DİYARBAKIR - 9 years after the Supreme Court decided that saying 'Mr. Öcalan' is within the scope of the freedom of expression, 2 seperate law suits were filed against DTK Co-chair Leyla Güven for saying 'Mr. Öcalan'.

 

Two separate lawsuits were filed against Democratic Society Congress (DTK) Co-Chair Leyla Güven on grounds that she said 'Mr. Öcalan', which was evaluated within the scope of freedom of expression in 2012 by the 9th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. In the lawsuits filed in Şırnak and Hakkari, Güven, who was sentenced to 22 years and 3 months in prison, was charged with 'praising crime and criminal'.

 

SURPEME COURT DECISION 

 

In the indictment accepted by the Şırnak Criminal Court of First Instance, accused Güven of saying, "There is an isolation imposed on the Kurdish people and Mr. Öcalan for the last 22 years" which she said during a speech she made in the Şırnak Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) Provincial organization building on December 17, 2020. In the indictment, it was claimed that Güven praised a convicted person. In the indictment it was also claimed that the expression 'Mr' can not be evaluated within the scope of freedom of expression.

 

SECOND LAW SUIT FROM HAKKARİ

 

In the indictment, which was accepted by the Hakkari 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, the allegations of "inciting the public to hatred and enmity" and "praising the crime and the criminal" were brought against Güven. It was claimed that Güven used the words "war" during a speech in front of the Hakkari Provincial Organization building to "incite the people to hatred and enmity" and she said 'Mr. Öcalan' in the same speech which, according to the Hakkari 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, constitudes the crime of 'praising crime and criminal." A prison sentence of 2 years to 5 years was requested for Güven.

 

GÜVEN'S ATTORNEY RECALLED A LANDMARK DECISION

 

Güven's lawyer Serdar Çelebi stated that the courts act according to the process rather than the rule of law. Çelebi said, "There are also decisions from the European Court of Human Rights on this. ECtHR stated that the decision on Demirtaş was political. What does this mean? It means the decision is determined on the will of the government rather than law or proof. This is a similar case. The supreme court determined that the expression 'Mr.' is not a crime."