I know that I am talking about the judiciary of a country that has a prison population of 2.2 million, the majority of whom are people of color. I am also aware that this country has misused international laws and practices numerous times. One example among many, namely the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without a decision by the United Nations, is enough alone.

Yet, I was still thinking that the U.S. judiciary was reliable at, least on paper, despite all the instances of injustice, until I came upon the trial in the U.S. of Iranian-Turkish businessman Reza Zarrab and Halkbank Deputy General Manager Mehmet Hakan Atilla. What we see in this trial has nothing to do with court scenes portrayed in Hollywood movies.

As is already known, the two are accused of violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. So there is no breach of any U.N. convention in the case. Consequently, two Turkish citizens are being tried as part of charges that only bind U.S. citizens.

Second, the independence and impartiality of the prosecutors who launched and have been running the investigation are highly dubious due to their remarks and networks. I am not only referring to their exposing details of the case to social and conventional media and the shady meetings they attended – there are more solid and serious suspicions.

The first one is pertinent to the material evidence on which the prosecution is based. The evidence was obtained via illegal wiretapping. Plus, various institutions issued reports indicating that the evidence was falsified aside from comprising dated documents.

Members of the judicial and security bureaucracy affiliated with the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) that organized the July 15, 2016 coup attempt presented the same evidence as part of the judicial coup attempt on Dec. 17 and Dec. 25, 2013.

But that evidence, which could not meet the minimum requirements of international norms of law, both in its acquisition and utilization, was not recognized by the Turkish judiciary, which acts in accordance with EU norms.

And now, four years later, how can we explain the uncontrolled use of this fabricated evidence in the U.S. in the context of the operation of international law?

In addition, the prosecution cannot even answer simple questions from the defense, such as if they have the original copies of the evidence.

It would be the same if a legitimate state recognized evidence shown by al-Qaida courts that gave a verdict to execute U.S. commanders and administrators.

FETÖ, led by radical cult leader Fetullah Gülen, who lives in the U.S., is recognized as a terrorist group by the Turkish judiciary.

Maybe this is why the judge only asked questions of Atilla with regard to whether he has a conflict of interest with his lawyer during his first court hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Maybe the court presses Atilla to take the blame just as it has done to Zarrab, since they do not trust the evidence. So, the court might be trying to create evidence based on the defendant instead of reaching the suspect based on evidence.

But this is not very significant. The U.S. invaded Iraq on the pretext of chemical weapons in the country, but ultimately no evidence was found for these claims, and the U.S. suggested that the absence of evidence is not evidence for the absence of weapons – ridiculing the entire world.

But it was too late for Saddam Hussein, who was executed, hundreds of thousands of civilians and U.S. soldiers who were killed and millions of Iraqis whose future was wrecked.

So, there is no reason that deters them from thinking that they can evade with a similar defense again.

But we must say in advance that Turkey is not Iraq, and neither the Middle East nor the rest of the world is the same as it was yesterday.