Cansu Pişkin

“Between March and May 2019, TrialWatch monitors under the supervision of the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic monitored the trial of Cansu Pişkin, a journalist for the Turkish daily paper, Evrensel, in Istanbul, Turkey. Pişkin was charged with “making a public servant into a target for terrorist organizations” in violation of Section 6(1) of Law No. 3713, otherwise known as the Anti-Terror Law, for publishing the prosecutor’s name in her April 5, 2018 article, “Special Prosecutor for the Bosphorus Students.””

报告识别Cansu Pişkin为Evrensel记者，并说明被诉源于2018年4月5日文章中的检察官姓名。

“An attorney for Cansu Pişkin began the hearing by arguing that the case should be dropped for lack of jurisdiction. Although the case was brought under the Anti-Terror Law, defense counsel argued that Turkey’s Press Law29 (which generally governs criminal cases brought on the basis of journalistic material) limited the prosecution’s ability to file charges based on articles published online where the statute of limitations had passed. He noted that a high court in Ankara had also found it lacked jurisdiction over a case where the statute of limitations had run before the charges were brought (based on when the article was published) and noted that given this precedent and the fact that the charges were not brought promptly against Pişkin, the charges should be dropped.30 The court briefly had the courtroom vacated to consider the argument then reconvened and informed the parties and the audience that because the article was published online, the charges had been brought in a timely matter and the prosecution would continue.”

辩护律师提出管辖及起诉时效异议，法院讨论后仍决定继续起诉；这是实际采取但未成功终结程序的抗辩。

“Pişkin and her attorneys maintained that she included the name of the prosecutor in her article because the identity of the prosecutor was newsworthy, not with any criminal intent. In particular, Pişkin noted (a) the fact that the investigation’s prosecutor was changed on the day that Boğaziçi students were brought to the court was newsworthy, especially given the public interest in the case and the students’ long pre-trial detention; and (b) that this prosecutor had previously defined the People’s Democratic Party (HDP) as a political party that acts under directions from a terrorist organization, a remark that conflicts with a prosecutor’s professional principles. Pişkin’s attorneys argued both that she had no criminal intent to make the prosecutor a target and also that the name of the prosecutor had been previously published by other media outlets with no ramifications for the other journalists. Further, the attorneys argued that a Public Prosecutor is not a public official under Article 6(1) of the Anti-Terror Law so the charges should be dismissed.”

辩方提出无犯罪故意、姓名此前已公开以及检察官是否属于法条涵盖人员等论点。

“The Court then found Pişkin guilty of the terrorism charge (“making a public servant into a target for terrorist organizations”) and sentenced her to ten months’ imprisonment. The sentence imposition was deferred, pursuant to Article 231(11) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, whereby Pişkin will be subject to five years of monitoring and will not be imprisoned unless she “deliberately commits a crime within the monitoring period.”34”

报告记载十个月刑期被延缓并设置五年监督；不能只引用监禁数字就声称Pişkin已被投入监狱。

“The Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic or their local partners monitored all three hearings. In advance of monitoring mission, the Clinic informed one of the defense attorneys of its intention to monitor the case and procured the charge sheet from local advocates also following the case. The Clinic prepared a background memorandum for the monitors outlining key information on human rights and freedom of expression in Turkey, the judicial system and laws at issue in this case, the right to a fair trial under Turkish law, and laws impacting freedom of expression and national security laws in Turkey. This report also included information on the trial, including the charges against the defendant and the facts of the case. None of the monitors experienced any impediments to their entry into the courtroom. The Columbia team provided a letter of accreditation to the Court. In the first hearing, the Columbia monitors were accompanied by a professional interpreter who was permitted to provide whisper translation to the team during the proceedings. The Columbia team worked with professional interpreters to translate the indictment and court transcripts, included in this report as Annexes. All monitors used a standardized TrialWatch questionnaire to record and track what transpired in court and the degree to which the defendant’s fair trial rights were respected in the proceedings.”

哥伦比亚团队或当地伙伴观察三次听证，向法院提供认证函，并安排口译、材料翻译与标准化记录。

“While the trial of Cansu Pişkin was conducted in a manner that appeared to accord her certain of her rights as an accused person in a criminal trial, the prosecution of the case must be seen as a politically-motivated response to her publication, which called into question the independence of the prosecution of students who had peacefully protested the Turkish military incursion into Afrin, Syria. Additionally, the trial itself was defective in that an element of the charge—namely, the specific intent to target an individual to a terrorist threat—was not proved, and in having resulted in a disposition that further restricted her right to free expression. I would assign a grade of D based upon significant violations of the right of trial fairness, while not assigning a failing grade because the proceedings did not result in the imprisonment of the accused person.”

作者批评程序公平性，但明确指出本程序未导致Cansu Pişkin实际入狱；此项不代表无罪。