Lawyer Erdal: Everyone has their own judiciary

“The articles that appeared in the mainstream and nationalist press were shocking regarding how they view the deep state. For them, investigating the deep state and eliminating it were equal to eradicating the state's ‘immune system.' They also argued that the deep state could use extrajudicial methods,” she told Today's Zaman for Monday Talk.

In her study, she selected some critical court cases concerning the “deep state,” such as Susurluk, Şemdinli, Ergenekon and the murder of Hrant Dink, in addition to political party closure cases, such as those of the Democracy Party (DEP) and the Welfare Party (RP), because she believes they significantly hampered the democratization process in the country.

In order to reveal the media’s perception of justice and the judiciary concerning these cases, Erdal said she examined the coverage of five politically diverse newspapers: Hürriyet to represent the mainstream, Zaman to represent conservative views, Ortadoğu to represent nationalist views and Radikal and Taraf, which inform the public in unique ways.

The study covers the media’s representation of events between 1993 and June 2009, starting with the 1993 closure of the pro-Kurdish DEP.

After Erdal presented the results of her study at a press conference on March 24, she answered our questions regarding the complex relationship between the media and the judiciary.

You have extensive coverage in the study regarding the deep state and the cases related to it. Why?

Those cases are connected to the events that changed the destiny of the country. There have been several rights violations regarding people who were victims of extrajudicial killings, who were lost while in detention. There have been also rights violations at the time of semi-state of emergency. All of those were related to the deep state in the country. And the media couldn’t stay away from covering those issues.

You highlight the approaches of the press, the judiciary and the military with regard to the notion of the deep state and discussions around the events surrounding these cases. And what have you found?

A vast majority of the views expressed in the press cling to the idea that the state can exceed the limits of the rule of law when the state’s higher interests deem it necessary. Those segments of the press have also reacted against the association of the people and events under investigation with the deep state and judicial inquiry into these cases.

What was the most remarkable case you came across while examining all the news articles that you present examples from?

The articles that appeared in the mainstream and nationalist press were shocking regarding how they view the deep state. For them, investigating the deep state and eliminating it was equal to eliminating the state’s “immune system.” They also argued that the deep state could use extrajudicial methods. The Ortadoğu daily’s Ali Tayyar and Hürriyet’s Ertuğrul Özkök and Fatih Altaylı wrote against elimination of the deep state in a strikingly open manner between 1998 and 2002.

In your study, you indicate that the Zaman daily has pointed out the similarities between the Susurluk and Şemdinli incidents. Has that been consistent?

Yes, Zaman called Şemdinli “the second Susurluk.” In the period when the Susurluk incident and related developments were revealed, Zaman was not as clear as it has been during the period of the Şemdinli and Ergenekon investigations. Zaman supported the investigation of the Şemdinli incident, and it was behind the court case in the same way that it is behind the Ergenekon case.

There are hundreds of court cases against the Zaman daily’s reporters who write about developments related to the Ergenekon incident and the investigation into it.

Right. Those cases were opened mostly on grounds such as “violation of the secrecy of the investigation” and “influencing the judiciary.”

What does the support of some media organizations [the Hürriyet daily, representing the mainstream, and the Ortadoğu daily, representing the nationalist media] for the deep state tell us?

Their main characteristics are that they are pro-state and militaristic. They also give utmost importance to the statements coming from the General Staff. They are so sensitive to the declarations of the General Staff that they go as far as expressing a sigh of relief when there is one. This was quite obvious during the Şemdinli investigation process in the Hürriyet daily. There was an obvious expression of an expectation by the daily that the General Staff should put an end to that investigation because an untouchable commander was touched. And finally, when the declaration came, those newspapers openly expressed their relief.

After looking into all those cases and evaluating the perceptions in the media, you have presented a pessimistic view, but what do you think about the Ergenekon case? Do you think Turkish society will see it reach a just end?

I haven’t been very hopeful because we have seen that deep state investigations have not reached a just conclusion in the past. Every time the prime minister has a meeting with the chief of General Staff, we see that some of the members of the army who were arrested are released.

‘Concerns over right to fair trial emerge suddenly’

Another area that you cover in the approach of the press is the notion of fair trial. You indicated that the lack of a fair trial is common in judicial practice in Turkey, but some segments of the press seem to have started to discuss it only now, even though that serious issue was not of concern to them before. And you point out that the issue has been highlighted with regard to the Ergenekon case. Would you elaborate on this issue?

