The arrest in the Narin murder was approved by a majority vote! The chief justice requested the release of two names

A lawsuit was filed at the Diyarbakır 8th High Criminal Court against 4 people regarding the death of Narin Güran, whose lifeless body was found in a sack in a stream bed, covered with 3 stones weighing 30, 25 and 20 kilograms, and hidden by bushes, on the 19th day of the search operations after she went missing on August 21, 2024 in the rural Tavşantepe Neighborhood of the Bağlar district.

An aggravated life sentence was sought for the uncle Salim Güran, mother Yüksel Güran and older brother Enes Güran, whose vehicle contained Narin's DNA and hair samples, and their neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar, who confessed to carrying the body to the stream bed after being detained. In the second hearing of the case held on December 28, Salim Güran, Enes Güran and Yüksel Güran were given an aggravated life sentence for the crime of "deliberately killing a child while participating", while Nevzat Bahtiyar was given a sentence of 4 years and 6 months for the crime of "destroying, concealing or altering evidence of a crime".

THE PENALTIES WERE APPROVED BY MAJORITY VOTE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT MADE A COMMENTARY

The appeals of the detained defendants and the lawyers of the parties were examined by the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice. In the decision given on May 26, the prison sentences given to the 4 defendants were approved by the court by a majority vote. On the other hand, the Chief Justice also listed his reasons and added annotations to the decision. In his annotation, the Chief Justice stated that the camera recordings, base reports and DNA findings in the file were incomplete and inadequately examined, and that Nevzat Bahtiyar’s movements in particular should be clarified with detailed image analysis. He emphasized that the acceptance that the mother, brother and uncle killed Narin together and in a short time is contrary to reason and the normal flow of life. He also stated that critical evidence such as PSA and hair samples were not sufficiently scientifically investigated, and that the decision should be overturned due to all these incomplete examinations.

APPEAL TO CONTINUATION OF DETENTION DECISION REJECTED

The 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice reviewed the objections made to the detention of Salim Güran, Yüksel Güran, Enes Güran and Nevzat Bahtiyar. The Chamber stated that there was no issue that needed to be corrected in the previous detention decision. The objections of the defendants' lawyers were rejected separately. It was deemed unnecessary to make changes to the Chamber's decision. The decisions were made by majority vote and the file was sent to the 2nd Criminal Chamber for the evaluation of the objections.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT MADE A COMMENT AGAIN

The presiding judge listed the reasons he presented in the appeal phase in his dissenting opinion against the detention decision given for the defendants Yüksel and Enes Güran. The presiding judge also drew attention to the fact that the report of the India-based digital forensics firm BFI, submitted by Salim Güran’s lawyer Onur Akdağ in the appeal phase, determined that there was no human movement in the area of ​​Arif’s house and stable where the incident took place. He expressed the opinion that this report, when evaluated together with the reports prepared by the National Criminal Bureau and Prof. Labudde, was not sufficient to reach a definitive conclusion, but rather weakened the existing suspicion. The President stated that the continuation of detention for defendants Yüksel and Enes Güran was disproportionate and unlawful in line with the criteria of the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Court and the ECHR, and said, “Considering the current state of evidence, the continuation of their detention after this stage may cause irreparable harm, considering the time it will take for the Court of Cassation review, and considering that a decision should be made to continuate their detention, I do not agree with the majority’s opinion that their immediate release should be decided by applying judicial control measures, such as not being able to travel abroad and not leaving their homes, in accordance with Article 109/3-aj of the CMK.”