US: In the dock people from Erdogan’s security for the incidents in 2017 at the Turkish embassy

Members of security of Recep Tayyip Erdogan are going to be tried USA for the 2017 riots outside the Turkish embassy in Washington as the case opened for trial.

As reported by Agence France-Presse, Turkey had requested that the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal be reviewed for the incidents that began when the security of the Turkish president beat peaceful protesters for Erdogan’s visit on the other side of the Atlantic.

Then, had visited Donald Trump at the White House and they were already receiving a series of criticisms regarding the actions they were taking inside the country, such as the beginning of mass arrests.

At the time, the Turkish side had appealed to the Supreme Court, as it had asked for a review of the decisions made by both the Washington District Court and the Court of Appeals, which had ruled that the violence used by the security personnel of the Turkish president was not necessary immunity and therefore the US courts have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the actions that have been brought.

Nonetheless, the US government categorically rejected the basis of Turkey’s legal argument and suggested to the Supreme Court through its legal representative (solicitor general) to reject this request and thus open the way for the trial of the case. It is worth noting that according to legal circles, the opinion of the legal representative is considered to play a decisive role and to be taken seriously by the Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its final decision soon.

In fact, in the reasoning she presents in her decision, the US legal representative, Elizabeth Prelogernotes that “the facts found by the District Court and accepted by the US Court of Appeals demonstrate that Turkish security personnel used violence beyond any understanding of their protective function. Therefore, the use of force is not protected by the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) exemption.” In this light, the legal representative argues that the Court of Appeal reached the correct conclusion and therefore its decision does not warrant a review by the Supreme Court.