In the 321st hearing that spread over four years, producing more than 2.5 million pages of documents, leading to nearly 7,000 interim judgments, pulling together 23 separate indictments into one where 275 defendants stood trial, the board of judges at an Istanbul special court hearing this case reached a verdict on Monday, Aug. 5, and found the accused guilty of the alleged crime: that is, being members of a secret group calling itself Ergenekon, composed of former and active military personnel and their civilian counterparts, to bring down the elected, Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) government.

In raining heavy sentences ranging from life in prison, to acquittal, the court also decided that Ergenekon is indeed a “terror organization,” and its members are “terrorists,” including Ilker Basbug, a former chief of general staff between August 2008 and August 2010, the highest-ranking military officer before the judges, sent to prison for life convicted of “leading a terrorist organization.” 

Since the first trial started in October 2008, the public split on believing the independence of this special court, and the debates on this issue turned into a political football game — forcing people to take sides with the government or the opposition. It became less and less important tying the crime to the suspects, because it’s humanly impossible to read all these record numbers of pages of indictments and court proceedings to reach a knowledgeable judgment. Moreover, there has been much digital evidence that has been proven by the defense teams to be forgeries. The public debates still became all too general, where one side made it a statement against military coups and progress toward democracy. The opposing side, in essence, argued that this was becoming a political lynching campaign, not a marathon into democratization.

No doubt that there is a “deep state” in this country, and that all would benefit to see the end to it, making state institutions transparent, treating all its citizens equally, watching out for their best interests without creating privileged classes. Conviction is, however, a personal calamity, and if there are questions about the judiciary holding up the highest standards of the rule of law, that needs to be taken into account in deciding how this case helps to normalize the civilian-military relationship or strengthen the country’s democracy. What it looks like right now is  that respect for the rule of law has taken a new blow in this country, and people are more polarized than ever in trusting the judiciary.