REASONS FOR ANNULMENT

The 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the verdict applying the statute of limitations dated May 21st, 2007 in the Science Research Foundation case. The reason why the case file had been sent to the local court from the Supreme Court of Appeals was NOT TO DEMAND THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANTS.

According to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the local court was only commissioned to DEFINE UNDER WHICH LEGAL CODE THE CASE FILE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. An assessment for the conviction of the defendants could only be made after this was established. THEREFORE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE CASE FILE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPRISONMENT RULING.

Here are some of the reasons why the imprisonment ruling given in the SRF case, which is subject to appellate review at the Supreme Court of Appeals as of today, should be REVERSED, together with some related rulings by the Supreme Court of Appeals that set precedents in the case;

1. Using matters which were totally unconnected with the defendants on trial in the SRF case, an INCREASE IN THE PENALTY had been applied to the defendants and the 61st article of the TCC had thus been contravened. To present subjects that have no connection with the defendants as grounds for an INCREASE IN SENTENCE is a LEGAL BASIS FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals General Commission of Penalty, E 1979/39, V 1979/126

A ruling to accept the cassation appeal by the defendant and to ANNUL the verdict of withstanding, should be issued, because EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR INCREASING THE PENALTY that arises from this form of committing the offence or from the personality of the defendant, acting in CONTRARY TO THE RIGHT AND WORTH PRINCIPLES by indicating a penalty far above the lowest limit, had been regarded as an infringement of the law and as irregular conduct.

2. Following the reversal verdict, even though the article of law under which the defendants were tried was changed, the local court had not notified the defendants of this. Requests by the defendants to be informed under which article of law they were being tried were left unanswered by the local court. Therewithal even though the defendants were being tried within the scope of a completely new article of the law, the local court DID NOT OBSERVE THE DEFENDANTS’ RIGHT TO A SUPPLEMENTARY DEFENSE. Both of these actions ARE LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals 8th Criminal Circuit, E. 2001/13616, V. 2002/2670

... even though criminal proceedings had been filed against them with the indictment in respect of their being penalized according to the article and clause 1/1-2 of the law code No. 4422, the contravention of Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) by applying Article 313 of the TCC to which the mentioned actions are regarded as being in the scope of, without permitting the SUPPLEMENTARY RIGHT TO A DEFENSE, requires ANNULMENT… and it was decided to ANNUL the verdict for these reasons.

3. The fact that the defendants in the SFR case were denied THE RIGHT TO A DEFENSE during the 7 years of the legal procedures and the DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENSE REQUESTS by the defense lawyers BY THE COURT, ARE LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals General Commission of Penalty, E. 2006/331, V. 2006/313

...as a result of the assessments carried out on the documents… since the verdict of imprisonment results in the complete elimination of the right to a defense, it completely contravenes the law ... on the legal grounds described ... it was decided to consign the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals to be sent to the relevant destination.

4. All the allegations in the indictment in the SRF case file are based on statements that the defendants of the case were made to sign under duress and torture in the absence of their lawyers. USING LEGALLY VOID STATEMENTS AS EVIDENCE AGAINST the defendants and the local court’s REFERRING EXACTLY 16 TIMES TO THE VOID STATEMENTS TAKEN IN THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals General Commission of Penalty, E. 1999/1-213, V. 1999/219

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SOLID AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE other than the declarations taken by the law enforcement officers, which were later retracted on the grounds that they were TAKEN UNDER DURESS, and which had not been VERIFIED BY ANY OTHER SUBSIDIARY EVIDENCE, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE ACQUITTED OF the charges, to order the imprisonment of the defendant in writing… it was decided to annul the verdict at appeal… to RENDER THE VERDICT NULL AND VOID FOR the reasons mentioned above...

5. NOT CONSIDERING THE CASE REGARDING TORTURE that is going on regarding police officers who made the defendants sign the statements in the security department under duress, AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE is a LEGITIMATE REASON FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals 9th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, E. 2007/13883, V. 2008/6812

... the case that is to be made a preliminary issue is to be tried in another court and THE TWO CASE FILES SHOULD BE LINKED… the verdict of the other file should be awaited and regarded as AN ISSUE THAT WOULD EFFECT THE VERDICT in this case.

