Are judicial rulings made on the streets of Europe?

The Republican People's Party (CHP) Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has begun a march from the capital city of Ankara to Istanbul.

The CHP leader will walk the 450-kilometer road for the release of Enis Berberoğlu, a CHP parliamentarian, who was arrested and imprisoned several days ago.

The accusation that led to the arrest of Berberoğlu was "disclosing information of the state that must be kept secret, for political and military espionage." The Turkish penal code stipulates a severe penalty, namely a life sentence, for this crime as in all countries. However, the court reduced Berberoğlu's penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.

But the debate is on the actions and demands of the main opposition leader, rather than the claims about Berberoğlu.

The Turkish public is asking the same questions.

Can a democratic state of law tolerate politicians who take to the street to change judicial decisions that they do not like? If so, where does the limit of this de facto situation begin and where does it end? Is the participation of politicians with public pressure in the ongoing judicial processes intervention in the judiciary?

Universal norms are certain.

Judicial intervention is a legal criminal offense in democracies that adopt the principle of the separation of powers.

The law does not have the responsibility of managing public perception. Judicial bodies issue verdicts irrespective of the social, economic and political statuses of individuals. It is a crime against both the law and democracy when politicians and individuals with political influence intervene in such processes by going out on to the streets.

Otherwise, nobody would be in prison if they managed to gather a few hundred people in the streets, would they?

However, the West is trying to legitimize many actions, which are not considered within the limits of legitimacy in any European country or in the U.S., in an eastern country like Turkey.

The last example of this was written by the European Parliament's rapporteur for Turkey, Kati Piri, on the day when Kılıçdaroğlu started his action.

"I am shocked and appalled by the imprisonment of Turkey's main opposition Member of Parliament Berberoğlu. This decision has nothing to do with the rule of law and fair trial. Turkey's main opposition CHP will carry out a 'Justice March' following the arrest warrant."

Let us clearly ask Mrs. Piri who has developed a special friendship with all those fugitives who escaped the independent Turkish judiciary:

Who are you and based on what information or authority do you make such a statement about the judicial processes in an independent state?

Turkey is a sovereign state. The judiciary of Turkey, a prospective EU member, is under the control of the union. Turkey is a world state that accepts the force of international law in case of a contradiction with Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution. Moreover, all the cases in the country can be brought to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) when they are concluded.

Piri must explain what she knows about this judicial process, about which she has a preconceived opinion, and offer the concrete evidence that she relies on while declaring the court ruling to be illegal.

Yes, you are right; Piri does not have such a responsibility. If she did, she would be more serious and would not seek justifications for the lawlessness of unsuccessful (Kılıçdaroğlu has lost seven elections in seven years since he took the helm of the party) and tyrannical politicians like Kılıçdaroğlu who want to make de facto law in the streets in the name of democracy and human rights, on behalf of the EU.

Those who research the fall in the percentage of Turks who support EU membership in surveys must stop looking for a needle in a haystack and look at the rhetoric of Piri and other pubescent politicians like her.