|
|
Human Rights Violations Against BAV (Science Research Foundation) Community The Science Research Foundation, is a successful and influential non-governmental organization established in Turkey. It carries out scientific, cultural and social activities in a line of strict conformity to our national and moral values as well as principles of democracy, laicism, human rights and universal principles of law. Mr. Adnan Oktar, the Honorary President of the Science Research Foundation, is an intellectual and an author who has written more than 250 books that were translated into 57 different languages all over the world. [1] As a result of the provocations of certain groups made uneasy by this intellectual line of Mr. Adnan Oktar and the SRF and due to ideological reasons, a case was opened against the foundation in year 2000 (based on allegations of violation of Law No. 4422 on Struggle Against Organized Crime Rings which was in effect at that time), claiming that it was allegedly illegal. The 70 files of documentation produced during the preliminary investigation were examined by various court chambers up until now, and it has been evident that BAV members have not ever committed any crimes. Our case is at the same time being monitored by many reputable professionals of law and their common legal opinion shows that the case should result in acquittal since there is no element of crime in the case file. Despite this fact, BAV members have been put to trial for 7 years while they have to face numerous unlawful implementations. These unlawful undertakings have started in 2000, which is the date of initiation of the BAV case. The police have broken down doors of residences and although they have seen no resistance, the police applied violence on the families residing at their homes, employed infraction of rules in confiscation reports, attempted to label legal possessions as illegal, and applied measures of torture over people in detention in order to force them sign fabricated testimonies, as a result of which 8 people have received hospitalization reports due to torture. All the allegations of crime in the indictment of our case are totally based on these fabricated texts that were proven to have been received under torture. By means of such testimonies formed under pressure in conflict with Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 3 of The European Convention on Human Rights that state, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” the term of jurisdiction for the BAV members is extended. In fact, it has been made evident through hundreds of evidence that these testimonies are not factual and all people put in detention have denied these testimonies before the Public Prosecutor and stated that they were forced to sign these texts because they were subjected to torture. These unlawful undertakings which have continued for the last 7 years have prevented BAV members from rights of fair trial and fair living, and therefore have resulted in unjust treatment in material and moral terms. What we have experienced throughout the jurisdiction of the BAV case is against Article 6 of The European Convention of Human Rights which says, “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” SUMMARY OF THE BAV CASE This case which is known as the "Bilim Arastirma Vakfi Davasi" (Science Research Foundation Case) in the Turkish community, was first seen at the 1st State Security Court of Istanbul. When the 1st State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul made evident that the chairman of the court was in affiliation with one of the complainant attorneys, he was recused by the defendants. Upon this request of recusation, the 1st State Security Court (DGM) withdrew from the court case on 2002. The 2nd State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul that inspected and approved the request for recusation of the 1st State Security Court (DGM), transferred the court case to the 3rd State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul. The 3rd State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul which is the second court that prosecuted the SRF case, declared that "there is no finding that could be interpreted as violation of Law No. 4422 in the court case" and gave a verdict of lack of jurisdiction, and this time sent the case file to the Istanbul High Criminal Court for investigation within the scope of Law No. 313 of the Turkish Criminal Law [2]. The 3rd State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul declared apparently in the justification of the verdict of lack of jurisdiction that "allegation of crime (violation of Law No. 4422) was not adopted by the court". The 4th State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul also inspected this opinion of the 3rd State Security Court (DGM) of Istanbul, and consequently the verdict of lack of jurisdiction was accepted and ratified by the higher court. Following this verdict of lack of jurisdiction, the case file was circulated among various courts due to decisions of lack of jurisdiction based on discussions of power over the case and the case file was sent to the Supreme Court for finding a solution to these discussions. At this point the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the Istanbul 7th High Criminal Court was authorized and had right of jurisdiction and sent the case file to this court. However, since the Istanbul 7th High Criminal Court had used statements that constitute "ihsas-i rey" (declaration of one's view and vote in advance) in its verdict of lack of jurisdiction, and