US embassy cable - 04ANKARA1359

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001359 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/07/2014 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PHUM, TU 
SUBJECT: DEFENSE, PROSECUTION IN TORTURE CASE BLAST U.S. 
 
 
REF: A. SECSTATE 35967 
     B. ANKARA 958 
 
 
Classified by Deputy Polcouns Charles Blaha; reasons 1.4 b 
and d. 
 
 
1. (C) Summary: Both the prosecution and defense in the 
death-in-detention case of Birtan Altinbas March 5 criticized 
a letter from the Secretary to FM Gul raising concerns about 
the trial.  The attorneys accused the U.S. of interfering 
with the independence of the judiciary.  The lead prosecuting 
attorney told us the anti-U.S. statement from the prosecution 
was the work of an Istanbul-based lawyers group; she said she 
tried unsuccessfully to block it.  None of the 10 police 
defendants attended the hearing.  Prosecutors believe 
repeated delays in the trial threaten to prevent a final 
verdict before the statute of limitations runs out.  End 
Summary. 
 
 
----------------- 
Defendants Absent 
----------------- 
 
 
2. (U) None of the defendants in the 13-year-old Altinbas 
case appeared at the March 5 hearing, despite a February 16 
Interior Ministry circular calling on police nationwide to 
attend trials as required (reftel B).  There were, however, 
journalists and out-of-town lawyers drawn to the trial by the 
Secretary's February 19 letter to FM Gul (reftel A), which 
 
SIPDIS 
made reference to the case.  Altinbas, a Hacettepe University 
student at the time, died under police custody in 1991.  The 
Secretary's letter briefly raised the concern that the trial, 
 
SIPDIS 
which has been plagued by repeated delays, could fail to 
reach a final verdict before the statute of limitations runs 
out.  The GOT apparently released the letter, which was 
covered widely in the press. 
 
 
------------------------ 
Defense Blasts Letter... 
------------------------ 
 
 
3. (C) Mehmet Emin Bagci and Ahmet Ozcicek -- two of the 
attorneys representing the police defendants -- criticized 
the Secretary's letter and accused the U.S. of interfering 
with the Turkish judiciary.  Bagci said the U.S. should 
"answer for the blood it is shedding in the world" and 
claimed that press coverage of the trial inspired by the 
letter had put his client's life at risk.  The defense 
attorneys requested that the court ban press coverage of the 
trial.  They also asked the court to postpone the next 
hearing to allow more time for them to prepare a defense, 
noting that they had recently replaced attorneys who resigned 
from the case (Note: this is a classic delaying tactic. End 
Note).  The court refused the requests, and scheduled the 
next session for March 18. 
 
 
---------------------- 
...As Does Prosecution 
---------------------- 
 
 
4. (C) Lead prosecuting attorney Oya Aydin asked the court to 
issue arrest warrants for the defendants; as in past 
hearings, the court refused (Note: the judges did not explain 
the refusal, but in the past have said that a routine request 
to attend the next hearing was sufficient. End Note). 
Normally, Aydin and two other Ankara attorneys comprise the 
prosecution in the case.  However, at the March 5 session 
they were joined by about 20 lawyers from Istanbul.  One of 
the Istanbul lawyers, Behic Asci, read a prepared statement 
criticizing the Secretary's letter from the prosecution side 
of the aisle.  Asci accused the U.S. of "training the people 
who killed Altinbas" and said the U.S. had "dirtied" the 
trial by interfering. Before the hearing, Aydin warned us 
that a group of lawyers affiliated with the People's Law 
Bureau, which specializes in PKK cases, would make a 
political statement.  She said she tried to prevent the 
statement, arguing that it would politicize the hearing and 
distract from the prosecution of the case.  But she said she 
lacked the authority to bar the out-of-towners from the 
hearing -- the Istanbul lawyers are officially among the 
attorneys representing the victim's family, though they 
haven't worked on the case in the past. 
 
 
---------------------------- 
Delays Could Prevent Verdict 
---------------------------- 
 
 
5. (U) The case has been plagued by repeated procedural 
delays, including the frequent absence of defendants, and 
their attorneys.  Once the felony court trying the case 
reaches a verdict, the losing side is sure to appeal. 
Prosecuting  attorneys are concerned that the appeals court 
will not reach a final verdict before the 15-year statute of 
limitations expires in January 2006. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EDELMAN