Lawyer Hatice Yıldız Questions Legality of Korkmaz and Erkan Detentions

Lawyer Hatice Yıldız has publicly outlined what she considers serious violations of legal rights in the detention of Münir Korkmaz and Ahmet Erkan.

Yıldız pointed out that the investigation dates back to 2024 and questioned why the two individuals were detained instead of being formally summoned to give statements, despite the case having remained pending for more than two years.

She argued that authorities should explain why detention was considered necessary in a case that had been inactive for such an extended period. According to Yıldız, the circumstances raise questions about whether there was any immediate threat to public safety that justified such a measure.

Restrictions on Access to Lawyers

Yıldız said a one-day restriction had been imposed on the detainees’ right to meet with their lawyers, preventing them from consulting legal counsel during that period.

She questioned the specific grounds for the restriction, stating that no clear justification had been provided.

She also noted that a confidentiality order had been imposed on the investigation file, leaving both the suspects and their lawyers without access to the details of the allegations.

Questioning Delayed Beyond 48 Hours

According to Yıldız, the detainees were scheduled to give their statements only after the 48th hour of their detention.

She questioned why their statements were not taken immediately after they arrived at the police station, arguing that they had been kept in custody for approximately 48 hours without knowing the specific accusations against them.

Yıldız said extending detention periods without concrete legal grounds amounted to an arbitrary restriction of personal liberty.

Criticism of Judicial Reform Promises

Yıldız warned that practices involving restrictions on fundamental rights were becoming so widespread that people had started to regard them as normal.

She stressed that such practices were neither ordinary nor consistent with the country’s laws.

Concluding her statement, Yıldız criticized the broader judicial system, arguing that promises of new judicial reform packages were insufficient in a system where judicial institutions themselves were contributing to alleged violations of fundamental rights.