People's sense of justice is thus permanently damaged.But sometimes, the judicial mechanism works at the speed of light. Courts make politicized decisions one after the other in a way completely contravening universal legal principles. And sometimes, when the perpetrator is too powerful to be handled, the person who exposed his crime may well end up as the party that is punished. The Şemdinli case, the 367 case and the recent closure case are examples of this. Although the courts work quickly in such cases, justice still cannot be done. They continually inflict wounds on the people's sense of justice, to say nothing of satisfying it.
A similar court ruling disregarding justice was handed down last week. You must have read about it: Alper Görmüş -- editor-in-chief of the Nokta newsweekly, which was closed down after publishing diaries containing information on a coup planned for 2004 by some military commanders -- was acquitted in the case in which he was being tried on charges of "slandering and insulting" retired Commander of the Turkish Naval Forces Adm. Özden Örnek, the diaries' owner. At first glance, you might take this to be a pleasing verdict in the name of justice; however, that's simply not the case. Let me explain the reason why…
The judge concluded that "the subject of this case is not a coup [attempt], but claims of slander and insult," thereby deciding on acquittal for Görmüş and doing his utmost to avoid questioning whether the diaries really belonged to Örnek. Whereas, based on a very reasonable inference, he could have easily thought that making a decision that there was no slander or insult involved was tantamount to confirming the existence of the coup plans and diaries, in which case in top-ranking military posts involved in the "Sarıkız," and "Ayışığı" coup plans -- described in great detail in the diaries in question -- would have to be tried.
So is this the course the court followed? No way; unlikely… The court did acquit Görmüş but did not allow for the generals who plotted the coups to be tried. You are aware of this fundamental contradiction, aren't you?
Let's go back a little further and look at how the trial process operated in the case of Görmüş. As you may recall, Örnek filed a legal complaint against him, saying that the diaries published by Nokta did not belong to him. That's how the lawsuit was opened against Görmüş. However it was known that the police, in their the criminal investigation, prepared a report saying that a CD that included the diaries had been burned on Örnek's computer -- and forwarded this report to the İstanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office. However the Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, where Görmüş's case was being heard, apparently did not take the trouble to demand the relevant report from the police. What can we say; Örnek's legal defense, saying, "The CD in question may have been fabricated, reproduced or presented after being changed; therefore, it doesn't constitute evidence," must have convinced the judge thoroughly!
Even though Görmüş's lawyers demanded that their client be granted the right to prove the authenticity of the CD and that the İstanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office ask for the police report, and even though the case prosecutor approved the demand, having concluded that the CD was an important piece of evidence, the judge rejected all these demands, refusing to provide even a single justification as to why he did so.
Now, who can claim that the sense of justice of the millions who closely followed the case as well as that of Alper Görmüş -- who said: "Our news article was true. I will defend this till the end of my life. The court did not grant me the right to prove the authenticity of my evidence. There is nothing left that we can do unless other prosecutors step up and take the necessary steps" -- has not been shaken?
Let's just go over how the judicial mechanism operates in Turkey: A legal complaint was filed against Görmüş, who had published the diaries. A lawsuit was immediately filed against him. The case was heard and Görmüş was acquitted. As far as I know, various people and institutions filed a number of legal complaints against the force commanders of the time, including Şener Eruygur, the retired commander of the Gendarmerie, accusing them of plotting military coups. However not one single prosecutor has yet taken the trouble to pursue these claims and file a lawsuit.
Shouldn't these retired generals, accused of having drawn up plans for a coup to disrupt democracy and suspend the Constitution, have been taken to court and tried and then acquitted if they really had not planned anything like that, as they claim? In a system of law based on justice, this would be the normal course of things. Even the commanders whose names are associated with coup plans would themselves demand to be tried and cleared of all charges in order to preserve their honor and dignity.
But as is clearly seen, things are not run that way in Turkey. Turkish prosecutors, who are normally supposed to be warriors of justice, turn a blind eye even to legal complaints filed by the people, let alone taking action against coup planners on their own. How can such a justice and system of law exist?
