In the case of Cemal Metin Avcı (32), who drowned university student Pınar Gültekin (27) in Muğla in 2020, put him in a barrel and burned him, a verdict was issued. The court board sentenced to 23 years by applying unfair provocation reduction. His brother Mertcan Avcı, his mother Ayten Avcı, his father Selim Avcı, his divorced wife Eda Karagün and his partner Şükrü Gökhan Orhan were acquitted. The “unjust provocation” discount given to Cemal Metin Avcı, who will serve 14.5 years, lifted Turkey to its feet. Izmir, Ankara and Istanbul bar association presidents interpreted the decision.
I HOPE APPEAL CHANGE THIS SHAME
İzmir Bar Association Vice President Atty. Perihan Calligraphy Kayadelen: We have always seen an example of the cases we go through. Discount is being applied. Our judiciary sided with the murderers of women in the murderous murder. While making this decision, the court deemed blackmail sufficient for unjust provocation. Burning a person in a moment of anger and putting him in a barrel, saying that this is not a monstrous feeling is another manifestation of male-dominated judgment. It’s nothing different. We have been fighting not only with the judiciary but also with the murderers for years. But there are still courts that make such decisions. We hope that the appeal will change this shame.
HARMFUL THE SOCIETY’S FEELING OF JUSTICE
Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center President Atty. Ceren Kalay Eken: The harsh attitude of the court during the litigation process was much discussed. He should have been a little more rigorous in terms of law and conscience. We have seen a judicial process in which victims and their relatives become victims even more. In addition, he had given the unfair provocation reduction from the highest penalty, and he could have given it as 18 years. Our biggest problem here is execution. Because he will lie down for 14.5 years. You kill a young person, you end his life, you kill brutally, this punishment hurts the sense of justice of the society. We must see the reasoned decision. Each session gave a different defense. This is one of the reasons to hide his guilt or to receive a light sentence. The court both imposes a sentence without deliberate murder and applies unfair provocation discounts. These are contradictory.
“WE ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISION”
Head of Istanbul Bar Association Women’s Rights Center Atty. Thanksgiving Eroglu: This decision was truly shocking. Because he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Since we did not see the reasoned decision, we do not know exactly how unfair provocation was evaluated and discounted. We find it difficult to understand why the court sees a reason for reduction as unjust provocation. Because for it to be an unjust provocation, there must be an attack of the same type against you. In order to defend yourself, you will be in fear and panic, and you will not be able to understand the act of killing and injuring the other side. Unjust provocation can only happen in this case. However, this is not the case in this case. The murderer killed by planning, by design, and by tormenting him with an extremely monstrous feeling. What could be more than that? Courts need to consider how the decision will inspire society.
“INTERESTING WITH THE DECISION OF ACQUISITION”
His brother’s acquittal is incomprehensible. One person alone cannot destroy all evidence. It is interesting that the court did not evaluate these and decided to acquit the other defendants. We expect the decision to be overturned and not an objective decision. This mistake must be corrected.