29.10.2026 19:37
In Kahramanmaraş, permission for an investigation was granted regarding the school principal, vice principal, and two teachers over the school attack in which 9 students and one teacher lost their lives. It was determined that the principal and vice principal left the building after seeing the attack without protecting the students, and that one teacher fled without warning their students. It was also established that the guidance counselor did not take action despite warnings made two months earlier regarding the attacker's tendency toward violence.
In the armed attack carried out by eighth-grade student İsa Aras Mersinli at Ayser Çalık Secondary School in Kahramanmaraş on April 15, teacher Ayla Kara and 9 students lost their lives, and 15 students were injured.
After the attack, the Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office initiated an ex officio investigation against school principal C. K., vice principal F. B., teacher A. T., and school counselor E. İ. on charges of "abandonment," "failure to report a crime," and "misconduct in office."
INVESTIGATION PERMISSION GRANTED FOR FOUR STAFF MEMBERS The Onikişubat District Governorship evaluated the referral report prepared by inspectors of the Ministry of National Education, the letters of the Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, and the report prepared as a result of the preliminary examination conducted by the Kahramanmaraş Governor's Office under Law No. 4483, along with its annexes.
Following the examination, it was decided to grant permission for an investigation into school principal C. K., vice principal F. B., teacher A. T., and school counselor E. İ.
THEY ABANDONED THE SCHOOL WHEN THEY SAW THE ATTACK In the District Governorship's decision, it was stated that school principal C. K. and vice principal F. B. heard gunshots during the attack and went to the corridor entrance of the first floor, where the attack was being carried out from the ground floor.
It was determined from camera footage that the two administrators, after seeing İsa Aras Mersinli carrying out the armed attack there, quickly went outside the school and abandoned the building.
It was reported that the principal and vice principal also confirmed this situation in their statements.
In the decision, the provision in Article 6/C of the Teaching Profession Law No. 7528 was recalled: "Takes the necessary measures for educational and training activities to be carried out in a healthy, safe, and peaceful environment."
THEY WERE HELD PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE STUDENTS In the investigation permission decision, it was stated that the school principal and vice principal were primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of the educational environment.
It was emphasized that the two administrators were legally in the position of "guarantor" with regard to protecting the students' safety of life during the attack.
In this context, it was stated that carrying out the necessary intervention against attacks or dangers to the students' lives and bodily integrity was a legal obligation.
The decision included the assessment that conduct contrary to this obligation could lead to serious consequences for the rights of students that must be protected.
WHAT WAS EXPECTED WAS NOT FOR THEM TO GO AFTER THE ARMED ATTACK In the District Governorship's decision, it was stated that the principal and vice principal were not expected to directly confront the armed attacker, but that they needed to take steps to protect the students within the framework of existing conditions.
The decision included the following statements: "It has been concluded that a contrary attitude or behavior is of equal value to the attack carried out against the values in question and corresponds to the act of attack. Within the framework of the guarantor obligation, what is legally expected from C. K. and F. B. is, of course, not to go after an armed attack, but to intervene in the attack within the framework of existing conditions and possibilities."
THEY ABANDONED THE SCHOOL INSTEAD OF TAKING THE STUDENTS TO A SAFE AREA In the preliminary examination report, it was emphasized that after seeing the attack, the two administrators were obliged to ensure the safety of the children at the school, especially the students in class 5/D.
It was stated that the students needed to be taken to sheltered areas, evacuated from the school, or the evacuation process needed to be organized.
In the decision, the following determination was made: "It has been understood that after C. K. and F. B. saw the attack, certain obligations arising from their guarantor status were at issue, such as ensuring the safety of the students in their current environment, especially those in class 5/D, taking them to a sheltered area, carrying out their evacuation from the school, or organizing all of these; instead of all this, C. K. and F. B. headed outside the school building and abandoned the institution."
The decision also included that the principal and vice principal called the 112 Emergency Call Center after leaving the school.
However, it was assessed that the two administrators endangered the children and caused them harm because they failed to fulfill their obligations to protect the students.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TEACHER FLED WITHOUT WARNING THE STUDENTS Among those granted investigation permission was also Religious Culture and Moral Knowledge Teacher A. T.
According to the District Governorship's decision, A. T., after hearing gunshots in class 5/G where they were on duty during the attack, opened the classroom door slightly and looked in the direction from which the sounds came.
After realizing that an armed attack was taking place, A. T. ran toward the ground floor without giving any warning to the students or making any attempt to protect them.
It was stated that the teacher also confirmed this situation in their statement.
In the decision, the provision in the Teaching Profession Law stating that teachers must make efforts to protect students from negative behaviors in the educational environment was recalled.
It was emphasized that due to their age, the students in class 5/G were not in a position to ensure their own safety in the face of an armed attack.
Therefore, it was noted that whether A. T.'s actions constituted the "offense of abandonment" regulated in Article 97 of the Turkish Criminal Code should be evaluated by judicial authorities.
