Masumiyet Karinesinden Yararlanma ve Aklanma Hakkı Açısından…: Extended Summary

It is an indispensable condition for a fair trial that the accused benefits from the presumption of innocence during the trial process and that she/he is not treated as a guilty unless there is a competent court order. Within the framework of this right, which is also called as the right to benefit from the presumption of innocence or not to be considered guilty and constitutes a fundamental part of the right to a fair trial, especially the judicial authorities are obliged to “not start the case with the presumption that the accused committed the crime” and in this context, the accused is not under the burden of proving his innocence. As the prosecution office is under the burden of proving the acts imposed on the accused in the indictment, any doubts regarding the material facts of the case should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. In accordance with this presumption, judicial authorities are under an obligation to refrain from making statements that would allow an accused to be perceived as guilty for whom no court’s final verdict of conviction has yet been found, whether through judicial authorities or administrative authorities. This obligation also includes preventing the person from being guilty in the public before a court’s final verdict of conviction is issued.…

Another important institution, which is directly related to the presumption of innocence, but whose name is much less pronounced, is the right to demand an acquittal decision at the end of the trial in the event that a person encounters a criminal charge. Neither the Constitution nor the ECHR has directly included the right to acquittal, and in this context, the ECtHR and (with a sharper interpretation) the Constitutional Court in their case law up to now are of the opinion that the ECHR Art 6 cannot be understood as limiting the state’s authority to waive from making charges. In our opinion, it should be accepted that the “the right to demand an acquittal decision” is still a part of the right of access to court. At this point, it should be noted that the defendant is faced with the state’s assumption that a crime has been committed and has to bear the negative consequences of this assumption; for example he might be subject to protective measures, his freedom is restricted if he does not attend the hearing, and might be exposed to the negative effects of the usual public interest in criminal cases. As a result of this, within the words of Article 6/1 of the ECHR, being acquitted by a competent court is the very core …

First of all, the innocence of the defendant is essential unless a definitive judgement is given, and the use of statements implying that the person is guilty in the decision of dismissal will also mean the violation of the presumption innocence. Therefore, when explaining the reasons for the “dismissal decision”, courts should only mention the reasons for this decision, and avoid including statements that might imply the defendant committed the crime. However, in the practice of our country, it is experienced that courts include statements in their decisions that the defendant committed a crime, especially when the decision of dismissal made due to the withdrawal of the complaint.…

Secondly, in accordance with the presumption of innocence, as a rule, the costs of the trial should not be imposed on the accused in case of a decision of dismissal. Though, the ECtHR does not consider a violation of the presumption of innocence when the cost of the trial is imposed on the accused only in part. However, in terms of our law, the legislator has not made any provision regarding the charge of the trial costs to the defendant in case of a decision of dismissal. In this context, the defendant may not be held responsible for the costs of trial when a decision of dismissal is made, regardless of the reason.…

Lastly, the provision “in cases where a decision of acquittal may be rendered promptly at that stage of proceedings, a decision on the stay of the proceedings dismissal of the case or a judgement related to need to inflict punishment must not be rendered” in article 223/9 of the TCPC is at the center of an important discussion especially in terms of the right to demand an acquittal decision. Because the Supreme Court interprets the concept of immediate acquittal here quite narrowly. The Supreme Court, in its stabilized jurisprudence, understands the “immediate acquittal” decision as “the pres

Masumiyet Karinesinden Yararlanma ve Aklanma Hakkı Açısından Ceza Muhakemesinde Düşme Kararına İlişkin Bazı Meseleler

Aşağıda bir kısmını gördüğünüz bu dokümana sadece Profesyonel + pakete abone olan üyelerimiz erişebilir.

Extended Summary