AMED - The Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the 3 years, one month and 15 days prison sentence given to journalist Mehmet Güleş for alleged "terrorist propaganda", finding it disproportionate.

 

The prison sentence of 3 years, 1 month and 15 days given to journalist Mehmet Güleş for "making propaganda for a terrorist organisation" on World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2017, for his news posts on digital media was overturned by the Supreme Court. After the appeal to the Court of Cassation was opened for the crime of making propaganda for an organisation, the application made to the Court of Cassation was concluded, with the decision of the Elazığ 2nd High Criminal Court and the Antep Regional Court of Justice's approval.

 

The 3rd Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which examined the sentence given by moving away from the lower limit due to the implementation of the penalty increase provisions, decided to reverse the sentence given that it was disproportionate.

 

'TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION'

 

Evaluating the decision, journalist Mehmet Güleş said: "A message was given to me and the free press on May 3, World Press Freedom Day. The news I shared and the photos of them were all posts made within the scope of the news content and the public's right to information. One of the posts for which the punishment was given is about the anniversary of the Roboski massacre. The phone calls I made with news sources to report on this issue were given as a justification for the sentence. As a journalist, it is considered a crime for me to want to report on the anniversary of this event while the perpetrators are outside, running around in the Parliament. This is unacceptable. I do not expect a legal decision during this period. In the end, the Supreme Court overturned the sentence due to freedom of thought and expression, but overturned the verdict because the sentence was disproportionate to the crime. What should have been done here was to protect the freedom of thought and expression, but unfortunately we could not see this in the decision of the Court of Cassation."