Ergenekon suspects are trying to obstruct justice

Supporters of Ergenekon trial suspects, who include many former and current military members, have been trying to create the impression that the trial is unfair and are insisting that the court refuses to hear witnesses in favor of the suspects.

 

A similar row over “hearing witnesses” emerged during the Sledgehammer coup d'état attempt trial. Most recently, on Feb. 18, in the 577th session of the trial, a request from former Chief of General Staff İlker Başbuğ, currently a suspect in the trial, to have former Chief of General Staff Işık Koşaner and former force commanders testify in his favor was rejected by the court. In the courtroom, lawyers for the suspects were audibly saying in conversations among themselves that the demands to hear the witnesses they wanted to call would be rejected. Why would one file a request despite knowing that it will certainly be turned down? It is now apparent that these requests are being filed to create distrust in the court and the entire trial process.

To get a better grasp of this, one should look at a previous decision of the court. The İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court on Jan. 11 made an important statement regarding the point the trial has reached. The panel of judges said the suspects and lawyers up until that point had wanted the court to call 835 witnesses, but the court had only allowed 151 of these witnesses ruling that the rest were not qualified to contribute to the investigation or bring out the facts. It said a witness was heard in 120 of the sessions, which corresponds to a 10-year trial period in a normal case. The court also said the request to insist on nominating other individuals to be called as witnesses was “partially due to a lack of seriousness, and partially an attempt at prolonging the trial.” The court also that witness testimonies heard throughout the course of the trial was adequate to bring out the facts from the point of view of the court and hearing more witnesses will stop the trial from coming to completion within a “reasonable” period of time, an important element to ensure fair trial. The idea that some of the requests really lacked sincerity can be seen clearly, for example, by the fact that one of the suspects said they had 130 witnesses who can testify in their favor, and that one of the lawyers wanted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to be called as a witness. In addition to all of these, when the court made its statement on Jan. 11, it had completed the phase of listening to testimonies and started a review process. But once the court finished hearing witnesses, the suspects all of a sudden started bringing witnesses to court ready to testify at any time. İlker Başbuğ, a suspect in the trial who did not even deliver a defense testimony in court, pointed to four retired generals, including the former chief of general staff, as his witnesses. It remains an important question that these generals visited Silivri, where the courthouse is located, only after the court announced that it was done hearing witness testimonies.

The suspects are also using some provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedures (CMK) as a way to pressure the court. Lawyers for suspects of the Sledgehammer trial had boycotted some of the trials, abusing Article 188 of CMK which makes it mandatory that each suspect is represented by counsel in court in trials where prosecutors demand a sentence longer than five years. The court had ruled that the boycott was not being done in good faith. The Ergenekon suspects are now exploiting Article 178 of the CMK, which makes in mandatory for courts to hear witnesses who are available in the courtroom to testify. This is why the force commanders who could have been heard in a previous phase of the trial emerged only after the court said it was done hearing witnesses.

Another point of criticism by the supporters of the Ergenekon suspects was that former Army Chief Koşaner was denied witness status, although the court heard former terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) commander Şemdin Sakık as a witness. Sakık provided court with information on the alleged links between Ergenekon and the PKK. In selecting witnesses, courts do not consider how “reputable” or “well respected in society” a potential witness is, but their “relevance” and “knowledge” of the subject of the court case. In most cases, just as in the case of Ergenekon, a person convicted over membership of a terrorist organization can bring more evidence to court than a highly respected army member. The entire concept of confession is based on this reality. But the obvious is being ignored here in an attempt to make the situation appear as if it is a terrorist versus reputable military officer problem.

All this, coupled with attempts to get 1000 people inside the courtroom, which can only fit 400 viewers, over the past two or three sessions, attempts to attack the courtroom and requests to have the court hear hundreds of new witnesses are being perceived as attempts to stop the court from finishing the trial. These interventions are pressuring the court's ability to announce a verdict impartially and curbing its capacity of judicial discretion.