Reading Time ~ 1 h 26 min

Word Count 14838

Evaluation of Evidence and Grounds ​

When assessing the concrete case, courts must conduct an evaluation addressing how the defendant or defendants committed the alleged offense or offenses, where they committed them, when they committed them, for what motive and why they committed these offenses, whether there were other defendants who participated in the offense in question, and, if they did, what acts the participating defendants performed, and include in the reasoned judgment matters containing the answers to these questions. This is a general rule and is sought to be applied separately in each concrete case. However, there are exceptional cases in which the answers to the questions stated above may not be fully ascertainable. In such situations, the following should be noted; Sometimes it may not be possible to understand where, why, and how an incident or act occurred. In such circumstances, what matters is by whom the act or incident was carried out, that is, whether the act in question was committed by the person or persons. If in the concrete case it is established that the act was committed by the defendant or defendants, then the other questions stated above (where exactly the act occurred, precisely when it was committed, or how it was committed) are not principal questions but remain ancillary. Therefore, if it is determined who committed an act, other matters may be disregarded. In such situations, the principle that doubt benefits the accused comes to mind. However, if it is established that the alleged act or acts were committed by the defendant or defendants, the absence of an explanation for the other ancillary circumstances stated above will not create a favorable doubt for the defendants in the concrete case; accordingly, in such cases, not knowing the ancillary circumstances will not give rise to any doubt for the defendants in the concrete case.

Evaluation of the Concrete Case ​

In the evaluation of the concrete case, it was understood from the reports made on 08/21/2024 that the deceased Narin had gone missing, after which all the means of our State were mobilized and search efforts were initiated, and while the search activities were ongoing, at around 08:30 on 09/08/2024 during a sweep conducted by the Gendarmerie Underwater Search and Rescue officers within the Eğertutmaz creek located in the Tavşantepe Neighborhood, upon reaching the coordinates 37 SFB 06008-89639, a sack was seen in the part where the Eğertutmaz creek joins the soil, wedged under rocks and covered by three stones of 40–50 cm in diameter so as to conceal it, the mouth of the sack was tied with a red string yet it was understood that a part of a body was protruding, and upon subsequent checks the lifeless body of Narin GÜRAN was reached inside the sack, and it was understood that Narin Güran had been killed.

In the final report prepared by the First Specialization Board of the Council of Forensic Medicine (CFM) following the external and internal examination and autopsy performed on the deceased Narin GÜRAN’s body and the pathological analyses conducted on the internal organ samples taken, it was stated, by unanimous opinion, that “The child’s death occurred on 08/21/2024, that there was no medical evidence indicating death by a traumatic effect other than closure of the mouth and nose and neck compression causing asphyxia, and that the child’s death occurred due to being deprived of oxygen as a result of closure of the mouth and nose and pressure on the neck.”

It is known to everyone that the deceased Narin Güran was last seen on the school camera at 15:15:14 (the said time is approximately 4 minutes ahead of the current time), after which she left her group of friends to go home and headed toward the place referred to as the footpath. This is also established by the camera recording in the file and the statements of the friends who were with Narin at that moment.

Our court conducted inquiries as to where the deceased Narin Güran went last and where she was found, and sought to enhance the DARAN-2 footage in the file on this matter. In line with the request of the complainant Arif Güran and the defense counsel of the defendants to include the DARAN-2 footage in the file and the defense counsel’s request to send the said video to the National Criminal Bureau (UKB) for enhancement and to obtain a report, the relevant video was sent to the UKB and a report was obtained. As stated in the report, 1.5 minutes after the last time seen on the school camera, there is a moving dark figure on the footpath in the direction of the house-stable, and this figure could be the deceased due to the clothing elements being dark in color and the figure being perceived as short and thin; it was also stated that there was a moving black element in the lower part of the stable. It was observed that the report stated that the said movement was not a pixel artifact but a real, live movement. In light of this, our court accepted that the relevant dark figure was a live, real human movement. Therefore, given that the examination in the report indicates that this figure moved toward the stable and the house area and then the moving element disappeared, and considering this finding consistent with the school camera, our court found it established that the deceased Narin, after taking the footpath, went toward the house and the stable, which is an annex of the house.

Evaluation of the Evidence ​

Our court’s evaluation of the evidence in the file is as follows;

As a result of the investigations conducted by the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, a public case was filed before our court against the defendants, and it was understood that a separate investigation was conducted regarding the witnesses heard by our court, that the relevant investigation is still pending, and that a restriction order exists on the file. Upon the requests by the defendants and their defense counsel to incorporate the said file into this file, when this matter was inquired of the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, it was observed that there was a restriction order in the file and that, therefore, the investigation file could not be provided within this file. The witnesses were also heard by our court, and it was observed that they did not possess information that could affect the merits in the concrete case. Only the witness Hediye stated that she was at home at the time of the incident. This matter will be evaluated in detail below. Apart from this evaluation, when all other witness statements heard are examined, it is understood that they do not contain any concrete statements that would affect the killing of the deceased Narin.

It was observed that in her statements at various stages, the witness Hediye persistently stated that she was at home at the time of the incident, that Narin never came home, that the defendant Salim and the defendant Nevzat also never came to the house, and that the defendant Enes was sleeping at home. The child Muhammed Emre, who was also at home during the incident, was heard as a witness by our court; it was intended to hear the witness Eren, but because he caused a disturbance while waiting his turn in the Forensic Interview Room (FIR) and due to his age, it was decided not to hear him, and the video recording containing the statements taken during the investigation stage was played in the courtroom.

When these witness statements are examined as a whole, it is seen that they are not consistent with the other evidence in the file that will be described in detail below; that especially the children’s statements, as indicated by the experts present during their taking in the FIR, were coached statements; that the statements of the witness Hediye were created to conceal the facts involved in Narin’s killing; that particularly the witness Hediye’s statements that she was at home on the day of the incident do not overlap with the other evidence; that, as will be explained below, the act of killing the deceased Narin was completed at home and subsequently the defendants reached a consensus regarding what would be done after the incident; and for this reason, our court accepted that the witness Hediye was made to give statements in this manner to conceal the incidents, and our court did not give credence to the statements of witness Hediye and the other child witnesses because they do not accord with the evidence in the file.

It was also observed that records were drawn up by the law enforcement officers conducting the investigation within the file. The relevant records were examined one by one by our court, and it was seen that, apart from the records described below that affect the intentional killing of Narin, there was no concrete data. Therefore, the signatories of the relevant records were not heard by our court, and the said records were not regarded as evidence affecting the merits in the concrete case when making the assessment. However, it was observed that in all the records kept in respect of the defendant Yüksel and in the interviews the defendant Yüksel gave to TV channels during the investigation stage, she generally made statements about how she could protect her son Enes and what she could do to prevent harm from coming to her son, and that the records in the file also indicated that the defendant made statements in the manner stated above. It was also observed that the defendant Yüksel, before the lifeless body of the deceased Narin had yet been found, continuously said that her daughter was dead and at least should have a grave. When this matter was asked of the defendant Yüksel by our court, she stated that her daughter had gone missing, and that she made such statements because the people who called her on the phone said, “We are the mafia, we will harm the defendant Enes,” but in a file where nearly every incident was recorded by law enforcement during the investigation stage, it was observed that there was no record corroborating the defendant Yüksel’s statements. Therefore, our court accepted that the defendant Yüksel knew that her daughter was dead before the lifeless body of the deceased Narin was found, and that by continually saying “how can I protect the defendant Enes,” she did not disclose and tried to conceal the truths regarding Narin’s death. It was understood by our court from the records kept that on 09/08/2024 in front of the Diyarbakır CFM and previously in the village there were mutual actions and statements by women; the persons involved in the incident were heard as witnesses, but since the said actions and statements were not directly related to the killing of Narin and did not contain concrete information about who knew and who committed the killing, the said witness statements were not taken into consideration by our court.

Crime Scene Examination, Autopsy Report, and CFM Reports; ​

Within the framework of the search activities, it was observed that at around 08:30 on 09/08/2024, during a sweep conducted by the Gendarmerie Underwater Search and Rescue officers within the Eğertutmaz creek located in the Tavşantepe Neighborhood, upon reaching the coordinates 37 SFB 06008-89639, a sack was seen in the part where the Eğertutmaz creek joins the soil, wedged under rocks and covered by three stones of 40–50 cm in diameter so as to conceal it; that the lifeless body of Narin GÜRAN was reached in the said sack; and that the lifeless body of Narin GÜRAN was transferred to the Diyarbakır CFM Group Directorate for the purpose of conducting the autopsy.

It was stated in the initial examination conducted by the Council of Forensic Medicine that there was an amputation at the left knee, and that a tibia-like bone fragment and small pieces were found next to the location where the body was discovered; that the exact cause of death and other matters would be determined by pathological, biological, and chemical examinations to be conducted.

Although it was not possible to collect entomological data during the crime scene examination and it was unknown whether the insects obtained represented the total assemblage on the body, and the temperature data could not be recorded in the microhabitat where the body was found, it was stated that, considering together the analysis of the insect fauna on the body, the colonization of the insects, and the development of the immature forms, the age of the examined samples could be 17 days (plus or minus) ±24 hours with respect to the time of collection (09/08/2024), and that this was consistent with the time when the deceased went missing (08/21/2024).

During the search for Narin, upon determination on 08/26/2024 that the defendant Enes Güran had bruising on the inner part of his right arm and under his right eye, he was transferred by air to the Istanbul CFM. In the report of the 2^nd Specialization Board of the Istanbul CFM dated 08/28/2024;

1. Considering together the localization, traumatic effects, color, size, and depth of the soft tissue lesions described and determined under the right eye and on the right forearm, these lesions were consistent with a time interval of 3–6 days,

2. It was determined that in the photographs taken on the first day and in the examination conducted at our Board, there was a 4.5x1.9 cm mildly ellipsoid-shaped ecchymosis in the middle of the inner surface of the right forearm, a 2.5x1.8 cm mildly ellipsoid-shaped ecchymosis lateral to this ecchymosis, and in these ecchymoses there were places with mild red discolorations, and that these lesions were consistent with a human bite mark; that the localizations of the lesions did not include the integrity of the typical and clear jaw movements encompassing all teeth, that since they were caused only by the tips, as asked, these lesions could belong to a small child (under 18) as well as to an adult, and that no distinction could be made between them,

3. According to the panoramic radiograph examined, only qualitative analysis could be performed; for quantitative analysis the dental cast itself was necessary; however, it was stated that, qualitatively, occurrence with the existing teeth in the panoramic radiograph could not be ruled out,

4. In addition, in the interscapular region on the back, there were red discolorations, the largest being 1x0.1 cm and the smallest 0.1 cm in diameter,

it was observed that a report was drawn up in this manner.

