This is the second blunder from Mr. Gerçeker. Previously, while referring to amendments that allowed military personnel to be tried in civilian courts that were being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, he had said: "This is agreed upon by all legal experts. No one can say there are no irregularities under Article 45 of the Constitution." Despite the fact that Article 138 of the Constitution prohibits making statements even in Parliament about an ongoing case, the head of the Supreme Court of Appeals breached the most fundamental principle of law.Since the e-memorandum of April 27, some figures from the judiciary have achieved celebrity fame. Can a member of the judiciary claim to speak in the name of law, but talk about his evil deeds? What legal expert can defend the 367 move -- a case wherein a prosecutor asserted that a quorum of 367 deputies was required to elect the president -- in the presidential election process? Going a little back in time, can members of the judiciary who were briefed by the General Staff after being carried to the headquarters aboard officially allocated buses during the Feb. 28 process -- a period involving a postmodern coup that took place in 1997 -- show photos of themselves giving generals a standing ovation to their grandsons or granddaughters? And the bitterest of all, can the shame of the decision the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) issued about the prosecutor of the Şemdinli case, Ferhat Sarıkaya, who was disbarred, be forgotten? Will those who debarred Sarıkaya, who investigated the Şemdinli incident and who has been found to be increasingly right in the framework of the Ergenekon trial, be able to defend the decision to prohibit one of their colleagues from even working as a lawyer? What sort of partisanship is it that led the same board to attempt to displace judges and prosecutors in the Ergenekon trial and prosecutors investigating murders committed by JİTEM -- a clandestine and illegal intelligence organization formed within the gendarmerie force that is the alleged perpetrator of hundreds of unsolved murders -- in the Southeast?
The biggest problem in Turkey is the loss of confidence in constitutional institutions. An image of the judiciary as a proponent of military guardianship damages the judiciary and creates suspicions about the impartiality of the judiciary in any country. If the judiciary gives the image of becoming a part of the hierarchical system of the military bureaucracy, this means the loss of the common wisdom of the state. The judiciary is not a tool of domination for the ruling elites who seek to oppress the people. It is never a watchdog, armor, a buffer or a security valve of the status quo, i.e., those who want to keep the national will always under control.
The picture is getting clearer in the Ergenekon trial. Things are getting harder for those who tended to say: "The official ideology cannot be abandoned. This country is our responsibility. You go away. Do not tamper with the functioning of the system. The interests of the state cannot be waived in the face of individual rights and freedoms. A strong state with repressed citizens, more democracy is not for us." Moves toward democratization show them as ashamed, distressed, concerned and worried under the spotlight focused on them. They are running out of justifications for their plots. They are like a wrestler who looks around in disbelief after being beaten in a match and trying to act as if nothing has happened.
We must introduce universal standards to the judiciary, the legal system and to our democracy. When you integrate with the developed world in the field of soccer, basketball and civil society education movements, it is not acceptable to be rebuked or penalized by the judiciary.
What am I trying to say? For 22 years, 80 percent of decisions our courts issued on about 2,000 cases have been overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. The Turkish judiciary is performing poorly. Turkey has had to pay fines as a result. In other words, Turkey has been found guilty in connection with many of its court decisions, ones that were reviewed by the country's top courts.
Thus, a judiciary that seeks to function in a military fashion is a source of shame for true jurists in the country.
