Many speculative allegations were raised against Ramazan Akyürek. These allegations arose within the framework of his authority and responsibilities in the unit where he worked, such as employing intelligence officers, not reporting the information obtained, not fulfilling his supervisory duties and his relations with different investigations that shook the country’s agenda.

While most of the allegations are fictitious assumptions that are not based on any concrete evidence, others have been refuted by documents and testimonies during the trial. Above all, these allegations are only related to the proper fulfilment of his public duties. There is no evidence beyond assumption that Akyürek committed the act of ‘premeditated manslaughter’.

Without establishing the causal link, which is the most basic principle of law, a conviction has been finalised based on political arguments and extremely biased assessments. In order to better understand the tunnel vision and speed blindness that the court has fallen into with its so-called trials, which have turned into an operation to rescue the real perpetrators of the murder rather than illuminating the murder, we present to you Akyürek’s detailed defences to each allegation.