An Ankara court has acquitted 18 defendants, including Mehmet Ağar, former interior minister, İbrahim Şahin, former special operations chief, and Korkut Eken, a retired intelligence officer, in a case involving 19 unsolved political murders from the 1990s. The case, which has been closely watched for its implications for human rights and justice in Turkey, recently ended with a unanimous verdict, except for one dissenting judge.
Dissenting judge issues lengthy rebuttal
Judge Ayhan Altun issued a lengthy 160-page dissenting opinion, emphasising the importance of the case and its historical context, including references to the infamous Susurluk scandal, which exposed deep ties between the state, the mafia and nationalist militants in the 1990s. Altun’s dissent highlighted systemic repression of the Kurdish cause and the state’s controversial tactics in dealing with the Kurdish movement during this period.
Background and details of the verdict
The Ankara 1st High Criminal Court originally acquitted the suspects, but the decision was overturned on appeal. After a retrial, the lower court again acquitted the suspects, which was upheld on appeal by the Ankara Regional Court. The court ruled that although some of the murders, notably those of Behçet Cantürk and Abdülmecit Baskın, were time-barred, the acquittals in the remaining cases were justified.
Highlights of dissenting opinion
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Altun criticised the acquittal, drawing parallels with the Susurluk scandal and highlighting the dominance of armed solutions to the Kurdish question in the 1990s. He argued that there was enough evidence to show that some of the defendants had organised to support illegal executions of Kurdish citizens in Turkey under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’.
Altun also addressed the issue of the statute of limitations, stating that legal technicalities should not overshadow the moral and legal responsibility to address state-sponsored political killings.
Implications of statute of limitations
The dissenting opinion also raised concern over the moral implications of applying the statute of limitations to political killings, suggesting that the judiciary has the potential to interpret laws in a way that could prevent such limitations from undermining justice in cases of state-involved crimes.
The verdict closes a chapter on one of Turkey’s most controversial periods, leaving the public with mixed feelings about accountability and the long shadow of the 1990s over Turkish politics and society.
The detailed and legally sound dissenting opinion will be a key document as the case moves to the Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay).