It was observed that in the interviews conducted by CFM experts with the defendant Enes Güran for the preparation of the report, he stated that on the day his sister Narin went missing, he was very distressed, that he caused the ecchymotic-looking lesion under his right eye himself, that is, by punching his face six times out of distress, and that he also caused the bite mark on the anterior middle part of his right arm himself, that is, by biting himself.

These injuries were asked in particular of the defendant Enes both during the investigation stage and during the trial conducted by our court; in his response, it was seen that he stated that he caused the bite on his arm by biting his arm in anger because he could not find his missing sister Narin and saw his family saddened, and that the bruises on his face occurred as a result of the leaves and ears of corn striking him while searching for the missing deceased Narin in the cornfield.

In our court’s evaluation of the injuries sustained by the defendant Enes, it was accepted that the defendant’s contradictory statements at various stages, when considered as a whole, were not compatible with the ordinary course of life.

It was further observed during the prosecution stage that a report regarding the macroscopic and microscopic examination of the hair samples found on Narin’s hand and clothing was sent to our court by the CFM. In the said report, it was determined that the mtDNA sequences of Yüksel Güran, Enes Güran, and Narin Güran were THE SAME according to the data obtained by sequencing the bases in the Control Region, which shows a high degree of polymorphism in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), for the approximately 29 cm brown hair samples found in the left palm of Narin GÜRAN and on the black shorts, and the approximately 16 cm and 11 cm brown hair samples taken from the undershirt.

It was observed that it was stated that mtDNA is transmitted only from the mother to the child and that individuals in the same maternal lineage (such as siblings, maternal grandmother, aunt, maternal uncle, aunt’s children) have the same base sequence; thus it provides information as to whether individuals come from the same maternal lineage.

It was observed that a search and examination were conducted on the vehicle with license plate 47 XX 388, which was in the actual use of Salim GÜRAN on the day of the incident and beforehand, and in the report drawn up as a result of the examination conducted by the Van Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory on the samples obtained, it was stated that a DNA profile belonging to Narin GÜRAN was found on the seating part of the driver’s seat of the said vehicle.

Upon the findings in the vehicle with license plate 47 XX 388 in the use of Salim GÜRAN, in order to conduct a more detailed examination within the vehicle, the said vehicle was sent by tow truck to the Van Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory, and it was stated that in the detailed examination conducted, the hair sample obtained from the inner part of the right rear door of the vehicle belonged to Narin GÜRAN.

Within the scope of the file, in order to obtain evidence, examinations were conducted on carpets, kilims, quilts, pillows, clothing, the personal belongings of the Güran family, and other items such as stones and sand found at and around the scene; as a result of the examinations, multiple CFM reports were obtained, and it was stated in the reports that no findings constituting elements of the offense were encountered. Therefore, the said reports are not addressed one by one here; it was understood that the other reports, apart from those stated and discussed in the reasoned judgment, did not provide concrete data regarding the killing of the deceased Narin Güran.

As for other evidence; ​

In the records kept by law enforcement officers, it was seen that the defendant Salim, who is the village headman, made constant contradictory and suspicious statements during the search activities, that he directed the law enforcement officers to places other than the scene, causing the lifeless body of the deceased Narin to be found late, and that especially on the day of the disappearance, he gave different and contradictory time information in the information he provided to law enforcement officers and other talks he had, and that in his phone calls (it was determined that these calls were identified because the defendant Salim had installed a recording program on his own phone) he constantly mentioned different times.

It was observed that the defendant Salim Güran had installed a program on his personal phone that records calls. The conversations in the relevant program were transcribed into Turkish and placed in the file. Upon examination, no conversation relating to the killing of the deceased Narin was encountered. It was also seen that the defendant told the people who called him that he was engaged in search activities, that they were looking everywhere, that gypsies might have kidnapped Narin in a red car, and that he told the villagers to search in corn or other fields. However, it was understood that there were no recordings of the calls made on the night of the incident, 08/21/2024, and thereafter, that the relevant program was deactivated by the user at around 00:31 on 08/22/2024. Furthermore, when the defendant’s Historical Traffic (HTS) records and the call recordings on the phone were compared, it was seen that there were recordings of some calls made on the day of the incident, that recordings of some calls were deleted, and likewise that some messaging records, especially WhatsApp conversations and messages, were also deleted. When this matter was asked of the defendant by our court, he stated that he was the headman and therefore was constantly called, that he forgot some things, that he had the call-recording program installed by someone else so as not to forget, but that he did not intentionally delete it on the day of the incident and thereafter, and moreover that he deleted his WhatsApp history because he communicated with an escort. However, upon examination, it was understood that the conversations with the escort and some unimportant messages as well as some call recordings remained. Our court evaluated this as an extraordinary situation. Because it would be expected that the defendant Salim, who is the village headman, would be frequently called on the day of the disappearance and thereafter, that a forgetful person whose genuine intention is to find the missing girl would use this call-recording program more during the search for the disappearance, that the village headman would be constantly called by others and given information, that a forgetful person could later listen again to these calls and tell the law enforcement units the matters he deemed important, and perhaps have the relevant calls listened to by law enforcement. While these circumstances were present, the defendant’s deletion of the said program long in use after midnight on the day of the disappearance case, as well as his deletion of some of the call recordings he made during the day while not deleting others and similarly deleting the WhatsApp history yet keeping the escort messages he did not want to come to light and some unimportant messages, was accepted by our court as indicating that the defendant concealed something, acted in this way to hide something, did not want the lifeless body of the deceased Narin to be found, and concealed the truths regarding Narin’s death and prevented their emergence.

It was also seen that members of the Güran family deleted their phone histories at this stage. Although this is not direct evidence affecting the concrete case, it was considered a suspicious and noteworthy behavior.

Within the scope of the investigations conducted, it was observed that the camera recordings in and around the village were examined, that the clearest last image of the deceased Narin GÜRAN belonged to the camera of the Tavşantepe Primary School, and since it was understood that the deceased Narin GÜRAN at 15:15:14 on 08/21/2024 left the camera angle and headed for the footpath leading to her residence, in detailed examinations it was understood that at 15:41:56 on 08/21/2024, the red-colored vehicle with license plate 23 XX 630 entered the angle of the camera belonging to the farm located on the opposite side of the Tavşantepe neighborhood, that the vehicle then stopped at 15:44:43 on the dirt road near the Eğertutmaz creek, and that it left the vicinity of the Eğertutmaz creek 38 minutes and 11 seconds later according to the camera time. Following the examination, upon understanding that the said vehicle was driven by the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar, the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar was apprehended and taken into custody. It was seen that when the defendant was taken into custody, he told the law enforcement officers that the deceased was killed by Salim, that the lifeless body of Narin was given to him, and that he hid it in the creek.

During the investigation stage conducted by the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, expert police specialized in the crime scene and appraisers serving in different provinces were brought to Diyarbakır and investigations were conducted at and around the location where the deceased was last seen. In the narrowed Cell Tower Report prepared as a result of the investigations conducted;

When the HTS records of the phone number 0530XXX0653 (Turkcell) used by the defendant Salim GÜRAN were examined; it was observed that at around 14:52 on 08/21/2024 he left his own residence, that he was between his own residence and the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 14:55 he was on and around the road between his own residence and the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that he was in the vicinity of the residence of Arif GÜRAN until 15:18, that he was on the road and in the garden area between his own residence and the residence of Arif GÜRAN until 15:19, that he then headed toward the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 15:20 he came to the residence of Arif GÜRAN and then came to the stable part at the back of the house, that at around 15:22 he was inside the house, that between 15:22 and 15:26 he was in the place referred to as the empty room opposite the kitchen in the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that until around 15:32 he continued to be inside the residence of Arif GÜRAN and moved inside the other rooms, that at around 15:36 he passed to the back of the stable, then re-entered the residence of Arif GÜRAN and stayed in the residence, that at around 15:41 he again passed to the back of the stable, that at 15:42 he was on the road between his residence and the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 15:43 he was in front of the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 15:52 while he was at the residence of Arif GÜRAN he called the phone number 0531XXX1521 registered to Mehmet Selim Atasoy and had a call lasting 31 seconds, that at 16:08 he was at the back of the stable of the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 16:10 he left the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 16:10 he left the residence of Arif GÜRAN and moved toward the cornfield located above the village, that it was stated that the phone used by Salim GÜRAN at around 22:47 on 08/21/2024 came to the place where the body of Narin GÜRAN was found (this matter was corrected in the supplementary report) and left at 22:55 on the same day.

When the HTS records of the phone number 0539XXX7358 (Turkcell) used by the defendant Enes GÜRAN were examined, it was observed that at around 14:30 on 08/21/2024 he was at his residence, that he continued to receive GPRS until 15:41, that at 15:41 he gave a cell from his residence and remained in the residence and its outbuildings until 15:51, that at 15:57 he moved to the residence of Salim GÜRAN and remained there and between then and 16:04 was in an area whose exact location could not be determined, that at around 16:11 he headed toward his own residence, that thereafter until 17:50 he was in his residence and its outbuildings and moved intermittently, that after 17:50 he was outside the residence and moved around the vicinity of the residence, and that at around 18:13 on the same day he turned off his phone or it turned off in a location close to the school, and that the phone was turned on at 04:44 on 08/22/2024.

When the HTS records of the phone number 0536XXX7120 (Turkcell) used by the defendant Yüksel GÜRAN were examined, it was observed that between 14:28–15:38 on 08/21/2024 she was in her residence and its outbuildings, that between 15:39 and 16:39 she was again in her residence and its outbuildings, and that after 16:39 on the same day she continued to remain and move in her residence and its outbuildings.

When the HTS records of the phone number 0533XXX9779 (Turkcell) used by the defendant Nevzat BAHTİYAR were examined, it was observed that at around 15:08 on 08/21/2024 he called the defendant Salim GÜRAN and spoke for 42 seconds and then left his residence, that at around 15:10 he was on the paved road between the residences of Arif GÜRAN and Salim GÜRAN and near the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at 15:18 he was very close to the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at around 15:26 he came in front of the residence of Arif GÜRAN, that at 15:27 he was inside the house and its outbuildings and remained at the house until 15:35 on the same day, that thereafter at around 15:40 he was near the school, that at 15:57 he was in the field area, that at around 16:00 he was in the area where the body of Narin GÜRAN was located, and that at around 16:35 he left the place where the body of Narin GÜRAN was found and returned toward Tavşantepe village.

