Publication: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararları ışığında yakalama ve gözaltına alma
Abstract
“Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Yakalama ve Gözaltına Alma” konulu çalışmamızda yakalama ve gözaltına almayı Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 2., 3., 5. ve 6. maddeleriyle birlikte incelemiş bulunmaktayız. Yakalama, hakim kararıyla veya hakim kararı olmaksızın kişinin özgürlüğünün kısıtlanmasıdır. Gözaltı ise, soruşturma yönünden zorunlu olması ve kişinin bir suçu işlediğini düşündürebilecek emarelerin varlığı halinde Cumhuriyet savcısının kararıyla kişinin nezarethane adı verilen yere konmasına denir. Kişi özgürlüğünü sınırlayan bu koruma tedbirleri, doğurduğu sonuçlar nedeniyle ağır ve insan hakları açısından önemli tedbirlerdir. Çalışmamızda yakalanan ve gözaltına alınanın hakları birbirinden ayrılmıştır. 1412 Sayılı Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunu’nda yakalama ve gözaltı birlikte kabul edilmişti. Ancak 5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nda gözaltı artık yakalamadan bağımsız bir koruma tedbiri haline gelmiştir. Yani 1412 sayılı Kanun’dan farklı olarak yakalanan aynı zamanda gözaltına alınmış değildir. Bu nedenle yakalanan ile gözaltına alınanın hakları aynı değildir. Yakalama ve gözaltına alma, hem adli hem idari amaçlı yapılabilir. Çalışmamızın temelini adli amaçlı yakalama ve gözaltına alma oluşturmaktadır. Ancak çalışmamızda idari amaçlı yakalama ve muhafaza altına almanın hangi durumlarda sözkonusu olabileceğine ve bunların adli amaçlı yakalama ve gözaltına alma ile arasındaki farklara değinmekte yarar gördük. Adli amaçlı yakalama, kişinin işlemiş olduğu suç dolayısıyla özgürlüğünün kısıtlanması iken, önleme amaçlı yakalamada ise kişinin işlemiş olduğu bir suç yoktur. Ancak adli amaçlı yakalamada kişinin sahip olduğu hakların tümüne idari amaçlı yakalamaya maruz kalan kimse de sahiptir. Haklar açısından bir farklılık yoktur.
In our study on “Apprehension and Detention on Remand in The Light of Case-Law of European Court of Human Rights”, we have studied capture and detention based on the 2nd,3rd, 5th. and 6th clauses of European Human Rights Contract. Caption is restriction of the liberty of the person with or without decision of judge. Custody is keeping a person in a place, called detention room, with decision of public prosecuter, if the the signs regarding a person’s guilt exists. These protection measures restricting the liberty of a person, are back breaking and important measures because of their consequences and in the aspect of human rights. In this study, the rights of a person captured and the one that of taken into custody were separated from each other. In Criminal Procedure Act No. 1412, the caption and custody had been adopted together. However, with the Criminal Procedure Act No. 5271, detention became a measure of protection independent from caption from now on. In other words, unlike the law No. 1412, captured person is not the one taken into custody at the same time. Therefore, rights of captured person and the one taken into custody aren’t the same. Caption and taking into custody can be done due to both judicial and administrative reasons. Our study is based on caption and taking into custody due to judicial reasons. However, in this work, we felt that it is beneficial to touch to in what circumstances administrative oriented caption and protection are possible and to the differences between these and judicial oriented caption and taking into custody. Judicial oriented caption is restriction of a person freedom due to committing a crime, while in preventive oriented caption person does not have a crime committed. On the other hand, all rights owned by a person subjected to the judicial oriented caption, is also owned by a person subjected to administrative oriented capture. In terms of rights they aren’t any differences whatsoever.
In our study on “Apprehension and Detention on Remand in The Light of Case-Law of European Court of Human Rights”, we have studied capture and detention based on the 2nd,3rd, 5th. and 6th clauses of European Human Rights Contract. Caption is restriction of the liberty of the person with or without decision of judge. Custody is keeping a person in a place, called detention room, with decision of public prosecuter, if the the signs regarding a person’s guilt exists. These protection measures restricting the liberty of a person, are back breaking and important measures because of their consequences and in the aspect of human rights. In this study, the rights of a person captured and the one that of taken into custody were separated from each other. In Criminal Procedure Act No. 1412, the caption and custody had been adopted together. However, with the Criminal Procedure Act No. 5271, detention became a measure of protection independent from caption from now on. In other words, unlike the law No. 1412, captured person is not the one taken into custody at the same time. Therefore, rights of captured person and the one taken into custody aren’t the same. Caption and taking into custody can be done due to both judicial and administrative reasons. Our study is based on caption and taking into custody due to judicial reasons. However, in this work, we felt that it is beneficial to touch to in what circumstances administrative oriented caption and protection are possible and to the differences between these and judicial oriented caption and taking into custody. Judicial oriented caption is restriction of a person freedom due to committing a crime, while in preventive oriented caption person does not have a crime committed. On the other hand, all rights owned by a person subjected to the judicial oriented caption, is also owned by a person subjected to administrative oriented capture. In terms of rights they aren’t any differences whatsoever.