Halise Aksoy, whose son Agit İpek’s body was delivered to her in a box by mail, was sentenced to six years and three months in prison on charges of 'membership in an organization,' based on the statements of a confessing witness, Ü. A. The Diyarbakır 10th High Criminal Court announced the justification for its ruling on February 7. The court based its sentencing decision on the testimony of Ü. A., as well as the statements of witness S. K., who was heard during the investigation phase but was not summoned for testimony during the prosecution phase.

The justification for the court’s ruling included the statements of confessing witness Ü. A. and witness S. K., who claimed that Halise Aksoy’s home was a "safe house" sheltering organization members. These allegations were accepted as true and used as the basis for her sentencing.The court’s reasoning further stated that Aksoy’s children had joined the organization, that she was considered a "valued family" member, and that her home was allegedly used as a meeting and sheltering place for members. Despite these claims, the ruling provided no additional evidence beyond witness testimony to support the allegations against Aksoy. The court accepted the witness statements as factual and convicted Halise Aksoy of "membership in an organization" solely based on these claims.

The case lawyer, Necat Çiçek, stated that they would appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. Recalling that the confessing witness, Ü. A., had testified against hundreds of individuals, Çiçek emphasized that it had already been determined that his statements were obtained unlawfully. He also pointed out that all their requests to include Ü. A.’s statements about other individuals in the case file had been rejected. Furthermore, Çiçek noted that during Ü. A.’s testimony, the lawyer who signed the statement record was, in fact, present at another hearing in court at the same time. He stated that despite submitting all the necessary evidence and documents to the court regarding this irregularity, their objections were completely disregarded. Çiçek argued that, given these circumstances, the trial was not conducted in a lawful manner.

Akbıyık has a vested legal interest in making such statements

 Çiçek emphasized that Ü. A.’s testimony was based on hearsay and stated: "He claimed that my client used her home as a 'safe house.' However, another witness whose testimony was included in the case file contradicted Ü. A.’s statements. Confessing witness Ü. A. made numerous false statements to secure legal benefits for himself. In fact, courts have already issued acquittals in cases where the only evidence was Ü. A.’s testimony, as they found his statements unconvincing."

The verdict was politically motivated

Lawyer Necat Çiçek highlighted that witness Serhat Karakaş, who was heard during the investigation phase but later dismissed from testifying in court, still had his statements used as a basis for the ruling. He stated: "The court panel that prosecuted my client has acquitted many others facing the same charges. Looking at how this case has progressed, it is clear that the verdict is politically motivated. My client’s son was a Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) militant and lost his life. From the very beginning, they questioned my client about what happened to her son. Simply because she said, 'For me, my son is a martyr,' the Criminal Peace Judgeship immediately ordered her arrest without asking any further questions. For this reason, the verdict issued against my client is not legally justified; it is a politically motivated decision."

Çiçek stated that they would appeal the decision, emphasizing that the case file, in its current form, does not provide sufficient grounds for a conviction of "membership in an organization." He stressed that the ruling must be overturned at the appellate or cassation.