12 Nisan 2014 Cumartesi

How was the ‘Right to a Fair Trial’ violated in the trial on alleged match-fixing?

What have we, the supporters of Fenerbahçe, been saying for the past three years? The match-fixing is a lie, that this is a political operation and a joint product of the coalition founded by ‘beneficiaries.’

These are the days where the execution of the ruling of the Supreme Court  is being expected. The same days when our appeal is waiting at the Constitutional Court. For three years we have been crying out. You deceived the law for your politics and your interests. In all levels of justice, you ‘match-fixed’ as eyes looked on and testified. Your slander has no evidence, but the acts of unlawfulness you committed are well-attested. Our march for justice - if necessary - will continue until the end and will gain our right to a fair trial.

I will not write at length. I will not talk in prose. I will not come to find such language as “shape,” “fish” or “prayer” as suspect while one is convinced of the match-fixing allegations by pulling away from “farm hand” or “worker” words for the principal of the job. Because this is the slime which you know as the trial. The basis of this trial is a cheap script where public officials who take bribes accuse officials who don’t with accepting bribes on account of the fact that they have threatened the *established order.*

Because of this, I have put in order just ten striking examples of the articles of the constitution disregarded on and after the 3rd of July, and the *hundreds* of violations of the right to a fair trial carried out during the trial.

The articles of the constitution which the victims of the Specially Authorized Court (ÖYM) requested from Constitutional Court for their defence:

Article 9: Jurisdiction is used on behalf of the Turkish Nation by independent courts.

Article 36 - Right to Legal Remedies: Everyone has the right of litigation either as plaintiff or defendant and the right to a fair trial before the courts through legitimate means and procedures.

Article 38 - Principles relating to offences and penalties: Findings obtained through illegal methods shall not be considered evidence.

Article 40 - Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms: - Everyone whose constitutional rights and freedoms have been violated has the right to request prompt access to the competent authorities.

In brief, what does the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey say? Courts will be independent, trials will be fair, evidence will be formal. If not, so to say if these rights are violated, a citizen has the right to apply for a *fair* retrial. Today, what we expect from the Constitutional Court is this.

Ten examples of evidence that fair trial was violated in the trial of alledged match-fixing:

1- Aziz Yıldırım was listened in to through illegal means in a manner which went against the law, and these recordings were accepted as evidence by all bodies including the supreme court despite the ruling of the Constitutional Court. This issue alone is proof that the trial in its entirety was unlawful. The event took place in this manner: The discussions of Aziz Yıldırım with Mahmut Özgener dated the 7th, 8th, 10th and 13th of February 2011 were recorded. However the decision to record these was made on the 17th of February 2011. When the decision to record the discussions was taken the tapes had not been transcribed. The date the tapes were transcribed was the 13th of April 2011. As so, when the dossier came in front of the judge, there was no tape. So for what reason did the request for surveillance come in front of the judge? Through a police report dated the 16th February 2011. Signed by police chief Nazmi Ardıç, whose name came to prominence after the 17th of December operation on the grounds that he had served the parallel construct inside the police department.

Aziz Yıldırım, together with Mahmut Özgener and Oğuz Sarvan were recorded over claims relating to an illegal organization, however the two names beside Yıldırım eluded a trial. The aim is very very clear.

2- Another example on the unlawful surveillance decision which was not made to be based on law is the clear contradiction with this to article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Page 21 of the accusation is the justification to listen in to Mecnun Odyakmaz. It is a 100% violation of the law and fabrication of intent. A precaution had been carried out under the foresight that a person was going to commit a crime in the future. [Source 1: http://i.imgur.com/n0OETd0.jpg Source 2:  http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=5720]

3- One of the people in the investigation who gave the decisions for surveillance, for arrest and detention, and finally gave the court rulings is the same judge. This clearly opposes article 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4- In the investigation, the first task was the application for the procedure to obtain unusual evidence. When the case dossier was examined, the impression was given that one had applied for unusual precautions by evoking articles 135 and 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite them not comprising of legal requirements. In the investigation which was commenced on the 1st of December 2010, it is seen that no usual procedures for the collecting of evidence were applied for, and that extraordinary means were directly applied for. [Sources: http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=5725]

5- The need for the principle of a fair trial cannot be shown as being suspect without a suspect court making a decision for arrest. Moreover, even the ruling for detention is not demonstration of guilt. Furthermore, they cannot be found in opinions or statements which will affect the trial on the investigation on law-enforcement officers. However, police overstepped their duty in this dossier and had declared their opinions and views prior in advance concerning the limitation of peoples’ liberty. The announcement of the İstanbul Police Department that “We established cases of match-fixing in 19 matches” and the showing of the address of Aziz Yıldırım as outwork are the two most striking examples of this.

