State council’s decision to acquit the state: Evidence was ignored, responsibility was covered up

Meltem AKYOL
Damla KIRMIZITAŞ
Ankara

On the same day, in two lawsuits filed regarding the responsibility of the public for the suicide bombing attacks carried out by ISIS at the Ankara Train Station on October 10, 2015, the decision was made that "the state is not at fault". Lawyers have reacted: Instead of resolving the issues of the victims, they bleed the pain. This is the attitude of acquitting the state that we have seen since the beginning of the trial process. The Council of State said, "I will not allow the state to be deemed faulty". The expectation of the families is justice, recognition of the pain experienced here and for the acceptance of responsibility. And justice will not come out of these decisions.

A total of 103 people lost their lives and 500 were injured in the suicide bombing attacks carried out by ISIS on 10 October 2015 at Ankara Train Station before the Labour, Peace and Democracy Meeting. While the criminal proceedings regarding the massacre continued, compensation cases were filed in the administrative courts. In both trials, the lawyers drew attention to the responsibility of the state by stating that the necessary protective measures were not taken before the massacre and in the rally area, the health services were insufficient after the massacre took place, the deaths increased due to the gas intervention of the police in the area, the situation of the wounded worsened, and the moral destruction of everyone present increased.

In the criminal case, 9 defendants were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment 101 times. However, public officials responsible for the massacre were not held accountable in the judiciary.

The unlawfulness in the criminal proceedings continued in the administrative courts where compensation cases were opened. In the compensation cases brought against the Ministry of Interior, the administrative courts, without evaluating the demands and claims, evaluated the cases within the scope of the "social risk" principle, which provides for the compensation of some of the damages in accordance with the social state principle, decided on compensating. However, the Council of State has even dammed this to be too much. Evaluating the two files before it, the 10th Administrative Case Chamber of the Council of State decided that "the state has no fault".

SÜREK: UNACCEPTABLE

One of the decisions came out of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage lawsuit filed against the Ankara Governorship for Gokmen Dalmac's son, Gökmen Dalmac, who died on October 10. Attorney Kamil Tekin Surek, who gave information about the decision, said, “The Ankara 3rd Administrative Court decided to pay 83 thousand 736 TL for pecuniary damages and 80 thousand TL for non-pecuniary damages. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State approved the compensation decision, but decided that the pecuniary damage should be awarded in accordance with the Law No. 5233 on the Compensation of Losses Arising from Terrorism and the Fight Against Terrorism. This means an amount between 12-15 thousand liras. In other words, the Council of State saw a lot of the local court's calculation on the money that the father would spend on his child until the age of 25. Surek said, “At the end of the process, we will go to the Constitutional Court. If we cannot get a result from the Constitutional Court, we will go to the European Court of Human Rights”.

HOCAOĞULLARI: EVEN REPORTS WERE IGNORED

Evaluating the  Council of State regarding the decision of the Ankara Massacre Case in regards to her client A.Ç, Lawyer Commission, Sevinc Hocaogulları pointed out that the obvious fault of the Ministry should be determined through the judiciary so that the cases serve justice for the families of those who lost their lives and the injured in the massacre and can be a means of compensating the destruction.

However, Hocaogulları stated that the fault of the state is ignored in the administrative judiciary as in the criminal proceedings, and said: “They did not even find it necessary to justify their decisions. Our objections to the failure to evaluate our fault liability claims were again rejected without justification in the Regional Administrative Court. The Council of State decided that the Ministry had no fault. The concrete findings in the Civil Inspectors' report were ignored by the decision. The reports prepared by the lawyers with the report of the TTB (Turkish Medical Association) were not even taken into consideration on the grounds that they could not be impartial.”

‘I WON’T ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO BE DEEMED FAULTY’ APPROACH

Stating that with this decision, the 10th Chamber of the Council of State said, “I will not let the state say that it is defective", despite the concrete data in the file, Hocaogulları said, "The expectation of the families is justice, recognition of the pain experienced here and not accepting responsibility. Administrative courts have already kept the amount of moral compensation very low, and the Council of State is trying to pave the way for ignoring material damage. The decision of the Council of State is not acceptable in terms of fault assessment and financial compensation.”

IŞIK RANKED RESPONSIBILITIES: HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS DECISION?

Lawyer Ilke Isık from the Ankara Massacre Lawyer Commission listed the 'flaws' that the Council of State said 'no': “The massacre that took place on October 10, 2015 was carried out in front of state institutions. The Police and Intelligence, which turned a blind eye to the activities of ISIS, which had been organized in Antep for years, did not carry out an operation on time, although it followed the cells step by step. The vehicle carrying the two suicide bombers that came to Antep from Syria, prepared here and set off on the night of 9 October 2015, did not go through any search until it arrived in Ankara. Before the rally, which will be attended by thousands of people in the heart of the capital, Ankara Police did not establish a search point at the entrance of the capital. Live bombs came to the Gar Square, waving their arms. There were only 75 police officers in the Station Square. Before the massacre, although there was 62 intelligence information that there would be a suicide bombing action, nothing was done. At 10:04, suicide bombers exploded with an interval of 4 seconds, 103 people were killed and 500 people were injured. While giving first aid to the injured, gas was sprayed on the people, and the required number of ambulances did not arrive. All this was revealed in the 8-folder report prepared by the Ministry of Interior inspectors.

That report also said that an investigation should be launched against the superiors of that time, including the Ankara Police Chief. But Ankara Governor's Office did not give permission to investigate, and Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office did not investigate public officials. The Constitutional Court pointed to the responsibility of the state and the Ministry of Interior in all 3 applications and sent the files back to the courts. In this respect, the trial continues. When all this is clear, who can say that the state has no responsibility, how can the Council of State say this?”

'THEY ACT LIKE THE MASSACRE WAS NOT ENABLED’

Işık said, “During the investigation phase of the massacre, the prosecutors also acted as if the state was not responsible. This is how the indictment was drawn up. This is how the criminal case was opened. At the point we have reached, there is a judicial practice that pretends that the state has no responsibility, despite dozens of documents and evidence. This is what we are struggling with. We will not give up until the clear responsibility here is revealed.”