Turkish court rules 2023 attack on Istanbul Mayor İmamoğlu not ‘premeditated’ 

Emrullah Bayrak / Gazete Duvar

A criminal court in Turkey’s eastern Erzurum province on Sept. 23 concluded that all defendants were guilty of intentional injury in the case regarding the attack on Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu during a rally. However, the court noted that there was no legal evidence that the attack was premeditated or organized by the defendants.

The detailed ruling was written two months after the decision hearing, which took place on July 17. It stated that some of the defendants admitted to the injurious actions, some denied the charges, while others indirectly confessed by acknowledging that they threw objects at the opposing group.

The court ruled that it could not be established that all the defendants were collectively responsible for the victims’ injuries or that they acted as co-perpetrators. “The legal conditions for collective action were not met, and the defendants did not exercise joint control over the acts of injury, thus, the provisions of collective participation do not apply,” stated the court. 

As a result, the defendants were only held accountable for the intentional injury of one person, and sentencing was carried out accordingly.”

The court noted that the defendants who initiated the incident were part of the protesting group and threw objects indiscriminately. It was unclear which group was responsible for injuring passersby who were caught in the crossfire. The ruling also stated that, while some of the defendants knew each other, the majority did not.

The court added that there was no concrete evidence to prove that the objects were thrown with specific intent, and it could not be determined who injured which victim. Identifying the individuals who carried out the attacks was also impossible.

Even if the defendants' mobile phone records were reviewed, the ruling argued, this would not eliminate uncertainty. The court found that the video evidence showed many protestors who did not engage in violence, and their actions constituted legal protest rather than criminal acts. 

“Otherwise, we would have to punish everyone present at the protest, whether they were chanting slogans or carrying banners, which is not permissible under current criminal law.”

The detailed ruling also referenced medical reports on the victims’ injuries. “Given the nature of the injuries and the objects seen in camera footage, the objects thrown by the defendants were considered weapons.”

The court further evaluated whether the actions were intentional, concluding, “The defendants threw objects at a crowd, fully aware of the consequences. Therefore, their actions were considered deliberate, and no reduction in the sentence was granted.”

However, while the court found that the defendants aimed to cause harm, it could not confirm whether the objects hit anyone. Consequently, it could not establish whether the act of injury was completed based on the available evidence.

The court rejected a motion to reclassify the crime as attempted murder. In this case, the court found that the defendants’ actions constituted attempted injury rather than attempted murder, and thus, it did not issue a ruling of lack of jurisdiction.

What happened?

A group of people threw stones at the election bus of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) Istanbul Mayor and vice presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu while he was addressing citizens during a rally in the eastern province of Erzurum on May 7, 2023. 

The attack came after the Erzurum Metropolitan Municipality, run by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), brought several public buses together in the square where İmamoğlu would hold an election rally to prevent his rally.

İmamoğlu blamed the police for not intervening with the attackers and watched idly by as a group hurled stones towards the rally. 

The court on July sentenced all 28 defendants tried in the case, handing a minimum of 6-month prison time. The court also granted defendants reductions in time for “good behavior.” For some defendants, the pronouncement of the verdict was also postponed.

(English version by Ayşenaz Toptaş)