Alliance law has undermined trust

When the subject turns to the law, interpretations may differ. It is in the nature of the matter for statutory texts, practice, case law and doctrine to put forward different views. But, attaining legal certainty - there being a minimum acceptance of the sanctions jurists will apply to which acts - is at the foundation of the functioning of the law. Consequently, certainty and stability in the application of the law, along with many other factors, determine the level of the sense of “justice” in that country.

Hence, it was no surprise that the judicial system, its ABC forgotten and bereft of credibility, sparked off the crisis that is pulling the country into dire economic straits.

When, in fact, we delve into the ABC of the business, the rules are clear. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, two conditions must coincide to enable detention to be ordered: concrete evidence pointing to the existence of strong suspicion of guilt and there being grounds for detention. The grounds for detention laid down in the statute are: “The suspect or accused’s fleeing, going into hiding or the existence of concrete facts that create the suspicion that he will flee; the forming of strong suspicion that he will endeavour to destroy, conceal or alter evidence or bring pressure to bear on witnesses, victims or others.” Also, according to the statute, it is possible with certain crimes (such as murder, terrorism, torture or sexual assault) to “presume the existence” of grounds for detention, but this does not on its own suffice for detention and if there is no “evidence pointing to the existence of strong suspicion of guilt” detention cannot be ordered with these crimes, either.

Basically, according to the law, release pending trial applies by default, but detention may be ordered in these listed exceptional circumstances. With this being the ABC of the business, arbitrary detention orders passed in violation of the judiciary’s previous practice in the matter of detention, doctrine and European Court of Human Rights rulings that according to the Constitution serve as sources of domestic law lend permanence to the opinion that the judiciary operates under the ruling party’s hegemony.

Once the law forgets the ABC of the business and becomes a political instrument, detention orders lose credibility, as do release orders. Those deprived of their liberty under unlawful detention orders may remain in detention longer than their peers or may suddenly gain their freedom in accordance with the dictates of circumstances and the country’s tactical alliance policies. Taner Kılıç, Attorney-at-Law, who on the date of his detention was Managing Board Chair of Amnesty International’s Turkey Branch, remained unreleased for a long time even though the evidence against him had been rebutted at the hearing, not least the Bylock allegation. Indeed, he was released on 31 January 2018 but re-detained following the prosecutor’s objection, and EU officials reacted strongly to this decision. Kılıç was nevertheless released immediately after the EU, which is experiencing great problems with US President Trump, came out with expressions of support for Turkey in the most recent crisis. Orders passed in various political trials such as those of Deniz Yücel, the Greek soldiers and French journalist Loup Bureau actually involved the application of the ABC of the law. But, applying the law under political guidance and “as circumstances dictate”, rather than strengthening trust in the law and justice, serves in a paradoxical fashion to weaken it.

http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/siyaset/1056454/ittifak_hukuku__guven_e_darbe_vurdu .html