18/07/2025 | Writer: Oğulcan Özgenç
The first hearing of the trial opened three years after the 2022 METU Pride March was held. Defendants described the torture and sexual harassment they were subjected to. The hearing was postponed to September 17.
The first hearing of the trial opened three years after the 2022 METU Pride March was held at Ankara Courthouse, 30th Criminal Court of First Instance.
The trial was monitored by ÜniKuir, Kaos GL, Ankara Bar Association LGBTI+ Rights Center, Human Rights Association Ankara Branch, GALADER, 17 May, Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, Youth Organizations Forum, Pink Life, German Embassy, Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center, Red Umbrella, and Ankara Bar Association Center for Research on Social Incidents.
Armed riot police waited inside the courtroom
Before the hearing began, riot police and security officers arrived in front of the courtroom. Police also waited inside the courtroom. Lawyers objected to the presence of riot police in the courtroom. The court rejected the objection, claiming that the presence of riot police would not affect the trial. Lawyers requested that the police presence be recorded in the official minutes, stating, “This situation creates fear for our clients due to the nature of the case.”
Lawyers noted that the riot police were armed and requested identification. The court instructed the riot police to leave their weapons and exit the courtroom, but plainclothes police continued to wait inside.
“We were detained with torture without a warning to disperse”
The judge stated, “The purpose of this trial is not to judge individuals’ sexual preferences. I will not ask why you participated in this march,” and said the defenses would be kept brief.
Then the defendants began their statements. Twenty-four defendants gave statements during the hearing.
Defendant H.Y. spoke first:
“I saw a police officer grabbing someone by the collar. When I objected, I was thrown face down and forcefully detained. Being handcuffed behind my back is unacceptable.”
One of the students on trial, E.A., said:
“It was a peaceful march with an open call. It was a legal march. We were detained with torture without any warning. I saw others being subjected to violence during the detention. I saw blood coming from heads.”
“I heard an announcement to attack”
Then participant A.Y. spoke:
“A plainclothes officer was acting like a thug. I objected, and the officer approached me aggressively. Riot police came, I was thrown to the ground and kicked. In the end, the officer tried to kick my head. Psychological violence continued during detention. I had nothing on me but a pen.”
Defendant T. stated that no warning to disperse was given and said:
“I heard an announcement saying ‘attack.’ While sitting with others who were not part of the march, police came and called us idiots. When I objected, 8 officers jumped on me and punched me in the head.”
Participants stated that they were detained at the café they were sitting in
Defendant M.Ö. said:
“They attacked without any warning. The police chased us. I had to run 1.5 kilometers. They asked for ID at the café where we stopped to catch our breath. Then we were detained.”
Defendant R.Ö. said:
“We were chased with plastic bullets. A police officer grabbed my bag, I was dragged by my hair, and left on the ground for hours next to the detention vehicle. During the torture, police said, ‘One day they’ll come for you too, and you’ll become a disappearance.’ It's hard to remember the torture because it’s been three years. They filed a lawsuit when they declared the Year of the Family three years later, saying, ‘We haven’t forgotten.’ Neither have we. We’re not the criminals; the police who attacked us are.”
“I was subjected to a rape threat”
One of the participants said:
“I was also subjected to police violence on the way to the hospital. I witnessed others also being kicked, punched, and threatened with rape. Our friends were sexually harassed during detention. Our presence here is directly related to the state’s anti-LGBTI+ policies.”
Participant E.T. said:
“I exercised my constitutional right. We were detained with torture. Pepper spray was sprayed on my face at close range. We were not allowed to drink water inside the detention vehicle. After threats of a strip search, I faced threats of rape and sexual harassment.”
Another participant said:
“It took half an hour after being detained to be taken to the vehicle. The police threatened me, saying, ‘You’ll see what happens when you get to the station.’”
Participants also reacted to the use of phrases such as “so-called Pride March” and “individuals affiliated with the LGBTI+ structure” in the indictment.
“They asked which terrorist organization the rainbow flag belonged to”
Participant M.Y. said:
“They took the rainbow flag from my bag and said, ‘Which terrorist organization’s flag is this?’ They threatened me not to speak with my lawyer. Isn’t it dangerous that the police deemed my participation as dangerous and used pepper spray and tortured us during detention? I exercised my rights. Participating in the march is a matter of pride for me.”
Then E.Ö. spoke:
“The footage in the file isn’t of me, but I participated in the march. I was kept in the trunk of the police vehicle for 20 minutes. I had a panic attack.”
The statements concluded with D.İ., who said:
“This trial is, in essence, a freedom of expression case. The rector’s denial of permission was already found to be unlawful. Due to the rabid attack of the police, people were scattered everywhere. I was detained while filming the chaos.”
One of the participants stated that their family was notified after the detention and said, “This process has negatively affected my life.”
Others also took the floor and stated that they experienced similar incidents.
Hearing postponed to September 17
Lawyers requested that it be recorded in the minutes that detainees were taken to different hospitals and released from different locations. The court recorded which hospitals the participants were released from.
The defense attorneys requested the acquittal of the participants on trial.
The court postponed the hearing to September 17 to hear the remaining defendants.
Tags: human rights
