HSYK, enough already!

Can you please take a look at the subject we have been discussing for a week now? Just as the judges and prosecutors' decrees approached completion, a list -- where and by whom it was prepared is unknown -- appears and is set in front of the justice minister. The HSYK members want the prosecutors and judges in the Ergenekon trial replaced. As if that isn't enough, they want to remove the prosecutors investigating a critical ongoing case in Diyarbakır. What's the reason? Nobody knows. What's the justification? As of yet there's no plausible justification. People on the street are asking the following: Could the HSYK be feeling it is necessary to make these reckless moves because it is under threat or pressure?

I must sadly say the HSYK members have set out on a path that outright casts a shadow of doubt over them. They have no right to be angry with anyone and the statement they issued to the tune of “we're being targeted” doesn't seem believable enough to patch up the wounds dealt to the public conscience because there is no legal justification for reassigning the aforementioned people. There is also no investigation going on into those people for whose reassignment some are working with all their might and soul to accomplish. On top of this, these jurists' terms of office have not expired. So why are you changing the posts of the people (as if exiling them) who are running one of the most important cases in Turkish legal history?

Some people interrogated in connection with the Ergenekon trial have been threatening the Ergenekon prosecutors and lawyers all along. The most striking tool they have used is the institution known as the HSYK. A magazine that is a mouthpiece for the Workers Party (İP) and the chief apologist for the Ergenekon gang virtually gives commands to the HSYK. But they're not the only ones shouting for the prosecutors to be removed from their posts. For example, the man who devised the 367 disaster, Sabih Kanadoğlu, is making statements that support Ergenekon and threaten the jurists leading the investigation. There is an association called the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV) -- though whether or not such an organization exists legally is also a subject of contention. As long as the individual at the helm of that association continues in their capacity as a prosecutor, he is virtually working as a lawyer in the Ergenekon trial. This person, who is still a practicing prosecutor and provides tactical support to the Ergenekon lawyers, went to Europe and made a statement there with Kanadoğlu. As reflected in newspapers, at one of these meetings things to the tune of “the fate of the Ergenekon prosecutors will be similar to that of the prosecutors on the Şemdinli case” were said. The HSYK fired and eventually disbarred the public prosecutor who had prepared the investigation and opened the case.

The institution frequently referenced by Ergenekon apologists is the HSYK. For this reason, the public eye is on the HSYK. Even while in this spotlight, the members of the HSYK are producing surprises with their lists, and virtually supporting the doubts over the HSYK as an institution. What else could be the meaning of the justice system taking so much of a beating?

If the HSYK had not done some of the things it did, this issue would not have caused such a big debate. As one can easily recall, the public heard about the HSYK after the Şemdinli incident. It was after that grave incident that everyone came to learn that a five-member panel could turn the life of a young prosecutor into a misery. When prosecutor Ferhat Sarıkaya's professional life was terminated by a decision of the five-member panel, a deep trauma hit the justice system. A young prosecutor could well have made a mistake, but the disproportionate punishment handed over by the HSYK was aimed at intimidating members of the judiciary. At least that was how the decision was perceived, and it was the HSYK itself which caused that perception by delivering a disproportionate punishment against Sarıkaya. It meant that the five people in charge of that institution could sign a decision that could terminate the professional life of any member of the judiciary any time they want. It was also the first time the government came to realize this fact. The justice minister of the time and his undersecretary were not expecting such a cruel decision and they had to be accomplice in this terrible mistake. Can the same mistake be made again? Impossible! The Ferhat Sarıkaya incident led to a deep regret and distrust in both the judiciary and the Justice Ministry. Ever since then, the HSYK has been under scrutiny. There has been countless criticism coming from within the judiciary. The society has been extremely sensitive. The HSYK members unfortunately failed to see all these facts; maybe they couldn't. They thought they could go on with business as usual. Unfortunately, they failed to see that the reaction growing within the society is damaging not only themselves, but also the sense of justice.

Was this catastrophic scene seen only in Şemdinli? No. There are many other such examples. For instance, head of the İstanbul 8th High Criminal Court Mustafa Akın was an important judge seeing the most critical cases in this country. He heard the cases about corruption in banks and he saw the conclusion of many cases. However, his position was changed by the HSYK when he was about to conclude some very important cases. Akın who retired in 2007, became a member of the Banking Supervision Board. One day Akın saw the HSYK head who changed his position meeting with a suspect in one of the bank corruption cases he was hearing and the public learnt about his suspicions. Since then, the HSYK has not made a single remark about why Akın's position was changed.

The HSYK's intervention into the Susurluk trial still hasn't been forgotten. Why was the 14th Heavy Penalties Court chief Sedat Karagül reassigned to another post and how was the trial's course changed? The Susurluk suspects even related on live broadcast what the changes made meant. When a Susurluk suspect went on the air talking about how switching a judge changed the course of the Susurluk trial entirely, did the HSYK members' hearts skip a beat?

The situation today is even more perilous. Newspapers have published photographs of HSYK members who have proposed the baseless reassignment of attorneys leading the Ergenekon and Kurdish Democratic Confederation (KCK) investigations along with some Ergenekon suspects. What about resignation? What about an impediment? What about a feasible explanation? The HSYK supposedly publishes a bulletin, but this information notice does not speak of those photographs or the meetings that took place in hotel rooms with coup plotters. If you can't explain why you were meeting Ergenekon members in hotels, how can the public trust you? And in addition to this they defy the government to reassign the people leading the Ergenekon investigation. After this point, nobody will be fooled by the HSYK's requests. People will ask: What right do you have to be the cause of so much doubt in the judicial system and the legal order? Isn't that shameful? What kind of excuse can you have for creating so much suspicion about jurists?