Umay Aktaş SALMAN
A family applied to the court to marry their daughter who is only 16 years old. The Judge who refused the request, told them to care for he education.
To the request of a family who applied to the Court to get permission to marry their daughter who is not 17 years old yet, with one of their relatives, a reply came from the Judge Eray Karınca who attracted the attention with "his decisions regarding the women rights": “The family should be made conscious about the marriages made in early ages. Letters should be written to the related institutions for the education of the girl who wanted to be made marry and her five siblings.”
M.Ş. and E.Ş. applied to the Ankara 8th Family Court on July 8th 2009 in order to get permission for the marriage of their daughter born in 1993, by saying that they engaged their daughter F.Ş. with one of their relatives and young people are in hurry to marry. In the lawsuit concluded on October 26th, 2009, the Judge Eray Karınca had indicated that according to the Turkish Civil Law "only in extraordinary situations and with an important reason, marriage of a man or woman who completed his/her 16 might be allowed.” The Judge, Karınca ordered a nonsuit by indicating that F.Ş. was not completed her 17 and family’s reason of “they are in hurry to marry” is not an extraordinary situation.
‘Is it because of economical reasons?’
The Judge, Karınca also requested for educational and social precautions for the family and the children by considering the fact that family have got six children and might want to marry their daughter in early age due to the economical and social problems. In the resolution, it says: “... supporting the family in economical and social aspects, making them conscious about the problems which may arise due to the marriages in early ages, writing letters by approximation to the Province Directorate of Social Services, Province Directorate of Health and Mayoralty to direct F.Ş and her siblings to the education would be appropriate to the establishment goal of the Family Courts..."
Right defender like ant
Such model resolution taken against marriages in child ages is not the only model resolution of Judge Karınca. Karınca had undersigned many important decisions in the favor of the women rights and in the struggle with family violation. Here are some judgments of Judge Karınca:
* In the divorce suit brought into court by a woman stating that she suffered from the violence of her husband and his family, it was decided to pay subsistence and compensation to the woman.
* Regarding a husband who closed his wife to the house and only wants her to do the housework, he judged that he applied "social violence" on his wife and recompensed with a compensation of 30 thousand TL.
* In a divorce suit opened by a woman against her husband who take her whole salary and even does not give her a pocket money, holding her responsible even for a broken tea cup, he judged for a decree absolute due to the reason of suffering from economical violence’. He judged for the husband to pay a compensation of 2 thousand 500 TL.
* The woman named N.Y. applied to the court by indicating that her husband uses verbally and actually violence on her and insults her and also he does not take care of his personal cleaning. Karınca who evaluated the application suspend the husband for six months. He also judged for the payment of subsistence money of 150 TL for each child, to go under treatment regarding his mental health, not to smoke inside the house, take care of his teeth and body cleaning.
(radikal.com.tr, January 29th 2010)
Practices not representing "good" models regarding honor killings still continue. Let’s take your attention to the news published in Sabah Newspaper undersigned by Özgür Cebe and Fatih Ulaş:
One hold, other choked, provocation discount made
Özgür CEBE
Gülseren became the victim of honor crime. The court made “provocation” discount to the father and his son. Son was released. Father will be imprisoned for 6 years.
All began with Gülseren Tanrıkut who is 18 years old being raped by her step-brother. When the situation came in sight, the young girl got married with another person. However, since she was not a virgin, she was continuously beaten by her husband whom she had got imam marriage with. She could not succumb, she returned back to her father’s house and began to work as a secretary. This time she was marked with "widow" stamp. Her neighbors rumored by saying “She comes late. She wears strapped dress.” In the end, family signed the death warrant of Gülseren with the reason that she dishonored her family.
Her father choked her.
Gülseren had been killed one night six years ago. While Mehmet who was 15 years old was holding her feet to avoid her struggling, her father Hasan Tanrıkut choked Gülseren with the cable of electrical heater, İdris who was 12 years old watched these happening. Hasan Tanrıkut had melted a nylon bag and dropped on her face to ensure that she can not be identified. Then he put her dead body in a sugar bag and gave the order of "Throw away" to his sons. Two brothers left their sister to the side of the school wall 50 meters away. After 1 week her mother identified Gülseren in mortuary. The statement of İdris who was 12 years old, showed up this honor crime. However, such statement did not enter into the formal minutes due to the little age of İdris. Mehmet who was 15 years old tried to take over the guilt. He told that he warned his sister and got the reply of “Did you become a man to question me?”. Then İdris changed his statement. Diyarbakır 2nd High Penal Court first punished father Hasan and his son Mehmet to life imprisonment because of voluntary manslaughter as per the old Turkish Criminal Code. Then penalty of the father decreased to 30 years for good behavior and penalty of Mehmet decreased to 15 years due to his age. Mother Hatice and other brother İdris were acquitted. Supreme Court had reversed the judgment since the new Turkish Criminal Code was in the favor of the defendants. Furthermore a provocation discount was requested.
Good behaviour discount
The Court which negotiated the suitcase secondly had condemned the father and son to the aggravated life imprisonment as per the 82/1-d article of Turkish Criminal Code by a large majority. Thereafter, their penalties had been decreased to 24 years with the justification the murder was executed under unfair provocation. Then, discount of “good behaviour” came, penalty of the father decreased to 20 years and the penalty of his son decreased to 6 years 8 months. Mehmet had been released since the time of his imprisonment met his penalty. The remaining penalty of the father decreased to 6 years. The case identified as “a typical honor crime" and Gülseren’s way of living in a closed community and conservative family order in a way to dishonor her family and her speaking harshly to her brother by saying "Did you become a man to question me?” deemed as unfair provocation. 1st Criminal Department of Supreme Court that handled the file on December 10 had approved the decision unanimously. However, the Chairman Mehmet Yalçın had attached annotation that the father should be acquitted due to the lack of evidence. The Chairman also attached an opposition explanation regarding that there is not enough evidence indicating that Gülseren “went wrong" and provocation discount should not be applied for Mehmet.
Lawyers: Unfair provocation discount should not be applied.
Fatih ULAŞ
İstanbul University, Dean of Faculty of Law, Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer: Dressing in a way not to be accepted by the father, speaking harshly to the siblings and coming late to home is not illegal. Unfair provocation discount may not be in question. The ones who want to “discipline” their children by killing them should not be encouraged.
İstanbul University, Instructor of Faculty of Law, Prof. Dr. Süheyl Donay: As per the article 82 put into Turkish Criminal Law, if a murder is executed by “custom incentive”, its penalty is “aggravated life imprisonment”. In this decision “custom” is accepted but “unfair provocation” is applied.
Women Rights Activist Lawyer Meral Danış Beştaş from Diyarbakır Bar: Although there is custom justification, penalty of manslaughter with custom incentive did not apply and apparently the offenders are protected.
Chairman of Women center (KAMER) Nebahat Akkoç: We foresee that some of the honor killings would not be punished duly, in the process following the amendment of Turkish Criminal Code. If the mentality was not changed and the laws are opened to the interpretation such results shall continue.
(sabah.com.tr, February 2nd 2010)