The prosecutor in the case of Tahir Elçi, a prominent Kurdish lawyer and expert in human rights assassinated in 2015, requested the acquittal of three police officers. Diyarbakır (Amed) Bar Association firmly reacted, declaring that “the Tahir Elçi assassination will not go unpunished.”
The prosecution’s assessment, represented by Prosecutor Mustafa Alper Buğra Horozoğlu, asserts the difficulty in determining the origin of the bullet that claimed Elçi’s life, deeming it “medically and physically impossible.”
Moreover, the prosecution highlights the absence of crucial evidence, including footage capturing the moment of Elçi’s shooting, and a “12-second gap” in surveillance recordings near the crime scene.
As legal proceedings continue, scheduled for the next hearing on 12 June, the case remains under intense scrutiny. Kurdish opposition and rights groups expressed fears of a possible cover-up, highlighting systemic issues of impunity in cases involving dissidents, particularly Kurds.
Key facts
The trial, which started about 4 years ago, continues at the Diyarbakır 10th High Criminal Court. The bullet casing in Elçi’s murder could not be found because the crime scene investigation was conducted 5 months later.
Elçi’s lawyers argue that evidence was insufficiently collected during the investigation phase and remind that no site inspection was conducted, requesting that some police officers and their superiors be heard by the court.
The lawyers also demand the examination of the surveillance footage from the Mardin Kebap House, where Elçi was shot.
The Forensic Medicine Institute’s report, which indicates that it cannot be determined from which weapon, at what angle, and how the fatal shot was fired, also argues that it is impossible to determine the direction of the shot.
Meanwhile, London based Forensic Architecture’s analysis of Tahir Elçi’s assassination raises significant questions, especially regarding the involvement of police officers. Through their detailed digital reconstruction and reliance on audio recordings and testimonies, suspicions of police culpability have been reinforced. The report, supported by Diyarbakır Bar Association’s evidence, provided crucial insights into the events leading to Elçi’s death. It also scrutinised the adequacy of medical assistance post-shooting. These findings challenged the officers’ actions and underscored the need for transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
Time line of events
15 October 2015: Tahir Elçi declared on pro-government Turkish TV channel CNN Türk’s “Tarafsız Bölge” (“Neutral Zone” or “No-man’s Land”) programme that the “PKK is not a terrorist organisation,” leading to a fine of 700,000 Turkish lira for the channel. Elçi was later detained in Diyarbakır and brought to Istanbul. The presenter, Ahmet Hakan, faced criticism from the public later on. It was claimed that his interrogative questioning during the program, in which he pressed Elçi to publicly label the PKK as a terrorist organisation, put a target sign on Tahir Elçi’s back and indirectly contributed to his assassination. Elçi stood by his refusal to make such a declaration, exercising his right as a citizen in a typically democratic country. Tragically, in Turkey, such acts often come at great personal risk, as evidenced by the fatal consequences for Elçi.
20 November 2015: Despite the prosecutor’s request for his arrest, Tahir Elçi was released on bail by the Bakırköy 2nd Heavy Penal Court.
28 November 2015: Tahir Elçi was assassinated during a press statement in front of the Four-Legged Minaret in Diyarbakır’s Sur district.
26 March 2020: Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office prepared the indictment related to the killing of Tahir Elçi.
3 April 2020: The 10th Heavy Penal Court of Diyarbakır accepted the indictment, which included three police officers and one other Kurdish civilian suspect.
15 June 2023: The court rejected the request to hear former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu as a witness in the trial concerning Tahir Elçi’s assassination. Davutoğlu had asserted that Elçi’s killing was not simply a random act of violence but rather a politically motivated assassination. By categorising Elçi’s death as a “political assassination,” Davutoğlu implied that there might have been underlying motives linked to Elçi’s activism and political views. Diyarbakır Bar Association questioned the court’s impartiality and criticised the refusal to hear Davutoğlu’s testimony.
