Home /Counter Case/Reasoning Critique
04.5 · REASONING CRITIQUE

REASONING critique.

Article-by-article analysis of the trial court's reasoned decision, the BAM appeal, and the Court of Cassation rulings.

A

Article by article

First-instance court reasoning

The reasoned decision fails to substantively address the document-backed claims in the defenses. It preserves the indictment's "coup attempt" characterization despite the absence of any materialization of force or violence — the essential element of the offense.

Jurisdiction and judicial order

The decision acknowledges that the officers acted under judicial order, but does not operationalize this in evaluating the elements of the offense. The decision provides no legal route by which police action under a judicial order can constitute a crime.

Treatment of digital evidence

The reasoning on ByLock and digital evidence is incompatible with Yalçınkaya v. Turkey (ECtHR 2023). Convictions based solely on ByLock directly contradict that ruling.

BAM ruling

The regional appeals court upheld the first-instance decision without substantive review and did not address the documented objections in the defenses.

Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation broadly upheld the BAM decision. The Court's reversals in some comparable files during the same period generate internal inconsistencies in its case law.

AYM individual applications

In the defendants' individual applications, systematic violations are identified under the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, and the principle of legality of offense and punishment.