As if killing Khashoggi once more, in public

When the Saudi Arabian Criminal Court announced the outcome of the trial it had been conducting for some time over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, through a statement by the Public Prosecutor's Office, the Khashoggi matter flared up again.

It flared up because the decisions announced by the prosecutor's office are like a new murder on top of the murder. In the trial conducted so far, the investigation opened against 31 people continued concentrated on 11 people, and 5 people were given the death sentence, 3 people 24 years in prison, and three people acquittals. It was concluded that the murder was not committed with premeditation and planning, that it came about as a result of a sudden altercation, that only the 5 persons in question were directly involved in the incident, and that none of the rest bore any guilt in this incident.

And as for Qahtani... Since no evidence that could incriminate him was found, a case was not even opened, let alone against the authority to which he is subject.

As if this were not enough, there is also no information on who these 5 people given the death sentence are, and who those given prison sentences are.

Indeed, no one knows where these persons who have been sentenced are at present, or in which prison they are being held. For example, have they been asked what they did with Khashoggi's body and where they put it? If they were asked, was an answer obtained? There is no information even on that. Yet a court trying the direct perpetrators in this case should have answered these questions first of all.

As many people have felt and said, it is of course a decision that mocks human reason. But in one respect, let those who had the slightest expectation that a different decision could come out be surprised by it. Was it not obvious from the very start that there could be no impartial trial in a judicial system controlled by the usual suspects of this murder?

There are fifty pieces of evidence showing that the murder was committed with premeditation. For example, that 15 people, who are ultimately persons hierarchically subordinate to Asiri and Qahtani, came on two government-owned private planes and committed this murder at the Istanbul consulate general "by using an authority that would disable all the powers of the consulate" has a certainty that leaves no room for doubt. Whatever authority would allow so many people to carry out such an extraordinary, irrational act in the consulate premises is present there. Even if one asked what such an authority is, one would at once reach the perpetrator far beyond those five persons.

Moreover, after it was understood that the murder was a murder, a "cleaning team under the control of the highest-level state officials" again came and cleaned up evidence for days before the eyes of the whole world. Should the fact that the Turkish forensic experts who entered the consulate and the residence after that cleaning found nothing of note not have been recorded and tried as a separate crime? Here, the murder is a crime, but destroying, obscuring and cleaning away the evidence of the murder is a wholly separate crime, and if one cannot reach a conclusion from what happened during the murder, one could at least have reached all the conclusions through the cleaning of evidence.

In fact, perhaps beyond that incident, even by looking at the authority that made this decision come out this way today, we would catch sufficient clues about the perpetrator.

But of course the court should first have a concern for catching clues, should it not? Just look: On the very day he opened the case, the Chief Prosecutor wrote his indictment not like an indictment but in the language of someone's defense lawyer. Already at the level of the allegation he had specifically stated that Qahtani, Asiri and the Crown Prince had no connection with this murder.

At that moment we had already said that there could be no impartial trial from a court under such control.

A plain truth in the Khashoggi murder is that the murder was carried out with the highest-level state control, planning and means. Since it is inevitable that the highest-level state control also affects the judiciary, the decision handed down confirmed the fact that there can be no impartial trial in such a country: The Khashoggi case cannot be heard in Saudi Arabian courts, whose whole concern is evidently to acquit certain people and keep them out of the matter. If it is attempted to be heard there, the result that emerges can be nothing beyond this.

Yet the incident took place on Turkish soil and therefore, as part of Turkey's right of sovereignty, its case needed to be heard in Turkey. Turkey has no prejudice against anyone. It inherently holds a position of acting with utmost impartiality in establishing justice. It does not pass judgment on anyone before the case is concluded. Even if it says that the usual suspects must be tried, it does not pass a judgment on them beforehand either. We hope they are truly acquitted by an impartial court.

Indeed, as far as we know, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office also continues to collect evidence and to complete the file. The one who is to have the real say will of course say it.

In the end, the Khashoggi case is a case in which this world's reason, conscience and judgment are now being tested. Let no one think they can slip out of this by deceiving this test.