The contractor of the building that claimed the lives of 115 people blamed the deceased.

The trial of 3 defendants, 2 of whom are in custody, who are accused of the deaths of 115 people in the earthquakes on February 6 in Kahramanmaraş, continued with a demand for up to 22 years and 6 months in prison for each of them for the 1st and 3rd blocks of Penta Park Site.

ACCUSED THE DECEASED IN THE EARTHQUAKE

The second hearing of the trial, which was held yesterday at the 2nd Heavy Penal Court of Kahramanmaraş, was attended by the families of the victims who lost their loved ones in the earthquake, their lawyers, and the defendant contractor, Mesut Başkır, the chairman of the board of directors of Penta Park Inc., the accounting manager, and the operations manager, Özcan Çakmak. During the trial, the defendant Mesut Başkır stated that he is not guilty and said, "I am not guilty. Those who did not apply for building inspections to determine whether the buildings are earthquake-resistant or not are guilty. I demand my acquittal."

"THERE IS NO FAULT ON OUR PART"

The contractor of Penta Park Site, Özcan Çakmak, claimed in his defense that there were errors and omissions in the expert reports prepared by Karadeniz Technical University (KTU). Çakmak, who stated that he also resided in Penta Park Site for 15 years, said, "A person cannot have a situation of making a place where his property is located, where his family resides, incomplete or faulty. There is no fault on our part. I do not accept the accusations against me, I demand my acquittal."

ARCHITECT ACCUSED THE BANKS

The defendant architect, Mesut Başkır, who is in custody, stated that the additional mezzanine floors added to the building later disrupted the statics of the building and weakened its load-bearing columns. Başkır, who explained that the shops under the collapsed buildings were rented by banks and they made their own applications in the shops, said, "I have another case and trial apart from this one. I was tried without detention in that case. There is no difference between this case and that case. I object to the arrest of an architect. I have an 18/1 share here. We had rented the shops at the entrance of the building to banks. The added mezzanine floors put an additional load on the building. They interfered with the existing load-bearing systems. The renovations made enter into substantial renovations and require permission from the municipality. Another shop had rented a cafe and had made renovations according to their own preferences. We have experienced major earthquakes. We have never built without a permit from the municipality throughout our lives. I do not accept the accusations, I demand my acquittal," he said.