DEFENSE, PROSECUTION IN TORTURE CASE BLAST U.S.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001359 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/07/2014 TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM TU SUBJECT: DEFENSE, PROSECUTION IN TORTURE CASE BLAST U.S. REF: A. SECSTATE 35967 ¶B. ANKARA 958 Classified by Deputy Polcouns Charles Blaha; reasons 1.4 b and d. ¶1. (C) Summary: Both the prosecution and defense in the death-in-detention case of Birtan Altinbas March 5 criticized a letter from the Secretary to FM Gul raising concerns about the trial. The attorneys accused the U.S. of interfering with the independence of the judiciary. The lead prosecuting attorney told us the anti-U.S. statement from the prosecution was the work of an Istanbul-based lawyers group; she said she tried unsuccessfully to block it. None of the 10 police defendants attended the hearing. Prosecutors believe repeated delays in the trial threaten to prevent a final verdict before the statute of limitations runs out. End Summary. -------------- Defendants Absent -------------- ¶2. (U) None of the defendants in the 13-year-old Altinbas case appeared at the March 5 hearing, despite a February 16 Interior Ministry circular calling on police nationwide to attend trials as required (reftel B). There were, however, journalists and out-of-town lawyers drawn to the trial by the Secretary's February 19 letter to FM Gul (reftel A),which SIPDIS made reference to the case. Altinbas, a Hacettepe University student at the time, died under police custody in 1991. The Secretary's letter briefly raised the concern that the trial, SIPDIS which has been plagued by repeated delays, could fail to reach a final verdict before the statute of limitations runs out. The GOT apparently released the letter, which was covered widely in the press. -------------- Defense Blasts Letter... -------------- ¶3. (C) Mehmet Emin Bagci and Ahmet Ozcicek -- two of the attorneys representing the police defendants -- criticized the Secretary's letter and accused the U.S. of interfering with the Turkish judiciary. Bagci said the U.S. should "answer for the blood it is shedding in the world" and claimed that press coverage of the trial inspired by the letter had put his client's life at risk. The defense attorneys requested that the court ban press coverage of the trial. They also asked the court to postpone the next hearing to allow more time for them to prepare a defense, noting that they had recently replaced attorneys who resigned from the case (Note: this is a classic delaying tactic. End Note). The court refused the requests, and scheduled the next session for March 18. -------------- ...As Does Prosecution -------------- ¶4. (C) Lead prosecuting attorney Oya Aydin asked the court to issue arrest warrants for the defendants; as in past hearings, the court refused (Note: the judges did not explain the refusal, but in the past have said that a routine request to attend the next hearing was sufficient. End Note). Normally, Aydin and two other Ankara attorneys comprise the prosecution in the case. However, at the March 5 session they were joined by about 20 lawyers from Istanbul. One of the Istanbul lawyers, Behic Asci, read a prepared statement criticizing the Secretary's letter from the prosecution side of the aisle. Asci accused the U.S. of "training the people who killed Altinbas" and said the U.S. had "dirtied" the trial by interfering. Before the hearing, Aydin warned us that a group of lawyers affiliated with the People's Law Bureau, which specializes in PKK cases, would make a political statement. She said she tried to prevent the statement, arguing that it would politicize the hearing and distract from the prosecution of the case. But she said she lacked the authority to bar the out-of-towners from the hearing -- the Istanbul lawyers are officially among the attorneys representing the victim's family, though they haven't worked on the case in the past. -------------- Delays Could Prevent Verdict -------------- ¶5. (U) The case has been plagued by repeated procedural delays, including the frequent absence of defendants, and their attorneys. Once the felony court trying the case reaches a verdict, the losing side is sure to appeal. Prosecuting attorneys are concerned that the appeals court will not reach a final verdict before the 15-year statute of limitations expires in January 2006. EDELMAN