03.02.2025 11:51
The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation has appealed the decision to overturn the aggravated life sentence given to the defendant Cemal Metin Avcı for the crime of "premeditated murder with monstrous feelings or inflicting torture" in the case of the murder of Pınar Gültekin, which shook Turkey.
On July 16, 2020, in the Menteşe district of Muğla, the decision regarding the defendant Cemal Metin Avcı, who was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of 'deliberately and with monstrous feelings torturing and killing' university student Pınar Gültekin, was overturned by the Supreme Court's 1st Criminal Chamber by a majority vote. The decision was overturned in favor of the defendant on the grounds that Avcı did not kill Gültekin with monstrous feelings and intent, and that he should also receive a reduction for unjust provocation. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court objected to this decision.
HE WAS MURDERED IN A BRUTAL MANNER
In Muğla, university student Pınar Gültekin was killed by her boyfriend Cemal Metin Avcı on July 16, 2020, after being burned alive, placed in a barrel, set on fire with gasoline, and then covered with concrete before being left in a wooded area.
HE HAD RECEIVED AGGRAVATED LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Pınar Gültekin, a student in the Department of Economics at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, went missing on July 16, 2020. Her ex-boyfriend Cemal Metin Avcı, who was taken into custody five days later as part of the investigation, confessed that he had strangled Gültekin during a fight, placed her body in a barrel at a country house, burned it, and then covered it with concrete. Gültekin's partially burned body was found in the barrel at the location indicated by Avcı. Cemal Metin Avcı, who was referred to the courthouse, was arrested for the crime of 'killing with monstrous feelings and torture.' In the trial held at the Muğla 1st Heavy Penal Court, the defendant Avcı was sentenced to 23 years in prison with a reduction for unjust provocation.
THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE AGGRAVATED LIFE SENTENCE
Upon the objection of the Gültekin family, the case was sent to the İzmir Regional Court of Justice. In the hearing held in the 4th Criminal Chamber, it was decided that an aggravated life sentence should be imposed on Cemal Metin Avcı for the crime of 'killing with monstrous feelings and torture' without applying the provisions of unjust provocation. The Supreme Court's 1st Criminal Chamber, which reviewed the case upon the objection, found it unlawful not to apply a minimum reduction for unjust provocation, considering that Pınar Gültekin had obtained benefits from Avcı through increasing demands by blackmailing him about their relationship with his wife and surroundings. The Supreme Court's 1st Criminal Chamber, by a majority vote, overturned the ruling against the defendant Cemal Metin Avcı for the crime of 'deliberately and with monstrous feelings or torture killing' against the victim Pınar Gültekin. The Chamber stated that the defendant should be punished for qualified intentional murder or murder by torture and sent the case back to the İzmir Regional Court of Justice.
THE SUPREME COURT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OBJECTED TO THE DECISION
The Supreme Court objected to the overturning of the aggravated life sentence given to Cemal Metin Avcı for the crime of 'deliberately and with monstrous feelings or torture killing' in the Pınar Gültekin murder case.
'ALL PEOPLE WHO EXPERIENCE THE PAIN OF LOSING A CHILD WILL UNDERSTAND ME'
Reacting to the overturning decision, Pınar Gültekin's father, Sıddık Gültekin, said, "We are almost entering the 5th year, our trial was ongoing. Unfortunately, we received very bad news last night; the Supreme Court has overturned the decision by a 3 to 2 vote. Mertcan Avcı's sentence has been upheld for 4 years, but unfortunately, they have overturned the sentence of the murderer, the person who committed the murder. Their intentions are clear. It was the same in the Muğla court that judged us, the court that sentenced him to 23 years did the same. But honorable judges have not disappeared. They gave the necessary response in İzmir. They also gave the necessary punishment, but the Supreme Court overturned it. We will continue our legal struggle to the end. Because we live in a rule of law. This should not be the case. How can a person die like this? You bring your daughter to a position of being burned alive, tie her up, put her in a barrel, and burn her. The Supreme Court has done everything it can to reduce the sentence as if it were a normal death. We absolutely do not accept this decision. There is a forensic report decision. There are signatures of 11 professors on this decision. This poor girl was burned alive. How can it not be with monstrous feelings? We have no guarantees left. We have no guarantees even in traffic. If this sentence is like this, anyone can be killed in traffic at any moment. It feels as if my daughter was burned alive in front of my eyes in a barrel last night. This really hurts us a lot. But there is nothing we can do. We will continue our struggle to the end. I think all people who experience the pain of losing a child will understand me because my heart is broken. Our family is finished. How could their conscience allow such a decision? I call out to the Supreme Court, how can you make such a decision? This is an absurd decision. I do not recognize the decision," he said.
'LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY UNACCEPTABLE'
The family's lawyer, Rezan Epözdemir, stated that the Supreme Court's decision is legally and factually unacceptable, saying, "The decision given by the Supreme Court is clearly devoid of legal basis and unfounded. In our opinion, it is a legal absurdity. You know, a decision was made by the 4th Criminal Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Justice. An aggravated life sentence was given to Cemal Metin Avcı. The parties exercised their right to appeal in this matter. They had appealed, and the process was brought to the Supreme Court. According to the news reflected in the press today, which we have not been notified of the decision, we could not be informed about it, but according to the news reflected in the public today, this decision has been overturned in favor of the defendant. It was overturned based on two main reasons. First, the Supreme Court said that an unjust provocation should be applied here, which we believe is legally and factually unacceptable. Because during the trial, the defendant Cemal Metin Avcı made the unjust provocation defense three times to minimize the sentence. This was a constructed, rehearsed defense. It changed three times, it changed in stages, and a contradictory unjust provocation defense was made. Ultimately, since it was not supported by evidence, the 4th Criminal Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Justice did not give credence to this defense. It was said to be a constructed and rehearsed defense aimed at minimizing the sentence. However, the Supreme Court says that an unjust provocation should be applied here. In our opinion, this is legally and factually unacceptable," he said.
'THE REASONING IS EXACTLY THIS EXAMPLE'
Lawyer Epözdemir stated that Gültekin's death should be evaluated within the definition of 'monstrous feelings,' saying, "You know, according to the Forensic Medicine Institution report, the victim Pınar Gültekin was burned alive. Her life was ended while she was still alive, she was burned alive. Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code states that this is a murder committed with monstrous feelings and by torturing. When we ask what the definition of monstrous feelings is, it is stated in Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code that the reasoning is exactly this example. Monstrous feelings refer to a qualified intentional murder that results from someone being burned alive. Despite this, according to the Forensic Medicine Institution report, it is established that she was burned with monstrous feelings, meaning she was burned alive, and she was thrown into a river with the help of a barrel covered with concrete, yet the Supreme Court says, 'No, there are no monstrous feelings here' regarding the defendant.
He states, "There is no qualified intentional murder here; it is a case of simple intentional murder." It is said that a decision to overturn was made with such a justification. Of course, this decision was made by a majority of three to two. The Deputy Chairman of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Osman Atalay, and another member who disagreed with this decision also opposed it, and the decision was made by a majority vote. From now on, we will continue our legal struggle to the end. According to Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we will apply to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation to exercise the right of appeal. We believe that the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation will exercise this right of appeal, and we are of the opinion that this mistake will be corrected by the General Criminal Board of the Court of Cassation," he stated.
'WE WILL CONTINUE OUR LEGAL STRUGGLE'
Lawyer Rezan Epözdemir, who indicated that the date of the defendant's release has been moved forward with this decision, said, "If he had received a life sentence, he would only have been able to be released in 2050. After 30 years of conditional release and supervised probation, he would have had to serve time. However, if simple intentional murder and unjust provocation reduction are applied, his sentence could be between 12 to 18 years in prison. If he is sentenced to the minimum of 12 years, he could be released after a total of 7 years of conditional release and supervised probation. This would mean he could be released in July 2027. This is a result that will disturb the public conscience, the victim's family, and the Turkish public. Without immediate rehabilitation, the fundamental principle of punishment law is rehabilitation, and he will be reintegrated into society without rehabilitation. If he is sentenced to the maximum and this decision is finalized, he will receive an 18-year prison sentence, with a minimum of 11 years to serve. After conditional release and supervised probation, he could be released in July 2031. In both scenarios, he will be integrated into society without rehabilitation, which poses a situation that undermines both public conscience and the perception of justice. We will continue our legal struggle to the end. We will apply for the exercise of the right of appeal by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation against this decision. We hope that justice will prevail, the material truth will emerge, fairness will be achieved, and this victimization will be resolved as soon as possible," he said.