Five-year-old Efe Tektekin was seriously injured on 11 September 2019 when he was struck by an armoured vehicle driven by police officer İdris Aksoy while crossing Emek Avenue in the Bağlar district of Diyarbakır. Efe was taken to Dicle University Faculty of Medicine Hospital, where he died two days later. According to the external examination and autopsy report dated 13 September 2019, he died from internal and external bleeding caused by multiple traumatic injuries, including fractures to the skull and pelvis, intracranial bleeding, damage to brain tissue, and injuries to internal organs and major blood vessels.
The traffic accident report found Efe at fault, saying that he had entered the road at a point without a pedestrian crossing or junction without first checking that it was safe to cross. A separate incident inquiry report prepared the same day stated that no camera footage showing the scene or the moment of the collision could be found in the surrounding area.
During the investigation opened by the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, police officer İdris Aksoy said that they had been travelling along Emek Avenue in the armoured vehicle on the day of the incident. Traffic was heavy and moving intermittently because of the Wednesday market, and he said the vehicle was travelling at no more than 20–25 km/h. While driving, he heard a sound from the rear right side of the vehicle and felt the rear right wheel lift slightly. He stopped immediately and saw Efe lying on the road behind the vehicle.
Aksoy argued that he had not seen the child because the armoured vehicle was high, its field of vision was limited and Efe was short. Police officers S.B. and Ö.Ö., who were also in the vehicle, gave similar accounts. H.İ. and Ş.Y., who were in a nearby coffeehouse, said that Efe had run across the road and that the armoured vehicle had been moving slowly.
On 20 October 2019, the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment against İdris Aksoy, seeking his conviction for causing death by negligence under Article 85/1 of the Turkish Penal Code. A fault assessment prepared on 11 November 2019 by a police officer on the court’s expert list found Aksoy secondarily at fault and Efe and his parents primarily at fault.
The first hearing before the Diyarbakır 9th Criminal Court of First Instance was held on 4 February 2020. The court decided to consider at a later stage an application by the Diyarbakır Bar Association Child Rights Centre to join the proceedings. The family’s lawyer, Sedat Çınar, argued that the act had been intentional and requested that the case be transferred to the Assize Court. The court rejected the request.
In his defence, İdris Aksoy said that he had been driving the armoured vehicle slowly, that the vehicle’s design had made it impossible for him to see Efe, and that he had exercised the necessary care and attention. He said that the vehicle was fitted with a system called “Arvento”, which recorded its location and speed. He also said that there was a camera inside the vehicle, but that it had not been working since 2017.
Counsel for the family argued that the defendant’s driving documents were not in the case file and that not even photographs had been taken at the scene. Counsel also said that Efe’s father had been shown footage of the incident, and argued that the vehicle camera had therefore been working. The court ordered that witnesses be heard and further evidence collected.
At the hearing on 15 September 2020, Efe’s parents gave evidence. His father, Ahmet Tektekin, said that after the incident police officers had taken him into the armoured vehicle involved in the collision and that, at the front of the vehicle, he had watched footage of the collision together with homicide officers. İdris Aksoy rejected this account, maintaining that the vehicle camera had not worked since 2017.
The court requested MOBESE recordings, photographs relating to the traffic accident report, and the vehicle registration documents from the Diyarbakır Provincial Police Department.
At the hearing on 12 January 2021, Arvento records, photographs from the scene and a CD containing MOBESE footage were added to the case file. The in-vehicle camera recording could not be provided because the camera was reported to be defective. The Arvento records showed that the vehicle had been travelling at 21 km/h.
Counsel for the family argued that footage had been provided from cameras with blind spots even though other cameras had a clearer view of the scene. Counsel requested the record showing when and how the in-vehicle camera had stopped working. The court allowed the Diyarbakır Bar Association Child Rights Centre to join the proceedings and ordered an expert examination of the CD.
At the hearing on 27 April 2021, the expert reported that the CD contained no footage showing the moment of the collision. Witnesses identified by the family were also heard. R.E. and İ.K. said that the armoured vehicle had been travelling at approximately 70–80 km/h and that two civilians had taken Efe to hospital.
