Prosecutors commit a crime by investigating
The Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) has decided that prosecutors Celal Kara and Mahir Aktaş, who conducted the Dec. 17 and 25, 2013, investigations, and judge Süleyman Karaçöl should be tried.
This “extraordinary” decision has, in general, three justifications: To make the decision to allow the police to wiretap the known phone conversations between Reza Zerrab and other people, to not destroy the phone records and to seize the assets of the companies mentioned in the investigations.
The HSYK has decided that the above-mentioned judge and prosecutors are to be tried on these grounds. I find this decision by the HSYK illegal and biased.
The Dec. 17 and 25, 2013, operations are “bribe” investigations that legally fall into the “textbook crime” category. The content of the phone conversations are now known to the public as well. Also, in the EU Progress Reports, serious concerns are expressed about the handling of the anti-corruption strategy.
In this case, which prosecutor would have refrained from opening an investigation on the grounds that there was no strong suspicion of crime? But now, this judge and those prosecutors are going to be tried on charges of “abusing power.”
The second charge against the prosecutors is for not destroying the wiretapping records. However, while the file was processed by the prosecutors, these records could have been evidence in the case to be opened; for this reason, they should not have been destroyed anyway. It is indeed wrong not to delete the private parts of the phone records that do not constitute any evidence but this can be a discipline crime frequently seen in many judges and prosecutors.
For instance Deniz Feneri
Another charge against the prosecutors and Karaçöl is they seized the assets of legal entities in the absence of a “strong suspicion of crime.”
At this point, the verdict of the Supreme Court of Appeals on the Deniz Feneri (Lighthouse) case should be remembered. In that investigation, prosecutors had seized the assets of the legal entities defendants had shares in.
The Lighthouse prosecutors were also tried for abusing power. The high court acquitted them of this charge but noted that the prosecutors acted against professional ethical principles.
If the HSYK had done such a disciplinary practice, nobody would be able to say anything. However, the HSYK made a decision “in harmony with the executive body” in terms of the government’s claims about the matter, but not in harmony with law.
It should be noted that the “old HSYK” had decided about the Dec. 17 and 25, 2013, operations that not only prosecutors but security personnel who did not carry out their orders and the chief prosecutor who transferred the files to other prosecutors should undergo an inspector investigation.
In other words, inspectors would have been sent to “both sides.” If this had been done, we would have been able to see both sides of the medallion.
However the justice minister stopped this and the inspectors were sent one-sidedly. This is only one of many examples of how politics, with its immense power, interferes with justice.
Well, they say that the Dec. 17 and 25, 2013, operations were not an “investigation” but a “coup.”
Well, if it is so, then let parliament investigate both the corruption and the coup, right? But, the investigation has been blocked in parliament, was it not?
We are going through a tough period in our justice history. The honor of justice lies today on the shoulders of judges and prosecutors who deem the law above everything. Tomorrow, when historians write about these days, they will grade everybody accordingly.