29.10.2026 19:16
Striking details have emerged in the investigation into the school attack in Kahramanmaraş, in which 9 students and one teacher lost their lives. It was determined that the students reported the attacker İsa Aras Mersinli's tendency toward violence to the guidance counselor two months before the incident, and that although Mersinli was provided with guidance services 29 times, the necessary steps were not taken. Authorization for an investigation was granted for four school personnel, including the guidance counselor.
In the preliminary examination decision regarding the armed attack carried out by eighth-grade student İsa Aras Mersinli at Ayser Çalık Middle School in Kahramanmaraş on April 15, important findings were included about guidance counselor E. İ.
According to the decision, Mersinli's tendency toward violence was reported to the guidance counselor by students in the same class approximately two months before the attack.
It was stated that the students conveyed their concerns 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 in question was given.
GUIDANCE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED 29 TIMES
In the district governor's office decision, it was stated that guidance counselor E. İ. was aware of Mersinli's self-harming behavior and heard the students' concerns about a school attack but did not take action.
The report also included information that Mersinli had been provided with guidance services 29 times before the attack.
Nevertheless, it was stated that the necessary notifications were not made and that the guidance counselor's attitude should be evaluated under the Child Protection Law.
“ACTED WITH EVENTUAL INTENT”
The district governor's office decision included the following assessment regarding the guidance counselor's conduct:
“All these specified matters constitute a violation of the obligation to notify the Social Services and Child Protection Agency regulated in Article 6 of the Child Protection Law No. 5395 titled ‘Application to the Institution’; it has been concluded that İsa Aras Mersinli is in the status of a child in need of protection under the Child Protection Law. The guidance counselor carried out the negligent act in question based on the assumption that İsa Aras Mersinli's mother and father were more aware because they were public officials, and acted with ‘eventual’ intent. ”
In the decision, it was emphasized that the judicial authorities should investigate whether there is a causal link between the guidance counselor's conduct and the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of the attack.
9 STUDENTS AND ONE TEACHER LOST THEIR LIVES
In the armed attack carried out by eighth-grade student İsa Aras Mersinli at Ayser Çalık Middle 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 ex officio launched an investigation against school principal C. K., vice principal F. B., teacher A. T., and guidance counselor E. İ. on charges of “abandonment,” “failure to report a crime,” and “abuse of duty.”
AUTHORIZATION TO INVESTIGATE GRANTED FOR FOUR STAFF MEMBERS
The Onikişubat District Governor's Office evaluated the referral report prepared by Ministry of National Education inspectors, the letters from 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 authorization to investigate school principal C. K., vice principal F. B., teacher A. T., and guidance counselor E. İ.
THEY LEFT THE SCHOOL UPON SEEING THE ATTACK
In the district governor's office decision, it was stated that school principal C. K. and vice principal F. B. heard gunshots during the attack and went from the ground floor to the corridor entrance of the first floor, where the attack took place.
It was determined through camera recordings that the two administrators, after seeing İsa Aras Mersinli carry out the armed attack there, quickly went outside the school and left 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, “takes the necessary measures for the conduct of educational and training activities in a healthy, safe, and peaceful environment,” was recalled.
THEY WERE HELD PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENTS' SAFETY
In the investigation authorization 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 students' rights that must be protected.
“WHAT WAS EXPECTED WAS NOT FOR THEM TO CONFRONT THE ARMED ATTACK”
In the district governor's office 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 conduct would be equivalent to the attack carried out against the values in question and would amount 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 confront an armed attack, but to intervene in the attack within the existing conditions and possibilities. ”
“INSTEAD OF TAKING STUDENTS TO A SAFE AREA, THEY LEFT THE SCHOOL”
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 should be taken to sheltered areas, evacuated from the school, or the evacuation process should be organized.
The following finding was made in the decision:
“It has been understood that after C. K. and F. B. saw the attack, there were certain obligations arising from their guarantor status, such as ensuring the safety of the students in their 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; however, instead of all this, C. K. and F. B. headed outside the school building and left the institution. ”
The decision also stated that the principal and vice principal called the 112 Emergency Call Center after leaving the school.
However, it was assessed that because the two administrators did not fulfill their obligations to protect the students, they endangered the children and caused them harm.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TEACHER FLED WITHOUT WARNING THE STUDENTS
Among the names for whom investigation authorization was granted was Religious Culture and Moral Knowledge Teacher A. T. is also included.
According to the district governorship's decision, A. T., after hearing gunshots in the 5/G classroom where he was 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, he ran toward the ground floor without giving any warning to his students or making any attempt to protect them.
It was stated that the teacher also confirmed this situation in his statement.
In the decision, it was reminded that the Teaching Profession Law includes a provision that teachers must make efforts to protect students from negative behaviors in the educational environment.
It was emphasized that, due to their ages, the students in the 5/G classroom were not in a position to ensure their own safety in the face of an armed attack.
Therefore, it was recorded that whether A. T.'s actions constitute the “offense of abandonment” regulated in Article 97 of the Turkish Criminal Code should be evaluated by the judicial authorities.
THERE IS A RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZATION
Against the investigation authorization decision issued by the Onikişubat District Governorship, the four personnel about whom a preliminary examination was conducted have the right to appeal to the Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court.
With the granting of the investigation authorization, the way was opened for the judicial authorities to evaluate the responsibilities of school staff during and before the attack.
LAWYER FOR THE FAMILIES: THE PROCESS SHOULD NOT REMAIN 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 had passed had not eased the families' pain, Cinkara said that they would continue their struggle for those responsible to be held accountable before the law.
Cinkara said, “The approximately seven months that have passed have not eased our pain, but they have further strengthened our determination to ensure that this pain is accounted for fully 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 members.
“FIRE ESCAPES 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. In particular, the physical security deficiencies at the school, primarily 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 should also be clarified in all their aspects. In addition, following 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 Directorate, whether any risk assessment was carried out, and whether the measures taken were sufficient. These questions are still awaiting answers in the conscience of the public and the families.”
“EVERYONE WHO HAS THE SLIGHTEST NEGLIGENCE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE”
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.
Expressing 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 in full. The safety of our children and teachers 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 who has the slightest negligence, fault, or responsibility in the incident is held accountable 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 our teacher who lost their lives, patience for their grieving families, and urgent healing for our injured.”
OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THE GUIDANCE COUNSELOR BEING HEARD AS A WITNESS
The first hearing of the case concerning the school attack in Kahramanmaraş was held on September 4 at the Kahramanmaraş 3rd High Criminal Court.
At the hearing, the guidance counselor E. İ., about whom an investigation authorization had been issued, 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 of the act cannot be heard as a witness under the Criminal Procedure Code, requested that a criminal complaint be filed with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against the guidance counselor.
.