Very curious about the justification of the dissenting votes

The decision by the Constitutional Court on the release of jailed journalists Can Dündar and Erdem Gül was not a surprise. It is in line with the top court's other verdicts on human rights matters.

Also, we know that when the Constitutional Court makes such a ruling, it opts for the protection of the freedoms drawn up within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a matter of fact, European Court of Human Rights judge I??l Karaka? said this decision was the European standard. According to pro-government media, this decision was due to a portion of the Constitutional Court judges who are members of the "Fethullah Gülen organization." 

However, what I am wondering about the most is the content of the justification of the dissenting votes used by three judges who argued there was no violation of rights in this case.  

How did they use such a vote, based on which case law and on what legal grounds? 

When the court issues its justification, we will learn about this. Saying anything before that time would be speculation.

As a final note, certain stories published in the pro-government media were based on information claimed to have been given by "inner sources." These stories are about what a member demanded and how the chief judge turned down this demand. 

Frankly, I want to believe that these stories were made up in the newsroom. It sounds a bit weird to me that judges who have climbed up as far as being a member of the Constitutional Court would talk on the phone with journalists and convey the discussions held in the court like "gossipers." 

Bill on military immunity 

A bill prepared by the Defense Ministry will be submitted to the cabinet. According to the bill, trial...