The defense counsel of the defendants objected to the said report. Upon the objection, our court obtained a supplementary report from the experts. In the supplementary report obtained;

• On 08/29/2024–08/30/2024 and on 09/08/2024–09/09/2024, the dates when Narin GÜRAN’s body was found, narrowed cell-tower studies were conducted in Tavşantepe village; on all suspects, the residence of Salim GÜRAN, the residences of Arif GÜRAN and Nevzat BAHTİYAR, the intermediate locations, and the streets, during different days and times, day and night, and especially while working around the residence of Arif GÜRAN and Salim GÜRAN, to avoid congestion in the cell, the phones of personnel in the area were turned off; taking such matters into consideration, using different programs, with at least two lines each from Turkcell, Vodafone, and Türk Telekom, step-by-step work was conducted at the residences and outbuildings of Arif GÜRAN, Salim GÜRAN, and Nevzat BAHTİYAR and on the intermediate roads, and after hundreds of operations were performed meticulously and accurately without error regarding the main cell, side cells, and GPRS cells serving the area, determinations were made,

• Because Tavşantepe village is located on a hill, it receives signals from many cells in the city center and surrounding areas, and due to the number of cells being quite high, this facilitated the possibility of conducting narrowed-area cell studies at the locations indicated; otherwise, if the number of cells were low, these studies could not have been detailed to such an extent; furthermore, because the area where Narin GÜRAN’s body was found is below the village, the cells could serve a somewhat wider area, and due to the areas being wide in places such as where the body was found and the cornfield, the cell study could not be conducted in very great detail,

• As can be seen, the Tavşantepe village does not receive signal from only one cell, but from at least 20 different cells, whose names are:

  • 1. Diyarbakır Bağlar Yeniköy Bediuzzaman Cd,
  • 2. Diyarbakır Sur Yeşilvadi 1045. Sk,
  • 3. Diyarbakır Bağlar Selahattin Eyyubi 317.sk 3-B block Yaşar Apt.,
  • 4. Diyarbakır Bağlar Bağcılar,
  • 5. Diyarbakır Bağlar Buçuktepe,
  • 6. Diyarbakır Sur Abdaldede Gazi cad.168 A,
  • 7. Diyarbakır Sur Yeşilvadi 1028.Sk,
  • 8. Diyarbakır Bağlar Yeniköy 1023.sk8-Diyarbakır Bağlar Bağcılar 1110 sk.,
  • 9. Diyarbakır Sur fetih,
  • 10. Diyarbakır Bağlar Batıkarakoç,
  • 11. Diyarbakır Yenişehir Cumhuriyet 391sk.,
  • 12. Diyarbakır Sur Dicle,
  • 13. Diyarbakır Ali Paşa Karabulut 1 sk 8,
  • 14. Diyarbakır Bağlar bağcılar 1074 sk 52,
  • 19. Diyarbakır Bağlar Bağcılar 1169 sk Bağlar Bağcılar 1188 street,
  • 20. Diyarbakır Yenişehir Yenişehir 24 Dedeman Hotel Plaza Hotel
  • 21. Diyarbakır Sur Abdaldede Gazi Cd. 168
  • 22. Diyarbakır Bağlar Buçuktepe Uzunbahçe (Dıykuyuluhoyuk) Bağlar, Diyarbakır

The numbered cell towers skip from 14 to 19. There are 18 cell towers in the reasoned judgment.

it was determined that there are cell towers with these names, and the cell towers are recorded and listed in the HTS records obtained from the Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu (BTK) for the defendants in the file.

• Furthermore, by way of example of the cells located at the residence and outbuildings of Arif GÜRAN;

  • On the day of the incident for Salim GÜRAN,

    • At around 15:20 he came to the residence of Arif GÜRAN, and his cell was 666342808032 - opr:Turkcell (DSEMA32L) - DİYARBAKIR SUR ABDALDEDE GAZI CD. 168 A (DIYSURESKIMARYL) SUR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 15:22 he passed to the stable part, and his cell was 666339323022 opr:Turkcell (SUZAN22L)–DİYARBAKIR SUR DICLE (DIYSURKIRK) SUR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • Between 15:22 and 15:26 he was inside the house, and his cell was 665754107021 opr:Turkcell (DBYMZ21L) - DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR YENİKÖY BEDİÜZZAMAN CD. (DIYYENIKOYMEZAR) BAĞLAR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 15:36 he entered the residence of Arif GÜRAN, and his cells were 665754107021 - opr:Turkcell (DBYMZ21L) - DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR YENİKÖY BEDİÜZZAMAN CD. (DIYYENIKOYMEZAR) BAĞLAR, DİYARBAKIR and 666342808032 opr:Turkcell (DSEMA32L) - DİYARBAKIR SUR ABDALDEDE GAZI CD. 168 A (DIYSURESKIMARYL) SUR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 15:52 when he spoke with Mehmet Selim ATASOY he was at the residence of Arif GÜRAN, and his cell was 666342808032 - opr:Turkcell (DSEMA32L) DİYARBAKIR SUR ABDALDEDE GAZI CD. 168 A (DIYSURESKIMARYL) SUR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 16:08 he was at the back of the residence of Arif GÜRAN, and his cell was 666339323023 - opr:Turkcell (SUZAN23L) - DİYARBAKIR SUR DICLE (DIYSURKIRK) SUR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 16:35 he was in the cornfield located in Uzunbahçe, and his cell was 666239512047 - opr:Turkcell (DBKUY47L) - DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR BUÇUKTEPE UZUNBAHÇE (DIYKUYULUHOYUK) BAĞLAR, DİYARBAKIR,

  • On the day of the incident for Nevzat BAHTİYAR,

    • At around 15:10 he was on the road between the residences of Arif GÜRAN and Salim GÜRAN and near the residence of Arif GÜRAN, and his cell was 666242016022 - opr:Turkcell (DIYBA22L) - DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR SELAHATTİN EYYUBİ 317. SK. 3 B-BLOCK YASAR APT. (DIYBAYINDIRLIK) BAĞLAR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 15:18 he was near the residence of Arif GÜRAN, and his cells were 66628530027 - opr:Turkcell (DIYKA27L) - DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR BAĞCILAR 1074. SK. 52 (DIYKARANFILSOK) BAĞLAR, DİYARBAKIR and 666340655041 opr:Turkcell (DCARK41L) - DİYARBAKIR SUR YEŞİLVADİ 1045. SK. (DIYCARIKLI) SUR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 15:27 he was at the residence and outbuildings of Arif GÜRAN, and his cell was 665754107021 - opr:Turkcell (DBYMZ21L) - DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR YENİKÖY BEDİÜZZAMAN CD. (DIYYENIKOYMEZAR) BAĞLAR, DİYARBAKIR,

    • At around 16:00 he was in the area where the body of Narin GÜRAN was found, and his cell was 666316337031 - opr:Turkcell (DISHA31L) - DİYARBAKIR SUR YEŞİLVADİ 1028. SK. (DIYSURHASIRLI) SUR, DİYARBAKIR

  we can observe these named cells.

• That merely looking at the cell numbers and making comparisons would lead to error; when making the said determinations, the data regarding signal strength obtained as a result of our measurements made in the area, the sequence of cell transitions in the person’s HTS report, making the distinction between auxiliary, main, and side cells in the cells serving the area, and the other matters we have stated are evaluated.

• That in narrowed-area cell studies there can be not even the slightest matter open to interpretation, the results of the work take direction according to the calls in the HTS and the density of the cell or the variability of the cells; knowing that the abundance of cells provides an advantage and ease in determining the locations of events and persons is important, and in conducting these studies, it should be emphasized that there may be an error of approximately 2 meters and 1 minute arising from transitions between cells and movement.

• Furthermore, in our first report it was stated that the phone number 0530XXX0653 used by Salim GÜRAN gave a cell from the cornfield at the place where the body of Narin GÜRAN was located between 22:47 and 22:55 on 08/21/2024; here, by the area stated as the cornfield is meant the field near the place where the body of Narin GÜRAN was found.

it was stated.

Narrowed cell-tower report ​

In our court’s evaluation regarding the narrowed cell-tower report; the said report was not taken as the sole basis for the judgment by our court; when the said report is evaluated together with the statements of the defendant Nevzat, the Analysis Report of the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command in the file, the HTS records regarding the GSM lines used by the defendants, the cell data, cell tower information, the DARAN-2 camera recordings, the UKB report, the statements of the defendant Yüksel and the defendant Enes that they were at home, the farm camera footage, and the camera footage belonging to Ruhi Kaya, our court found that the said report is consistent with the other evidence accepted by our court as evidence, that the relevant information and documents corroborate each other; accordingly, our court placed reliance on the data in the said narrowed cell-tower report.

It was observed that the defendant Nevzat made multiple different and contradictory statements at various stages. Our panel especially examined the defendant’s demeanor and conduct in the videos of the statements he gave during the investigation stage and while giving statements before our court. As a result of this examination, it was observed that the defendant had difficulties in expressing himself, that he could not complete sentences when forming them, that he narrated the events not in chronological order but in a confused manner, and that when narrating an event he did not recount it in full but briefly; therefore, both during the investigation and prosecution stages, his statements could only be obtained by constantly asking him questions, and likewise when his defense against the opinion was taken by our court, when he was asked to make a defense without any questions being asked, he could not fully express himself and conveyed sentences incompletely and incorrectly; considering also that the defendant and his defense prepared for the final defense, it was observed that the defendant had difficulties in expressing himself, and thus our court understood that the defendant expressed himself by giving short, brief answers to the questions asked. For this reason, our court evaluated the defendant’s statements as a whole and gave credence to his statements before our court that were consistent with the evidence in the file. Furthermore, what should be noted here is that in all his statements at various stages, consistently, the defendant stated that the deceased Narin was killed by the defendant Salim and that her lifeless body was handed over to him.

In the defendant Nevzat’s statements, which our court credited, he stated in summary that;

• At around 15:08 he called the defendant Salim due to a matter regarding water,
• After a while, the defendant Salim called him down from the top of the place where Arif’s residence is located,
• Thereafter, together with the defendant Salim they entered Arif’s house,
• Meanwhile, when he entered the house, all the doors of the rooms except one were closed,
• He did not see anyone else in the house other than the defendant Salim,
• The defendant Salim took him to a room inside the house and showed him the lifeless body of Narin lying on the floor,
• At that moment, he saw fluids flowing from the mouth of the deceased Narin due to death,
• The defendant Salim told him that he was together with the defendant Yüksel,
• That because he saw this, he killed the deceased Narin,
• Furthermore, that he threatened him with a gun and told him to dispose of Narin’s body, otherwise he would kill his son and harm his family,
• Upon this, that he wrapped the lifeless body of Narin in a blanket and left the house,
• That he took the lifeless body of Narin to his own stable and placed it in a sack,
• That during this time he met the defendant Salim again,
• That upon the defendant Salim saying “take it to the lake and dismember,” he put the sack containing the lifeless body of Narin into his car, left there, and took it to the Eğertutmaz creek

it was observed that he so stated.

