ANKARA - Evaluating the "articles and annexes"  sent by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals regarding the closure case against the HDP, HDP Law Commission Co-Spokesperson Serhat Eren said: "The state has mobilised all its forces together with the security directorate and the bureaucrats for the closure case."

 

The HDP Closure Case, which was accepted by the Constitutional Court (AYM) on June 21, 2021, of the indictment submitted by the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, continues. The Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Bekir Şahin presented the investigation of HDP Diyarbakır MP Semra Güzel, and the investigation of former MP Behçet Yıldırım, as evidence in the case. HDP submitted its defense, including its demands and objections, regarding the "additional evidence" accepted by the Constitutional Court on July 26. The Constitutional Court rejected HDP's demands and decided to give 30 days for a written defense on September 20. However, the decision has not yet been communicated to HDP.

 

HDP demanded the police enquiry report about the cases filed against Diyarbakır MP Semra Güzel and former MP Behçet Yıldırım, which were filed as evidence for the closure case, Constitutional Court member Kenan Yaşar's withdrawal from the case due to "comments reflecting bias" and the case be rejected.

 

HDP Law and Human Rights Commission Co-Spokesperson Serhat Eren evaluated the rejection of the objections of documents, which were submitted the file by the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, to the Mesopotamia Agency (MA). Stating that they reminded the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office in the Supreme Court to send new evidence to the file only by preparing an "additional indictment" in their appeal to the Constitutional Court, Eren said that they drew attention to the fact that the investigations against Güzel and Yıldırım continued in 2017 when the indictment for closure was prepared.

 

NO NEW EVIDENCE

 

Underlining that the documents submitted by the Supreme Court of Appeals Public Prosecutor are not additional evidence, but may be "documents", Eren said: "The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court cannot send any document to the ongoing closure case whenever it wishes. We also stated in our objection that the documents will be the subject of a new indictment. It should be subject to an additional indictment, but the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office cannot subject it to an additional indictment because in case of new evidence in an ongoing case, an 'additional evidence' or 'additional indictment' is prepared and submitted to the court. This is not applicable to Yıldırım and Güzel's investigations because there is no new evidence. While the closure indictment is being prepared, it is an investigation file. The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court cannot be the subject of an additional indictment, since it cannot be considered as evidence that emerged after the case was filed. We objected that it is not legally possible to send the documents, which cannot even be the subject of an additional indictment, to the closure case, and that the Constitutional Court should remove it from the file.”

 

THE STATE MOBILISED FOR THE HDP CLOSURE CASE  

 

Emphasizing that the closure case against their party was a conspiracy, it was revealed in the 5-page TEM Branch Information Note that was forgotten in the file in the Kobanê Case, Eren said: "We once again reminded them of our statements in our objections about HDP member. It is legally evaluated that in the event of an indictment for crimes such as attempted murder, injury, damage to property, looting, the result of party closure will also occur according to our constitutional legislation."  

 

Emphasizing that even the “TEM Branch Information Note” is an indicator of what kind of work was carried out in the closure case filed against the parties, from law enforcement officers to intelligence officials, from local prosecutors' offices to court committees, Eren said: "In a case that is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, everyone from the law enforcement to local prosecutors is executing the case. Finally, the local prosecutor's office sends the investigation of Semra Güzel and Behçet Yıldırım to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court. Although the indictment was submitted to the Constitutional Court by the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the local prosecutor's offices sought to find evidence and an investigation file against the HDP. They assumed the duties of the Chief Public Prosecutor. In the closure case, the state as a whole has mobilized from its bureaucrats to the police, so an effort is being made to close the HDP with its judiciary, security and local prosecutors.”

 

'DECISION TO CLOSE HDP IS AN INTERVENTION WITH ELECTION'

 

Emphasizing that there is not the only concrete evidence in the indictment regarding the allegations against the HDP, Eren said: "The statements made by party members, administrators and MPs within the scope of freedom of expression, meeting and demonstration march are included in the indictment. The minimum level of political and legal activities that political parties are required to do in democracies have been put as evidence in the closure case. It is said that; HDP can't talk, the HDP can't have meetings, and the HDP can't walk. The Constitutional Court cannot decide on closure in the case of closure based on these. There are violation decisions of the ECtHR in the cases brought against Turkey regarding the closure of political parties. Even if the jurisprudence created by the ECtHR is taken as a basis, a decision of closure cannot be made. The ECtHR set out the principles. None of the criteria of the closure case is sufficient to close our party. We have entered the election zone. With a possible closure decision of the Constitutional Court just before the election, it will have made a judicial coup in politics. We think that the Constitutional Court will not sign a decision that will result in election interference.”

 

 

MA / Berivan Altan