Site icon Turkish Minute

Turkish judge asks minors why they studied together in surreal terror trial

Turkish Minute

Bünyamin Tekin

A trial in İstanbul that has attracted international attention began on Monday, with Turkish minors accused of terrorism for engaging in everyday activities such as studying with peers, socializing and living together in student housing.

The prosecution, part of a broader crackdown on alleged followers of the Gülen movement, has drawn widespread criticism for its lack of concrete evidence, resulting in legal experts calling the case a “travesty of justice.”

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been targeting followers of the Gülen movement, inspired by Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, since the corruption investigations of December 17-25, 2013, which implicated then-prime minister Erdoğan, his family members and his inner circle.

Dismissing the investigations as a Gülenist coup and conspiracy against his government, Erdoğan designated the movement as a terrorist organization and began to target its members. He intensified the crackdown on the movement following an abortive putsch that he accused Gülen of masterminding. Gülen and the movement strongly deny involvement in the coup attempt or any terrorist activity.

Routine activities framed as terrorism

In an increasingly surreal courtroom setting, the judge repeatedly questioned the defendants, asking why they studied together and attended routine social gatherings, casting these normal activities as evidence of terrorism.

The trial, taking place at the İstanbul 24th High Criminal Court, involves 41 defendants, 14 of whom are high school students aged between 13 and 17. They were arrested in a May 7 police raid on allegations of links to the Gülen movement. Critics, however, argue that the government’s pursuit of alleged Gülenists is politically motivated and that these minors are victims of a massive overreach.

The judge’s questions focused on the minors’ social interactions, including why they attended study groups, why they rented apartments with peers and why they went to the movies together.

“Why did your daughter go to study with her friends?” one mother was asked, as if these ordinary activities were somehow indicative of illicit activity.

Lale Demirkazan, a defense lawyer representing some of the girls and their mothers, described the bizarre nature of the proceedings.

“The judge is tense, and there’s pressure on him,” Demirkazan told Turkish Minute. “He’s following a script. The indictment is empty, and I think even the judge knows it.”

Guilt by association taken to the extreme

The minors are accused of terrorism not only because of their social interactions but also due to their alleged links to the Gülen movement through their families. Many of the defendants’ parents were previously dismissed from public service by decree laws during a post-coup crackdown after an abortive putsch in July 2016, or had been imprisoned and later released.

In this case, the mere act of socializing with friends whose families had connections to the Gülen movement is being treated as evidence of “reorganizing” the group’s activities in Turkey. The concept of “guilt by association” is taken to an extreme, with both the minors and their families accused of terrorism simply for maintaining ties with each other.

The trial has been marred by significant legal and procedural irregularities. Legal experts outline several violations in the investigation process. The police took the minors’ statements instead of involving a child prosecutor, which is required by law.

Further compounding the issue, physical surveillance and technical monitoring of the girls were conducted unlawfully, with the police relying on fabricated evidence to support the charges. One of the accusations involved a minor handing a bag to a friend, with the police speculating that the bag might have contained money — though no evidence was provided to support this claim.

“They’re treating assumptions as facts, even though there’s no concrete evidence,” Demirkazan said. “It’s all based on speculation and the ‘feelings’ of the police. This case is a legal absurdity.”

A large portion of the prosecution’s case revolves around the defendants’ use of communication platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram, which the indictment frames as tools for covert operations. The use of these popular apps, employed by millions worldwide for everyday communication, has been labeled as indicative of illicit organizational activity by the prosecution.

The indictment also frames the defendants’ student housing arrangements as “operative cells” where they allegedly recruited new members to the Gülen movement. However, no evidence of criminal activity was found in these homes — only typical student belongings like textbooks and laptops.

“What they’re accusing these girls of is simply living together and studying,” said Demirkazan. “They’ve branded this as terrorism without a shred of concrete evidence.”

The notion that organizing study groups or engaging in social outings like trips to the mall or bowling could be part of a terrorist recruitment effort has been ridiculed by human rights advocates.

“It’s absurd to suggest that these young women, who are simply students, are engaged in anything resembling terrorism,” Demirkazan added.

In another major violation of due process, phone tapping and surveillance were conducted unlawfully in the case. According to the Turkish law on criminal procedures, wiretaps can only be authorized if there is strong suspicion based on concrete evidence of a crime, and only as a last resort. However, in this case, the wiretaps were based on unverified intelligence, without any corroborating evidence.

The case has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations and legal experts. Many see this trial as part of a broader trend in Turkey, where the judicial system has been weaponized against political opponents of the government.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has time and again found that Turkey violated its citizens’ rights with its misuse of anti-terror laws, particularly Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code, which criminalizes membership in a terrorist organization. The vague and overly broad application of this law has led to thousands of unjust arrests as well as this trial of minors.

Demirkazan explained that the trial would proceed over the course of five days. The first two days will focus on the defense statements of the 41 defendants, including the 14 minors. On the third day, witnesses will be called to testify, although Demirkazan indicated that their testimony would likely offer little substantial evidence. On the fourth day, the defense lawyers will present their arguments, a task that Demirkazan expressed concern about given the time constraints. Finally, on the fifth day, the court will review the pretrial detention status of the defendants and make interim decisions, including whether to call additional witnesses or continue detention.

The human impact of the trial is severe, especially for the minors involved. Many of the girls have allegedly been subjected to psychological and physical abuse while in custody.

In addition to the thousands who were jailed, scores of other Gülen movement followers had to flee Turkey to avoid the government crackdown.

Since the coup attempt, a total of 705,172 people have been investigated on terrorism or coup-related charges due to their alleged links to the movement. There are currently 13,251 people in prison who are in pre-trial detention or convicted of terrorism in Gülen-linked trials.

Between June 2023 and June 2024, Turkish authorities carried out a total of 5,543 police operations and arrested 1,595 people linked to the movement.

The case against these minors is part of a larger political crackdown aimed at eliminating any perceived affiliation with the Gülen movement.

The international community has largely rejected Turkey’s claims that the Gülen movement is a terrorist organization, with many viewing the crackdown as politically motivated. The charges brought against these young women, based on flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence, only serve to bolster this view.

Exit mobile version