17/12/2025 | Writer: Oğulcan Özgenç
The first hearing of the case filed two years later against those detained at the 2023 METU Pride March was held. Students described police torture.
The first hearing of the case filed two years later against 17 people who were detained at the METU Pride March in 2023 was held today at the Ankara 50th Criminal Court of First Instance.
The hearing was monitored by ÜniKuir, 17 Mayıs Association, Ankara Bar Association LGBTI+ Rights Center, Ankara Bar Association Women’s Rights Center, Kaos GL, Pembe Hayat, and the TİP LGBTI+ Office.
Riot police were stationed in front of the courtroom
Law enforcement officers were present inside the courtroom and in front of it. Upon the objection of the lawyers, the police were removed from the courtroom; however, officers from the security branch and riot police continued to wait outside the courtroom.
“We were waiting for taxis together, then we were detained”
The court began with identity verification, after which the defenses of the students on trial were heard.
First, T., one of the students on trial, presented their defense:
“As is clearly stated in the expert report, we were only waiting for taxis together. We were there peacefully, exercising our constitutional right. Our intention was to disperse. We had gathered to defend LGBTI+ rights. We did not use any violence against the police. Despite saying that the action had ended and that we were dispersing, we were subjected to violence.”
While the defense was being recorded, the phrase “LGBT people” written in the hearing record was corrected to “LGBTI+ people” following the objection of the lawyers.
“I did not commit a crime, I recorded what I witnessed”
Next, B.’s defense was heard. Stating that they were there to carry out voluntary press activity, B. said:
“This case is neither lawful nor conscientious. I saw students being detained with reverse handcuffs and subjected to torture. The accusations are entirely related to my recording images. The claim that I joined the crowd is completely unfounded. The allegation that I chanted the slogans ‘In defiance of hate, long live life’ and ‘Don’t stay silent, shout out, lubunyas exist’ is unfounded; even if I had chanted them, the slogans are not unlawful. I saw that students were subjected to violence simply for being there. I was not even allowed to record footage. I did not commit a crime; I recorded what I witnessed.”
The defense of D., another student on trial, was then heard. D. stated:
“The police had completely surrounded the campus before the protest even began. While I was at the library, I saw students being subjected to violence. I did not hear any announcement being made. The METU Pride March has been held peacefully for 13 years. I was not detained, yet a case was filed; I do not know how I was selected. The students exercised their constitutional right, and I exercised my constitutional right.”
“I was detained with reverse handcuffs along with my friends”
After D.’s defense, H. M., one of the students on trial, presented their defense. H. M. stated that police had gathered on campus from the early morning hours on the day of the march and noted that the police did not make a “disperse” announcement:
“I was detained with reverse handcuffs along with my friends. I do not accept being prosecuted for exercising my constitutional right.”
Lawyer Duygu Çildoğan stated: “The Rectorate has been trying to ban the march for years through an email it sent, but we filed a lawsuit regarding this. The ban decision was lifted.”
Afterwards, İ. presented their defense:
“I was drinking coffee in front of the library. The police came up to me because my camera was on and demanded my phone; when I refused to give it, I was detained.”
“They stepped on my back and sprayed gas in my face”
Next, M.D. presented their defense. M.D. said:
“The march could not take place; there were a large number of police officers. While waiting for a taxi to go to the hospital to accompany our friends who had been detained, two vehicles arrived, and when the police approached us, we explained the situation and said we would leave. The police in the vehicle detained us using torture. They wanted to take our phones; we refused, and I was pulled out of the vehicle, forced to the ground, stepped on my back, and gas was sprayed in my face.”
In their defense, N.U. stated:
“We were detained while waiting to go to the hospital to accompany our friends who had been detained on campus. We saw that our friends were subjected to police violence. Although we asked for the door of the detention vehicle to be opened because we were affected by pepper spray, they did not open it.”
