The Supreme Court’s judgment stated that the participation of CS, MS and SQ, described in the indictment, and what was considered to be proven about their part in the planning and other preparation that AS could meet the victim alone outside his home, did not satisfy the requirements that would be required to be considered objectively to have been the main players in a homicide on the basis of the tasked participation. Participation of the three was considered objectively to be a part of a homicide.

The defendants were sentenced to prison terms of 16 years, CS for 3 years, MS for 4 years and SQ for 10 years. In sentencing, it was considered that the law did not allow for sentencing AS to a higher sentence than the temporary sentence stipulated in Article 211 of the General Penal Code No. 19/1940. In addition, there were no conditions for sentencing him with reference to Article 70 (2) of the same law, as other offenses had been part-time offenses. In sentencing, it was considered that CS, MS and SQ had been part-time offenders. As CS and MS were considered to be minor in their preparation, their sentence was determined with reference to Article 22 (2) of the General Penal Code.