Since the verdict that will be given by …… in the present case WOULD AFFECT THE OUTCOME of this case as well, and since it was understood that these two cases should be linked together… the case heard in the other court SHOULD BE MADE A PRELIMINARY ISSUE by the court UNTIL THE CASE IS COMPLETED AND FINALIZED, and the case should be evaluated and resulted only after the afore mentioned case is completed. It is decided to ANNUL THE VERDICT that is the subject of appeal for the reason appended...

6. In a criminal case, reasons for conviction should be set out separately in the reasoned verdict for every single person convicted. However, as was seen in the SRF case, to explain the reasons with some general statements that embrace all the defendants without INDIVIDUALIZING THEM and not stating who had been convicted for what reason constitute LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals General Commission of Penalty, E. 1976/7-390, V. 1976/386

...in the reasoning of the evaluation that brought the court to determine a penalty exceeding the minimum limit, NEITHER THE CHARACTERISTICS REGARDING THE PERSONALITY OF THE DEFENDANT NOR THE WAY THE CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED WAS MENTIONED. The reason being relied on …. is not a reason that refers to the personality of the defendant.

...It was decided to ANNUL THE VERDICT on the above mentioned grounds.

7. Law code No. 4422 on which the indictment in the SRF case was based came into effect on August 1st, 1999. The defendants in the case had been taken into custody on November 12th, 1999. Consequently, for the alleged offences to be considered within the scope of the law code No. 4422, they should have been committed during the 103 days between these two dates. However, neither in the indictment nor in the allegations put forward during the time the case was heard is there any action allegedly committed during this period. This constitutes a LEGITIMATE GROUND FOR ANNULMENT according to Article 15 of the 1982 Constitution of the Turkish Republic, which states “LEGAL SENTENCES CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY”.

Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Criminal Circuit, E. 2004/10046, V. 2005/3689

To come to a judgment about the defendant under law code No. 4422, instead of TCC Article 313, without presenting and discussing the evidence on the spot that states the defendant was still actively involved in the organization after 1.8.1999, the date when law code No. 4422 came into effect, IS GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT.

8. Even though, during the course of the case, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals had twice requested the court case file from the president of the local court in order to solve the dispute between the two verdicts from the Supreme Court of Appeals, the president of the court did not send the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor for a period of 1.5 years, and concluding the case with a conviction without sending the file constitutes LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT.

9. The fact that the local court commission tried 23 of the 42 defendants who were all tried under the same indictment and same allegations in accordance with TCC 313 and the remaining 19 in according with TCC 220 constitutes a LEGITIMATE GROUND FOR ANNULMENT. The fact that same court had ACQUITTED some of the defendants tried under the same indictment and had applied the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for others and had issued a verdict of IMPRISONMENT for the remaining defendants, is a LEGITIMATE GROUND FOR ANNULMENT.

Supreme Court of Appeals 9th Criminal Circuit, E. 1995/1402, V. 1995/2647

Dividing a single action by the defendant into two in respect of the nature of the offense, and giving an acquittal verdict on the one hand and imprisonment on the other for the same action, in contravention of CCP Articles 258,257 and 254 is unlawful … and for that reason it was decided to ANNUL THE VERDICT...

However, the final verdict is of course at the discretion of the Court and the members of the SRF will respect any verdict that may be given. Nevertheless, shedding light on the above listed points is of great importance with regard to the working of the justice system.

THE DEEP GAME GOES ON

There have recently been very important developments regarding the case of the Science Research Foundation (BAV). The public expects an explanation of these.
 
The 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals negated the local court’s statute of limitations expiry ruling in the BAV case under a ruling dated 21 May, 2007, No. 2007/3877. HOWEVER, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT DECISION, daily Hurriyet carried this REVERSAL DECREE on 19 May, 2007. The report in Hurriyet, headed "Adnan Hodja is finally burnt out!” (the original Turkish suggests “burning” as well as imminent punishment), stated that the Supreme Court would reverse the expiry of the statute of limitations ruling and impose penalty, before the Supreme Court announced the decision. Had Daily Hurriyet considered it a possibility that this case would be concluded with an acquittal verdict, then the word “had” would apparently not be used. This means that there was a strong opinion the case would be resolved with conviction.

Aydin Dogan’s newspaper Hurriyet reported, two days before the Supreme Court of Appeals had even announced its ruling, that the ruling that the BAV case had exceeded the statute of limitations was to be overturned. The question of how daily Hurriyet obtained a legal verdict that had yet to be revealed is one requiring clarification.

