WAN - The objection to the failure to arrest the police officer who seriously injured Seyfullah Turan with the butt of a long-barreled gun in Colemêrg (Hakkari) and the 6 years and 3 months prison sentence was rejected.

 

The Court of Appeal rejected the objection to the 6 years and 3 months prison sentence given to special operations police officer Bahadır Turan, who seriously injured 14-year-old Seyfullah Turan with the butt of a long-barreled gun in Colemêrg in 2009, for "qualified wounding". Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice 1st Criminal Chamber rejected the lawyers' application for a verdict of "crime of torture and attempted murder" and claimed that "conscientious belief was formed" in the local court's decision.

 

DECISION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW!

 

Claiming that the procedural or substantive procedures during the trial process were carried out in accordance with the law, the court of appeal stated that "It was determined that all the evidence on which the verdict was based was obtained in accordance with the law, that no missing issues were left in the evidence and proceedings, and that the claims and defenses put forward at the stages were justified together with all the evidence collected." It is shown and discussed in the decision, the conscientious belief that the act was committed by the defendant in accordance with the evidence and information in the file is based on precise, consistent and non-contradictory data, the type of crime that fits the act, the sanctions, the reasons for reducing and increasing the punishment are determined with justice and proportion in the legal context and applied correctly, and the established judgment is based on a law. It has been observed that there is no contradiction." 

 

REJECTION OF ARREST REQUEST

 

The court, which did not consider the demands of the defendant police officer to be tried and arrested for the "crime of torture and attempted murder" as "appropriate", said: "In this respect, the defendant's defense counsel stated that the decision under review was subject to insufficient examination and research, not to discuss the cases of self-defense and necessity, not to apply unjust provocation to the maximum extent; It was decided to reject the application by majority vote, as the grounds of appeal that it was against the law, that the defendant should be arrested, that the judge's request for rejection was not accepted, and that the conditions for discretionary reduction were not met were not deemed appropriate."

 

It was learned that the lawyers will appeal to the Supreme Court on this decision.

 

MA / Adnan Bilen