25/12/2025 | Writer: Kaos GL
The hearing in the case opened over the 23rd Istanbul LGBTI+ Pride March, in which 53 people are being tried, lasted eight hours. Before the hearing, defendants who wanted to enter the courthouse were subjected to police checks; they were asked to prove that they had a hearing.
Photo: Hikmet Adal/bianet
The second hearing of the case in which 53 people are being tried following the 23rd Istanbul LGBTI+ Pride March held on 29 June 2025 with the theme “Persistence in Life” was held today at the Istanbul 51st Criminal Court of First Instance at Çağlayan Courthouse.
According to a report by Hikmet Adal of bianet, before the hearing, defendants who wanted to enter the courthouse were subjected to police checks. At the barricade set up in Çağlayan Square, police demanded that the defendants document that they had hearings.
Instruction from Akın Gürlek: “Do not admit the press”
Members of the press who wanted to follow the hearing were not allowed to enter the courthouse. As the reason for the obstruction, an instruction by Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Akın Gürlek was cited. Journalists asked the police to present a written decision, but the police pushed journalists away from the area, saying, “Come tomorrow and you can get it.”Following these events, Erol Önderoğlu, Turkey Representative of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and bianet Media Monitoring rapporteur; bianet reporter Hikmet Adal; Rabia Çetin, who was following the hearing on behalf of the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA); and Medyascope reporter Furkan Karabay recorded this obstruction against the press in an official report.
104 police officers deployed outside the courtroom
Due to the high number of defendants, the hearing was held in the courtroom of the Istanbul 39th High Criminal Court. However, the proceedings could only begin after a delay of approximately one hour.Outside the courtroom, 104 police officers and riot police units bearing the label “special team” were deployed. The area where the court entrances were located was closed off with turnstiles and police shields.
After identity checks, the defendants—among them LGBTI+ people, activists, and journalists—presented their defenses against the indictment prepared against them.
“Police who used violence against us are free; those subjected to violence are defendants”
Alev Aydoğan began her defense by saying, “I am being tried for exercising my constitutional right by participating in a peaceful demonstration,” and continued as follows:“We have never witnessed the perpetrators of the violence I have been subjected to for years simply because I am LGBTI+ being prosecuted. I was there that day to stand against this order in which all the power of authorities is tried on me in the street, at work, and at home, and because, as a survivor of patriarchal violence, I insisted on life.”
Lida Serce said, “Carrying an LGBTI+ flag is not a crime. Organizing a peaceful demonstration is not a crime. Yet despite this, this prosecution has been turned upside down. Police who used violence against us are free; those subjected to violence are defendants. I do not accept the charges.”
bianet editor Evrim Gündüz stated that she was detained while following the demonstration as a journalist and that the police did not take her journalist identity into account:
“Reporting on an event of high social and public importance such as the Pride March is part of journalists’ professional responsibility. In this context, merely being present in the area or recording images does not constitute a crime. Treating journalists as demonstrators and detaining them on this basis is contrary to the law and established judicial precedents.”
Courthouse staff mocked LGBTI+ people
As of 14:00, a one-hour recess was given in the hearing. As the courtroom was being emptied, courthouse staff were seen mocking LGBTI+ people in a humiliating manner with expressions such as “This one is gay, this one is lesbian.”After the recess, the proceedings continued. Taking the floor, İris Mozalar began her speech by saying, “This case is not only mine; it is a case about fundamental rights.” She continued:
“This file in practice asks this question: Can the existence and visibility of LGBTI+ people be automatically criminalized on the grounds of ‘public order’? I was there that day for LGBTI+ people who have been driven to suicide and killed. I was there because I wanted an equal, fair, and free life. I was there because in this country some people live every day within what is considered ‘normal’ violence. Being evicted from home, being fired from work, being harassed on the street. Being targeted with hatred… And then we are asked, ‘Why are you visible?’ We are not becoming visible. We are already targets. I was there that day to mourn those we have lost and to shoulder the struggle for survival of those who remain.”
“Violence against journalists is a reflection of the violence inflicted on LGBTI+ people”
Journalist Nur Kaya said that she has been following rights struggles as a member of the press for four years:“On the day of the incident, I was also following the Pride March. If the other demonstrations I have followed for four years do not constitute a crime, neither does this one. Unlike the past four years, for the first time I witnessed police charging at me despite my showing my press card. I think this is a reflection of the violence inflicted on LGBTI+ people.”
According to MLSA, journalist Yusuf Çelik, who presented his defense, said the following:
“As an LGBTI+ journalist, I was there both to do my job and to protect my dignity. As soon as I arrived in Beşiktaş, I was surrounded and detained. They tried to detain me with reverse handcuffs. When I did not accept this, the police dragged me to the side of a wire-fenced wall in the area and tortured me there for a while. We were subjected to rights violations at the hospital; while in custody they both tortured us and made us watch torture videos. While in custody, I was physically harassed by the police.”
“Legal practice cannot be a subject of criminal law”
After the defenses were completed, the defendants objected to the presence of police in the courtroom. The judge did not accept the request to remove the police. The attorneys’ defenses then began.Attorney Hayriye Kaya, whose defense is undertaken by MLSA, and Batıkan Erkoç, the lawyer of photojournalist Cansu Yıldıran, used the following expressions:
“Our client Hayriye Kaya is a lawyer working on LGBTI+ rights. Our other client Cansu Yıldıran is a photojournalist working on social events. Despite stating that they were performing their professions, they were subjected to detention by the police without any justification a full five hours after the press statement. Legal practice cannot be a subject of criminal law. A lawyer’s presence at an incident scene, making observations, contacting clients, or waiting at a place cannot be turned into the source of criminal suspicion.”
Hearing adjourned to 5 June
Other defense attorneys requested that the court file a criminal complaint against the police officers who tortured the defendants.After a recess following the attorneys’ defenses, the court announced its decision, ruling that the necessary procedures be carried out to take the defenses of five defendants who had not been heard, and rejecting the requests for acquittal. The judge also ruled that the request to hear the reporting police officers as witnesses be evaluated at the next session and adjourned the case to 5 June 2026 at 10:30.
Tags: human rights, media, life, lgbti
