02.02.2025 15:01
In Muğla, the Supreme Court overturned the aggravated life sentence of Cemal Metin Avcı, the suspect in the murder of Pınar Gültekin, who was burned alive in 2020, stating that it was "not committed with monstrous intent." The decision received numerous reactions, and Gültekin's family's lawyer said, "We learned about the Supreme Court's decision from the press. The decision is clearly a legal absurdity. We are at the end of our words."
```html
Approximately 5 years ago, Cemal Metin Avcı, who assaulted and strangled Pınar Gültekin in Muğla and then burned her alive in a barrel, had his aggravated life sentence overturned by the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation decided that the defendant should be punished not for "premeditated and brutal murder," but for "unqualified intentional murder or murder with torture," applying unjust provocation. The decision, which devastated the Gültekin family, caused public outrage.
"WE LEARNED ABOUT THE DECISION FROM THE PRESS"
Dr. Rezan Epözdemir, the lawyer for the Gültekin family, stated that they learned about the decision from the press, saying, "Today, we learned about the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which has not yet been notified to us, and of which we had no knowledge, and somehow was shared with the press. Accordingly, despite the dissenting votes of the vice president and two members, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the decision by a majority of three to two. The decision was overturned in favor of the defendant on the grounds that Cemal Metin Avcı did not kill our client’s daughter Pınar Gültekin with brutal intent and premeditation, and that unjust provocation should also be applied to him. In our opinion, this decision taken by the Court of Cassation by majority vote is clearly a legal absurdity," he said.
"IF BURNING SOMEONE ALIVE IS NOT BRUTAL, IN WHAT CASE WILL THIS CONDITION BE APPLIED?"
Epözdemir stated, "The determination that the defendant's unjust provocation defense, which has changed three times in the stages, is contradictory within itself, unsupported by the evidence in the file, and attributed sanctity to it, is clearly devoid of legal basis and unfounded. Again, according to the forensic medicine report in the file, it is incredible that Pınar Gültekin, who was burned alive and thrown into the river after being poured with concrete, was not killed with brutal intent. Even in the justification of Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code, burning a person alive is shown as an example of brutal murder, while saying that the death of the victim Pınar Gültekin, who was determined to have been burned alive according to the forensic report, was not carried out with brutal intent is extremely significant and thought-provoking. If burning someone alive is not brutal murder, in what case can this qualified condition be applied? It is impossible to understand this," he said.
"WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WORDS END"
Epözdemir, stating that if the decision is finalized in this form, Avcı will receive a 7-year prison sentence, said, "At this point, if the İzmir Regional Court of Appeals makes a decision in line with the Court of Cassation's overturning decree and if the decision is finalized in this form; the defendant Cemal Metin Avcı could be sentenced to imprisonment from 12 to 18 years. If he is given a net sentence of 12 years, he will stay in prison for 7 years after the application of conditional release and supervised probation, while if he is given the upper limit of 18 years, he will stay in prison for 11 years after the application of conditional release and supervised probation. While the fundamental and universal principle and purpose of penal execution law is rehabilitation, in our opinion, the reintegration of this defendant, who committed a brutal and savage murder, into society without rehabilitation will cause deep wounds in the public conscience and in the conscience of the client family. This decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which was made by majority vote, is a decision that could undermine a uniform and substantial will to combat violence against women and femicides. This decision has disappointed and deeply saddened the members of the client family who lost their daughter in a brutal murder. Undoubtedly, this decision will be condemned in the eyes of history and in the conscience of the client family and the public conscience. Our legal struggle will continue until the İzmir Regional Court of Appeals 4th Criminal Chamber issues a resistance decision against this overturning decision of the Court of Cassation and the perpetrator can be punished in a manner commensurate with what he deserves. We actually want to say a lot about this decision, but we start from the subjectivity and yet we get stuck in the predicate. In other words, we are at the point where words end," he expressed.
"IF THE DECISION IS FINALIZED, HE WILL BE RELEASED AFTER 2.5 YEARS"
Epözdemir stated, "First of all, we will apply for the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation to exercise its right of appeal according to Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code against this decision, which is of a legal absurdity nature. If the court makes a decision in line with the overturning decision and if a conviction is made for the simple form of intentional murder by applying unjust provocation reduction, and if it is finalized; if Cemal Metin Avcı receives a prison sentence of 12 years from the lower limit, he will be released in July 2027, that is, after 2.5 years, and if he is given a prison sentence of 18 years from the upper limit, he will be released in July 2031, after 6.5 years. Of course, unless the mitigating factors referred to as "good behavior" in the public are applied! If the aggravated life sentence is executed, he will be able to be released after 30 years of detention, that is, in July 2050," he said.
"YOU ALSO BURNED PINAR GÜLTEKİN"
Many reactions to the decision came from other lawyers and citizens. Citizens reacted by saying, "There cannot be such a ridiculous decision. What else did he need to do to be considered to have killed with brutal intent?", "You also burned Pınar Gültekin!", "Enough is enough.", "He strangled her, put her in a barrel, poured gasoline, and burned her. It was not murder with brutal intent. How else should she have been tortured to be killed?", "Is this decision not an encouragement for femicides? What is brutality? We cannot accept it!", "I will lose my mind", "The decision given is as brutal as the crime committed!" and "I think the Court of Cassation's decision regarding Pınar Gültekin contains a faulty assessment."
```