TRIALS 1925, The Ankara State Independence Court Case 1927-1928, The Istanbul Criminal Court Case 1928, The Rize Criminal Court Case 1928, The Ankara Criminal Court Case 1931, The Case at the Istanbul Second Criminal Court of First Instance 1933, The Istanbul Criminal Court Case 1933, The Case at the Istanbul Third Criminal Court of First Instance 1933-1934, The Bursa Criminal Court Case 1936-1937, The Istanbul Criminal Court Case 1938, The Case at the Military Court of the Military College Headquarters 1938, The Case at the Military Court of the Naval Headquarters 1933, The Case at the Istanbul Third Criminal Court of First Instance The second summons was of 9 May 1933 and had been underwritten by Süreyya Pasha against Nâzım Hikmet alone and accused the poet of 'insulting both him and his father' in the satire entitled "Hiciv Vadisinde Bir Tecrübe-i Kalemiye" (An Essay in the Mode of Satire) in his book. The lawyer İrfan Emin, extended the case by asking for Nâzım Hikmet, who had been sent to Bursa, to be brought to the hearing and he stated that there was an inconsistency between the dates of the composition of the last poems and the date of the publication of the book. He claimed that he would prove that these said poems were recited during an excursion of the Society of Printers in 1931. Besides, the names of Süreyya Pasha and his father had not been mentioned in the satire. The manuscripts in the printing house were brought and the attorney tried to make the judges accept that the year 1933 was a typographical error and the true date was 1931. The defence aimed to prove that the satire had been written before Hikmet Bey died. But the court decided that the manuscripts may have been manipulated. The claimants argued that the work was published on 3 January 1933, but the defendant put forward the claim that it was published in November 1932 containing the poems written the year before. Nâzım Hikmet, who was brought from Bursa to the hearing, said that he did not write the satire with the commander Rıza Pasha in mind but only wrote "the commander, the thief." He explained that he could not understand why this was identified as Rıza Pasha. He underlined the fact that, even though those who were a part of history may be the subject of satire, he had composed the work only to satirise the period of autocracy. However, Hikmet Bey's death had been described in detail in the poem. Nâzım Hikmet was sentenced to one year, to a fine of 200 Liras, and 500 Liras for the compensation of the claimant. The attorney İrfan Emin appealed on 12 September 1933. Because of the General Amnesty, which was declared due to the tenth year of the foundation of the Republic, Nâzım Hikmet's sentences were pardoned without any appeals hearing.