They reported the judge of the Narin Güran case to the HSK.

18.04.2025 14:00

In the case of the murder of Narin Güran, whose lifeless body was found in a stream bed 19 days after she went missing in Diyarbakır, 15 defendants, including 6 who are in custody, are being tried for the crime of 'aiding a criminal' at the 17th Criminal Court of First Instance. The defendants' lawyers have filed a complaint against the court judge with the Council of Judges and Prosecutors.

On August 21, 2024, in the rural Tavşantepe neighborhood of the Bağlar district, after going missing, the lifeless body of Narin Güran was found on the 19th day of the search efforts, covered with three stones weighing 30, 25, and 20 kilograms, and hidden among bushes in a sack in the riverbed. A case has been opened against four individuals at the Diyarbakır 8th High Criminal Court regarding Narin Güran's death.

The detained suspects, including Salim Güran, Narin's uncle, who had DNA and hair samples belonging to Narin in his vehicle, his mother Yüksel Güran, and his brother Enes Güran, along with their neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar, who confessed to transporting the body to the riverbed, are being charged with 'Intentional murder of a child in complicity' and an aggravated life sentence is being sought. In the second hearing of the case held on December 28, Salim Güran, Enes Güran, and Yüksel Güran were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for 'Intentional murder of a child in complicity', while Nevzat Bahtiyar received a 4-year and 6-month prison sentence for 'Destruction, concealment, or alteration of evidence.'

15 SUSPECTS APPEARED IN COURT FOR 'PROTECTING A CRIMINAL'

The Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office has also opened a case against the detained suspects Birsen Güran, Fuat Güran, Maşallah Güran, Salim Güran's worker Mehmet Selim Atasoy, Mehmet Şevket Kaya, and Muhammed Kaya, as well as the suspects not in custody, Şeyma Kaya, Hediye Güran, İbrahim Halil Güran, Barış Güran, Kurtuluş Güran, and Ömer Faruk Güran, for 'Protecting a criminal' at the Diyarbakır 17th Criminal Court of First Instance. An indictment prepared against the children who were not in custody, M. G. (15), İ. K. (16), and R. A. (15), for 'Protecting a criminal' was also accepted by the Diyarbakır 2nd Children's Court. In the subsequent process, the two case files were merged.

HEARING POSTPONED

In the hearing held on April 14 at the 17th Criminal Court of First Instance regarding the murder of Narin Güran, where 6 of the 15 defendants were detained for 'Protecting a criminal', the lawyers of the Ministry of Family and Social Services and the Association for the Struggle Against Child Abuse (UCİM) requested to participate in the case. The defense lawyers requested the rejection of the participation requests. The judge, who evaluated the request, decided to accept the participation requests. The judge rejected the defense lawyers' request for recusal. At the end of the 9-hour hearing, the presiding judge decided to continue the detention of the 6 detained defendants and postponed the hearing to April 25.

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE JUDGE TO THE HSK

Regarding the case, the defense lawyers complained about the judge to the HSK. In a petition signed by Lawyer Mustafa Demir, submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office Communication Bureau to be sent to the HSK, it was stated, "The hearing has been recorded using technical means. In the hearing of the case where audio and video recordings were taken, it was stated by some of our colleagues that the indictment was read before the defendants' interrogation/defense was taken, and despite the need to remind the defendants of their legal rights, the hearing judge proceeded to the defendants' defense without reminding them of their right to remain silent and without the prosecutor reading the indictment. Our objections regarding this issue will be addressed upon obtaining the audio and video recordings of the hearing. However, in the hearing minutes later uploaded to UYAP, it was arranged as if the rights specified in Article 147 of the CMK had been reminded. If the SEGBİS recordings are obtained and the information of the lawyers and defendants present at the hearing is consulted, it will be understood that the defendants' defenses were taken without reminding them of the rights specified in Article 147 of the CMK and without even reading the indictment."

"THE IRRELEVANT ASSOCIATION WAS TREATED LIKE A BAR"

In the continuation of the petition, it was stated, "Due to the trial of children in the case file in question, the hearing should be conducted in closed session in accordance with Article 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Again, Article 22 of the Child Protection Law states that the child, their guardian, the social worker appointed by the court, and the representative of the institution where the child is cared for can be present at the hearing. Since the crime of 'Protecting a criminal' is one of the crimes committed against the judiciary, despite our objections that UCİM (the Association for the Struggle Against Child Abuse) cannot be accepted as a participant, the hearing judge has acted contrary to the clear provision in Article 237 of the CMK, and by referring to the provision regulating the 'Establishment and qualifications of Bar Associations' in Article 76 of the Attorneyship Law, has accepted the irrelevant association as a participant with an irrelevant legal provision. It has been understood that by treating the irrelevant association as if it were a bar in a case file where children are being tried, the superior interests of the children have not been taken into account. Under these circumstances, doubts have been raised regarding the impartiality and independence of the judge, and we have made a request for recusal during the hearing. Although it was stated that 'the request for recusal must be submitted in writing' despite having no place in the law, the request for recusal was rejected, and the hearing continued. During the hearing, despite the reminder that there is no written requirement in the relevant legal provision, the hearing continued without a break. No proper decision could be made regarding our request for recusal."

"THE LOWER LIMIT OF THE CRIME THEY ARE BEING TRIED FOR IS 6 MONTHS"

The continuation of the petition included the following statements:

"The crime the defendants are being tried for has a lower limit of 6 months in the law, and as of the hearing date, the duration of their detention has exceeded 7 months. Some defendants are being tried without detention for similar charges, and some defendants were released during the investigation phase. Despite the existence of personal reasons for impunity due to sibling relationships, all these issues have been disregarded, and a justification that has no place in the law has been written solely to continue the detention of the defendants, causing harm to the defendants. Although the crime of protecting a criminal is not one of the catalog crimes specified in Article 100/3 of the CMK, and it is inconceivable that a judge would not know this legislation, a hearing was held and action was taken by referring to Article 100/3 of the CMK in the justification for continuing detention, which is clearly contrary to the law. It has been understood that conducting a hearing that is clearly contrary to the law in a case file that is on the public agenda, failing to protect the fundamental rights of the defendant, and causing the continuation of detention by citing a reason that has no place in the law has led to a loss of confidence in the judiciary. For the reasons we have presented; it is respectfully requested that an investigation be opened against the hearing judge, who caused harm by making a hearing contrary to the fundamental legal rights of the defendants, establishing unlawful interim decisions during the hearing, and writing a justification that does not exist in the law regarding the continuation of the defendants' detention.