It is impossible not to ask why the issue of a fair trial has become so important today, despite the fact that it was not before. And we see that it is the mainstream media [represented by Hürriyet] which has that “sensitivity.” Regarding the right to a fair trial process, we see that the mainstream press’ evaluation of the Şemdinli case is that “it was too fast” after the guilty verdict by the 3rd High Criminal Court in Van was given. The reactions that were directed at the prosecutors are now directed at the judges. This issue was loudly raised by the Ortadoğu daily and Hürriyet. On the other hand, a columnist at the Zaman daily was critical of Özkök’s stance and wrote, “The ruling made the state’s newspaper’s chief uncomfortable.” However, after the case was sent to the military court and the defendants were released following the first hearing, there were no reactions by the same press organizations that were critical of the civilian court’s “fast” trial process.

Another issue is that while the Şemdinli case was seen to be too fast by those press organizations, the progress of the Ergenekon case has been evaluated as “too slow.” Some mainstream press writers were vehement in defending the right to a fair trial; one [Rahmi Turan] wrote that “no case has been delayed in the history of the judiciary except in extraordinary periods and dictatorships.” The conservative press, which supported the investigation, stressed that the delay in the preparation of the indictment was not unusual for the Turkish justice system and the criticisms in that regard were politically motivated.

Did any of the press organizations stand behind the Şemdinli prosecutor, who was disbarred as a result of the whole process?

None of them were completely against the punishment of the prosecutor, even though the conservative press, which was behind the Şemdinli investigation, defended the view that the punishment was not proportional to what the prosecutor did. Regarding the Şemdinli prosecutor, most of the media organizations made him pay the price for touching the untouchable. There is also a perception problem related to the crimes that are associated with the deep state and go unpunished -- just like in extrajudicial killings and torture. And the mainstream and nationalist press do not perceive this issue of impunity as a problem.

At the press conference, you mentioned some figures regarding the right to a fair trial in Turkey. Would you tell us more about them?

The mainstream press’ concern about fair trial processes is concentrated in the year 2008. According to the statistics from the judicial records, in 2008, case files, including the Ergenekon case, that were handled by the specially authorized high criminal courts remained in prosecutor’s offices for 636 days on average. This figure was 835 in 2007 and 946 days in 2006. Of course, even one day is important in a person’s life, and we value the freedom of the individual, but I wish the media could defend this right for all defendants in consideration of the principle of equality.

‘Trials lasting two to three years not uncommon in Turkey’

You also mentioned the number of days that case files related to extrajudicial killings remain in prosecutor’s offices.

That number is really amazing. According to figures from 2002, case files regarding extrajudicial killings remained in prosecutor’s offices for 10,733 days. This figure was 10,528 days in 2001.

You also looked into how the judiciary perceives the deep state. Would you summarize your findings?

The judiciary acts in a pro-state and militaristic way. It is also pro-status quo, and it values official ideology. Judicial processes do not go deep enough when investigating the deep state. The defendants in those cases are merely seen as members of “simple gangs” instead of abettors of terrorism. The judiciary also sees those cases independent of each other. We recently have seen those issues demonstrated in the Hrant Dink case, in which defendants have been accused of being involved in a “simple gang” and the cases of stone-throwing children who have been accused of terrorism. This is hypocrisy.

The debate on the impartiality of the judiciary was also examined in your study.

Another issue is the notion of the impartiality of the judiciary. There were some landmark incidents during the Susurluk and Ergenekon investigations which triggered debate on the issue. One was Mehmet Ağar’s [a former police chief and politician who is accused of establishing a criminal organization] visit to three judges of the Supreme Court of Appeals before the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the Susurluk case. When two out of those three judges supported Ağar’s case, a debate on the impartiality of the judiciary was sparked. In the process of the Ergenekon investigation, it was a recording of a phone call that was leaked to the press that started the debate. Telephone conversations between the wife of Gen. Şener Eruygur [accused of being a member of Ergenekon] and a doctor from GATA [the Gülhane Military Academy of Medicine] increased suspicions [that Ergenekon suspects might be using their connections at GATA to avoid trial and that the Ergenekon suspects felt some İstanbul courts were “on their side”].

What did the media organizations you examined have in common?

Differences between them disappeared when the issue was the closure case against the pro-Kurdish DEP. This demonstrates how the “domestic threat” issue connected with “separatism” influences the media. They never questioned the court’s closure decision; on the contrary, they found it legitimate. However, when the issue was the closure case against the RP, some newspapers questioned the legitimacy of the court.