AMED - The prosecutor again objected to the rejection of the "being a member of a terrorist organization" case filed against journalist Ferhat Parlak for the second time based on his secret and open witness statements.
In 2016, a lawsuit was filed against Ferhat Parlak, the concessionaire of Silvan Struggle Newspaper, at Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court, on the grounds of "being a member of a terrorist organisation", citing the statements of secret and open witnesses. Parlak was acquitted in the trial. The decision was approved by the Antep Regional Court of Justice in 2017; however, in 2019, a lawsuit was filed against Parlak once again on the grounds of "being a member of a terrorist organization", citing the same statements of the same witnesses. An acquittal was given in the trial held at the Diyarbakır 11th High Criminal Court in 2020. After the prosecutor's office objected to the decision, Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice 2nd Criminal Chamber accepted the request to overturn the decision and punish Parlak.
NEW STATEMENT FROM THE SECRET WITNESS
After the Court of Appeal's reversal decision in 2022, the secret witness "Takvim" added to his statements and claimed that Parlak threw a molotov cocktail at the Scorpion brand police vehicle near Hamitoğlu Market. The secret witness's claim was accepted as "new evidence" in the trial.
RECORD OF THE CLAIM NOT FOUND
In this context, the claim was asked to Silvan Police Department. The Police Department informed the court that they had no information, documents or video recordings regarding the action in question. The court once again noted that the accusations against Parlak were accusations made in 2016 by the Diyarbakır 4th High Criminal Court and resulted in acquittal, and that there were no new accusations after this date, and decided to reject the case.
THE PROSECUTOR OBJECTED ONCE AGAIN
After the reasoned decision was announced, the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office claimed that the decision was erroneous and appealed to the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice, requesting the reversal of the decision. In the objection, the prosecutor claimed that Parlak committed the crime of being a "being a member of a terrorist organization" by claiming that Parlak was in the "press committee of the organization" when all the evidence was evaluated together.
The prosecutor stated that the decision was against procedure and principle and requested that the decision be annulled.