Diyarbakır’s Merkez Bağlar district in Tavşantepe Mahallesi, the investigation into the murder of Narin Güran, who disappeared on August 21 and was found dead in the Eğertutmaz Deresi on September 8, is ongoing under the supervision of the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s Office.
In the course of the investigation, R.A., a 15-year-old minor who was initially referred to the duty magistrate court with a request for arrest and later released on judicial control, was re-arrested upon the prosecutor’s request. R.A. was subsequently arrested by the duty magistrate court.
R.A.’S TESTIMONY
R.A., a 15-year-old child reportedly involved in the crime and who is said to be the nephew of Narin Güran’s incarcerated uncle Salim Güran, stated in his testimony to the prosecutor that on the day of the incident, he woke up around 05.00-06.00 in the morning, slept at the drill site that day, changed the water in the lower field after changing the water in the upper field, and mentioned that Salim Güran came to the upper field.
“HE SAID HE WOULD GO HOME TO CHANGE”
They had breakfast at the drill site, and Salim Güran stayed with them for 1.5-2 hours. R.A. stated that he couldn’t remember what time Güran left them. He continued: “My father went to pick up the other workers working in the other fields around 13.00. Then around 14.00-15.00, the muhtar (Salim Güran) came back to me and asked where my father was. I said, ‘He went to pick up the workers.’ He called my father and asked, ‘Where are you?’ I don’t remember what time he called. My father said, ‘I was distributing the workers.’ After this conversation, the muhtar sat next to me. A few minutes later, the muhtar called my father again and asked, ‘Where are you?’ My father said, ‘I’m having lunch in the village.’ We were having tea with the muhtar. My father came around 16.00-16.30, and we started drinking tea together. My father went to the lower field around 16.00-16.30. I stayed with the muhtar in the upper field. I was washing the dishes. After the muhtar sat here for 5-10 minutes, he said to me, ‘I will go home to change and come back.’ After the muhtar left, I went to change the water. The muhtar had left while I was changing the water within 5-10 minutes. By the time I changed the water, the muhtar had come back to the drill site.”
“WE DIDN’T LEAVE THE FIELD”
“After a while, my father changed the water in the lower field and came back. We prepared and had dinner. The muhtar never left our side; we always sat together. Only for 5-10 minutes, the muhtar left to change his clothes and came back. After dinner, while the muhtar was sitting with us, his phone rang. During the phone call, the muhtar was informed that Narin Güran had gone missing. That’s how we found out that Narin had disappeared. Salim Güran did not leave my side after 14.00. We also did not leave the field.”
“I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY”
When asked about the discrepancies between his statement and the one given by his incarcerated uncle Salim Güran regarding the time of the incident in the afternoon, R.A. responded, “I have nothing to say about these discrepancies.”
“I DON’T REMEMBER ANYTHING”
When questioned about his conversations with Salim Güran at 8:33, 15:52, 18:37, 18:51, 18:52, and 18:54 on August 21, R.A. claimed not to remember any of the conversations.
Regarding the digital imaging analysis of cell phones, where Salim mentioned a fallen object in a corner of the slope and R.A. responded with ‘eee,’ Salim then replied with ‘someone on the ground,’ and R.A. again responded, ‘okay, not yet/still not dead,’ R.A. stated, “Honestly, I don’t remember anything like that.”
When asked about Salim Güran’s conversation with M.Ş.G. about the cotton field infestation and Salim’s visit to the field, R.A. mentioned that he did not recall such an incident occurring on the day of the events.
In response to questions about Salim Güran’s statement that R.A. had taken his sisters back to the village from the field, R.A. clarified that his sisters had visited the field a day or two before the incident, but they did not come to the field on the day of the incident.
R.A. also stated during the interrogation that he did not know Nevzat Bahtiyar, who is also under arrest in the case, and only knew the muhtar in the village.
When asked about Nevzat Bahtiyar’s statements, R.A. responded that he had no information or comments to provide on the matter.
In response to the question of why he seemed to be protecting Salim Güran despite the discrepancies in their statements, R.A. stated, “I am not protecting Salim. Salim did not leave my side after 14.00 except to change clothes. That is all I can say. I do not accept the accusations against me, I am innocent.”
DECISION DETAILS ON THE SEARCH FOR NARIN INCLUDED IN THE VERDICT
During his testimony at the duty magistrate court, R.A. reiterated his statements made to the prosecutor.
The court, in its decision to detain R.A., mentioned the following reasons:
– There are strong suspicions that the minor R.A. committed the crime of ‘Intentional Homicide of a Minor,’ as part of the investigation into the disappearance of Narin Güran on August 21, 2024, and that the search and rescue efforts to find the victim were hampered by some individuals’ false reports aiming to distract attention and mislead authorities.
– According to the police report in the file, it was alleged that a slipper was found near the tent where Syrians were staying, leading the gendarmerie personnel to be directed to that location, a fire was set in the village, unusual power outages occurred during search and rescue operations, and two individuals were reported to have taken a girl child to the upper part of the village, providing false information to mislead the security forces.
– Some of these actions were attributed to certain members of the Güran family, and on September 13, 2024, the Diyarbakır 4th Peace Criminal Court ordered the detention of some suspects. It was noted that R.A.’s statements about the hours Salim Güran was in the field contradicted the call detail records, other suspects’ statements, and Salim Güran’s own statements.
– As the investigation was not yet complete, there was a concrete possibility of exerting pressure on the parties based on the current file, and considering all the other documents in the case, including the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5, the strong indication of a crime as stipulated in Article 19 of the 1982 Constitution, and the concrete evidence of a strong suspicion of a crime as stipulated in Article 100/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was concluded that the arrest of R.A. was necessary, as the judicial control measures would be insufficient at this stage.
In conclusion, the decision highlighted that the suspicion of committing the alleged crime, the nature of the crime falling under the catalog crimes specified in Article 100/3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the incomplete collection of evidence, and the likelihood of R.A. fleeing, justified the detention of R.A. in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