In his defense at various stages, the defendant Salim stated in summary that he did not accept the charges against him, that he was at home on the day of the incident, that he then went to the field, that he learned by phone that the deceased Narin had gone missing, and that he did not accept the statements of the defendant Nevzat.

In her statements at various stages, the defendant Yüksel stated that,

• She denied the charges against her,
• On the day of the incident, the witness Hediye came to the house, and that they folded laundry together while chatting,
• She learned that her daughter, the deceased Narin, had gone missing in the evening when she did not come home,

In her defense before our court, the defendant Yüksel stated that,

• She persistently emphasized her chastity,
• That the statement in the defendant Nevzat’s declaration that the defendant Salim said, “I killed her because I saw my relationship with Yüksel,” was a slander,

Our court formed the opinion that the defendant Yüksel did not have a relationship with the defendant Salim during the incident, and as will be explained below, it was accepted that because the defendants Salim, Yüksel, and Enes jointly killed the deceased Narin for a reason that our court could not understand, in order to conceal the real motive, the defendant Salim made a statement of this sort to the defendant Nevzat, and that this statement was made to conceal the real motive that led to Narin’s killing.

In his defense at various stages, the defendant Enes stated that he denied the charges against him, that he came from the province of Malatya in the morning of the day of the incident, that he slept at noon-afternoon because he was tired, and that he met with his friends in the evening.

Analysis report of the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command ​

In the analysis report prepared by the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command; it was observed that the HTS records and cell data of the phone number 0530XXX0653 used by the defendant Salim Güran, the phone number 0533XXX9779 used by the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar, the phone number 0536XXX7120 used by the defendant Yüksel Güran, and the phone number 0539XXX7358 used by the defendant Enes Güran were examined and compared. In the said report;

• It was observed that in the time period after 15:15, which is the time when the deceased Narin Güran was killed, the relevant phone numbers were in the village and at different angles from the same cell towers; it was seen that at around 15:16 the defendants used the cell tower 665638530027 opr: Turkcell DIYKA27L Diyarbakır Bağlar Bağcılar 1074 street 52 (Diykaranfil street). In the evaluations made here, it was seen that the defendants acted together and were aware of each other in the time period when the deceased Narin was killed.

• It was seen that the situation of jointly using the same cell by the defendant Nevzat and the defendant Salim increased between 15:25 and 15:46; it was observed that the defendants predominantly used the cell towers named 665754107021 opr: Turkcell DBYMZ21L Diyarbakır Bağlar Yeniköy Bediüzzaman Street DİYYENIKOYMEZAR Bağlar Diyarbakır, 66638854032 opr: Turkcell DSALI32L Diyarbakır Sur Ali Paşa Karabulut 1. Street 8 DİYSURALİPAŞAMAH Sur Diyarbakır, 666337679027 opr: Turkcell D7MIN27L Diyarbakır Bağlar Bağcılar DIYYEDİEMİNOTOP Bağlar Diyarbakır; considering that the cell tower information used was at the same angle, it was interpreted that the defendants were related to each other and were in the same location at the times stated.

• It was seen that after 15:46 the defendant Nevzat’s cell information was mobile while the defendant Salim’s cell data was stationary; it was understood that this meant that the defendant Nevzat left the scene and the defendant Salim remained at the scene.

• It was understood from the cell data used that after 16:13 the defendant Salim left the village and went to the cornfield on the Batıkarakoç road, and after 16:13 the defendant Nevzat returned to the village.

• It was observed that the defendants Salim Güran and Enes Güran were in different angles of the same cell tower at 15:41 and 15:42. Again, the defendant Enes’s conversation at around 15:45 with the person named Kerem Sümer clearly shows the cell data.

Video recordings ​

In the examination of the video recordings in the file; it was seen that during the prosecution stage, a UKB expert report was requested to enhance the DARAN-2 footage, and the report sent stated that at 15:18:47 (the said time is 6 minutes ahead of the current time) there was a dark figure in the stable next to the residence of Arif Güran, and that at 15:19:05 there was an intense light flare reflected from beside the stable into the camera and there was mention of vehicle movement. It was seen that both the complainant party and the defendants’ counsel agreed that the said vehicle was later determined to be other vehicles reflected in the farm camera.

Again, under the other data arranged under the heading of Movement detected at the scene; it was observed that at 15:23:06 there were 2 dark figures in front of the stable, and at 15:25:53 there was a dark figure in the place referred to as the back of the stable.

Considering the distance of the relevant DARAN-2 camera to the house of Arif Güran and its annexes, known as the scene, and the video quality, it was seen that it was stated that the video could only be enhanced to this extent.

It was also seen that there were farm camera recordings belonging to Mehmet Sait Tek in the file. An examination record of the relevant footage was included in the file. Upon examination, it was seen that at 15:41:56 (the camera time and date are current) a suspicious vehicle was traveling from the Tavşantepe neighborhood toward the Özdemir neighborhood Gönenli clustered houses (Eğertutmaz creek) direction, that thereafter at 16:22:04 the vehicle left the Eğertutmaz creek (the said vehicle remained at the Eğertutmaz creek for approximately 38 minutes and 11 seconds), and thereafter at 16:23:54 the vehicle passed in front of the camera located in the Özdemir neighborhood Gönenli clustered houses; it was understood in the examination that the vehicle was a red Şahin-brand vehicle, and after this work the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar was apprehended. It was also seen that at around 22:35 another vehicle that could not be identified went to the Eğertutmaz creek.

It was also seen that there were camera recordings belonging to a person named Ruhi Kaya in the file. It was observed that the parties to the case, namely the complainant party and the defendants’ counsel, agreed on the relevant footage, and that the parties concurred that the white vehicle passing there belonged to the defendant Salim. In our court’s examination, it was seen that at 16:15:29 a white vehicle was traveling in the upper right corner of the camera, and at 18:35 the same vehicle again passed in front of the camera.

In the examination conducted in light of all this evidence; our court accepted that the narrowed cell data, the statements of the defendant Nevzat credited by our court, the Technical Analysis report of the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command, the CFM reports, the camera footage, the report prepared by the UKB, and the other evidence mentioned above are consistent with each other, and that, in terms of the main subject, they support and corroborate each other.

Other evidence submitted to the file by the complainant, the complainant’s counsel, the complainant institutions, the defendants, and the defense counsel did not contribute to the concrete case; therefore, our court did not give credence to them and they are not addressed here.

Assessment of Participation ​

In our court’s assessments on participation;

In its decision numbered 2013/91, the Penal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation stated that Article 37 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) No. 5237, under the heading of Perpetration, is regulated as follows: “Each of those who jointly commit the act included in the legal definition of the offense shall be liable as a perpetrator.” If the act defined as an offense in the law is committed in concert by more than one accomplice, joint perpetration as regulated in Article 37/1 of the TPC will be at issue. Taking into account the views in the doctrine as well, two conditions must be met together for joint perpetration: 1- There must be a joint decision among the perpetrators to commit the offense. 2- There must be joint control over the commission of the offense. In joint perpetration, since there is joint control over the act in addition to a joint decision to commit the offense, each accomplice is in the position of a “perpetrator.” In determining whether joint control over the act has been established, the roles undertaken by the accomplices in the commission of the offense and the significance of their contributions should be considered. Joint perpetration will also be at issue where the accomplices’ contributions to the commission of the offense complete each other’s acts. Accordingly, it has been stated that each joint perpetrator makes an effective, functional contribution to the execution of the offense.

In its decision docket No. 2017/1-279, decision No. 2019/30, the Penal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation explained as follows: “In the first paragraph of Article 37 of the TPC No. 5237, joint perpetration is regulated by the provision: ‘(1) Each of those who jointly commit the act included in the legal definition of the offense shall be liable as a perpetrator.’ If the act defined as an offense in the law is committed in concert by more than one accomplice, joint perpetration as regulated in the first paragraph of Article 37 of the TPC will be at issue. Taking into account the views in the doctrine as well, two conditions must be met together for joint perpetration: 1- There must be a joint decision among the perpetrators to commit the offense. 2- There must be joint control over the commission of the offense. In joint perpetration, since there is joint control over the act in addition to a joint decision to commit the offense, each accomplice is in the position of a ‘perpetrator.’ In determining whether joint control over the act has been established, the roles undertaken by the accomplices in the commission of the offense and the significance of their contributions should be considered. To determine whether a person’s conduct has reached the stage of participation in an offense, and if so, to determine the level of participation, all the evidence must be evaluated together, taking into account not the situation at one stage of the act, but the decision made to commit the act, the manner in which that decision was executed, and the behaviors before, during, and after the incident. For one of the most important elements sought in joint perpetration is the person’s joint control over the act during the commission of the offense.”

In its decision docket No. 2017/937, decision No. 2017/484, the Penal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation ruled as follows: “According to the provisions on participation in the Law No. 5237, their reasoning, and the practices of the Court of Cassation, the forms and level of participation are determined by the measure of control established over the commission of the act. The forms of participation envisaged in the system of the Penal Code as statuses of liability are regulated as perpetration, instigation, and aiding. With the expression in Article 37(1) of the TPC, ‘each of those who jointly commit the act included in the legal definition of the offense shall be liable as a perpetrator,’ the scope of the concept of perpetration has been kept quite broad, and anyone who establishes control over the conduct enabling the commission of the offense is deemed a perpetrator. Establishing control over the conduct may occur in the form of jointly carrying it out, and also encompasses jointly performing the conduct based on an implicit or explicit division of labor. Accordingly, even those who do not perform the act that results in the offense but prepare the necessary environment for another’s performance of that act are deemed perpetrators; therefore, many of the acts directed at the victim during the commission of the offense must be assessed as perpetration pursuant to Article 37 of the TPC. To determine whether a person’s conduct has reached the stage of participation in an offense, and if so to determine the level of participation, it is necessary to evaluate all the evidence together, taking into account not the situation at one phase of the conduct, but the decision made to commit the conduct, the manner in which that decision was executed, and the behaviors before, during, and after the incident. For the intent to commit an offense (mens rea) may form at every stage until the offense is completed. The will to participate may form at any stage of the offense. In light of these explanations and the provisions of Article 37, for joint perpetration it is required that more than one person jointly decide to commit the offense, that to realize this decision the acts of execution of the offense—i.e., its material element—be jointly carried out, and that joint control be established over the execution of the act. Since the will to participate and intent are concepts related to a person’s inner world, where these are not expressly stated, this fact of the inner world must be determined by looking at behaviors reflected in the external world.”

