An opinion by a prosecutor at Turkey’s top court of appeal asking the court to uphold the conviction of jailed rights defender Osman Kavala and his codefendants in the Gezi trial is completely devoid of legal reasoning and perpetuates a deep injustice, Human Rights Watch said today.

The prosecutor’s opinion on the case currently before the Court of Cassation comes fifteen months after an Istanbul court convicted Kavala and seven others on baseless charges of attempting to overthrow the Turkish government for their alleged role in the 2013 Gezi Park protests, mass demonstrations which began over an urban development plan in central Istanbul and spread to other cities in Turkey. The prosecutor’s opinion disregards two binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights ordering Kavala’s release and entirely discrediting the evidence presented in the trial, and the ongoing Council of Europe infringement process against Turkey over the case.

“The Gezi trial is a mockery of justice and exemplifies Turkey’s rule of law and human rights crisis,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The gross misuse of criminal charges and prolonged detention to hound perceived critics of the Erdoğan government has become the number one form of political persecution in Turkey today.” 

The July 7, 2023 opinion by Court of Cassation deputy chief prosecutor, Zafer Şahin, recommends that the Court of Cassation’s 3rd Criminal Chamber should uphold Kavala’s April 25, 2022 conviction by the Istanbul 13th Assize Court and a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

The opinion also recommends upholding 18-year sentences for Can Atalay, a lawyer and elected member of parliament; Tayfun Kahraman, a city planner and academic; Çiğdem Mater, a filmmaker; Mine Özerden, a rights defender; Hakan Altınay, an educator; and Yiğit Ekmekçi, founder of a university and a businessman. It recommends quashing the 18-year sentence for architect Mücella Yapıcı.

The Court of Cassation’s 3rd Criminal Chamber will review the case in the coming months and issue a verdict on whether to approve or quash the convictions, though the timing of that decision is not known.