STUDENTS WARNED TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK One of the most striking determinations in the preliminary examination decision was made regarding school counselor E. İ.
It was determined that students in the same class had conveyed to the school counselor approximately two months before the attack that İsa Aras Mersinli, who carried out the attack, showed a tendency toward violence.
It was stated that the students conveyed this information to the school counselor during an impromptu conversation.
The fact that the students, who gave statements at the Provincial Police Department without the opportunity to see or speak to each other, made accounts in the same direction was considered evidence supporting that the warning was made.
COUNSELING SERVICE PROVIDED 29 TIMES In the decision, it was stated that school counselor E. İ. was aware of İsa Aras Mersinli's self-harming behaviors and heard the students' concerns about a school attack, yet did not take action.
The information that Mersinli had previously been provided with counseling services 29 times was also included in the report.
Nevertheless, it was stated that the necessary notifications were not made and that this situation should be evaluated within the scope of the Child Protection Law.
"ACTED WITH EVENTUAL INTENT" In the district governor's decision, the following assessment regarding the guidance counselor's attitude was included:
"It has been concluded that all of the above constitutes a violation of the obligation to notify the Social Services and Child Protection Agency regulated under Article 6 of Child Protection Law No. 5395 titled 'Application to the Institution,' and that İsa Aras Mersinli has the status of a child in need of protection within the scope of the Child Protection Law. The guidance counselor carried out the aforementioned negligent act based on the assumption that İsa Aras Mersinli's parents were more conscious because they were public officials, and acted with eventual intent. "
The decision emphasized that the judicial authorities must investigate whether there is a causal link between the guidance counselor's actions and the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of the attack.
THERE IS A RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZATION Against the investigation authorization decision issued by the Onikişubat District Governor's Office, the four personnel subjected to preliminary examination have the right to object to the Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court.
With the granting of the investigation authorization, the way has been opened for the judicial authorities to assess the responsibilities of school staff during and before the attack.
FAMILIES' LAWYER: THE PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO FOUR PERSONNEL Furkan Mehmet Cinkara, the lawyer for the students who lost their lives and were injured in the attack, evaluated the investigation authorization decision.
Stating that the approximately seven months that have passed have not eased the families' pain, Cinkara said they will continue their struggle for those responsible to account before the law.
Cinkara said, "The approximately seven months that have passed have not eased our pain, but they have further strengthened our determination that this pain be fully accounted for before the law."
Evaluating the granting of the investigation authorization as an important step for ensuring justice, Cinkara emphasized that the examination should not be limited to only four school staff.
FIRE ESCAPE AND ESCAPE ROUTES SHOULD ALSO BE INVESTIGATED Lawyer Cinkara requested that the school's physical security conditions and supervision processes also be included in the investigation. Cinkara used the following statements: "However, we believe that this process should not remain limited to the four personnel working at the school. The physical security deficiencies at the school, especially the fire escape and escape routes, why these deficiencies were not identified and remedied in a timely manner, and the supervision and management responsibilities within the institutional hierarchy to which the school is affiliated must also be clarified in all aspects. In addition, after the similar tragic incident in Şanlıurfa, it must definitely be investigated what measures were taken for schools in the region by the Provincial Directorate of National Education and the Provincial Police Department, whether any risk assessment was conducted, and whether the measures taken were sufficient. These questions still await answers in the conscience of the public and the families. "
EVERYONE WITH THE SLIGHTEST NEGLIGENCE MUST ACCOUNT Drawing attention to the state's obligation to ensure security in educational institutions, Cinkara stated that children and teachers being safe at school is a constitutional right.
Stating that they trust the judicial process, Cinkara continued his statement as follows: "One of the most fundamental duties of our state is to ensure security in educational institutions completely. That our children and teachers are safe under the school roof is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Our trust in the Kahramanmaraş Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, which is conducting the investigation meticulously, and in our independent judiciary is complete. We will follow to the end that everyone with the slightest negligence, fault, or responsibility in the incident accounts before the judiciary, and that all necessary administrative and legal steps are taken so that similar pains are never experienced again. We ask God's mercy for our children and teacher who lost their lives, patience for their grieving families, and urgent healing for our wounded. "
AN OBJECTION HAD BEEN MADE TO THE GUIDANCE COUNSELOR BEING HEARD AS A WITNESS The first hearing of the case regarding the school attack in Kahramanmaraş was held on September 4 at the Kahramanmaraş 3rd High Criminal Court. At the hearing, guidance counselor E. İ., for whom investigation authorization had been granted, was heard as a witness. Furkan Mehmet Cinkara, one of the families' lawyers, objected to the guidance counselor being heard as a witness.
Cinkara, stating that a person suspected of being the principal perpetrator or an accomplice to the act cannot be heard as a witness under the Code of Criminal Procedure, requested that a criminal complaint be filed with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against the guidance counselor.
.