In its decision docket No. 2015/1-1146, decision No. 2019/206, the Penal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation ruled as follows: “Although he saw the scene, from a point at a distance that prevented establishing joint control over the killing that took place inside the garden, the accused watched the incident from beginning to end; the act whereby the deceased was struck by Kerem Mutkan with a lug wrench and screwdriver he took from his own vehicle, and by Recep Kazak with a piece of wood, and then stabbed to death by the accused Resul, was committed in concert by Resul, Recep, and Kerem, who, by jointly deciding and establishing control over the act, acted in participation in the commission of the offense defined as killing; the accused, on the other hand, neither engaged in any preventive conduct to show that he did not side with the acts of Resul, Ekrem, and Recep during the commission of the act, nor left the scene until the other accused completed their acts against the deceased, and by waiting at the scene, he emboldened and facilitated the commission of the acts by the accused outside the scope of this review; and after the incident, he took the principal perpetrators of the offense—Resul, Recep, and Kerem—into the vehicle under his control and left the scene. When these matters are assessed as a whole, it must be accepted that the accused’s act constitutes, not the offense of harboring a criminal—an offense against the administration of justice that can be committed solely to save a person who committed a crime from investigation, arrest, detention, or execution of the sentence without participating in the offense in any way—but the offense of intentional killing by facilitating the execution of the offense by aiding during the commission of the intentional killing of the deceased Erkan Tünkler.”

In its decision dated 03/19/2013 and numbered 1-81/91, the Penal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation ruled as follows: “When the facts that the accused D, upon seeing that his friend M had been injured by the deceased, instead of separating D and the deceased together with the bar staff witnesses present at the scene and immediately taking his friend, who had a stab wound in his leg, to the hospital, attacked the deceased with the knife he had on him; that he remained with the accused M until the end of the incident; that he did not utter any words or engage in any conduct to prevent the act of intentional killing carried out by the accused M—are assessed together, it must be accepted that the accused D participated in the intentional killing committed by the accused M.”

In its judgment docket No. 2020/2086, decision No. 2021/934, the 1^st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled as follows: “It was established that the deceased child Kenan, aged 5, lived together with his mother Döndü and his mother’s boyfriend İbrahim Halil; that according to the Forensic Medicine report, on the date of the incident he died as a result of traumatic intracranial changes together with fractures of the skull and facial bones due to the impact of a blunt object; that there were previously healed bone fractures on his body; that it was understood he had previously been battered by the accused or the accused; that on the day the deceased died, after he fainted, the accused did not call 112; that upon understanding the deceased had died, the accused, acting with unity of idea and action, took the deceased and buried him in land belonging to the father of the accused İbrahim Halil Kılınç; thereafter, when the family members asked about the deceased, they stated that they had placed the deceased in a state institution; and finally, the accused Döndü went to the police and filed a missing person report regarding her minor son. When these matters are assessed together, since it is understood that the accused Döndü acted in solidarity with unity of idea and will and established joint control over the result, committing the offense together with the other accused İbrahim Halil, she must be punished as a joint perpetrator within the scope of Articles 37 and 82/1-d-e of the TPC regarding the offense against the deceased.”

In its judgment docket No. 2023/6009, decision No. 2024/5580, the 1^st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled as follows: “…although the accused did not accept the charges, given that the victim’s allegation regarding the accused is corroborated by witness statements, it is understood from the accused’s conduct during and after the incident that they participated in the offense of attempted intentional killing within the scope of Article 37 of Law No. 5237 by acting with unity of idea and will and establishing joint control over the act.”

In its judgment docket No. 2023/7593, decision No. 2024/3717, the 1^st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled as follows: “Considering that after the accused left the scene, according to witness accounts, it was understood that the deceased was still alive; that after leaving the scene, the accused Mustafa went to the house of the accused Süleyman, sat there for a while without telling the household anything, then went to his own home and was apprehended there by law enforcement; that during this period, as can also be understood from witness accounts, he made no effort to prevent the death of the deceased, who was understood to be alive, and did not notify the police or medical teams; it is concluded that the accused acted with unity of idea and will, established joint control over the act, and thus carried out the act; therefore, the accused Mustafa is also a joint perpetrator.”

In the assessment of participation in light of the Court of Cassation decisions mentioned above; Article 37, regulated under the heading of Perpetration in the section on Participation in Offenses in our Turkish Penal Code, provides that: “Each of those who jointly commit the act included in the legal definition of the offense shall be liable as a perpetrator.” Anyone who establishes control over the conduct enabling the commission of the offense is deemed a perpetrator. Establishing control over the conduct may occur in the form of jointly carrying it out, and also encompasses jointly performing the conduct based on an implicit or explicit division of labor. The will to participate in question may be realized pursuant to a decision taken beforehand, or it may be realized by agreeing over the act during a spontaneously developing incident. What must be noted here is that the act must not yet be fully completed, that is, the offense must not be consummated. Acts occurring after the completion of the offense are not accepted as participation but will give rise to other offenses (as will be explained below with respect to the accused Nevzat, hiding or destroying evidence of the offense). The matter of participation is generally regulated in our law, and what constitutes participation has been shaped by the decisions of the Court of Cassation. However, since each concrete case contains different characteristics in itself, it is necessary to assess the matter of the accused’s participation separately in each concrete case. Therefore, the participation of the accused in the act that occurred may take different forms, and in each case the acts carried out by the accused must be described separately. However, as noted above, sometimes it is not possible to ascertain what the acts of the accused were in the act that occurred. In such situations, it will suffice to determine whether the accused acted in participation in the act in question; the inability to determine what the accused’s acts were will not create a doubt in favor of the accused in the concrete case. How will it be determined whether the accused participated in an act? Since the will to participate and intent are concepts related to a person’s inner world, where these cannot be clearly determined, this fact of the inner world can be determined by looking at behaviors reflected in the external world. Whether the accused who were together during the incident participated in the offense can be understood from their behaviors after the incident. In cases where an accused does not engage in any preventive conduct to show that he does not side with the act that took place beside him; where the person committing the offense draws strength from other persons present during the commission of the offense; where what is to be done after the completed act is jointly determined; where, by supporting the person committing the offense during and after the offense, efforts are made to conceal, hide, or prevent the discovery of the evidence of the offense; where, despite the duty to prevent any harm that may befall the deceased, the necessary intervention is not made to the person committing the act by acting contrary to this duty; where, foremost by notifying 112, no concrete conduct is engaged in to show the absence of participation in the act—under such circumstances, it will be accepted that the accused acted in participation.

In their defenses at various stages and in their statements before our court, the accused persistently stated that they did not see, did not hear, and did not remember. By making statements in this manner, the accused sought to escape liability by failing to provide reasonable answers to the questions of how, why, for what reason, and by whom the act of killing the deceased Narin was carried out. The TPC and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) grant the accused, as a legal right, the ability to engage in conduct aimed at escaping liability, including primarily telling falsehoods. However, in prosecutions where the accused, acting in solidarity with unity of idea and will and establishing joint control over the result, participate in the act, by preventing determinations as to how, why, and for what reason the act was carried out, what the accused’s acts were, and whether there were other accused who participated in this act, it is obvious that their expectation of acquittal is neither legally nor conscientiously acceptable. Therefore, as stated above, the inability to determine the ancillary questions will not create a favorable situation for the accused, and it must be accepted that the accused will be liable as participants in the act that occurred.

Assessment Regarding the Defendants ​

In the assessment made in light of all this information;

In the UKB report obtained for the enhancement of the DARAN-2 camera recordings contained in the file,

• That there was a moving dark figure in the direction of the house–barn,
• That, since this figure appeared to be of dark-colored clothing and short, thin build, and in view of its consistency with the school camera recording located at the beginning of the path where Narin was last seen, the relevant figure was the deceased,

has been accepted by our Court.

In view of this situation,

• That the act of killing the deceased Narin was initiated in the house, the barn, or its extensions,
• Subsequently, that the deceased Narin’s body was brought to the house of the Complainant Arif Güran and the killing act was completed there,
• That thereafter the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was taken by the defendant Nevzat from the house of the Complainant Arif, first placed in a sack in the barn of his own house,
• That the said sack was placed into the vehicle with license plate 23 XX 630 used by the defendant Nevzat, taken to the Eğertutmaz creek, and left by the creek bank with stones placed on it,

has been deemed established by our Court.

During the time period in which the deceased Narin was killed, the defendants Enes GÜRAN, Salim GÜRAN, and Yüksel GÜRAN

• Were present in the house, the barn, or its extensions,
• That this matter is established by the UKB, the narrowed cell-site data, the camera recordings, the analysis report, and all other evidence,
• That by a defendant or defendants not clearly identified by our Court, the act of killing the deceased Narin was initiated in the house, the barn, or its extensions,
• That thereafter the deceased Narin’s body was carried into the house,
• That at this point, the completion of the killing act by the defendants Enes, Yüksel, and Salim was awaited,
• That although each of the three defendants had the possibility to save the deceased Narin from death by a medical intervention to be performed in the house, the barn, or its extensions, this intervention was not performed and they consented to Narin’s death,
• Moreover, that the defendants in the file are Yüksel as the mother of the deceased, Salim as her uncle, and Enes as her brother,
• That although the defendants had the legal duties to ward off, prevent, or avert attacks, harm, or other negative acts that might befall the deceased, they failed to fulfill these duties and, by not preventing the person who initiated the killing act, participated in the death of the deceased Narin,
• That again, after the deceased Narin’s body was brought into the house and after the occurrence of the death, the defendants acted in unity of idea and action regarding what acts, behaviors, and statements they would carry out concerning the death event, and decided what to do,
• That thereafter, by giving the said lifeless body to the defendant Nevzat, who was near the scene, and requesting that he bury it in the creek, they acted jointly to conceal or destroy the body,
• That thereafter they behaved as if they had no knowledge regarding the death event,
• That again, when the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was given to the defendant Nevzat, only Salim was inside the house and the other doors were closed, and in view of this, the defendants Yüksel and Enes who were in the house waited behind closed doors in agreement with the defendant Salim,
• That the statements by the defendant Salim to the defendant Nevzat, to the effect that he killed the deceased Narin because he had seen his relationship with Yüksel, were also decided jointly by the other defendants in order to conceal the true motive of the killing act,
• That the defendant Nevzat stated he saw the defendant Yüksel crying as he took the deceased Narin’s lifeless body and left the scene,
• Therefore, that while the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was being handed over by the defendant Salim to the defendant Nevzat, the other defendants were aware of the incident,
• That each of the three defendants, through the roles they undertook in the commission of the offense and through their own acts completing the acts of the other defendants, established joint control over the commission of the offense together with the other defendants,
• In this context, that the defendants maintained unity of time and place until the end of the incident and, acting in participation, the defendants Salim Güran, Enes Güran, and Yüksel Güran, in unity of idea and action, caused the death of the deceased Narin Güran in participation,

has been accepted by our Court.