due to request of recusation of the defendants, it withdrew from court. This decision of withdrawal of the Istanbul 7th High Criminal Court was inspected and then ratified by the Istanbul 8th High Criminal Court. After this recusation, the case file was finally sent to the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court. Throughout the term that led the case file to the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court, none of the 5 courts had stated even for once that there was any evidence which would indicate the presence of any fact related with the crime described in Law No. 4422. In addition, none of these courts objected to the decision that the case should be prosecuted in terms of TCL 313, but they only tried to clarify which regional court would be authorized for the jurisdiction of this case file. After the clarification of this issue of authority for jurisdiction, the case file continued to be seen at the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court (2004/337 E) as to TCL 313. And the case was dismissed on 24.11.2005 for the prosecuted 35 defendants due to statute of limitations. The case continued for the 6 defendants who were kept outside the verdict of statute of limitations and as to the same allegations and articles. As a result of the interrogation and examination of court experts carried out for this court case which was like an extension of the "BAV case", it was seen that the crime allegations in the indictment were not true and in this respect on 22.01.2007 there was a verdict of acquittal for all the allegations in the indictment. This verdict of acquittal became definitive. The verdict of statute of limitations covering the 35 defendants was taken to the Supreme Court for examination as a result of the appeal of intervening attorneys (who did not find any error in the verdict but wanted to reserve their rights of compensation). The Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court examined the file and sent a request for the ratification of decree on statute of limitations. The case file was consequently sent on 05.04.2006 to the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals for evaluation. The 8th Criminal Chamber reached a decision after more than 1 year and on 22.05.2007 countered the decision on the statute of limitations. OCCURRENCES DURING STAGE OF APPEAL AT THE SUPREME COURT Following the presentation of the decree (of ratification) to the 8th Criminal Chamber on 5.4.2006, at a time when it was expected that the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court would start investigation of the appeal, the court ruled a verdict of acquittal - in a way to refute all the accusations – for the second part (06/26 E.) of the BAV case which continued for the 6 defendants trialed at Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court, and this verdict became definite. This verdict of acquittal which also exculpated all the defendants who were subject to statute of limitations in essence annoyed the circles that have feelings of deep ideological hostility against Mr. Adnan Oktar and the BAV society and that misled the public officers 7 years ago in order to prosecute the BAV case. Using their affiliations in the press and employing all possible means, they sought for a way to corrupt the case file at the Supreme Court and provide the issuing of an unfavorable ruling against BAV members. The entire occurrences witnessed during the appeal stage of this case exemplify the most apparent instances of politicization of law. LEAK OF FINAL VERDICT TO THE PRESS BEFORE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT Our case has been examined by the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court for more than a year during the appeal stage. At the end of this period, on 18 May 2007, before the ruling of the Supreme Court, some newspapers at their Internet websites announced that the Supreme Court had reversed the verdict for the BAV case and even further, they almost published the entire statement of the ruling. Upon this on the very same day when the BAV attorneys requested a copy of the ruling from the chamber clerk they were told orally that the appeal investigation was not yet finalized. All through the following weekend, again the same media groups published news where they accused Mr. Adnan Oktar and the BAV in such a way to agitate the public opinion against them based on the ruling of the Supreme Court (which did not exist at the moment). In the first work day following these news, the attorneys of BAV members reapplied to the chamber clerk (21.05.2007) and again received the response that "the ruling had not yet been issued." The defendant attorneys upon the publications of media groups applied with petitions to the Chamber in order to document the circumstances in written record, however the official letter given by the clerk of the 8th Criminal Chamber and bearing the same date attested that the "ruling had not yet formed". Turkish Law requires that the process (called discussions) until the formation of a decision/ruling in Supreme Court investigations should be in total confidentiality. Article 39 of the Supreme Court Law states the precept that "The ones who will participate in the voting including Supreme Court Chambers as well as Councils should be in full attendance or they shall meet when the majority stated in Law is attained. Discussions are kept confidential." Upon the occurrences that during the dates when the ruling had not yet been formed and not given despite the request of the defense