In the case of Hayatın Sesi TV, the prosecutor wanted to imprison each of the employees up to 13 years claiming that they made propaganda of 'terrorist' organisations.
The public prosecutor gave the opinion in the third session of the case, which alleged that Hayatın Sesi TV, which is closed with emergency decrees of law (KHK,) made propaganda for both ISIS, TAK and PKK at the same time.
Cem Üstündağ, the prosecutor of the case, claimed that Mustafa Kara and İsmail Gökhan Bayram who own the TV channel, and General and Responsible Director Gökhan Çetin, had been making "propaganda of the organization in a chained manner" and demanded imprisonment for each of them up to 13 years.
Lawyers Devrim Avcı and Gülşah Kaya were present at the trial of the case at the 13th High Criminal Court of Istanbul. Mustafa Kara and his partner İsmail Gökhan Bayram and General and Responsible Director Gökhan Çetin were not involved in the trial because they were exempted.
The prosecutor, Cem Üstündağ, who gave the opinion in the third trial of the case, demanded imprisonment of the defendants up to 13 years since "the defendants were considered to be constantly committed on charges of making the propaganda of the obscurant terrorist organization in chronological order ". The court postponed the standoff to 24 April for the preparation of defences.
Istanbul Public Prosecutor Fahrettin Kemal Yerli, who prepared the indictment, claims that ISID, TAK, and PKK propaganda were carried out in the publication of Hayatın Sesi TV channel. Among the accusations that are subject to the indictment are the last minute and live broadcast news about the incident on October 10, the Ankara Massacre, Ankara Güvenpark on March 13, 2016, and the bombing attack on Taksim Square on March 19, 2016.
Yerli demanded the punishment of Kara, Bayram and Çetin for seven and a half years in prison,
by interpreting the publication of the images as "serving as a terrorist organization for the purpose and making propaganda of the organization".
On May 30, Kara and Bayram made a defence in the first stance. Kara said public service publications are all about communicating facts to the public. "In all of these publications, we have a clear reaction to the death of people and criticism against the state is because of the reason it wasn’t prevented. It is irrational to carry out the propaganda of all terrorist organizations at the same time. I do not think it is right for television activities based on RTÜK complaints to be the subject of heavy penalties. "
Bayram also stated in his defence that the publishing principles of the Hayatın Sesi TV are always for peace and against the killing of people without exception and that it is unwise to propagate different terrorist organizations at the same time.
Çetin, who defended in the 2nd stance on November 7, voiced that the indictment was prepared in order to produce justification for the closing the channel after the closure of Hayatın Sesi TV Channel.
Çetin, who underlined the fact that the Television of Hayatın Sesi TV has watched a broadcasting policy from the side of the peace and not the side of the war and the battle during the broadcasting life, said that "The indictment consists of hot and instant images. It is also the indictment charges that a citizen's reaction to the terrorist attack in Ankara and the interviews with the citizens of the Cudi neighbourhood about the people living in Cizre are broadcasted to the audience on a program on television. Defending the peace and absence of death is generally considered to be equivalent to 'propaganda of a terrorist organisation'."
Bülent Falakaoğlu
Hakkı Özdal