In view of all these statements, it has been understood that the killing of the deceased Narin was completed by the three defendants together.

Salim Güran ​

In the assessment made by our Court regarding the defendant Salim; as detailed above, together with the other defendants Yüksel and Enes, the defendant Salim

• Participated in the act of killing the deceased Narin and killed her,
• Thereafter, together with the other defendants, decided what they would do after the killing act,
• That at this time he was near the scene and spoke on the phone at around 15:08,
• Gave the deceased Narin’s lifeless body to the defendant Nevzat and requested that he dispose of it,
• That this matter was decided together with the other defendants while they were by the lifeless body of the deceased Narin in the house of Arif Güran,
• Thereafter, that the defendants continued their routine daily lives in an effort not to attract attention,
• However, that the defendant did not make a clear statement regarding the DNA found in his vehicle during the stages,
• Could not explain the suspicious actions he performed on his phone,
• Made contradictory statements regarding the time and manner of Narin’s disappearance,
• And that, although the defendant was at the house of the Complainant Arif at the time of the incident and afterwards, he attempted to escape liability by saying and causing to be said that he was in the field, contrary to the witness statements; therefore, that the defendant Salim, together with the other defendants Enes and Yüksel, killed the deceased Narin,

has been deemed established by our Court.

Enes Güran ​

In the assessment made by our Court regarding the defendant Enes;

In his defense at various stages, the defendant Enes

• Stated that he was sleeping at home; however, according to the narrowed cell-site data contained in the file and credited by our Court as it is consistent with the other evidence,

  • He remained inside the residence and its outbuildings until 15:51,
  • At 15:57 he moved to the house of Salim GÜRAN,
  • Stayed in the house for a while,
  • Around 16:11 he headed towards his own house,

  in view of these matters, since it is understood that during the time period when the deceased Narin left the path and headed towards the barn the defendant was awake and in motion, our Court did not credit the defendant’s statements,

• Considering the defendant Nevzat’s statement that “When I came to the house, all the doors were closed,” the defendant was inside the house during the time period indicated and, in unity of idea with the other defendants, remained quiet in the house, waiting for Nevzat to take the deceased Narin’s lifeless body,

• That after the defendant Nevzat left the scene, he went to the house of his uncle, the defendant Salim, also shows that he was aware of the acts that took place,

• That the defendant, upon being taken into custody, made contradictory statements at various stages regarding the bruises and bite marks on his body, and that, in view of this, the defendant attempted to conceal an existing truth,

• That while the defendant was at home, when the defendant Nevzat came to the house and took the deceased Narin’s lifeless body, the defendant was also aware of the defendant Salim’s statement, “I had a relationship with her mother Yüksel, she saw it and that is why I killed her,” and consented to this statement,

• That again, considering together the other statements of the defendant Yüksel reflected in the official records to the effect of how she could protect the defendant Enes, it is established that the defendant acted in participation together with the other defendants,

has been deemed established by our Court.

YÜksel Güran ​

In the assessment made by our Court regarding the defendant Yüksel;

In her defense at various stages, the defendant Yüksel

• Insistently stated that she was at home at the time of the incident and saw nothing,

• Again stated that it was not true that the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was taken from the house and that no one other than Hediye came to the house; however, according to the narrowed cell-site data contained in the file, this does not reflect the truth,

• Because both the defendant Salim and the defendant Nevzat came to the house of Arif Güran,

• Therefore, the defendant, by not telling the truth, attempted to conceal the facts,

• In view of the defendant Nevzat’s statement that he saw the defendant Yüksel as he took the deceased Narin’s lifeless body and left, and that she was crying, the defendant was aware of the deceased Narin’s death,

• That during the stage where the first killing act was performed against the deceased Narin in the barn and thereafter the killing act was completed by bringing her into the house, the defendant did not engage in any concrete act showing that she did not participate in the said offense,

• That, being the mother of the deceased, although the defendant had the duty to prevent harms or attacks that might befall her, she acted contrary to this duty,

• Even if, for a moment, credit were given to the defendant’s statements and it were accepted that she did not personally kill the deceased Narin, the fact that she failed to notify the relevant authorities did not prevent the occurrence of the death result, which in itself means participation in the killing act,

• That again, acting in unity of idea and action together with the other defendants, the defendant consented to the defendant Salim making a statement to the defendant Nevzat concerning his own honor,

• Therefore, the defendant participated in the killing act of the deceased Narin together with the other defendants Salim and Enes,

  has been deemed established by our Court.

Nevzat Bahtiyar ​

In the assessment made by our Court regarding the defendant Nevzat;

Although a public action was brought before our Court against the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar on the charge that he killed the deceased Narin together with the defendants Enes Güran, Salim Güran, and Yüksel Güran;

• In the only unchanging defense of the defendant Nevzat at various stages, it is seen that he

  • Did not kill the deceased Narin,
  • That the defendant Salim killed her and gave him the lifeless body,

  stated this.

• During the period when the deceased Narin left the path and headed towards her house and then arrived in front of the barn,

  • It is established by the narrowed cell-site data that the defendant Nevzat was near the scene,
  • However, in view of the proximity of the defendant’s house to the house of the complainant Arif,

  this matter was not assessed by our Court to the detriment of the defendant.

• That the defendant,

  • Went to the house of Arif Güran upon Salim’s call,
  • When he entered the house, the doors of the rooms were closed and it was understood that the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was on the floor,
  • Thereafter, upon the direction of the defendant Salim, he took the deceased Narin’s lifeless body and left the house and took it to his barn,
  • From there he placed it in a sack and put it in his own car,
  • Thereafter, he took it to the Eğertutmaz creek, which was the place indicated by the defendant Salim, and concealed the sack containing the lifeless body by placing stones on it at the creek bank,

  has been accepted by our Court.

• Although at various stages the defendant Nevzat stated that he took the lifeless body because the defendant Salim threatened him,

  • After the arrest of the defendant Salim, while thousands of law enforcement personnel were searching for the deceased Narin throughout the village, the threat had ceased to exist,
  • And although the defendant Nevzat could very easily have ensured the discovery of the deceased Narin by telling the truth, he did not do so and, by insisting on the act he carried out, demonstrated his intent,
  • Therefore, the situation regulated in Article 28 of the TPC did not occur in the concrete case,

  has been accepted by our Court.

Taking into account the above statements and the findings made with respect to the other defendants; in the concrete case, our Court has concluded that the defendant Nevzat was not at the scene at the moment of the deceased Narin’s death and did not participate in the killing act; that he came to the house of Arif Güran upon the call of the defendant Salim; that when he arrived at the house, he saw the deceased Narin’s lifeless body; that from that time onwards, since the killing act had been completed, the acts committed in response to this act cannot be accepted as participation; and that here the acts of the defendant will clearly give rise to another offense.

Although the other defendants and the defense counsel for the other defendants alleged that the deceased Narin was killed by the defendant Nevzat;

• That there was no enmity or motive that would require the defendant Nevzat to kill the deceased Narin,
• Again, in the UKB report obtained for the enhancement of the DARAN-2 camera recordings, it was established that there was a moving dark figure in the direction of the house–barn,
• That our Court accepted that, because this figure appeared to be of dark-colored clothing and of short, thin build, it was the deceased Narin,
• In view of this situation, that the deceased Narin was killed in the house, the barn, or its extensions,
• Moreover, that in the report regarding the macroscopic and microscopic examination of the hair samples found on Narin’s hand and clothing, conducted by the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, it was specifically stated that no finding regarding the defendant Nevzat or determination regarding DNA was made,
• That this situation means the defendant did not participate in the killing of the deceased Narin,
• That again, in other previously obtained reports, it was stated that there was no determination regarding the defendant Nevzat,

in view of these, our Court did not give credence to the allegations of the other defendants and the other defendants’ counsel. Although the counsel for the participating institutions alleged that when the defendant Nevzat took the deceased Narin, the death event had not yet been medically established, and therefore the defendant was jointly liable together with the other defendants,

• In the statements of the defendant, credited by our Court, he said that when he arrived at the house, the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was on the floor and fluids were flowing from her mouth,
• There is no concrete evidence in the file showing the contrary of the defendant’s statements,
• Therefore, by the time the defendant arrived at the house, the death event had been completed,
• Again, as detailed above, after the other defendants, acting in participation, completed the death event, they decided what they would do and then called the defendant Nevzat, and by telling him something untrue (the alleged relationship between the defendant Salim and Yüksel), they attempted to conceal the facts,

in view of these, the requests of the counsel for the participating institutions and the opinion of the prosecution have not been accepted by our Court.

As for the defendant Nevzat,

• By taking the deceased Narin’s lifeless body to the Eğertutmaz creek and concealing it,
• By failing to provide any information or document to the law enforcement officers who carried out search operations until the date the said lifeless body was found,
• And in the incident that developed such that, upon examination of the camera recordings, the red-colored vehicle used by the defendant was identified and the defendant was apprehended, his act constituted not the offense of intentionally killing the deceased Narin together with the other defendants but the offense regulated in Article 281 of the TPC of Destroying, concealing, or altering evidence of the offense,
• In view of the time elapsed from the date the deceased Narin was killed to the date her lifeless body was found, and the fact that during this period the evidence of the offense (despite dozens of examinations carried out by the Forensic Medicine Institutions, no evidence was found, and the reason for the absence of evidence is that the said lifeless body remained in water for a long time) could not be found,

in view of the “penalty from 6 months to 5 years” specified in Article 281 of the TPC, a prison sentence of 4 years and 6 months has been imposed and judgment has been rendered as set out below.

