Ertosun had great difficulty as he tried to explain his relationship with Engin Aydın, a suspect who is standing trial in the Ergenekon terrorist organization case. He said he worked with Aydın when they were advisors at a ministry and that their friendship dated back to those days. “I showed loyalty towards him in line with the tendencies of Turkish society,” Ertosun remarked. His first confession was of “loyalty toward a friend who is having trouble.” Even though he tried to deny that he met with Aydın to help him with the case, it was apparent from his own remarks that his meeting with Aydın was due to Aydın's “troubles.” What we understand from “loyalty” is “Don't worry; we are on your side.” This message for Aydın is permissible from all of his friends, except those who are senior jurists.
Ertosun said his meeting with Aydın was out in the open, before all eyes. Maybe this is the real problem, because a message of support is more meaningful when it is more visible. Ertosun's greatest confession, however, comes with the following sentence, “When Aydın's case is forwarded to the Supreme Court of Appeals, I will not deal with it if I am still in office then.” HSYK member Ertosun confesses that he may not attend the sessions at the Supreme Court of Appeals. So how shall we evaluate his attendance at the recent HSYK sessions? Ertosun underlined that he and Aydın were accompanied during their meeting by a chief prosecutor of the Council of State. So, will that chief prosecutor have a say when Aydın's case is forwarded to the council on appeal?
While he was talking about how he was acquitted of allegations directed towards him in the past, he indeed spoke only of a suit for compensation he won against Can Dündar. He said the relevant courts ruled against the necessity of an investigation into the killing of Mustafa Duyar, the suspected murderer of Özdemir Sabancı; the incidents at the prison in Uşak; and the Back to Life operations. Inspectors carried out their inquiries and decided that there was no need for an investigation in all of these incidents. Ertosun did not forget to indicate that he spoke in favor of Dündar during the inquiries. He also said Duyar and his murderer were placed in the prison before his appointment as a director general there. However, he did not touch upon the fact that the Nuriş gang, which had ordered the killing of Duyar, was sent to the prison after Ertosun's arrival there. Yes, the murderer was there before Ertosun, but the man who ordered the murder was sent to the prison on Feb. 15, 1999.
Ertosun said the Justice Ministry took the requisite steps regarding the complaints directed towards him, adding that the authority lay in the hands of the ministry. As he listed the mistakes he claims have been made by prosecutors and judges conducting the Ergenekon probe, he used the term “initiative of democratization.” Referring to the various initiatives taking place today, he also said, “Ours is a satisfactory initiative.” The question which drove Ertosun into the corner was: “The practices you are talking about have been in implementation for several years. Did you realize that they were unlawful when they were applied to a group of suspects among who are your friends?” Ertosun claimed that it was not his fault that the HSYK did not bring it to the agenda. So can Ertosun, who has been serving in the judiciary for decades, explain on what grounds he offered his personal advice?
