The legal and scientific assessment, prepared by criminal law experts from three different universities, emphasised that merging the case heard at the 3rd High Criminal Court with the case involving public officials who signed the 2001 construction permit for the Grand İsias Hotel is crucial for streamlining the process and uncovering the full truth.
The findings of this evaluation, which were included in the case file yesterday, were provided by an expert panel comprising Dr. Timuçin Köprülü (Atılım University), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Meral Ekici (Ankara Social Sciences University), and Prof. Dr. Türkân Yalçın (Ankara University).
The expert panel concluded that the defendants’ actions—specifically the forging of documents—demonstrated that they knowingly accepted the consequences they had foreseen.
Serin İpekçioğlu’s mother, Pervin Aksoy İpekçioğlu, shared the scientific and legal assessment report publicly through the TAK reporter.
The scientific evaluation made the following key points:
Regarding the 2001 building permit, there is a clear link between the cases involving the partners of the İsias company, the architectural project manager, the static reinforced concrete project manager, the technical officers, and the civil engineer who authored a 3-page report (though his name does not appear on the permit), alongside public officials from Adıyaman Municipality, as outlined under Article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK).
The expert committee concluded that merging the case at the 3rd High Criminal Court with the case involving the public officials who signed the 2001 construction permit for the Grand İsias Hotel is critical for ensuring procedural efficiency and uncovering the material truth.
Failure to take necessary precautions
The expert panel also determined that, throughout much of the process, the defendants’ actions created a serious risk. Despite foreseeing the potential harm, they did not take the necessary precautions to prevent it, exhibiting gross negligence. The panel concluded that the defendants showed indifference to the potential consequences and effectively accepted them.
The legal evaluation noted:
“The defendants had no justifiable basis to believe that the outcome could have been avoided. They failed to take any necessary precautions during the building’s construction, licensing, or operation, and there is no reasonable explanation for thinking that the harmful consequences of the hotel’s collapse during the earthquake could not have occurred.”
For much of the process, the defendants’ actions created a significant danger. They foresaw the outcome but failed to take the necessary steps to prevent it, remaining indifferent to the results, which they tacitly accepted.
Details of the license are false, clearly constituting document forgery
The assessment pointed out that, after the building’s frame was poured, the structure was left incomplete for years. When the decision was made to convert it into a hotel, no precautions were taken, and a construction permit was issued using incomplete and inaccurate information, violating the law. The content of the permit was found to be false, indicating the clear commission of document forgery.
The evaluation continued:
“Despite having had the opportunity to prevent the disastrous outcome over several decades, the defendants persisted in their unlawful behaviour. They did not take any necessary precautions during the construction, licensing, or operation of the hotel.”
The expert panel concluded that although the defendants foresaw the catastrophic consequences, they failed to act to prevent them. Their persistent unlawful actions amounted to gross negligence. The fact that they forged documents to facilitate their actions further proved that they accepted the consequences they had foreseen.
The defendants’ deliberate failure to meet their obligations under zoning laws and building regulations, as outlined in expert reports, highlighted their awareness that the building, located in an earthquake-prone area, was at risk. However, they took no steps to address these dangers, despite the foreseeable potential for loss of life or injury.
Ignoring foreseeable consequences implies responsibility for possible gross negligence
The evaluation concluded that “remaining indifferent to foreseeable outcomes necessitates liability for the possible intentional outcomes, even if they were not directly intended.” It was emphasised that the defendants’ belief that the foreseeable outcomes would not occur was based on speculation, with no factual evidence to support this belief.
In conclusion:
“Regarding the 2001 construction permit, there is a clear connection between the lawsuits involving the partners of the İsias company, the architectural project manager, the static reinforced concrete project manager, the technical officers, and the civil engineer who authored the 3-page report (despite their name not appearing on the permit), as well as public officials from Adıyaman Municipality, in accordance with Article 8 of the CMK. Therefore, merging the case at the 3rd High Criminal Court with the case involving public officials who signed the 2001 construction permit for the Grand İsias Hotel is essential for procedural efficiency and uncovering the full truth.”