lawyers, the leak of the ruling to the press and its publication and therefore the application of “ihsas-i rey” as well as the violation of the right of fair hearing for the defendants; the defendants have asked for the recusation of the judge in the same day about the members of the Chamber based on Article 39 of the Supreme Court Law. However, the 8th Criminal Chamber did not make any decisions on the request of recusation of the judge and the following day on 22.05.2007 , Tuesday, the ruling was exposed. Yet, the date of the ruling over the statement of the final decision belonged to 5 days before ( 17.05.2007 ). The defendant attorneys objected to the proceeding that before a decision was made on recusation of the judge, procedures related with the principal cause were continued, but the 8th Criminal Chamber transferred the case file to a first level court without evaluating requests for recusation of the judge or reaching any decision. As a result of the application of BAV attorneys to Istanbul Judicial Court, Istanbul 3rd High Criminal Court ruled that the file should be resent back to the Supreme Court (in order to decide on the requests of recusation of the judge). In regard to the request of a legal opinion of Marmara University's Dean of Law Faculty by the defense lawyers whether the practice of the judges participating the verdict of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court is lawful or not, the commissioned academicians Prof. Dr. Emin Artuk, Assistant Professor Dr. Mahmut Koca and Dr. Caner Yenidünya have prepared a legal opinion and it is stated that; At this point the response to the question; "if discussions made by the chair of the court have reverberated in the media, does this constitute ihsas-i rey?" would be: There is no suspect that this has the attribute of "IHSAS-I REY" (declaring one's vote in advance). As a matter of fact, conveying a ruling before the decision of jurisdiction is made and discussions are resolved to external parties would violate rule of law and right of a fair trial." 'Therefore; the publishing of a ruling of jurisdiction before having the status of a decision or a decree in press and media organs would arise suspicions against objectivity and independency and at the same time would harm presumption of innocence and a right to fair trial." Professor Dr. Bahri Öztürk, who has written the Turkish Criminal Procedure Law 5271 has explained that the practice of the judges of 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court is against law: "Even if with or without trial, the final ruling of the Supreme Court will be complete when the entire members sign the document. Therefore the date of the decision, is the date of signature." Since the ruling will not be valid unless all members sign it, it is not possible for any opinion which has not turned into a ruling to be evaluated as the final decision of the Supreme Court. If there is such an occurrence and even if it is hard for us to accept, there are wrongdoers in every organization; but it would not be possible to disregard it. In such a case, there is the obligation to admit that there is prejudgment about a jurisdiction which has not been completed legally." Various academicians who were asked their opinions have made similar explanations. Due to their practices in this process, criminal complaints were submitted by the defendants prosecuted in the BAV case about the perpetrators. CONTENT OF THE EXPOSED SUPREME COURT RULING Both the Turkish Criminal Procedure Law No. 1412 and Law No. 5271 have legally prohibited that the higher court replaces the lower court which has made the jurisdiction and gathered the evidence. This possibility is only existent for correction. As an exception, during a correction the Court replaces the local court and gives another decision, or personally removes the wrongfulness. In the BAV case file there is no such exception. Also in the doctrinaire opinions, it is been said that "the duty of the Supreme Court of Appeals, as an authority of cassation, either at the time of decision, or after a decision is made, in solving a juridical subject, is to squash a judgment or not, depending on whether or not there exist a contradiction of law. It is an exception for the Supreme Court of Appeals to decide on the base of a case and to eventuate the case there and then, in other words to eliminate a verdict given by another authority, namely the court, and to replace it with a new one, in words of legal procedures "to revise it" " [5]. However in the verdict that reverses the judgment given about the case of SRF, it's been seen that the provisions of this rule are being ignored. Actually, the judges of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals who participated in the verdict, in their appellate review of the SRF case, took the place of the first instance courts, and almost given a separate verdict. Just like they had done during the process in which the verdict was formed, they made acute legal violations within the verdict itself. If we were to mention some of those: When the content of verdict given by 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals examined, it would be seen that the judges participating in this verdict, giving the impression as if they were under a great pressure or as if they have been acting with an immense prejudice, it is sensed that they have been acting on the basic aim of eliminating – no matter how- the verdict of statue of limitations which was previously given on the case about the SRF. The fact that there exists no legal