Prosecutors demanded a 10-year prison sentence for each of the defendants, who were tried in different courts, on charges of carrying a banner during an illegal protest. But the two courts arrived at different interpretations of “committing crime on behalf of a terrorist organization,” therefore making contradictory rulings. The Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court sentenced Selahattin Erden to six years in prison for committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist group, while the Diyarbakır 6th High Criminal Court acquitted Hayrettin Teğin of the same crime -- and the two had the same lawyer, attorney Şakir Demir.
Both men had participated in a Sept. 6, 2009 protest in the Eruh district of Siirt province, holding on to different ends of a banner that read “Either free leadership and a free identity or resistance until the very end and revenge.” Separate indictments were prepared for Erden and Teğin. In Teğin’s trial, the court found him not guilty of committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist organization, instead sentencing him to 10 months in prison for a lesser crime -- disseminating propaganda for a terrorist organization. He was released due to the time he has already spent in prison.
Erden, however, was sentenced to seven years, six months in prison for committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist organization, which was reduced to six years, three months for good behavior during the trial; 10 months were added for the crime of disseminating propaganda for the terrorist group.
Attorney Demir criticized the outcomes, saying: “The same event, the same banner, but different rulings. The court has employed very broad discretion here. … Opinion should have no place in criminal law; this contradicts its fundamental principles. We’re going to appeal … [the decision in Erden’s case] is against the right to equality.”
