Şahin Öner died on 10 February 2013 after being hit by a Shortland armoured vehicle, code-named 75, during an intervention by security forces who had arrived at the scene following a report that a group of 25–30 people had blocked the road to traffic and were carrying out an illegal protest in the Şehitlik neighbourhood of Diyarbakır’s Yenişehir district.
In its first report dated 12 June 2013, the First Specialised Board of the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute stated that Öner’s death was caused by multiple rib fractures, extensive lung damage and internal bleeding resulting from “general bodily trauma consistent with an explosion.” However, after eyewitnesses stated that Öner had been hit by an armoured police vehicle and dragged by the vehicle, the Forensic Medicine Institute re-examined the case file. In its second report, dated 15 January 2014, it stated that the fatal injuries could have been caused by the pressure of an explosion, but that there was no evidence at the scene that such an explosive device had been used. It therefore concluded that Öner’s death had occurred, as described by the eyewitnesses, as a result of being hit and dragged by the armoured police vehicle.
An expert report dated 25 June 2015 stated that the driver of the armoured vehicle, code-named 75, should have watched for people running in front of the vehicle while driving at night through a narrow street with no lighting and with fog and smoke present, and should have adjusted the vehicle’s speed and position accordingly. The report concluded that the accident had occurred because the driver had failed to take the necessary precautions and that he was therefore at fault.
After the Yenişehir District Governor’s Office granted permission for an investigation on 17 March 2016, the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment on 15 February 2017. The indictment sought the conviction of police officer Selahattin Korkmaz, the driver of the armoured vehicle, for causing death by negligence. As for Recep Üzer, the driver of a second armoured vehicle, code-named 45, which entered the street shortly after the incident and took Öner to the police station while he was injured, a decision of non-prosecution was issued.
At the hearing on 29 June 2017 in the proceedings before the Diyarbakır 7th Criminal Court of First Instance, eyewitnesses were heard. Counsel for the intervening parties stated that the eyewitness accounts were consistent with the Forensic Medicine Institute report and argued that the act should be considered intentional killing, rather than causing death by negligence. They requested that the case be heard by an Assize Court. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, on the grounds that the defendant’s act could constitute the offence of intentional killing under Article 81 of the Turkish Penal Code, and sent the case to the Assize Court.
The case was subsequently heard before the Diyarbakır 1st Assize Court. At the hearing on 29 May 2018, Selahattin Korkmaz’s defence and the statements of eyewitnesses were heard. The request by counsel for the intervening parties for the defendant to be detained was rejected on the grounds of the existing state of the evidence. The request by defence counsel for an on-site inspection was also rejected at this stage.
At the hearing on 18 September 2018, the public prosecutor submitted the prosecutor’s opinion on the merits. The prosecutor stated that Selahattin Korkmaz had driven the armoured vehicle toward the demonstrators and that, after hitting Öner, he had taken him to the police station rather than to hospital. The prosecutor further stated that the actual circumstances of the incident had been concealed by claiming that the death had been caused by an explosive device. The prosecutor requested that the defendant be sentenced to between 20 and 25 years’ imprisonment for killing with eventual intent.
On 29 November 2018, the court decided to appoint a panel of experts to conduct an on-site inspection with the participation of the defendant. However, the inspection was postponed several times due to security concerns and because the police officers who had been in the armoured vehicle on the day of the incident could not be found in Diyarbakır. The on-site inspection was eventually carried out nearly two years after the decision and seven years after the incident. At the hearing on 23 June 2020, the expert report prepared following the on-site inspection was added to the case file. Counsel for the intervening parties also requested that the camera footage from the armoured vehicle itself be obtained, and the court ordered that the footage be requested from the Police Department.
At the hearing on 8 October 2020, it was noted that the Diyarbakır Police Department had reported that it had no camera footage relating to the incident. Counsel for the intervening parties, however, pointed to the contradiction between this response and the expert report prepared after the on-site inspection, which stated that information obtained orally from camera footage had been used in the report. The court decided to obtain a new expert report from the Traffic Department of Istanbul Technical University.
At the hearing on 2 February 2021, it emerged that the court registry had not carried out the interim ruling concerning the expert report from Istanbul Technical University, and the court ordered that the process be repeated. The expert report prepared by the Traffic Department of Istanbul Technical University was received into the case file one day before the hearing on 27 May 2021.
At the hearing on 24 June 2021, counsel for the intervening parties objected to the Istanbul Technical University expert report and requested a new report. The public prosecutor submitted a new prosecutor’s opinion on the merits. While the prosecution had requested in 2018 that the defendant be convicted of killing with eventual intent, it changed its legal assessment and this time requested that Selahattin Korkmaz be convicted of causing death by negligence.
At the judgment hearing on 23 November 2021, the Diyarbakır 1st Assize Court, by a majority vote, convicted Selahattin Korkmaz of causing death by conscious negligence and sentenced him to 4 years, 5 months and 10 days’ imprisonment. The request for the defendant to be detained was rejected. One member of the trial bench dissented, finding that the act constituted killing with eventual intent. Counsel for the intervening parties and the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment.
The 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal overturned the judgment on 22 December 2023. The Chamber stated that the assessments of fault in the expert reports in the case file were insufficient, that there were clear contradictions between the reports, and that the court of first instance had not explained why it had given greater weight to one report over the others. It decided that a new expert report should be obtained from a panel consisting of university academics specialising in traffic matters in order to determine the degree of fault of the defendant and Şahin Öner and to resolve the contradictions between the existing reports.
Following the reversal, the case was reheard before the Diyarbakır 1st Assize Court. The court decided to establish a new expert panel from the Traffic Department of Istanbul Technical University to determine the degree of fault of the parties. At the hearing on 22 January 2025, the expert report received into the case file found Şahin Öner primarily at fault and Selahattin Korkmaz secondarily at fault. The parties were granted time to submit their observations on the report, and the case file was sent to the prosecutor’s office for preparation of the prosecutor’s opinion on the merits. In the opinion submitted on 23 January 2025, the prosecutor requested that the defendant be convicted of causing death by negligence.
At the hearing on 19 March 2025, the Diyarbakır 1st Assize Court convicted Selahattin Korkmaz of causing death by conscious negligence and sentenced him to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
Following an appeal against the judgment, the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal overturned the judgment in favour of the defendant on 13 November 2025. The Chamber ruled that the fact that Selahattin Korkmaz was driving an armoured vehicle with limited manoeuvrability on a narrow and unlit street was not, by itself, sufficient to conclude that he had foreseen the death. It therefore found that the conditions for conscious negligence had not been met.
At the first hearing following the reversal, held on 11 February 2026, the public prosecutor submitted the prosecutor’s opinion on the merits and requested that Selahattin Korkmaz be convicted of causing death by negligence. At the hearing on 16 March 2026, the Diyarbakır 1st Assize Court sentenced the defendant to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for causing death by negligence.