There are some questions that arouse curiosity:

1. What is the source of the Aydin Dogan-owned Hurriyet’s intelligence?

2. How was Hurriyet informed of the contents of the Supreme Court of Appeals decision 2 days before it was published and announced to the parties?

3. How did Hurriyet know that the court would find the defendants guilty after the file had been returned to the local court?

Following the local court ruling in the BAV case, appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court of Appeals for the second time. This time the September-October 2009 issue of New Humanist magazine said that the BAV case had been given to an investigating judge and would be concluded against the defendants within the month of October. The magazine is one of the world’s leading atheist, Darwinist publications.

The report in the magazine used a picture of Fatih Altayli, one of Aydin Dogan's former writers, and sought to give the impression that there was some rancor between Altayli and Adnan Oktar. The fact is, however, that this artificial ill-feeling portrayed to the public is just one of the sly strategies employed by agent provocateurs that have been infiltrated into the BAV community. Mr. Oktar is not acquainted with Fatih Altayli and there is no question of his feeling any ill-will toward him. In addition, the invalidity of Fatih Altayli’s allegations against Mr. Oktar has been proved by judgments at law issued by judicial bodies regarding Mr. Oktar. (The Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court REASONED ACQUITTAL RULING No. 2007/7, 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals ACQUITTAL CONFIRMATION RULING No.2007/38773, Kartal 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance DEFINITIVE ACQUITTAL RULING No. 96/381 E. – 98/508 K dated 12.06.1998 and Istanbul 6th Civil Court of First Instance CONFIRMED ACQUITTAL RULING No. 01/261 E. - 02/335 K. dated 22.05.2002.) But Fatih Altayli intervened in the BAV case despite all these acquittal rulings and objected in order that Mr. Oktar be convicted. However, Adnan Oktar is a man of love, affection, kindness and compassion, for which reason he always approaches Fatih Altayli within a framework of kindness and compassion.

1) It was Rezzan Aydinoglu, the lawyer of Fatih Altayli, who told the magazine

In a statement given to the world-renowned atheist magazine New Humanist, Fatih Altayli’s lawyer Rezzan Aydinoglu said that the BAV case, at appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeals, would be resolved in October and the defendants sentenced. The question of how Rezzan Aydinoglu could know a decision to be reached by the Supreme Court of Appeals regarding a file that Court members had not even examined yet is one that troubles the public mind and conscience, and one that needs to be answered. In addition, in the first appeal in our case it took the investigating judge 1 year 3 months, in other words 15 months, to examine the 90 files in the case. Yet according to Rezzan Aydinoglu’s claim, our case now consisting of 300 files will be examined and brought to a conclusion in just 1 month. It therefore means that this ruling will be issued almost without the case file being studied at all.

that the BAV case file had been given to the investigating judge. How did Rezzan Aydinoglu acquire this secret information that was unknown even to the defendants?

2) In his statement, Rezzan Aydinoglu says the Supreme Court of Appeals will resolve the case in October and that the defendants will be convicted. How does Rezzan Aydinoglu know beforehand what the Supreme Court of Appeals will rule regarding a file that the court members have not even examined yet?

The defendants in the BAV case of course respect the ruling to be issued by the Supreme Court of Appeals and acknowledge that the final decision lies with the Supreme Court. However, as revealed in the Supreme Court of Appeals ruling cases, the BAV case examined at the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals makes it necessary to overturn the sentencing decision due to various legal irregularities during the trial.

Just two of the many legal pretexts necessitating an annulment are:

1) The BAV case lasted 8 years, during the course of which,

The defendants’ rights to a defense were restricted by the rejection of their requests to present a defense, the additional defense rights granted under Article 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) were not recognized and the provision under Article 216/3 of the CCP, that “the final world shall lie with the defendant present in court prior to conviction” was not implemented. The BAV case ended in conviction through the violation of these rights bestowed on defendants under Turkish law.

Examination of Supreme Court of Appeals ruling cases with decisions numbered 2005/27, 1995/239 and 2006/180 that set a precedent for the unlawful practices in the BAV case reveals that the failure to apply even one of these rights is regarded as “ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR ANNULLING THE VERDICT.”

2) The rule that “procedures implemented by a court that does not have the jurisdiction are invalid and must be repeated” (CCP. Para 7) was ignored in the BAV case.

The court procedures of a previous court were not repeated by the court that took over the case in the wake of the lack of jurisdiction ruling in the BAV case, for which reason the ruling was issued on the basis of null and void procedures.

