Statements obtained by the Security Department in the BAV (Science Research Foundation) case file consist of false confessions forcibly SIGNED UNREAD AND UNDER SEVERE TORTURE, during the time the accused where held in detention. This is confirmed by torture reports given by a number of different hospitals. These statements obtained in the Security Department are the screams of the tortured, records and proof of that torture. Yet these statements made under torture were repeated in detail time and time again by various publishing organizations. In addition, under Article 18 of the Criminal Evidence Law statements taken in the absence of a lawyer are not admissible. None of the statements in the BAV (Science Research Foundation) case file was taken with a lawyer present. That means that none of these statements is admissible in court. These inadmissible security statements have been published time and time again in all reports regarding the BAV (Science Research Foundation) case over the last 10 years. This is a hollow victory of the psychological warfare campaign.
Article 148 of the Criminal Evidence Law
Forbidden Practices When Taking Statements or Questioning Suspects;
Article 148 (1): Suspect and defendant statements are grounded in free will. No physical or psychological measures such as mistreatment, torture, administration of drugs, tiring, deception, threats and menaces or other means may be employed.
2 – No benefit that contravenes the law may be promised.
3 – Statements obtained illegally, albeit on a voluntary basis, are acceptable as evidence.
4 – Statements taken before the defence is ready, may not be used in arriving at a judgement unless approved by the suspect of defendant in the presence of the judge or court.
5 – In the event a statement needs to be re-taken from a suspect regarding the same incident, that may only be done by the Prosecutor’s Office.
Article 148 of the Sentencing Court Law
The ruling issued on 29.02.08 by the 2nd Criminal Court in the hearing regarding the Science Research Foundation accepted that the Security Department statements were taken by illegal means and therefore inadmissible as evidence as set out under Article 5 of the Sentencing Court Law to the effect that “Under Article 148, statements taken by illegal means are inadmissible as evidence, and statements and evidence obtained by illegal means…”