Col. Dursun Çiçek, whose signature appears on a military document titled the Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism, which details a plan to undermine the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), was arrested for the first time in the investigation into coup plotting officers in the military on July 18, but was released the next day on the grounds that the original copy of the action plan was not available.
He was arrested again last week when prosecutors conducting the Ergenekon investigation obtained the original copy of the document with Çiçek’s wet signature. However, he was released after being briefly detained, with the İstanbul 9th High Criminal Court citing the reason for its decision as “the suspect having no possibility of obscuring evidence and having a permanent address where he can be found,” under Article 100 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (CMK). However, the same article -- which allows for the release of individuals if they are unable to obscure evidence and have a permanent residence where they can easily be found -- also states in its second paragraph that these reasons alone are not sufficient for the release of individuals in crimes against the constitutional order.
Taylan Tanay, a lawyer who heads the İstanbul branch of the Contemporary Jurists’ Association (ÇHD), said: “This has nothing to do with law anymore. For lawyers who deal with the CMK, like me, this decision came as a shock. In the CMK [Article] 100/3, when it lists the reasons for arrests, the article automatically takes it as a fact that there is the possibility that the suspect will escape. It is very strange that the court ruled there is no reason to believe that he might escape.” Tanay said he had never heard such a decision before.
The court’s release ruling also raises questions about the court’s integrity, according to retired military judge Faik Tarımcıoğlu. “This decision shows the catastrophic situation the law is in Turkey. I wasn’t really surprised by Çiçek’s release, but what we have here is a biased view about the core substance of the case. Even if the first three articles of the release ruling are listed as procedural reasons, the fourth is about the substance of the case, which is completely unnecessary. When the court does that, it is violating the principle that a court should not declare any views on a case before the case is heard. Judges that make such decisions without having a full grasp of the case and all the files in the case cause questions to arise.”
Lawyer Hakan Tunçkol, who specializes in criminal law, said the decision to release Çiçek was not a good one because there could be more evidence somewhere else. “It doesn’t make sense to say there is no possibility that the suspect will obscure evidence because such things have happened before and they can happen now.”