Judgment ​

For the reasons explained above,

1. It being established that Defendant Salim Güran committed the offense of “intentional killing” against the deceased Narin Güran in participation with the other defendants, Yüksel Güran and Enes Güran, the defendant SHALL BE SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 81/1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) No. 5237 applicable to his act,

   Given that the deceased was a child, the daughter of defendant Yüksel and the sister of defendant Enes, and that the deceased was killed by the defendants acting in participation, the defendant SHALL BE SENTENCED TO AGGRAVATED LIFE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 82/1-d-e of TPC No. 5237,

   Taking into consideration the amendments made to Article 62 of TPC No. 5237 by Law No. 7406, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS, IN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, TO APPLY Article 62 of the TPC to the defendant,

   In view of the situation arising after the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision dated 10/08/2015 and taking into account the amendment made by Article 10 of Law No. 7242, which entered into force on 04/15/2020, Article 53 paragraphs 1 and 2 and the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the TPC SHALL BE APPLIED to the defendant,

   The provisions of Article 50 of the TPC on converting the prison sentence into alternative sanctions, Article 51 on the suspension of the prison sentence, and Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) on the deferral of the announcement of the verdict SHALL NOT BE APPLIED,

   The periods spent by the defendant in police custody and pre-trial detention SHALL BE SET OFF against the sentence pursuant to Article 63 of the TPC,

   Considering the amount of the sentence imposed on the defendant and that the offense falls within the Catalogue of offenses listed in Article 100/3 of the CPC, therefore the reason for detention is deemed to exist in the file under Article 100/3 of Law No. 5271; that the valid grounds for suspicion set out in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the strong indication specified in Article 19 of the 1982 Constitution, and the concrete evidence demonstrating strong suspicion of crime as stipulated in Article 100/1 of the CPC are present in the file; that a conviction has been rendered against the defendant; and taking into account the nature and duration of the sentences imposed on the defendant, the strong suspicion that if released the defendant may abscond or hide, and the conditions of execution altogether, the defendant’s DETENTION BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT SHALL CONTINUE,

   From the announcement of the decision regarding the continuation of detention, within two weeks, there exists the possibility to seek review by objection before Diyarbakır 9^th High Criminal Court (HCC) by submitting a petition to our Court or to any other HCC, or by making a statement to the court clerk upon approval by a judge and its recording in the minutes (if detained, by making a statement to or submitting a petition to the director of the penal institution and remand prison where the defendant is held),

2. It being established that Defendant Enes Güran committed the offense of “intentional killing” against the deceased Narin Güran in participation with the other defendants, Yüksel Güran and Salim Güran, the defendant SHALL BE SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 81/1 of TPC No. 5237 applicable to his act,

   Given that the deceased was a child, the daughter of defendant Yüksel and the sister of defendant Enes, and that the deceased was killed by the defendants acting in participation, the defendant SHALL BE SENTENCED TO AGGRAVATED LIFE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 82/1-d-e of TPC No. 5237,

   Taking into consideration the amendments made to Article 62 of TPC No. 5237 by Law No. 7406, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS, IN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, TO APPLY Article 62 of the TPC to the defendant,

   In view of the situation arising after the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision dated 10/08/2015 and taking into account the amendment made by Article 10 of Law No. 7242, which entered into force on 04/15/2020, Article 53 paragraphs 1 and 2 and the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the TPC SHALL BE APPLIED to the defendant,

   The provisions of Article 50 of the TPC on converting the prison sentence into alternative sanctions, Article 51 on the suspension of the prison sentence, and Article 231 of the CPC on the deferral of the announcement of the verdict SHALL NOT BE APPLIED,

   The periods spent by the defendant in police custody and pre-trial detention SHALL BE SET OFF against the sentence pursuant to Article 63 of the TPC,

   Considering the amount of the sentence imposed on the defendant and that the offense falls within the Catalogue of offenses listed in Article 100/3 of the CPC, therefore the reason for detention is deemed to exist in the file under Article 100/3 of Law No. 5271; that the valid grounds for suspicion set out in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the strong indication specified in Article 19 of the 1982 Constitution, and the concrete evidence demonstrating strong suspicion of crime as stipulated in Article 100/1 of the CPC are present in the file; that a conviction has been rendered against the defendant; and taking into account the nature and duration of the sentences imposed on the defendant, the strong suspicion that if released the defendant may abscond or hide, and the conditions of execution altogether, the defendant’s DETENTION BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT SHALL CONTINUE,

   From the announcement of the decision regarding the continuation of detention, within two weeks, there exists the possibility to seek review by objection before Diyarbakır 9^th HCC by submitting a petition to our Court or to any other HCC, or by making a statement to the court clerk upon approval by a judge and its recording in the minutes (if detained, by making a statement to or submitting a petition to the director of the penal institution and remand prison where the defendant is held),

3. It being established that Defendant Yüksel Güran committed the offense of “intentional killing” against the deceased Narin Güran in participation with the other defendants, Enes Güran and Salim Güran, the defendant SHALL BE SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 81/1 of TPC No. 5237 applicable to her act,

   Given that the deceased was a child, the daughter of defendant Yüksel and the sister of defendant Enes, and that the deceased was killed by the defendants acting in participation, the defendant SHALL BE SENTENCED TO AGGRAVATED LIFE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 82/1-d-e of TPC No. 5237,

   Taking into consideration the amendments made to Article 62 of TPC No. 5237 by Law No. 7406, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS, IN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, TO APPLY Article 62 of the TPC to the defendant,

   In view of the situation arising after the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision dated 10/08/2015 and taking into account the amendment made by Article 10 of Law No. 7242, which entered into force on 04/15/2020, Article 53 paragraphs 1 and 2 and the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the TPC SHALL BE APPLIED to the defendant,

   The provisions of Article 50 of the TPC on converting the prison sentence into alternative sanctions, Article 51 on the suspension of the prison sentence, and Article 231 of the CPC on the deferral of the announcement of the verdict SHALL NOT BE APPLIED,

   The periods spent by the defendant in police custody and pre-trial detention SHALL BE SET OFF against the sentence pursuant to Article 63 of the TPC,

   Considering the amount of the sentence imposed on the defendant and that the offense falls within the Catalogue of offenses listed in Article 100/3 of the CPC, therefore the reason for detention is deemed to exist in the file under Article 100/3 of Law No. 5271; that the valid grounds for suspicion set out in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the strong indication specified in Article 19 of the 1982 Constitution, and the concrete evidence demonstrating strong suspicion of crime as stipulated in Article 100/1 of the CPC are present in the file; that a conviction has been rendered against the defendant; and taking into account the nature and duration of the sentences imposed on the defendant, the strong suspicion that if released the defendant may abscond or hide, and the conditions of execution altogether, the defendant’s DETENTION BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT SHALL CONTINUE,

   From the announcement of the decision regarding the continuation of detention, within two weeks, there exists the possibility to seek review by objection before Diyarbakır 9^th HCC by submitting a petition to our Court or to any other HCC, or by making a statement to the court clerk upon approval by a judge and its recording in the minutes (if detained, by making a statement to or submitting a petition to the director of the penal institution and remand prison where the defendant is held),

4. Although a public action was brought before our Court against defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar seeking his conviction for the offense of intentional killing of the deceased Narin Güran in participation with the other defendants, in view of the facts that when the defendant arrived at the house of the Complainant Arif he found the deceased Narin’s lifeless body on the floor, and thereafter, under the threats of the defendant Salim, he took the deceased Narin’s lifeless body from Arif’s house to the Eğertutmaz creek and concealed the sack containing the lifeless body by placing stones on it at the creek bank; it is understood that the act imputed to the defendant constitutes the offense of destroying, concealing, or altering evidence of the offense. Taking into account the manner of commission of the offense, the importance and value of the subject matter of the offense, the reasons and motives for the offense, the fact that the deceased Narin’s lifeless body was not found by virtue of the defendant’s statements but as a result of investigations, the period between the date the deceased Narin was killed and the date her lifeless body was found, and the fact that during this period no evidence of the offense could be found (despite dozens of examinations conducted by the Forensic Medicine Institutions, no evidence was found, and the reason for the absence of evidence is that the said lifeless body remained in water for a long time), the defendant SHALL, BY DISCRETION AND BY WAY OF AGGRAVATION, BE SENTENCED TO 4 YEARS AND 6 MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 281/1 of the TPC,

   Taking into consideration the amendments made to Article 62 of TPC No. 5237 by Law No. 7406, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS, IN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, TO APPLY Article 62 of the TPC to the defendant,

   In view of the situation arising after the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision dated 10/08/2015 and taking into account the amendment made by Article 10 of Law No. 7242, which entered into force on 04/15/2020, Article 53 paragraphs 1 and 2 and the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the TPC SHALL BE APPLIED to the defendant,

   The provisions of Article 50 of the TPC on converting the prison sentence into alternative sanctions, Article 51 on the suspension of the prison sentence, and Article 231 of the CPC on the deferral of the announcement of the verdict SHALL NOT BE APPLIED,

   The periods spent by the defendant in police custody and pre-trial detention SHALL BE SET OFF against the sentence pursuant to Article 63 of the TPC,

   Considering the amount of the sentence imposed on the defendant and that the offense falls within the Catalogue of offenses listed in Article 100/3 of the CPC, therefore the reason for detention is deemed to exist in the file under Article 100/3 of Law No. 5271; that the valid grounds for suspicion set out in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the strong indication specified in Article 19 of the 1982 Constitution, and the concrete evidence demonstrating strong suspicion of crime as stipulated in Article 100/1 of the CPC are present in the file; that a conviction has been rendered against the defendant; and taking into account the nature and duration of the sentences imposed on the defendant, the strong suspicion that if released the defendant may abscond or hide, and the conditions of execution altogether, the defendant’s DETENTION BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT SHALL CONTINUE,

   From the announcement of the decision regarding the continuation of detention, within two weeks, there exists the possibility to seek review by objection before Diyarbakır 9^th HCC by submitting a petition to our Court or to any other HCC, or by making a statement to the court clerk upon approval by a judge and its recording in the minutes (if detained, by making a statement to or submitting a petition to the director of the penal institution and remand prison where the defendant is held),

General Provisions ​

Since the Complainant Arif Güran was represented by counsel, pursuant to Article 13/5 of the Attorneys’ Minimum Fee Tariff (AMFT) calculated according to the AMFT in force on the date of the decision, an attorney’s fee of TRY 48,000.00 shall be collected in equal amounts from the defendants and awarded to the complainant,

There are no grounds to award attorney’s fees in favor of the Complainant Ministry of Family and Social Services or the Complainant Diyarbakır Bar Association,

It was decided that the deposits and litigation costs would be assessed in the reasoned judgment, and they have been assessed as follows.

