Based on this information, write a new short title in English: “The elements of the crime of causing death with possible intent have been formed” – BRTK

Hasan Esendağlı, President of the Bar Association, said, “Our lawyers and consultant criminal law experts, who evaluated the facts of the İsias Hotel expert report, came to the conclusion that the elements of the crime of causing death were formed with possible intent, which is defined as ‘the situation where the defendant foresees that serious harm may occur as a result of his action and carries out the action despite accepting this possibility’.” “They have arrived.” he said.

Esendağlı emphasized that, according to the expert report, the building owner and contractor Ahmet Bozkurt, as the owner of İsias Hotel, was directly responsible for the construction processes and illegal floor additions contrary to the project and legislation, and noted that all defendants in the case were deemed responsible.

Esendağlı noted that it was included in the expert report that the İsias Hotel defendants and the public officials in the Municipality licensed and opened for public use a building that could not be constructed as a hotel and put into service under normal circumstances, in a way that constitutes fraud and fraud.

Pointing out that the findings in the expert report will be taken as basis in the legal qualification of the crime committed by the defendants, Hasan Esendağlı emphasized that the importance of the building permit and building occupancy certificate is very obvious in terms of the cause and effect relationship between the defendants’ faults and the reasons for the collapse of the building.

In his written statement, Esendağlı made evaluations about the Isias case expert report prepared by 9 Eylül University / Istanbul Technical University and announced on Monday, October 28, and stated that the report determined the technical evaluations regarding the reasons for the collapse of the building and the liability status of the defendants.

Esendağlı evaluated the reasons for the collapse of the building in the report under the following headings:

“Fixed Concrete and Material Defects, Illegal Floors and Structural Changes Contrary to the Project, Lack of Stirrups and Reinforcement, Claims of Hammering Effect Do Not Reflect the Reality, Lack of Structural Calculations to Resist Earthquake Forces, Addition of an Elevator to the Building Contrary to the Project, Lack of Structural Calculations to Resist Earthquake Forces, Elevator to the Building Contrary to the Project Findings Regarding the Addition, Incomplete Torsion Irregularity and Soft Floor Effects, Soil Survey Not Being Performed Although It is Mandatory, and the Occupancy Certificate.”

Esendağlı, expert report; He noted that the expert panel to which the file was referred with the interim decision of Adıyaman 3rd High Criminal Court dated June 12, 2024, included comprehensive examinations and evaluations, taking into account all technical reports, opinions, facts and evidence in the file, as well as the claims and demands of the lawyers of the parties.

-The reasons for the collapse of the building…

Esendağlı stated that, according to the expert report, the reasons for the collapse of the building were listed as follows:

“It has been determined that non-standard, non-durable, poor quality materials were used in the hotel’s load-bearing columns, beams and basement floor curtains, and that the concrete contained defective aggregate that was much larger than the size allowed by the standard.

The building was made heavier by adding unlicensed floors in 2001 and 2016, but the necessary static calculations were not made for these illegal floors.

-Inadequacies in the carrier system…

Contrary to the regulations, stirrups were not tightened at many points of the building carriers, and stirrup spacing was left longer than necessary. These inadequacies in the carrier system have completely eliminated the safety of the structure.

-The claim of hammering effect does not reflect the truth…

It was determined that the building did not collapse sideways due to the hammering effect, as claimed by the defendant’s lawyers, but completely forward towards Atatürk Boulevard. It has also been stated that the obligation to leave the joint spacing is on the owners of Isias Hotel, who last built the building, and their technical representatives.

The defendants claimed that ‘the earthquake force was too great; Despite the defense of perfection that ‘the building was demolished for this reason’; The report clearly shows that the collapse of the building has nothing to do with the earthquake force, and that if the building had been built in accordance with earthquake regulations, it would not have collapsed.”

-Second elevator..

Hasan Esendağlı pointed out that the opening of a gap in the hollow block floor without making a static calculation for the addition of a second elevator, which was not in the building’s project, was included in the expert report as one of the fundamental defects of the building, and continued as follows:

“Missing Torsional Irregularity and Soft Floor Effects: The report includes the finding that the torsional irregularity and soft floor effects of the mezzanine floor are ignored in the static calculations of the building.

The report also includes the finding that the defendants did not carry out ground survey work, which is one of the basic security requirements of the building.

The expert report states that the building permit dated 1993 given to the building; It has reached comprehensive findings that allow the renovation building permit dated 2001 and the building use permit document dated 2003 and the reports and documents submitted to Adıyaman Municipality to obtain them to be against the legislation and/or irregular and/or fake. “These findings reveal how the building was able to obtain a license and building occupancy certificate as a hotel despite the structural defects mentioned in the previous articles.”

-Responsibilities of the defendants…Building owner and Contractor Ahmet Bozkurt are directly responsible

Esendağlı stated that in the light of the findings in the expert report, the responsibilities of the defendants were determined as follows:

“Building owner and contractor Ahmet Bozkurt; As the owner of Isias Hotel, he is directly responsible for construction processes and illegal floor additions that are contrary to the project and legislation.

Efe Bozkurt, Mehmet Fatih Bozkurt and other defendant family members (Company Partners); As partners of İSİAS Hotel Management Company, they have responsibilities for the illegal addition of floors to the building, the second elevator shaft contrary to the regulations, and the lack of static evaluations.

Fenni Responsible Architect H. Erdem Yıldız took responsibility for engineering calculations that did not belong to him in the architectural project and took actions that endangered the building security; He was found responsible for ensuring that the building was given a license and building occupancy certificate as a hotel.

Civil Engineer Mehmet Göncüoğlu; It is the engineer who is responsible for structural arrangements that are not suitable for the project and deficiencies in the load-bearing system of the building.

Civil Engineer Hasan Aslan; He was found responsible as an engineer who ignored the building safety by violating the legislation during the technical implementation process of the building.

Static Project responsible Halil Bağcı; incomplete static calculations; Not taking the necessary precautions regarding the security of the building; “He is responsible for endangering the security of the building by leaving out the mandatory static calculations of the 2001 license.”