Supreme Court of Appeals General Criminal Assembly rulings No. 2008/1-90 E. and 2008/100 K. openly state that PROCEDURES CARRIED OUT BY COURTS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION ARE NULL AND VOID.

These two unlawful procedures during the case closely followed by the public are both reasons for the verdict in the BAV case to be OVERTURNED. The scientific opinions provided by leading Turkish and international criminal jurists after thorough examination of the file reveal that the conviction in the BAV case MUST BE OVERTURNED. However, the final decision surely lies with the Supreme Court and members of the BAV community respect the ruling to be issued.

It is of great importance in terms of the functioning of a just judicial system for the above questions to be illuminated. The public expects light to be shed on these matters.

One of the subjects covered in New Humanist’s report about Mr. Adnan Oktar is the Turkish-Islamic Union.

Adnan Oktar’s works on Darwinism, and the Atlas of Creation in particular, have intellectually demolished Darwinism. Darwinists have suffered a huge intellectual defeat. These Darwinist and materialist circles that have no scientific answer to Mr. Oktar’s works are hoping in the face of their own rout that Adnan Oktar will be convicted.

Mr. Adnan Oktar attaches particular importance to the establishment of the Turkish-Islamic Union in his works. Materialist and Darwinist circles, on the other hand, are strongly opposed to such an excellent union that will bestow love, peace, brotherhood, plenty and abundance on the world. They imagine, at least in their own eyes, that in the event Mr. Oktar is convicted they can prevent the formation of the Turkish-Islamic Union. But the fact is that the Turkish-Islamic Union is an ideal dear to the hearts of the whole Turkish-Islamic world and that Mr. Oktar’s cultural activities are a vital foundation in its establishment.

SCIENCE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

THE NEWS OF THE TWO DAILIES REPORTING AGAINST SCIENCE RESEARCH FOUNDATION (SRF) IS UNREAL

The two different newspapers, in the reports they made in two successive days, revealed groundless claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar and the circles of the Science Research Foundation. The related news repeated the known slanders of some press organs, stating that seven anonymous witnesses testified about this subject.
FIRST OF ALL WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE SLANDERS IN THE REPORTS ARE ENTIRELY UNREAL. THE  FALSEHOOD OF THE ANONYMOUS WITNESS TESTIMONIES ARE REVEALED BY THE ADJUDICATION.

Indeed, related to the investigation carried out about the testimonies of the anonymous witnesses, the Uskudar Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (No. 2008/1211) gave A VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION. This verdict was APPROVED by Kadikoy High Criminal Court No. 1 (verdict miscellaneous number 2008/1015).

Istanbul Prosecution Office with Special Authorities (formerly the State Security Court) also examined the same file (file no. 2007/3026) in the past and the Prosecution gave A VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION on 13.12.2007. This verdict was also APPROVED by the Ankara High Criminal Court Number 11 (file no. 2008/307).

The prosecution offices did not even find it necessary to open files about the statements of “anonymous witnesses”, which were merely figments of imagination. Not only about the claims of anonymous witnesses but also about those of some families who submitted false complaint petitions did the prosecution offices give VERDICTS OF NON-PROSECUTION.

Some of these are as follows:

1.  VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION  given by Istanbul Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Investigation file no. 2007/11089)
2. VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION given by Istanbul Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Investigation file no. 2007/17087)
3. VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION given by Istanbul Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Investigation file no. 2007/11092)
4. VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION given by Uskudar Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Investigation file no.2007/10878)
5. VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION given by Uskudar Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Investigation file no.2007/6120)
FOR WHICH REASONS THE REPORTS OF THESE TWO DAILIES ARE UNREAL.

While revealing these groundless accusations, these dailies would have a publishing policy based on principles, if they did not conceal the above-mentioned judicial verdicts refuting these accusations and thus provide accurate information to their readers.

The following are the subjects we and the Turkish public opinion are curious about:

If the dailies in question were to investigate the above-mentioned claims instead of the groundless claims made against the SRF circle, they would illuminate the public, display an example of successful journalism and thus make a beneficial service to the Turkish society.

To be announced to the public with respect, 
SCIENCE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Visit the Web site of HARUN YAHYA
Harun Yahya, renowned Turkish author, and a prominent Muslim intellectual, is the Honorary President of the SRF.
All his books as well as other material based on his work are freely available in the www.harunyahya.com website.