“I was left without air in the detention vehicle; they said ‘let them suffocate’”
In their defense, S. said:
“I could not participate in the march. When I arrived late, there was no one there. While eating, I saw my friends being detained. I recorded a video, and the police made me delete it. Then I returned to the dormitory. I saw people shouting and running in the forest. Out of curiosity, I went outside. I ran into a friend, and while we were chatting, the police came up to us. The police asked me to remove my colorful scarf; when I did not, they threatened me and detained me. I was left without air in the vehicle for 50 minutes; they said, ‘Let them suffocate.’”
S.’s lawyer requested S.’s acquittal, stating: “Carrying a scarf with rainbow colors is not a crime. The police taking it is a crime.”
Afterwards, the defense of N., another student on trial, was heard. N. stated:
“The entire campus was under siege. I saw the police attack, went to the dormitory, and waited for a while. Then, while waiting to leave the campus, the police came up to us ‘on suspicion of protest’ and detained us. My friend’s head was kicked. They also forced me to the ground, kicked me, and sprayed pepper spray.”
“The expert report clearly shows that the police initiated the intervention”
After the defendants’ statements, the lawyers spoke.
Lawyer Abdullah İkbal Arslanbaş stated:
“My client is being prosecuted for a protest they did not participate in. The indictment refers to unlawfulness, but it is not clear what unlawful act is alleged. There was no dispersal warning; therefore, there is no failure to disperse. The Pride March is not subject to the Rectorate’s permission. The incident occurred because the police intervened. The violence was carried out by the police. The indictment includes expressions such as ‘an entity called LGBT’ and ‘unauthorized protest.’ These are meaningless expressions. The expert report clearly shows that the police initiated the physical intervention. We request acquittal for all defendants.”
“There is no case against those who committed torture!”
Lawyer İlayda Doğa Karaman stated:
“How many METU Pride March case files is this? All of them end in acquittal. An operation is being carried out by the Ankara Provincial Police Department. The protest did not fully take place. One must ask whether there was even a fully realized protest. Those who wanted to participate were intervened against and tortured. There is no case against those who committed torture or violence. In these files, those who should be prosecuted are not our clients. The expert report clearly shows that the police used violence,” and requested acquittal for those on trial.
“LGBTI+ people are facing enemy criminal law”
Then Lawyer Çiğdem Kolot spoke. Kolot said:
“Those on trial merely exercised their right to assembly and demonstration; they were present at METU to exercise their freedom of expression. In this case file, LGBTI+ people are facing enemy criminal law. The expert report and the footage included in the file clearly show that those on trial did not commit any unlawful act. The investigation is procedurally and legally unlawful. It is entirely arbitrary.”
Hearing adjourned to April 1
The prosecutor requested that necessary procedures be carried out for defendants whose statements had not been taken. The court adjourned the hearing to April 1, 2026, at 13:30.
What happened?
On the day of the march, students encountered police violence. Police attacked students with shields, batons, plastic bullets, and pepper spray. Initially, 6 students were detained; after the march ended, 9 more students who were waiting for taxis to leave the campus were detained.
A total of 17 students were held in custody for 11 hours. Medical examinations of 12 students revealed abrasions, hyperemia, and various redness on different parts of their bodies. Two students were referred to another hospital for further examination due to police violence.
The prosecutor filed a case against the detained students two years later.
According to ÜniKuir, the indictment criminalized actions such as “walking toward the library entrance,” “holding hands,” and “displaying an uncooperative attitude.” The indictment also claimed that students “sabotaged the education of students studying inside the library.”
According to the indictment, the slogans “Jin Jiyan Azadi,” “Universities Belong to Us, They Will Remain Ours,” “In Defiance of Hate, Long Live Life,” and “Don’t Stay Silent, Shout Out, Lubunyas Exist” were also cited as “unlawful acts.”
The expert report included in the case file documented that students were subjected to torture by the police.
Tags: human rights, life, education, family, lgbti
