Sadeddin Özbahçeci died on 9 April 2016 after being shot in the back by special operations police officers while he was at the scene of a traffic accident in Mardin’s Derik district to help those involved in the accident.
The incident began when Celal Mercen, who was driving a vehicle, failed to comply with a police order to stop and began fleeing. It was reported that there were illegal firearms in Mercen’s vehicle and that he continued to flee despite police warning shots. During the ensuing pursuit, police officer Ahmet Benli was shot and killed in front of the Derik District Police Department housing complex. Mercen’s vehicle later failed to make a turn near Tepebağ village on the Derik-Kızıltepe road, crashed into an electricity pole, and overturned.
Following the accident, approximately 20–30 villagers, including Sadeddin Özbahçeci, gathered at the scene to help. Celal Mercen was taken away from the scene by a passer-by to be transported to hospital. Approximately 5–10 minutes later, a Cobra-type armoured vehicle carrying special operations police officers Zülfü Demircan, Yaşar Karabay and Seyit Ali Yılmaz arrived at the scene of the accident.
According to witness statements, the police officers who got out of the vehicle swore at the crowd and said, “We will avenge our colleague,” before opening fire both into the air and toward the crowd. The police officers, however, maintained that they had first issued warnings in order to disperse the crowd and prevent the suspect from escaping and evidence from being lost, and that they had fired only into the air. During this incident, Sadeddin Özbahçeci was shot in the back. Some witnesses stated that, after Özbahçeci was shot, one of the police officers punched him and prevented the other villagers from helping him, calling him a “terrorist.” As the incident took place at night, witnesses also stated that they were unable to distinguish the faces of the police officers.
No evidence was found during the crime scene and criminal examinations indicating that anyone other than the police officers had fired a weapon at the scene. It was established that the 11 spent cartridges recovered from the scene had been fired from the weapons of the police officers. As the bullet that struck Sadeddin Özbahçeci entered through his back and exited through his chest, no bullet core was recovered and it could not be determined which weapon had fired the fatal shot. It was established that the shot had been fired from a long distance.
The Mardin Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment on 18 January 2018. The indictment sought an aggravated life sentence for Celal Mercen for the killing of police officer Ahmet Benli, and sentences of between 8 and 12 years’ imprisonment for Zülfü Demircan, Yaşar Karabay and Seyit Ali Yılmaz for causing death as a result of intentional injury against Sadeddin Özbahçeci. With the issuance of the indictment, the restriction on access to the investigation file, which had remained in place for approximately two years, also came to an end.
During the trial before the Mardin 5th High Criminal Court, the three police officers stated that other police vehicles were already at the scene when they arrived and that Sadeddin Özbahçeci was already lying injured on the ground when they arrived. They maintained that they had fired only into the air and had not shot Özbahçeci themselves.
As the proceedings continued, the public prosecutor submitted the prosecutor’s final opinion on 12 May 2020. The prosecution requested that Celal Mercen be convicted of killing Ahmet Benli because of his public duty. With regard to the police officers, however, the prosecution adopted a different legal characterisation from the one set out in the indictment. It stated that the officers had opened fire at night in order to disperse the crowd and that, although they were in a position to foresee that someone in the crowd could be shot, they had failed to take the necessary measures to prevent this outcome and had acted by accepting the possibility of the result. The prosecution therefore requested that Zülfü Demircan, Yaşar Karabay and Seyit Ali Yılmaz be convicted of killing with eventual intent (dolus eventualis).
In its judgment dated 6 July 2020, the Mardin 5th High Criminal Court sentenced Celal Mercen to an aggravated life sentence for killing police officer Ahmet Benli because of his public duty. With regard to the death of Sadeddin Özbahçeci, however, the court ruled that there were no grounds for imposing a criminal penalty on the three police officers.
The court took into account that the police officers had gone to the scene to prevent Celal Mercen from escaping and to preserve evidence; that a police officer had been killed in an armed attack on the police housing complex shortly before the incident; and that the incident had occurred in 2016, during a period of heightened security incidents in the district. The court concluded that, while attempting to disperse the crowd and prevent the possibility of another attack, the defendants had fired into the air following graduated warnings under Article 16 of Law No. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police, and that one of the bullets had struck Özbahçeci. It therefore accepted that the act had been carried out in the performance of their duties.
The Mardin Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed against the judgment on 16 July 2020. The prosecution argued that the police officers should have been able to foresee that a person could be shot when firing in an area where a crowd was present at night, yet they had failed to take the necessary measures to prevent such an outcome and should therefore be held criminally responsible.
The 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance judgment on 27 October 2020. The judgment concerning Celal Mercen was quashed on the grounds of insufficient investigation and assessment, and Mercen, who had been detained, was ordered to be released. With regard to the death of Sadeddin Özbahçeci, the Chamber concluded that the ruling concerning the three police officers had been issued without the evidence having been sufficiently investigated and assessed. The reasons for overturning the judgment included, in particular, the failure to determine which defendant’s weapon had fired the cartridges found at the scene, the failure to explain which evidence had been given greater weight, and the failure to conduct identification procedures with the witnesses.
Following the reversal, the case was reheard before the Mardin 5th High Criminal Court. The first hearing was held on 21 May 2021, and proceedings continued in subsequent years to complete the criminal and technical examinations identified as incomplete.
At the hearing on 29 November 2024, lawyer Muhlis Oğurgül, representing the Özbahçeci family, stated that although approximately four years had passed since the Regional Court of Appeal’s reversal, the deficiencies identified in the decision had still not been remedied and that the proceedings had been prolonged because the relevant public institutions had failed to respond to the court’s requests. The court decided that, once the outstanding correspondence had been completed, the case file would be sent to the prosecutor’s office for preparation of the prosecutor’s final opinion.
At the hearing on 16 May 2025, the report prepared by the Criminal Laboratory of the General Directorate of Security was considered. The report stated that it was not possible to determine which bullet had been fired from which weapon. The court therefore decided to obtain a new expert report from the General Command of the Gendarmerie and ruled that, once the report was received, the case file would be sent to the prosecutor’s office for preparation of the prosecutor’s final opinion.
At the hearing on 11 February 2026, the court requested that Sadeddin Özbahçeci’s clothing and autopsy images be sent to the Istanbul Department of Physical Examination of the Forensic Medicine Institute to determine the calibre of the bullet that caused the fatal shot. The court further decided that, if the Forensic Medicine Institute was unable to make this determination, an expert opinion should be obtained from Istanbul Technical University.
At the hearing on 10 July 2026, it was stated that no response had yet been received to the court’s request sent to the Forensic Medicine Institute. The court decided to resend the case file and its annexes to the Forensic Medicine Institute in order to determine the calibre of the bullet that caused Özbahçeci’s death and, if an examination could not be conducted there, to ask Istanbul Technical University whether it had the necessary expertise and technical capacity to conduct such an examination. The court further ruled that, once the report had been submitted to the case file, if no further investigation was deemed necessary, the case file would be sent to the prosecutor’s office for preparation of the prosecutor’s final opinion.
The next hearing in the case was scheduled for 27 November 2026 at 9:35 a.m.