evidence and basis in the verdict, makes one think that the judges of the 8th Criminal Chamber, instead of making a legal audition, are trying to find a reason for a previously given decision. Since the statue of limitations for a crime is such a clearly defined period that it is almost impossible to cancel a verdict of abatement announced on the basis of statue of limitations. The only way to do that, is to change the Article in which the case is based on, to transform it to another Article with a longer period for statue of limitations. The judges participating in the verdict of the 8th Criminal Chamber had done exactly this, by forcing the jurisprudence in an inconceivable manner, violating the law codes and committing a crime by doing so. Since the case had been subjected to statue of limitations according to TCC 313, as the only way out for their aim, they had to claim that the SRF members had to be trialed according to Article 4422 (which is not in force anymore) The text of the verdict drawn up with this aim, has taken its place in the history of Turkish Jurisprudence as a black stain. The judges who undersigned the verdict of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, ignoring the verdicts and assessments of 7 different courts that had examined the case file, the assessment of the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the hundreds of concrete defense evidences which had come down into the file, claimed that there exist facts in the case file which would require the case file to be assessed within the context of law code numbered 4422. They had based their claims to fake police records and police reports which are by their nature unlawful findings. They had even ignored the fact that the police officers who had prepared those fake police records had been expelled from their professions, as a result of such practices, since they committed crime of torture. Moreover, taking this to a far more extended level in the verdict, they arrived at baseless, inconsistent evaluations with no proof stating that "the claims had been proved", in this respect attempted to lead the first instance court that will reassess the case after the verdict of cassation. If we were to give several concrete examples to this; in the mentioned verdict of the Supreme Court of Appeals (basing only on the records of the police that were undersigned with torture and thus were by nature unlawful evidences): It had been claimed that;
However those are the allegations put forward in the indictment written 7,5 years ago. It has been proved with concrete evidences gathered by the first instance court during the jurisdiction process which lasted 7,5 years that these allegations, which are based on turning the allegedly police reports, which were prepared by some police officers who had been proved to exert torture and undersigned by the people under custody without being let to read, into an indictment, were proved to be void. The first instance court had gathered all the evidence, heard all the witnesses, received expert reports and determining that those are all parts of a slandering operation for condemnation of the members of BAV society, had given the verdict of acquittal. What were the proofs and evidences concerning this point, had been circumstantiated in the verdict of acquittal. For instance; In the process of jurisdiction; it had been established that the allegation of "sending libellous letters about reporters" was ungrounded. On this point, it has been transpired through expert examinations and sentential jurisdiction that the letters claimed to be sent to the reporter named Fatih Altaylı, who had been complainant about this subject, were not prepared and sent by members of SRF community. [6] In the process of jurisdiction; it had been established that the allegation about a team of the people trialed were blackmailing some people through hidden cameras was factitious. The materials which were taken as basis for the police records and taken into records under the title of "hidden cameras", were determined to be security cameras. These cameras which could be found at the door of any house, were demounted from the house that the trialed were taken into custody. Again the claims of the complainant Ebru Şimşek, who had filed a complaint with this allegation were definitely determined to be slanderous by the court. It had been determined by a report of expertise that the house belonging to a member of SRF community, in which the person named Ebru Şimşek said "they had blackmailed me by recording me with hidden cameras", was not the place in which the incident had taken place, and 8 separate criminal cases had been filed against this complainant with the claim of "pinning an accusation on people whom one knows did not commit that crime- slandering" by various public prosecutors. In the process of jurisdiction; it has been proved that the claim stating that some people had sold the real estates they had owned and transferred them to the group, which was shown as the basis of the allegation stating that the tried have provided improper personal benefit for themselves and for others, was factitious. Alper Sayın and Didem Sayın who had been presented in the indictment as basis of these allegations and who were claimed to sell their houses and transfer to the tried, were listened in the hearing, and it had been determined that this claim was also factitious. In the process of jurisdiction; the allegation that the members of the group had impressed some ladies with their high styles of living and had joined them