ANKARA ( ) TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
(To be Sent)
ANKARA ( ) TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
QUERY NO :
FILE INFORMATION :
The Arrest Warrant
Objecting Suspect :
address :……
The Defender :
phone :
The Accused Crime: According to the TCK Article …
The Arrest Warrant
Date :16/08/2021
SUBJECT OF REQUEST : Your Honor’s 16/08/2021 Date, 2021/……. It is about our objections against the decision “ARREST of the suspect within the scope of the measure in proportion to the alleged crime” given in the query numbered decision and our request for release.
OUR EXPLANATIONS: Ankara ( ) Criminal Court of Peace 16/08/2021 Date, 2021/……. The Query (Ankara CBS Ankara ………. Prosecutor’s Office Dated 16/08/2021 and 2021/….. With the letter numbered Investigation) numbered statement in the interrogation record:
“… the presence of concrete evidence indicating a strong suspicion of a crime within the scope of the file, CMK m of the discarded crime.100/3-the CMK, in which the catalogue of crimes listed in Article a, the suspect is likely to escape and the evidence is likely to be blackened, the provisions of judicial control will be insufficient for these reasons. 100. With the regulations related to Article 5 of the ECHR. CMK 101 of the suspect within the scope of the measure in proportion to the crime charged within the scope of the arrest conditions in Article. To be ARRESTED in accordance with the Article”
The decision was given.
However, since the necessary conditions for the decision to be detained are not subsidized, we have decided to appeal against the said detention decision. That is to say;
1.The conditions in CMK 100 have not occurred. ECHR 5. Article 19 of our Constitution. Considering the right of a Person to Freedom and Security guaranteed in accordance with the Article, it is clear that arrest is a measure, and if the conditions for arrest have not been formed, arrest should be considered as a punishment imposed on the suspect.
CMK m.according to article 100, the conditions that can be considered a reason for arrest are “the presence of concrete facts that arouse suspicion that the suspect or accused is fleeing, hiding or going to flee; the behavior of the suspect or accused, destroying, hiding or changing evidence, attempting to exert pressure on witnesses, victims or others, creating strong suspicion about them.”
As a matter of fact, these conditions that have been counted have not occurred. The suspect is not suspected of fleeing, he is of fixed residence. A suspect cannot black out evidence.
2.Arrest is the last measure. The court must rule on the application of judicial control before reaching a decision on arrest. If the situation intended by the arrest can be ensured by another measure, the Court should observe this situation. Otherwise, it is clear that arrest will be a punishment given to the suspect rather than a measure. This issue is also fixed by the case law of the ECHR.
3.The client has no activity or November in the incident. Despite this, the detention decision made without observing the judicial control decision may create irreparable situations for the client in the future. The arrest decision given is against the law and procedure. As will be seen as a result of the situation that will be clarified after the trial in the future, the state of detention is a very severe measure.
4.There are no facts that indicate the existence of strong criminal suspicion about the suspected client. Although the detention decision was made with the bet that the judicial control provisions would be insufficient for these reasons, where the suspect had the possibility of escaping and blacking out the evidence, it is clear in the file that the evidence was collected to a significant extent. There is no possibility that the evidence will be destroyed and changed. Because the evidence of the alleged crime has already been handed over to the judicial authorities and has been entrusted. Therefore, there is no situation in which the client can prevent the collection of evidence. Moreover, the suspect client has a fixed residence and there is no possibility of escape.
5.The continuation of the suspect’s detention will prevent him from continuing his professional activities and will undermine his professional reputation in the long term. This situation will lead to the occurrence of irreparable damages for the client and his family, for whom he provides a living. Even in this respect, the detention decision ceases to be a precaution for both the client and his family and becomes a punishment; it is against the procedure and the law.
In line with all these explanations, the detention of the suspect client is an extreme measure. As we requested at the hearing, it is necessary to decide on the release of the suspect.
CONCLUSION AND CLAIM : For all the reasons described above and to be considered ex officio,
1.Ankara ( ) Criminal Justice of Peace 2021 /…….. To LIFT the ARREST DECISION made within the scope of the Interrogation Numbered File and to DECIDE to RELEASE the suspect client,
2.If your Judge is of the Opposite Opinion, CMK 109 et al. of the Decision to Continue the State of Arrest. to be TRANSFERRED TO JUDICIAL CONTROL in accordance with the provisions,
3.In case of Refusal of our Request, we respectfully request that our FILE be SENT to the COMPETENT AUTHORITY for a Decision to be Made in Accordance with Our Request for Evacuation. 08.2021
Requesting Eviction
