Rule of law with a question mark

In the new bill prepared by the Justice Ministry, even though there are positive aspects, there are also quite a few concerning articles. 

It is as if the Justice Ministry wishes to normalize the laws made under the state of emergency and is consequently introducing amendments in criminal and procedural laws. 

The details were in daily Hürriyet reporter Oya Armutçu's story on Oct. 11. It is not possible to address the entire bill due to the technical details. I want to focus on the "hearing the witnesses" issue, remembering the Ergenekon case. Hearing witnesses is one of the most important components of a "fair trial."

In the Ergenekon case, the prosecutor and the court, in order to project the "Ergenekon terror organization" blueprint in their minds, only recognized the evidence and witnesses they wanted and excluded different evidence and witnesses. 

The defendants wanted the force commanders of the time, including Chief of General Staff Gen. Işık Koşaner, to be heard so that what the prosecutor considered to be "organizational" activities could be shown to be routine procedures in the military.   

This exceptionally just demand was rejected by the court. When the court issued its rejection, Işık Koşaner and other witnesses came to the court in the next session because, according to the law, the court has to hear those witnesses who voluntarily appeared before the court. 

However, the court refused to hear them again! If it had heard the witnesses, the blueprint would have been shattered. 

The Code of Criminal Procedure, the basic law regulating the right to a fair trial, has this clause: "Article 178: In cases where the president of the court or the trial judge denies the written application to summon...