6- The Supreme Court of Appeals prosecutor's office did not share the letter of notification with the defendants or their proxies despite publishing this letter of notification and presenting this as a base in the ruling in countenance to the legal consideration on some defendants. This case is a violation of a fair trial according to article 297/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against this violation, it would have been necessary for the Supreme Court 5th Punishment Bureau to demand the removal of this shortcoming. On its own, even this is a violation against a fair trial which will necessitate the giving of the right to a fair retrial. [Source 1: http://i.imgur.com/KRn4Xlk.jpg Source 2: http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/mevzuat.php?mid=6153]

7- While it was necessary for an application to be made on statements in the presence of the court relying on meetings in the telephone surveillance recordings numbered 2703 belonging to Mahmut Özgener and Şenes Erzik related to the stealing of managerial exam questions, accepted after the investigation was deliberately combined, this did not occur. In the tape whose number was mentioned, Mahmut Özgener told Şenes Erzik that he had found the person who had leaked the questions. However such significant information and persons were merely missed by the court where the defendants of the crime and defence council sat. [Source: http://i.imgur.com/W5r8qVh.jpg]

8- An application for witness statements was not made not during the hearing based on the 2488-numbered telephone surveillance recording of the talk between Lütfi Arıboğan and Levent Kızıl on the football representatives exam but by opening private hearings against these people and in fact by avoiding the defendants and their defence council. Yet the bringing out of a situation both for and against by answers Lütfi Arıboğan will give to the questions to be asked by the people who were tried and their defence council for reason that there is information on the events discussed in the trial will become the point for discussion. [Source: http://i.imgur.com/KCzSzcO.jpg]

9- In an event which came in front of the judicial authority, it must first of all be clear during the investigation as to whether or not a person is a defendant and whether or not one applied for information. However this necessity was in the trial on alleged match-fixing found a place inside the political and beneficiary order. For example, the telephone conversations of İstanbul BB Sports Club chairman Göksel Gümüşdağ, on which no action was taken up until the 18th of November 2011 in relation to this investigation dossier, were after this date - which event had taken place - recorded on tape. [The allegation here is this: The allies of the 3rd of July operation clashed over the issue of the modification of law number 6222. The side which said “We had not discussed it like this” is threatening their ally by putting their relations on the criminal charges. After two years, the two sides are conceding that they have separated over the question of modifying law number 6222.]

10- The result of illegal evidence being used in the trial is the issue of articles 13, 22, 36, and 38/6 of the Constitution together with articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights being violated.

In summary, jurisdiction was manipulated in five stages:

1.     Operation Game-fix: The dossier being taken from Giresun to İstanbul.
2.     Investigation Game-fix: The illegal recording of Aziz Yıldırım and a large number of trial victimsç
3.     Prosecution Game-fix: The expectation from law number 6222, and the listening in over match-fixing claims despite it not being legal.
4.     Trial Game-fix: The lack of collection of evidence. The secret monitoring of witnesses. The lack of listening to the testimony of witnesses for the defence.
5.     Legal Game-fix: The Supreme Court stage. The acceptance of illegal recordings alone as evidence despite the ruling of the Constitutional Court. The tying of the dossiers of 92 defendants to the fairly haste ruling in just 26 work days. The Supreme Court’s decision being a copy of the Special Authorized Court’s justified decision.

All of what has been written above is just a small summary of the unjust treatment which has been voiced numerous times over the last three years. Just ten chosen from the many hundreds of examples.

The unlawful hearings against which all defendants and/or those convicted have protested against repeatedly have after the 17th of December 2013 been voiced by almost all senior state officials and have unfolded in incontestable opposition to articles 9, 36, 38, and 40 of the Constitution.

On the 21st February 2014, the official de facto closing of the Specially Authorized Courts which had overseen the trial on alleged match-fixing was accepted in parliament due to the illegalities coming out in rulings they gave, and new regulations came to the fore. With the new regulations, it was once again stated in a more clear manner that telephone recordings could not be used as evidence alone, and in fact that the defendants of the 17th of December Operation were released on account of this principal.

Furthermore, the aces of the trial on alleged match-fixing, police chief Nazmi Ardıç, Prosecutor Mehmet Berk, Prosecutor Zekeriya Öz, and Judge Mehmet Ekinci, were stripped of rank and assigned to different positions to due to the unlawful operations they directed through the Specially Authorized Courts.

Think about such a scenario; a wooden horse of Troy which infiltrated the Turkish Independent Judiciary is bringing about a series of rulings and results, and following that, the decisions taken by this organism which has been disclosed and liquidated and their components are continuing to create unjust treatment.

Neither the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, nor universal law or the conscience of the public will accept this.

The Turkish Independent Judiciary must clean off the dark stain it has on it, and must end the 3rd of July theatre. The stage must be that of independent Turkish courts where the fair trials will take place.

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder