The confidentiality order on Suruç massacre investigation still holds.
of the victims state that they cannot obtain any information about
the investigation that was launched against Provincial Police Chief
Mehmet Yaplıal on charges of “professional misconduct and
omission”. Reassigned to Muğla after the massacre, Yaplıal gave a
statement on July 14.
In his statement, Mehmet Yaplıal claimed that the warning that they had received 3 days before the massacre was about the police forces, not about the demonstrators.
In the indictment against Yaplıal, it was revealed that Şanlıurfa Security Directorate sent an instruction to Suruç 3 days before the attack, saying: “Police forces should be careful, attentive and vigilant against threats like suicide attacks.”
Yaplıal's trial was scheduled to be hold on September 22. However, Yaplıal gave a statement on July 14 without the participation of lawyers.
Claiming that the warning was about a possible attack against the police forces, Yaplıal stated:
“There was no information about a possible attack against the demonstrators in the warning. Those statements in the warning were orders addressed to police forces urging them to protect themselves. There was no information about a possible suicide attack against the group that was coming to our province. For two days, we took due precautions.”
Speaking to Agos, lawyer Gülhan Kaya from “Justice for Suruç Platform” stated that they appealed to the Constitutional Court for lifting the confidentiality order, but there is no decision yet. “We are carrying out researches about the perpetrators of Suruç and Ankara massacre, looking for their relations to terrorist organizations. There are evidences showing that the perpetrators of Suruç massacre are related to the perpetrators of Ankara massacre.”
Speaking about the lawsuit against Yaplıal, laywer Kaya said: “A report was written about his responsibility in the massacre, since he hadn't taken any precautions, though the Security Directorate received warnings. An investigation was launched against Yaplıal on the charge of professional misconduct. We demand the court listens to the suspect, but we haven't received a response to our letter. As lawyers, our right to question has been violated. We think that they are evasive.”