in their groups and sexually used them, was also been refuted. Most of the ladies whose names were mentioned in this allegation, attended the hearing and stated that these allegations were not true, and that they had never experienced anything else other than good morals from those people. (The Supreme Court of Appeal's allegation under this title, stating that some under-aged girls were also being used with this respect, is a complete tragedy on its own. Since, this allegation has never taken place even in the police reports or in the indictment. The person who had prepared the text of the verdict, should have lent himself into prejudice to such an extent that he added this detail, which does not even exist in any part of the case file, into the verdict on his own.) As a result of the jurisdiction which lasted 7,5 years, the information and documents that refute the allegations have also been clearly mentioned by the prosecution and the court as well. The Chief Public Prosecutor of Istanbul, in his opinion regarding the principle cause of the case, used the below statements: These determinations were reflected to the reasoned verdict of acquittal given by the 2nd Higher Criminal Court of Istanbul as follows: "In accordance with the defense of the defendants, the statements of attorneys of the intervening party Ebru Şimşek, and CD images related to Ebru Şimşek which were watched, besides the statement of the expert Nevzat Tarhan who presented his views on the CD images of Ebru Şimşek, the statement of the expert Çağlar Göksu about the house where the videos related to Ebru Şimşek were taken, expressions of the witnesses of the defendants who gave statements about the relationships of Ebru Şimşek that are: Özgür Aydemir, Ahmet Ali Yıldırım, Alkas Çakmak, Alper Çakmak, Tacettin İnce, Yavuz Coşkun, İbrahim Ozcan, Ecevit Şahin; by the reason that for the suit filed against the defendants (…..) for the crIme of derIvIng benefIt wIth threat (blackmaIl), It Is determIned that the claImed crIme of the defendantS was not conclusIvely a realIty (…) It Is concluded that AverdIct of acquIttal Is to be taken for the defendants." " It is concluded that in accordance with the defense of the defendants, statements of the defense witnesses and experts and the statements of the complainants and witnesses which were heard related to the file case no 2004/337 in the course of trial, and the proofs that were severally stated above in the proves part, and the sufficient, certain and convincing proofs were not found for defendants' conviction about their committing the alleged crimes of forming an organisation, being a member or director of this organisation, and therefore the conclusIon Is reached and determIned that these crImes were not proven and the decision below were taken for the acquIttal of the defendants from this crime." The judges of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals who participated in the verdict, ignored the 7,5 years of jurisdiction carried on by the first instance court which had carried out all these investigations, collected all the evidences, heard the entire witnesses, and explored the facts; and thus claimed that the actions of the defendants were within the context of the law numbered 4422, based on the testimonies forced to be signed under torture at the police security. In the text of the verdict that was undersigned by the mentioned judges, after listing these claims (which were proven to be factitious by the court) as if they had not been refuted, the below exact wording was used: "Defendant Adnan Oktar’s PROVEN ACTIONS for committing the felony of forming and administering an organization, of defendants (…) for managing the organization, of (….) for acting on behalf of the organization, are found to be in the scope of the 1st Clause of the 1/1st Article of Law No. 4422; thus without taking the fact of statute of limitation which is 10 years due to the 102/3rd article of Turkish Criminal Code No. 765, on the basis that these activities still fall within the scope of Article 313 of Turkish Criminal Code No. 765, it has been decided in written form for the… cancellation of the verdict of dismissal based on statute of limitations for the case." As it would also be understood from this quotation, the judges participating in this decision of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals have undersigned an acute unlawfulness. Judges who have been recruited to these levels would definitely know that "to prove" is to establish a case with lawful valid evidences that are obtained within the jurisdiction process. There is no information or a document in the case file which would "prove" the claims that the judges of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals have stated to be "proven". The only place that these claims are put forward are the alleged testimonies which were signed under torture. The fact that those were not factual were proven by the courts beyond dispute. As we had mentioned above, the duty of the Supreme Court of Appeals, is to execute an appellate review about the "jurisdiction" carried out by the local courts. Turning the statements taken in police custody under torture, into a verdict of judgment is not the duty of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The complete process of jurisdiction about our case which have lasted for 7 years has cleared all defendants from all allegations. All the information and evidences that are legally acceptable clears the trialed. Within the case file that constitutes of 70 folders, there exists not a