Efe’s sister, Rojda Tektekin, said that after the incident she and her father had been taken into the armoured vehicle and had watched footage of the collision on a tablet inside the vehicle. She also said that the taxi driver who took Efe to hospital had told her that the armoured vehicle had been travelling very fast.
The court then requested the defendant’s duty records, a list of the personnel who had been in the vehicle, and documents showing that the in-vehicle camera was defective. It also ordered a further expert examination of the CD, an on-site inspection, and a fault assessment by the Traffic Specialisation Department of the Council of Forensic Medicine after the inspection.
Following the on-site inspection on 7 July 2021, an expert report dated 26 July 2021 found Efe’s father, Ahmet Tektekin, primarily at fault for failing to supervise his child adequately. İdris Aksoy was found secondarily at fault on the grounds that he could have prevented the collision if he had exercised the necessary care and attention.
A report issued by the Traffic Specialisation Department of the Council of Forensic Medicine on 14 September 2021 reached a different conclusion. Taking into account that the vehicle came to a stop 7.3 metres after the collision, the report found that it had not been travelling at a speed inappropriate for the conditions at the scene. It also found that Efe had suddenly entered the road from between parked vehicles, making it difficult for the driver to take evasive action.
The report concluded that, because of Efe’s age, his actions had been the primary factor in the collision and that no fault could be attributed to İdris Aksoy. It therefore found the defendant not at fault.
Because of the conflicting fault assessments, the court decided on 23 December 2021 to refer the case to an expanded panel of experts at the Council of Forensic Medicine.
A majority report added to the case file before the hearing on 24 March 2022 found that İdris Aksoy had acted in breach of his duty of care and was secondarily at fault, while Efe’s actions, taking account of his age, had been the primary factor in the outcome. Three experts dissented. They argued that there was no evidence that the vehicle had been travelling at excessive speed, that Efe had suddenly emerged from between parked vehicles, and that there had been no precaution the driver could have taken. In their view, no fault could be attributed to İdris Aksoy.
Both sides objected to the report and requested a new expert assessment, but the court rejected the requests. At the same hearing, the public prosecutor submitted an opinion on the merits, seeking İdris Aksoy’s conviction for causing death by negligence under Article 85/1 of the Turkish Penal Code.
At the final hearing on 29 March 2022, the Diyarbakır 9th Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted İdris Aksoy, finding that he had neither intent nor negligence in Efe Tektekin’s death.
The judgment was appealed. On 27 October 2023, the 10th Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal on procedural grounds.
The Chamber noted that İdris Aksoy had been on duty as a police officer at the time of the incident and that the collision occurred while he was returning to his duty station after transporting a suspect, for whom an arrest warrant had been issued, to Diyarbakır E-Type Prison in an armoured vehicle. It therefore found that the investigation was subject to prior authorisation under Law No. 4483 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Other Public Officials.
The Chamber held that the trial court should have requested authorisation to investigate from the relevant authority and stayed the proceedings while that request was pending. It found it unlawful for the court to have continued the trial and delivered judgment without obtaining that authorisation.
Following the ruling, the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office requested authorisation from the Yenişehir District Governor’s Office to investigate İdris Aksoy. On 20 September 2024, the District Governor’s Office refused authorisation.
The refusal was challenged before the Regional Administrative Court. On 23 June 2025, the 6th Administrative Chamber of the Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court upheld the objection and authorised the investigation of İdris Aksoy.
After the authorisation became final, counsel for the family applied to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 4 March 2026, requesting that the investigation continue and that a new indictment be issued. On 5 March 2026, the prosecutor issued a new indictment against İdris Aksoy for causing death by negligence, and criminal proceedings resumed.
On 13 March 2026, the Diyarbakır 9th Criminal Court of First Instance ordered that the defendant’s statement be taken through the court in his place of residence. It scheduled the first hearing in the reopened proceedings for 28 September 2026 at 09.05.