DİYARBAKIR - The appeal against the arrest of 16 journalists in Diyarbakır was once again rejected.

 

The objection to the arrest of 16 journalists, arrested on June 16 after being detained in Diyarbakır for 8 days was once again rejected for the second time.

 

Resul Temur, the lawyer of the journalists told that the decision was made with printed statements and that his objection was not examined. Stating that he was not allowed to see his clients even though there wasn't a confidentiality order on the file at the time and they were not allowed to see the case file, told that their objections to the situation were also ignored. Underlining that the evidence is not open to the defense's inspection and that is against the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial, Temur said, "As a result of this restriction, we do not have the opportunity to examine what kind of evidence is available against the clients, whether these evidences were obtained in accordance with the law, and to present evidence for defense against the accusation or to present evidence in favor has also been abolished."

 

THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCUSATION AGAINST THE JOURNALISTS

 

Noting that the said restriction violates the 36th article of the Constitution and the 6th article of the European Convention of Human Rights, Temur said his clients were arrested solely with the statements of witnesses with the accusation of 'being a member of a terrorist organisation'. Underlining that there is no direct accusation to his clients in these statements and that the statements were against the media outlets his clients were working at, Temur told that journalists can not be accused of of terrorism for working in a media outlet or arrested for it according to the Constitution.

 

REQUEST FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDICIAL CONTROL

 

Pointing out that detention is a precautionary measure, Temur stated that the detention of his clients would lead to a violation of rights, and added that the implementation of judicial control measures, which provide a milder intervention to the rights of their clients instead of detention, is a necessity in terms of proportionality.

 

DECISION OF CONTINUATION OF DETENTION

 

Evaluating the objection to the detention, in which the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office gave its opinion on the continuation of the detention, Diyarbakir 1st Criminal Court of Peace stated that the alleged crime was a catalog crime, that the detention of the journalists was proportional according to the expected sentence, that the judicial control measure would be insufficient and decided the continuation of the detention of the journalists.