single sheet of paper that is not in favour of the defendants except for the texts that they were made to sign in police custody under torture. In the face of this, it is not acceptable for the Supreme Court of Appeals to take these fabricated statements which were signed under torture as basis and to ignore 7 years of jurisdiction which definitely clear all defendants. It seems as if the participant judges of the verdict of the 8th Criminal Chamber, while basing on these alleged statements taken in the police station, were unable to find the documents in the same file which states that the officers who "formed" these statements were convicted of torturing and had been expelled from their professions because of this reason. [7] More importantly, the judges on duty in the 8th Criminal Chamber very well know that according to CMK 148/4 "the statements that are not taken in the presence of a lawyer are not valid". While the members of the SRF community were made to sign fake police records, lawyers were not let to be present. This situation, according to law, nullifies all these statements at the police stations. The judges of the 8th Criminal Chamber had also disregarded this situation. As it is seen, even though the allegations stated in the testimonies which were forced to be signed by BAV members under torture have entirely received the verdict of acquittal in court, the Supreme Court of Appeals has acted as if in place of the court and decided to confirm these fabricated statements. Moreover, it has not been able to explain the reason behind this decision within the context of law. This gives the impression that the reason is not based on law, but on politics. UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL PLOTS AGAINST MR. ADNAN OKTAR, THE HONORARY PRESIDENT OF BAV, HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED SINCE 1986. The implementations that violate human rights and legal rights of the BAV community are not limited with the course of the BAV case since year 2000. The unlawful attempts of plots that have targeted Mr. Adnan Oktar, the Honorary President of BAV, has started in 1986. In respect of having a better understanding of what really is going on today, it will be useful to give brief information about the unlawful undertakings against Mr. Adnan Oktar since the beginning of occurrences. OPPRESSION AND UNLAWFUL UNDERTAKINGS IN 1986 During this period in year 1986, when the book on freemasonry by Mr. Adnan Oktar was at the printing house, an intensive action of pressure was started. As a result of the repression by the circles made uneasy because of this book, due to a statement of Mr. Adnan Oktar in an interview published by a newspaper, he was arrested and on the 9th month of the term of his imprisonment another method was employed and he was placed in Bakirkoy Insane Asylum for a period of 10 month detention. Throughout this term, Mr. Adnan Oktar was subjected to various unjust treatment which had the special intention of oppression. In the 14A ward of the asylum, the most dangerous of the mentally ill were located including murderers, and Mr. Adnan Oktar was placed in an extremely dreadful and inconvenient room. There, he was tied to his bed with a chain attached to his foot and while even the most severe patients could have the right of accepting visitors, his natural right of having visitors was constrained. Furthermore his contact with the nurses, practitioners, and even doctors was hindered, and he was forced to take medication that would make him unconscious. After imprisoned for a total of 19 months, he was acquitted on the fact that there was not any element of crime in his statement. COCAINE PLOT IN 1991 Mr. Adnan Oktar encountered another plot due to the influence of some circles that were disturbed because of his cultural studies in mid-1991. At that time he was working on a very important book related with the history of freemasonry and the organization of masonry all over the world. The police that entered Mr. Adnan Oktar's house in Ortakoy where he lived with his mother found a package of cocaine inside the first book they took from his library of two thousand books. Right after this event, Mr. Adnan Oktar was incarcerated at Istanbul Police Department. At the end of the 62 hour detention, he was sent to the Department of Forensic Medicine for cocaine testing. It was announced that high ratio of a side product of cocaine was found in his blood. If this dosage of cocaine would have been introduced in his body 62 hours ago, it would be an adequate amount to cause his death. This fact showed that the cocaine was introduced in his body at a much sooner time than 62 hours, while he was under detention. This finding was confirmed by about 30 different international forensic institutions including Scotland Yard. The common opinion shared by all these authorities declared: Cocaine was given to Mr. Adnan Oktar while he was under detention. This act was a plot. Later on, the Turkish Department of Forensic Medicine also ratified that cocaine was given to him inside his food and Mr. Adnan Oktar was cleared and acquitted at court. OCCURRENCES EXPERIENCED AT THE APPEAL STAGE OF THE COURT CASE FILED WITH THE REQUEST OF CLOSING AND PRESUMING TO HAVE DISINTEGRATED THE SCIENCE RESEARCH FOUNDATION One of the unlawful undertakings of the circles which aim at obstructing the activities of the BAV community and conducting unjust treatment over it was to file an unjustifiable, illegal and irrational suit against the foundation in order to have it closed. At the preliminary stage of