Decision has already been made in HDP closure case

The Constitutional Court (AYM) delivered the 41-page opinion over the HDP closure case prepared by the Supreme Court of Appeals Prosecutor’s Office to the HDP and granted 30 days to prepare the defence.

As an opinion has been requested for the HDP closure case, the case of Deniz Poyraz who was killed in an armed attack against the HDP headquarters in Izmir continued to be heard.

In the meantime, the pro-government media orchestrated a smear campaign against HDP deputy Semra Güzel by publishing a photo of the MP with a HPG guerrilla during the peace process in 2014. The government is seeking to strip Güzel of her parliamentary immunity.

While the courts have taken immediate actions against the HDP, they paid no regard to the killer of Deniz Poyraz, Onur Gencer, who said at the trial: “I wanted to kill more people”.

HDP party assembly member and lawyer Erbaş, who said that the Kobane Trial is part of the recent crackdown against his party, spoke to ANF about the opinion requested from the HDP, the Poyraz case and the debate over the lifting of Güzel’s immunity.

CLOSURE CASE

Erbaş said that his party thinks that the closure case is political rather than legal from the beginning. “We see this case as a manifestation of the traditional Kurdish hostility shown by the AKP-MHP government which is trying to remove the HDP from the political arena. The case has been launched for political reasons. We have been given a 30-day period to reply to the opinion. We have requested additional time to do so, yet no response has been received. It is a legal scandal that an opinion is requested from the party without taking the individual defence of the persons against whom a political ban is requested. Because the Constitutional Court started to receive individual applications in 2007. If a legal institution that receives individual applications asks for opinions without taking the defence of individuals, it means that a decision has already been made. In fact, it would have been more appropriate if the opinion had been prepared in response to the defence of the individuals in question. However, this was not done. We see that they are trying to reach a decision as soon as possible. The law is used as a smokescreen. The judiciary is biased.”

CONSPIRACY AGAINST GÜZEL

Erbaş stressed that the summary of proceedings to strip HDP lawmaker Güzel of her immunity is a conspiracy: “As part of all these developments, we are faced with a conspiracy against our friend Semra Güzel. The excuse is a photograph taken at a time when families were allowed to meet their sons and daughters during the peace process in 2014 with the knowledge and approval of the government. Years later, this photo is used as evidence. There is such a complex conspiracy against our MP. The Kobane Trial is also being used as an instrument in the closure case.”

DENIZ POYRAZ CASE

When asked about the statements of the defendant, Onur Gencer, in the Deniz Poyraz case, Erbaş replied that the court board did not comment on the defendant’s statements which expressed no remorse. “Onur Gencer said that his main targets were Abdullah Öcalan and Selahattin Demirtaş. He explained that he had targeted the Izmir headquarters when he could not reach them. He even named other people. He also stressed that he felt no remorse. The court just listened to his statements and did not intervene. He mentioned an assassination against a lieutenant colonel in Manbij and talked about an imaginary situation with his mother that took place in 1998. He made up a subtle story to cover up the forces that encouraged and provided him with logistics, political support, and aid. He seemed very comfortable when he made his statement during the hearing. He is a professional killer who entered the office wanting to kill more people but found only Deniz Poyraz there and murdered her viciously. There are groups that trained that murderer. Most importantly, the political atmosphere created by the hatred towards the HDP led him to kill Poyraz.”