DİYARBAKIR - Lawyer Şivan Cemil Özen pointed out that the ECHR's Demirtaş decision was leaked by the Turkish judge and stated they knew the decision and sentenced Leyla to 22 years and 3 months before the decision was announced.
Şivan Cemil Özen, attorney of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK) Co-chair Leyla Güven spoke to Mesopotamia Agency about the 22 years and 3 months prison sentence given to Leyla Güven.
Stating that Güven was charged with 'being a member of a terrorist organization' and 'propagandizing a terrorist organization', stated that the real accusation was the claim that the DTK was established on instruction by PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan. Pointing out that the indictment includes a statement that Öcalan gave an instruction for the establishment of the DTK to his lawyers in an interview in İmralı, Özen said, even though the decision to sentence Güven was made in line with this claim, there is no concrete evidence of it. Drawing attention to the fact that the interview of the attorney and client can not be recorded, Özen said: "According to the Penal Execution Law, the lawyer-client meeting is confidential. Lawyer-client meetings cannot be recorded or listened to."
Özen, stated that sentencing of Güven and rejection of her lawyers’ request for additional time in order to provide defence statements, could have to do with the fact that ECtHR in its decision concerning People’s Democratic Party (HDP) former Co-chair Selahattin Demirtaş cited membership to DTK could not prove membership to an organization. Özen, reminding that Güven was convicted a week before ECtHR decision on Demirtaş, indicated that ECtHR’s Turkish judge Saadet Yüksel leaked the decision to authorities. Özen said, “Very recently the decision on Selahattin Demirtaş was made public. Demirtaş decision clearly indicates that DTK’s organization model could not be proof to membership to a criminal organization. What is interesting here is that Güven was convicted just before Demirtaş decision. This was actually a signal. Demirtaş's decision was made known, because one of ECtHR members is a Turkish judge. She knew the decision and consequently knew about the decision on DTK. We have actually demanded time to provide our defence a week after the conviction of Mrs. Güven and the decision on DTK but unfortunately the court didn’t grant us time. The court knew that in that decision, there was an approach concerning DTK not being a criminal organization and the definition of DTK would actually constitute the main axis of our defense. They didn’t even give one week extra for defence”
MA / Mehmet Erol