lawyer Tahir Elçi.
A verdict was reached on 12 June in the 11th hearing of the high-profile murder case of the Kurdish human rights lawyer, as the court room erupted in outrage at the acquittal.
Elçi, former president of the Diyarbakır (Amed) Bar Association, was shot in the head near the historical Four-legged Minaret in the Sur district of the city on 28 November 2015, in what is widely considered to be an assassination.
“Almost nine years after Tahir Elçi was killed in broad daylight, today’s verdict is a huge blow to his family and the wider human rights community in Türkiye,” Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Europe, Dinushika Dissanayake said.
“It is a bitter irony that Tahir Elçi’s life was cut short by the very violence he was campaigning to end and that justice for his killing has been side-stepped as a result of the endemic impunity that he dedicated his life to eradicate,” Dissanayake said, adding, “The failure of the authorities to hold those responsible for his killing to account is a thorn in the heart of his loved ones and a stain on the justice system in Türkiye.”
Legal organisations respond
Speaking at the hearing, current Diyarbakır Bar Association President Nahit Eren said that an effective investigation was not carried out and emphasised that the court rejected all their demands. “We all know who or by whom this murder was committed,” Eren said.
Stating that the case was political in nature, and reiterating the same sentiment of then-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Eren said, “We could not listen to the Prime Minister who said these words. This process, which started with a judicial decision, will be closed with a judicial decision. The court did not show courage to shed light on the case. We do not believe that a fair judgement will come out of this court.”
Highlighting the fact that the defendants did not attend the courtroom for any of the 11 hearings, Erinç Sağkan, President of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, stated that the right to cross-examine the defendants in such a critical case was taken away from them and said, “I know your decision. Everyone knows your decision. The verdict is already clear. I do not have any request from you.”
Pro-Kurdish parties highlight injustice
Pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Spokesperson Ayşegül Doğan attended the hearing along with other DEM Party MPs and Democratic Regions Party (DBP) Co-chair Keskin Bayındır. Making a speech at the Four-legged Minaret where Elçi was killed, Doğan said, “As a result of an investigation that was barely opened and a prosecution that was barely carried out, a decision was made today. Why do I say ‘barely’? Because we are actually talking about a situation where the perpetrator is known.”
Doğan clarified that ‘unknown perpetrator’ is always written with quotation marks in cases such as these, as “we know that these are done with political decisions”.
Concluding her speech, Doğan said, “We know that in order not to surrender to a darkness even darker than the darkness of impunity policies in murders with known perpetrators such as the murder of Tahir Elçi, we must grow our struggle in politics to break this darkness together.” She called on the wider community, stating, “We must grow it so that good can win against this evil. We must grow this so that light can win against this darkness.”
Mahsum Batı, President of the Tahir Elçi Foundation also spoke at the Diyarbakır gathering. Calling for justice, he said, “Tahir Elçi was shot under the Four-Legged Minaret. Today, Tahir Elçi was shot once again by the Diyarbakır 10th High Criminal Court. The perpetrators have been left unpunished. We know and recognise the perpetrators. We say here once again that we will not stop our struggle until the perpetrators and the shadowy forces behind them are exposed and sentenced to the punishments they deserve.”
Throughout the trial, concerns over the impartiality and transparency of the judicial process had been raised by legal experts and civil society representatives alike, highlighting the broader implications of the case beyond the courtroom.
