Publication: SAVUNMA HAKKI VE SINIRLARI
Abstract
Ceza muhakemesi hukuku, devletin cezalandırma hakkının yerine getirilmesine ve dolayısıyla cezanın genel ve özel önleme fonksiyonunun sağlanmasına hizmet eder. Diğer bir söyleyişle ceza muhakemesi sonunda gerçek suçluya ulaşılırsa ceza genel ve özel önleme fonksiyonunu gerçekleştirir. Gerçek suçlunun cezalandırılıyor olması, toplumdaki bireylerin güven duygusunu tatmin eder. Ceza muhakemesinde gerçek suçluya yani maddi gerçeğe ulaşılabilmesi ancak suç isnadı altındaki kişiye etkin bir savunma yapma imkânının tanınmasıyla mümkündür. Savunma hakkı, anayasal nitelikte olan adil, hukuk devleti ilkelerine uygun bir muhakemede yargılanma hakkından temellerini almaktadır. Birey in veya devletin normlara uygunluğunu denetley ecek mekanizmaların sağlıklı ve objektif çalışabilmesi açısından savunma hakkının özel bir yeri bulunmaktadır. Savunma hakkından yoksun bırakılan, tarafsız ve bağımsız bir mahkemede yargılanmayan kişinin, bir hukuk devleti içersinde temel haklara sahip olduğunu söylemek mümkün değildir. Ceza muhakemesinde özellikle devletin normlara uygunluğunu denetleyecek olan kişi müdafiidir. Bu nedenle savunma hakkı kapsamında avukat müdafiden yararlanma hakkının korunması hukuk devletinde zorunludur. Ancak, bütün bunlar savunma hakkının kısıtlanamayacağı anlamına gelmemektedir. Savunma hakkının sınırları, ölçülülük ilkesi içinde ancak bu hakkın özünü ortadan kaldırmayacak şekilde ve demokratik bir devlette kabul edilebilir ölçüde kısıtlanabilecektir.
The Criminal Procedure Law helps the state to fulfil its right of punishment and as a result the procurement of its deterrent penalty function in general and in private characters. In other words, if the real criminal is seized after criminal procedures, the punishment puts its general and private deterrent functions into practice. Te fact that the real criminal is being penalised would provide a sense of security for the members of the society. In criminal procedu- res, detaining real criminal, or tangible truth, is only possible after person under allegation is given efective right to defend himself. The right of defence grounds from the right of being tried in a just court which has constitutional qualities and is suitable to the principles of a state of law. The right of defence has a special place for mechanisms, which would safe- guard the individual s or state s suitability to the norms, to function in a reliable and objective fashion. It is impossible to say that a person, who is deprived of his right of defence and not tried by an unbiased and independent court, has basic rights of a state of law. In a criminal procedure, the person who is especi- ally responsible to oversee if the state is following the norms is defendant. For this reason, within the right of defence, it is an obligation to protect the right of advocating in a state of law. However, this does not mean that the right of defence cannot be restricted. Te confines of right of defence can be, within the principle of moderation yet without abolishing the quintessence of this right and in an acceptable manner for a democratic state, can be restricted.
The Criminal Procedure Law helps the state to fulfil its right of punishment and as a result the procurement of its deterrent penalty function in general and in private characters. In other words, if the real criminal is seized after criminal procedures, the punishment puts its general and private deterrent functions into practice. Te fact that the real criminal is being penalised would provide a sense of security for the members of the society. In criminal procedu- res, detaining real criminal, or tangible truth, is only possible after person under allegation is given efective right to defend himself. The right of defence grounds from the right of being tried in a just court which has constitutional qualities and is suitable to the principles of a state of law. The right of defence has a special place for mechanisms, which would safe- guard the individual s or state s suitability to the norms, to function in a reliable and objective fashion. It is impossible to say that a person, who is deprived of his right of defence and not tried by an unbiased and independent court, has basic rights of a state of law. In a criminal procedure, the person who is especi- ally responsible to oversee if the state is following the norms is defendant. For this reason, within the right of defence, it is an obligation to protect the right of advocating in a state of law. However, this does not mean that the right of defence cannot be restricted. Te confines of right of defence can be, within the principle of moderation yet without abolishing the quintessence of this right and in an acceptable manner for a democratic state, can be restricted.