the BAV case that was heard in Istanbul 1st State Security Court (DGM), State Security Court's Chief Public Prosecutor sent a letter to the General Director of Foundations and provided that a court case was opened against the foundation with the intention of having it closed. At the Fatih 4th Civil Court of First Instance (principle cause no. 2000/498) where the case was heard, it was requested to have "BAV closed and disintegrated eventually, and administrators be expelled." In the framework of this court case, the legal personality of the Science Research Foundation as well as activity reports and income of its entire members were examined. In this court case where the legal opinion of Istanbul University, Dean of Law Faculty was sought, it was determined that neither the foundation, nor the administrators of the foundation participated in any illegal activity and the law suit of the General Directorate of Foundations was DISMISSED on 11.04.2002 in terms of all three requests. Upon the demand of appeal of the General Directorate of Foundations, 18th Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court has RATIFIED the mentioned verdict in favor of BAV. Right after this stage, some further unlawful implementations were introduced. With the writ of error application of the General Directorate of the Foundations, the 18th Judicial Chamber reexamined the case file (after some of the jurists who had given the decision of ratification were changed in an extraordinary way) and again ratified the decision for 2 of the requests, but due to the 7 billion TL debt in the balance sheet of the foundation in 1999, the ruling was to reverse the decision on the basis that it had become impossible for the foundation to realize its purpose. In fact, there is no such debt and the foundation continues its activities since 1990. This reason is not acceptable as justification to shut down a foundation and also it is contrary to absolute facts. Actually, the fact that the negative balance or debt in the balance sheet of the foundation was due to an accounting error became definite as to the 2003/37 decision of Fatih Civil Court of Peace. A "corrected balance sheet" was submitted to the General Directorate of Foundations, this corrected balance sheet was announced in newspapers and the General Directorate of Foundations did not object to this correction. This finding became absolute both by means of the court decision, as well as the official inspection and expertise opinion by the General Directorate of Foundations itself, and all related documentation was placed in the case file. In addition, a very significant document by the General Directorate of Foundations was also placed in the case file. In this letter dated 30.03.2005, it was stated that either in 1999 or in the previous or consequent periods, the foundation did not have any negative balance, the foundation was not in deeply involved in debt and also it possessed satisfactory financial means to realize its purpose and even currently was endeavoring to do so. Following this declaration, Fatih 2nd Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the court case once again in favor of BAV. However, the Supreme Court once again disregarded all the concrete evidence at the appeal stage of this second decision of dismissal, and ruled to reverse the court decision. Fatih 2nd Civil Court of First Instance decided to resist against this ruling which could not be explained on justifiable grounds and once again rejected the unlawful request of presuming the foundation to have disintegrated. After this point the BAV case will be heard at the General Council of the Supreme Court of Appeals due to the decision of resistance of the regional court in favor of BAV. The occurrences witnessed at the appeal stage of this case are examples of the politicization of the justice system and how the legal and human rights of BAV members have been violated. RESULT: It is an acknowledged truth that some power points, who are due to some ideological reasons irritated by the intellectual line and cultural service activities of the Science Research Foundation, have been attempting to exert pressure on Jurisdiction against the BAV community for years, and that they have been trying to agitate the public opinion and the members of Jurisdiction through various means and by using the media power they have in their hands. Moreover, these circles employ all kinds of vile plots to incite State authorities, judicial bodies and the public opinion against the BAV community. The fact that some of the decisions made during the term of jurisdiction are totally without justification, inconsistent with law and illegal, gives the impression that the pressure and compulsion of these circles which feel enmity towards the BAV community were influential in these decisions. Although it has been made definitive by means of jurisdiction that all defendants who have been put to trial during the 7 year process are innocent and not even a single element of crime exists in the case file, the court case is extended by employing unlawful methods. In return, this puts economical, social and moral pressure over the BAV members and prevents them from using their right to a fair trial which everyone should possess. In this respect, BAV community, who are in total respect of law and laicism and who are modern people with university graduate degrees, should be rendered their right to a fair trial. Best regards,
[1] You may reach the works of Mr. Adnan Oktar under the pen name Harun Yahya at his website www.harunyahya.com. |
