Lawyer Nikbaht: Sentence given to Özdemir arbitrary

2024-06-12 10:57:18


	 

	NEWS CENTER - HPG's Hatem Özdemir's lawyer, Mohammad Saleh Nikbakht, stated that his client had no intention of conflict with Iran, that he used Iran as a route to fight against ISIS, and that the death penalty given is arbitrary.

	 

	HPG member Hatem Özdemir, who was arrested after being injured in an ambush by Iranian forces in 2019, was sentenced to death by the Iranian Revolutionary Court on the allegation of "armed rebellion against the state". It is unknown when the approved penalty will be implemented. Mohammed Saleh Nikbakht, one of Hatem Özdemir's lawyers, made evaluations on the issue to the Iranian Human Rights Association (IHR NGO). Nikbakht emphasized that the death penalty is given to Özdemir without his lawyers, and that the imposition of this sentence is unlawful and arbitrary, even though it was proven that all the bullets used during the incident did not match Özdemir's gun.

	 

	LOCAL COURT RESISTED THE DECISION TO REVERSE

	 

	In the interview on IHR's official website, Nikbakht stated that his client is a member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party and that he is being held in Urmia Central Prison. Stating that he is sentenced to death by the 3rd Branch of the Urmia Revolutionary Court without informing his lawyers and without his client being present, Nikbakht reminded that the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, but the local court gave the same decision after the reversal decision.

	 

	Nikbakht shared the following information about the process in the interview: "The truth is that Hatem Özdemir was previously sentenced to death for the same crime, that is, armed rebellion against the government of the Islamic Republic and membership of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. As the main lawyer of the case, I and other colleagues in Urmia who later joined me in this case appealed this decision, and the 9th Circuit of the Supreme Court, with a reasoned and documented decision, overturned the decision of the Revolutionary Court and transferred the case to a court of equal status. Referring the case to a court of equal standing essentially means that the decision has been violated. In other words, the 9th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals did not accept that Hatem Özdemir was the person who committed the crime or the investigation carried out. He decided to reconstruct the crime scene and re-interview the witnesses.

	 

	INVESTIGATOR RECEIVED A WARNING DUE TO WRONG DECISIONS

	 

	The 3rd Branch of the Urmia Revolutionary Court, which retried the case, did so without complying with the legal provisions because the defense lawyer and the defendant must be present during the rediscovery of the crime scene, witness interrogations and other proceedings, and neither of them were present. Before September 2023, even the judge heading the 3rd Branch had ordered the investigation to be carried out on this basis. However, the judge was either transferred or retired and was replaced by Mr. Rıza Necefzade, who ordered that Hatem's case be referred to the Çaldıran General and Devrim Prosecutor's Office for investigation. Hatem's case is in the hands of an investigator who has previously received legal notices several times for incomplete and incorrect transactions and numerous legal issues.

	 

	HATEM LOST CONSCIOUSNESS, DID NOT SHOOT

	 

	Except for two witnesses, the others were new witnesses who had not testified in the case before, so it was not possible to conduct a more accurate and proper investigation since they were not the same people. Two witnesses who were at the scene where Hatem was arrested stated that when DMO forces attacked armed PKK members in the Çaldıran region, several mortars exploded near Hatem, so Hatem suffered shell shock and fainted. They had to take him to the hospital after he was arrested.

	 

	On the other hand, upon the request of his lawyers, the Hoy Revolutionary Court decided to test the gun that Hatem allegedly fired three years ago, and a weapons expert was sent to the scene in Çaldıran. The expert stated that he tested 10 bullets and none of them matched Hatem's gun, and that Hatem did not use his gun that day.

	 

	THEY USED IRAN AS A TRANSITION AGAINST ISIS

	 

	Moreover, Hatem and his friends were trying to reach the Qandil mountains through Iranian territory to receive military training to fight against ISIS as PKK guerrillas, they had no intention of clashing with the Iranian armed forces. In addition to the weapons expert, two witnesses also stated that they saw Hatem unconscious and that he did not use his weapon. Unfortunately, 4-5 people who were shown as witnesses in the new investigation were not at the scene and although they were sworn, there are many inconsistencies in their statements. Moreover, neither the defendant nor his lawyers were present at the scene.

	 

	THE PROSECUTOR SAID THAT HATEM CANNOT BE ACCUSED

	 

	On April 23, 2024, the Urmia Revolutionary Court sentenced Hatem to death penalty on the grounds that he fired his weapon during an armed conflict between the Iranian armed forces and PKK guerrillas, and this decision was not notified to him or his lawyers. This occurred despite the fact that the crime of bağy under the Islamic Penal Code (IPC) requires the defendant to have used his weapon, and Hatem had not used his weapon. Additionally, the Deputy Supreme Court Prosecutor, representing the country's Attorney General, stated three reasons why Hatem could not be convicted of bagy:

	 

	'First, Hatem stated that from the moment he was arrested, his organization forbade them to clash with Iranian forces. They have been instructed to either surrender or stay out of firing range if they encounter Iranian forces to avoid any conflict. Second, the Supreme Court Deputy Prosecutor confirmed that Hatem did not use his weapon against the Revolutionary Guard forces. Third, the indictment prepared by the Çaldıran Prosecutor's Office is confusing and accuses Hatem of both bağy and moharebeh (enmity against Allah). I prefer not to comment on this part of the indictment.

	 

	THE PERSON PROVIDING THE CASE NOT NEUTRAL

	 

	In my opinion, this case must have been handled impartially and unfortunately the case is in the hands of someone who is not investigate impartially. On the other hand, the decision of the Urmia Revolutionary Court consists of two pages, and one page is copied from the decision of the Khoy Revolutionary Court. While it is stated on the second page that the defendant continued the conflict until the last moment, it was previously stated in the DMO report and investigation that Hatem never used his weapon. I am sure that such a decision will not be accepted if the case is transferred to another chamber, like the previous chamber of the Supreme Court, and the entire file is read page by page in an impartial manner. Especially since the opinion of the Supreme Court prosecutors will not change, because nothing has changed in the case and our defenses are almost the same. The only thing that has changed is the contradictions in the statements of the new witnesses.

	 

	 TURKISH STATE DID NOT TAKE A STEP

	 

	Neither the Turkish government nor its consulates in Iran have taken any action in this case, and in light of previous cases, even if PKK members escape execution in Iran or return to Turkey after completing their sentences, they will be rearrested and sentenced to severe punishment upon their return to Turkey. "