The Amasra Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office prepared a case report for 24 suspects, 8 of whom were imprisoned, for the explosion in which 42 workers were killed and 10 workers were injured on 14 October 2022 in the Turkish Hard Coal Institution (TTK) Amasra Establishment.
The report prepared within the scope of the investigation carried out by the Amasra Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was sent to the Bartın Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office with the aim of preparing an indictment.
In the record, Amasra Organization Manager Cihat Özdemir, Operations Manager Selçuk Ekmekçi, Occupational Safety and Training Chief Engineer Volkan Soylu and Chief Engineer Mehmet Tural, who were imprisoned, 42 times for the “probable intentional killing” error, 10 times different from the “possible intentional injury” error, a total of 1080. Each year prison sentence was demanded.
The other 20 suspects, 4 of whom were imprisoned, were sentenced to 15 years for “causing death by negligence” and 3 years for each “injury by negligence” misdemeanor.
106 people took place as complainants
In the report, in which 106 people from relatives of the miners who lost their lives in the explosion took place as complainants, the Director of the Institution, Özdemir, stated that “the factors that caused the explosion to occur were methane drainage, ventilation, coal dust effort, lack of technical workers, occupational safety trainings and exercises for emergency situations”. Manager Ekmekçi and Chief Engineer of Operations Tural’s “coal dust, ventilation and occupational safety trainings and drills for emergencies”, Occupational Health Safety and Training Branch Manager Soylu’s “ventilation and occupational safety trainings and drills for emergency situations” stated to exist.
“Work is allowed without security”
It was pointed out that Özdemir, Ekmekçi, Tural and Soylu, who are suspects who are experienced in the report, the mine and their work, allowed the production to continue in the mine without creating the necessary technical infrastructure, without making sufficient investment and without ensuring that occupational safety measures were taken within the scope of the administration and decision-making processes they were involved in. .
In the case report, which emphasized that the level of culpability of the suspects who continued the incomplete and dangerous working procedure exceeded the level of conscious negligence, they were indifferent to the result that occurred due to the deficiencies and contradictions described and accepted the event, since it was understood that a result that was foreseen in such an event could not be mentioned, but that it was not thought to happen, they should be held responsible for the actual result in accordance with possible caste decisions. It was stated that it was necessary and it was foreseen that the elements of the misdemeanor of “possible intentional killing” were formed.
