The Chief Prosecutor’s Office in the southwestern Turkish province of Muğla appealed a verdict that stirred a public outcry last week over what is regarded as a lenient sentence in the murder of a young woman.

C.M.A., accused of strangling 27-year-old Pınar Gültekin to death, burning and disposing of her body, was sentenced to 23 years in a trial in the province after prosecutors asked for aggravated life imprisonment. The court, citing "unjust provocation" commuted the sentence to 23 years in a controversial ruling. The verdict had renewed a debate whether the "unjust provocation" provision used in such cases should be revised at least for femicides in the country where dozens of women are killed by spouses, ex-spouses or family members every year.

The prosecutor announced on Monday that they would also appeal the acquittal of M.A., the brother of the defendant, who was accused of aiding and abetting in the disposal of the body. The appeal will be handled by a higher court and may be referred to the Court of Cassation, the highest judiciary authority in such cases, which can overturn or uphold the verdicts by lower courts or may order a retrial.

Days after the verdict, the court in Muğla released its details where it cites a lack of evidence in the charge of torture – an act that grants aggravated life imprisonment – before the victim's death as one of the factors for a reduction of the prison term for C.M.A. The defendant was accused of burning Gültekin while she was still alive, to deal a final blow to the victim who was in her death throes when C.M.A. strangled her. A lawyer for Gültekin’s family had disputed the ruling and has said in a statement that the murder was not something spontaneous as the ruling said but was premeditated. In its verdict, however, the court said that C.M.A. was motivated by his anger toward the victim who threatened to inform his family of their extramarital affair and extorted money from the murderer, referring to this as "unjust provocation." The court said that C.M.A. simply sought to strangle her to death and would have "tortured her" if he had planned it ahead.

"Unjust provocation" is a technical interpretation of laws for the benefit of the accused and is usually granted to those acting in self-defense. In femicide cases, however, courts often invoke it if the defendant claims he or she was enraged by the actions of the victim. For the part of the victim, it is often "cheating" that "provokes" the actions of murderers in femicide cases involving former or current spouses. A.R.Y., a defendant accused of killing his six-month-pregnant wife in the central province of Konya, for instance, had his sentence commuted to 23 years from aggravated life imprisonment earlier this month based on "unjust provocation" and "good conduct," another controversial provision. A.R.Y. told the court that he shot his wife after she told him that she cheated on him. The "good conduct" in the case that helped a reduction in the sentence was the defendant attempting to bandage the wound of his wife after firing six shots.