GazeteDuvar: Request for rejection of judge in insult case against Soylu
DUVAR - HDP Kocaeli Deputy Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu, through his lawyer, requested the recusal of the case he filed against the Minister of Internal Affairs, Süleyman Soylu, for allegedly insulting him, within the framework of the claim that the case he filed against him was not consciously advanced. ;
'ACTIONS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION...'
Gergerlioğlu's lawyer Bişar Abdi Altınak, The insult they filed against Minister Soylu He made a written statement regarding his case and stated that they requested a recusal judge. Altınak made the following statements: "We have filed a lawsuit for non-pecuniary damage against the Minister of Internal Affairs Süleyman Soylu due to his insulting and slanderous statements towards his client Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu. Unfortunately, the case is in danger of being stopped due to unconstitutional transactions in the trial stages." The Local Court insulted the client by investigating whether there was any investigation carried out against the client, and gave us time to make a statement as to whether this issue would be considered a "suspending reason."
'An ILLEGAL ONE THE DECISION IS TARGETED'
Alınak continued as follows: "While making a trial, the Local Court ignores the presumption of innocence, which is the most fundamental principle of universal law and the Constitution. By not applying the compensation provisions stipulated by law against the Minister of Internal Affairs. The aim is to establish an illegal decision, because treating any investigation as a final decision and considering it as a pending reason cannot be explained in any other way. We have seen once again that the mentality that criminalizes even the breathing of HDP MPs and executives, excluding members of the judiciary who have not lost their faith in law and justice, has spread like cancer to every cell of the judiciary." Explaining the reasons for the rejection of the judge, Alinak lastly said: " "We would like to respectfully inform the public of this understanding that regards any investigation carried out in defiance of the Constitution's presumption of innocence as a final verdict, that judges cannot make a decision despite the mandatory provisions of the law, and that we have requested a recusal judge against the 35th Civil Judge of First Instance who conducted the trial." (NEWS). CENTRAL)