• A total of TRY 324,403.84—comprising TRY 2,200.00 for e-notification expenses, TRY 2,158.00 for postage, TRY 45,673.84 for disbursement order, TRY 150,000.00 for expert fees, and TRY 124,372.00 for CFM expenses and stationery—shall be collected in equal amounts from the defendants Yüksel Güran, Enes Güran, Salim Güran, and Nevzat Bahtiyar and recorded as revenue to the Treasury,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9733, “• Impressions taken with alginate impression material belonging to Yüksel GÜRAN • Impressions taken with elastomeric impression material belonging to Yüksel Güran • Wax for occlusion of upper and lower jaws • 2 CDs belonging to Yüksel GÜRAN • Documents in a sealed envelope • 1 flash drive bearing the mark syrox • 1 CD” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9732, “• 1 ice-blue child’s denim trousers • 1 book titled ‘astonishing animal migrations’ • 1 Turkish flag • CD bearing the inscription dental photographs and video • 1 CD bearing the inscription scopy • 1 CD bearing the inscription photographs” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9730, “• A bundle of documents in an envelope • 1 CD in a cardboard box • 1 flash drive • Samples taken for histopathological examinations in a cardboard box” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9702, “• 1 pair of denim trousers • 1 black T-shirt • 1 pair of slippers” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9700, “• Hair and hairs taken from the left palm • Muscle sample belonging to Narin Güran • 1 Panasonic battery • 1 hook-shaped hard object • 1 ‘elif-ba’ booklet • 1 pink button • 1 pair of underpants • 1 undershirt • 1 long hair • 1 black T-shirt • 1 pair of shorts • 1 hair sample • 1 bone fragment • 1 skirt • 1 headscarf • 1 hair clip • 1 pair of slippers • 1 bag • 1 piece of red cloth and 1 fertilizer sack tied at the mouth with a bag string • 1 unmarked black body bag” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9684, “• 1 Kingston forensic copy flash drive • 1 Kingston image copy flash drive • 1 Kingston export flash drive • 1 Toshiba-brand 1 TB hard disk containing camera records taken from the house of Erhan GÜRAN • 1 Dahua forensic copy flash drive • 1 Dahua image copy flash drive • 1 Dahua export flash drive • 1 Kingston forensic copy flash drive • 1 Kingston image copy flash drive • 1 Kingston export flash drive • 1 Kingston image copy flash drive • 1 Kingston forensic copy flash drive • 1 Kingston image copy flash drive • 1 Kingston export flash drive • 1 Kingston forensic copy flash drive • 1 Kingston image copy flash drive • 1 Kingston export flash drive • 1 Kingston forensic copy flash drive • 1 Kingston image copy flash drive • 1 Kingston export flash drive” shall be PRESERVED AS EVIDENCE IN THE FILE,

• That the items seized from the defendants registered under the same number — from defendant Salim Güran: “• 1 Samsung brand mobile phone and 1 memory card”, from defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar: “• 1 Samsung brand mobile phone and 1 SIM card”, from defendant Enes Güran: “• 1 Tecno Pova brand mobile phone and 1 SIM card”, from defendant Salim Güran: “• 1 Poco brand mobile phone (with the back cover detached from the body)”, from defendant Yüksel Güran: “• 1 Redmi brand mobile phone” — shall be RETURNED TO THE DEFENDANTS UPON FINALIZATION OF THE JUDGMENT,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9642, “• 3 Toshiba-brand hard disks with 4 TB capacity and 1 Seagate-brand hard disk with 1 TB capacity” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9641, “• 3 Hard Disks and 1 CD” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9066, “• 1 Dahua-brand USB drive with serial number N9YL01D33002261 (annex-1 contents) • 1 Dahua-brand USB drive with serial number N9YL01D33002405 (annex-2 contents)” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9065, “• Digital finding examination report No. 2024-109 • Technical examination report No. 2024-386 • 3 Kingston-brand USB drives (annex 1 contents, annex 2–3 copies)” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file, and the item registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9063, “• 1 piece of nylon” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The item registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9061, “• 1 white patterned child’s upper garment” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9060, “• 1 empty lidded PET bottle • 1 tablet of medicine bearing various inscriptions” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The item registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9058, “• 1 CD-R bearing the letterhead of the Gendarmerie General Command, serial 22 no 005720” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9055, “• 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Kurtuluş Güran • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Barış Güran • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from İbrahim Halil Güran • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Ömer Faruk Güran • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Devran Güran • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Muhammet Kaya • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Uğur Can Güran • 1 blood sample stated to be taken from Salim Güran” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9053, “• 1 Diyarbakır KABİT No. 2024/246 expert report annex-1 (Kingston USB drive) • 1 Diyarbakır KABİT No. 2024/246 expert report annex-2 (DVD) • 1 ELBA-brand DCD-R with serial number DR5F60-PW51-02J” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9052, “• 1 packaging bag bearing various inscriptions • 1 photo card bearing a scaled mark • 2 comparison tables • 2 fingerprint record forms” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The item registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9051, “• 1 folding knife bearing the inscription BUCK KNIVES BL212” shall be RETURNED to its owner UPON FINALIZATION OF THE JUDGMENT, and the items registered under the same number, “• 2 FTA blood samples stated to be taken from the person named Nevzat BAHTİYAR and 1 oral swab sample” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9047, “• 1 package of mat fragment • 1 package of straw wrapper • 1 package of green seat cover • 1 package of stone fragment” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9046, “• 3 gloves” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The item registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9044, “• One Huawei-brand LDN-L21 model mobile phone with IMEI numbers 35959604541XXXX-35959604541XXXX (Screen cracked)” shall be RETURNED to its owner UPON FINALIZATION OF THE JUDGMENT, while the items registered under the same number, “• 1 Kingston-brand USB drive (annex-1 forensic copies) and 1 Kingston-brand USB drive (annex-2 contents)” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9042, “• 1 sack bearing the inscription Türk Şeker • 1 cigarette butt” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9040, “• Soil samples stated to be taken from the garden of Salim GÜRAN’s house, sent in 3 separate evidence bags • Soil samples stated to be taken from the garden of Narin GÜRAN’s house, sent in 5 separate evidence bags • Soil samples stated to be taken from around the house of Nevzat BAHTİYAR in Tavşantepe neighborhood, sent in 3 separate evidence bags • Soil samples stated to be taken from around the house of Nevzat BAHTİYAR in Çarıklı neighborhood, sent in 3 separate evidence bags” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9038, “• 1 child’s garment • 13 cigarette butts • 6 swabs taken onto gel tape” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9037, “• 6 empty lidded PET bottles • one slipper • tissues in various numbers • one lidded PET bottle filled • 1 empty cigarette pack • 1 PET cup • 12 scaled mark photographs • 1 comparison table • 1 fingerprint and photograph record form computer printout” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9036, “• 1 sack with barcode number G4T6S9T004278 • 1 sack with barcode number G4T6S9T436118 • 1 sack with barcode number G4T7S6T191773 • 1 sack with barcode number G3T4S8T016947 • 1 sack with barcode number G3T9S1T252348” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9035, “• 5 soil samples stated to be taken from the soil where the body was found • 3 soil samples stated to be taken from the vehicle with plate 47 XX 388 • 1 small amount of mud-like substance with a strong odor, the type and nature of which could not be determined by us, stated to be taken from the sack in which Narin GÜRAN’s body was wrapped” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9005, “• 1 set of hair samples in various numbers • 1 uniform • 3 pillowcases • 1 pink T-shirt • 1 black T-shirt • 1 blanket • 1 dress • 1 hair clip • one pair of shoes” shall be RETURNED UPON FINALIZATION OF THE JUDGMENT,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9002, “• 1 left front seat cover cut and taken in pieces from the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 • 1 right front seat cover taken in pieces • 1 rear seat cushion cover cut and taken • 1 rear seat backrest cover cut and taken • 1 rear floor felt cut and taken in two pieces” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/8999, “• 1 yellow-brown blanket • 1 pink-white blanket • 1 white-gray-yellow bedspread • 1 blue-white blanket • 1 brown-white kilim” shall be RETURNED UPON FINALIZATION OF THE JUDGMENT,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/8996, “• 1 piece of cover • 9 carpet pieces • 1 runner • 5 carpet pieces • 2 runner pieces • 1 runner piece • 1 runner • 1 patterned cover” shall be RETURNED UPON FINALIZATION OF THE JUDGMENT,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9007, “• 1 package of branch fragment stated to be taken from the tree at the point where the body was found • 1 package of creek water and waste pieces stated to be taken from the water where the body was found • 1 package of wooden and silt fragments collected from the puddle where the body was found • 1 package of blue cloth bag (light blue shoulder strap)” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9015, “• 3 packages of seat covers • 1 package of wooden stick • 1 package of trunk upholstery • 1 package of cotton piece evaluated as containing hair • 1 package of material stated to be taken from trunk upholstery” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9013, “• 4 packages of seat covers stated to be taken from the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 • 1 package of wooden stick stated to be taken from the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 • 1 package of broken iron sickle stated to be taken from the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 • 1 package of cotton piece stated to be taken from the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9012, “• The black left front floor mat of the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 and soil residues stated to be obtained from it • The black right front floor mat of the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 and a small amount of soil residues stated to be obtained from it • The red left rear floor mat of the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 and soil residues stated to be obtained from it • The red right rear floor mat of the vehicle with plate 23 XX 630 and soil residues stated to be obtained from it” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• The items registered under Diyarbakır Judicial Depository No. 2024/9010, “• 1 pair of Adidas-branded sweatpants • 1 black tights • 1 gray child’s tights • 1 pink child’s upper garment • 1 white muslin piece • 1 pink torn bag” shall be PRESERVED as evidence in the file,

• Regarding the request by the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for a criminal complaint, in view of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s authority to investigate ex officio, there are no grounds to file a criminal complaint,

• From the date of service of the decision upon the Public Prosecutor, the complainant, the complainant’s counsel, the Diyarbakır Bar Association, the Ministry of Family and Social Services, the defendants, and the defendants’ counsel, within 2 weeks there exists the possibility to apply for appellate review to the Relevant Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice by submitting a petition to our Court or to any other HCC, or by making a statement to the court clerk upon approval by a judge and its recording in the minutes (if detained, by making a statement to or submitting a petition to the director of the penal institution and remand prison where the defendant is held); if no application for appellate review is filed within the time limit, the judgment shall become final,

The judgment rendered unanimously, partially in line with and partially contrary to the opinion, was openly read out in the presence of the Public Prosecutor and its reasons were explained in outline to the complainant, the complainant’s counsel, the complainant institutions, the defendants, and the defendants’ counsel, all present. 12/28/2024