Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Halka Açıklık İlkesi
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2023
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Demokratik toplumda; parlamentonun yasa hazırlama süreçleri, idarenin iş ve işlemleri, yargılama faaliyetleri halkın gözü önünde cereyan eder. Şeffaflık olarak tanımlanabilecek bu durum sayesinde; yasama, yürütme ve yargı erklerinin toplumsal denetimi sağlanmış olur. Her üç erkin de denetlenmesi hesap verebilirlik açısından son derece önemlidir. Zira erklere meşruiyet kazandıran olgu, görünür olmakla ilgilidir. Ayrıca halka açık yargılama, ceza hukukunun temel amaçlarından genel ve özel önleme etkilerine katkı sağlamaktadır. Halka açıklık ya da aleniyet olarak adlandırılan ilke eski zamanlardan beri bilinmektedir. Demokratik hukuk devletinin tekemmül sürecinde; meydanlarda, mabetlerde ve nihayetinde mahkeme binalarında yapılan yargılamaların herkese açık olması şeklinde bir yol benimsenmiştir. Pozitif hukuk kapsamında pek çok ulus üstü metinde halka açıklığa önem verilmiştir. Aynı şekilde ilke, iç hukukumuzda; anayasa ve kanunlarda yer bulmuştur. Zira yargıya olan güvenin sağlanması ve yargının toplumsal denetimi adli vakalar hakkında kamuoyunun bilgi sahibi olması, ancak açık yargılama ile mümkündür. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi halka açık yargılamayı, adil yargılanma hakkı içerisinde değerlendirmektedir. Yine Anayasa duruşmaların herkese açık olduğu hükmüne yer vermiştir. İlke; kanun önünde eşitlik, ayrımcılık yasağı, insanlık onuru ve masumiyet karinesi ile yakından ilgilidir. Bununla birlikte halka açık yargılama, yargılamanın her aşamasında farklı karakter göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, insan hakları ve ceza muhakemesi hukuku müesseseleri ile halka açıklık ilkesi arasındaki ilişkinin ortaya konulması önem taşır. Özellikle, temel bir hak olarak değerlendirilen halka açıklık ilkesi ile başka hakların çatışması halinin tartışılması, makul, dengeli ve adil bir çözüm bulunması gerekmektedir. Halka açıklık kuralı, sadece izleyicilerin muttali olduğu yargılama demek değildir. Aynı zamanda burada olup bitenlerin dışarıya aktarılması/aktarılabilmesi de ilkenin koruduğu değerler kapsamındadır. Zira bilgi ve haber paylaşımındaki hızlı gelişmeler, yargılamaların adliye binası dışında da ilgi görmesine yol açmıştır. Kamuoyu; internet ve medya yoluyla yargılamaları takip etmekte, kural olarak gizli olan soruşturma evresi bile bu araçlarla paylaşılır hale gelmektedir. Bu nedenle halka açıklık ilkesine yönelik çeşitli eleştiriler bulunmaktadır. Özellikle sanığın masumiyet karinesinin koruması altında olmasına rağmen, suçlu olarak teşhir edilmesi, yargılamaların gereğinden fazla ilgi nedeniyle salimen devam edememesi, yargıçların konsolide olmuş bazı grupların baskısı nedeniyle adil karar verememesi gibi hallerde, ilkenin mahzurları ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Aynı şekilde kamuoyunun, adli olaylara ilgisi fazla iken, beraat kararları yeterince ilgi görmemekte, çoğu zaman beraat etse dahi fail toplum nezdinde aklanamamaktadır. Bazı hallerde organize olmuş baskı gruplarının yargılamayı etkilemeleri ve mahkemeleri töhmet altında bırakmaları da mümkündür. Konu bu yönüyle basın hukuku, bilişim hukuku ve adil yargılamanın etkilenmesi ile ilişki içerisindedir. Halka açık yargılamanın abartılı uygulandığı vakit ortaya çıkabilecek mahzurları nedeniyle; ilkenin bazı hallerde sınırlanabileceği kabul edilmektedir. Aleniyetin kısıtlanabileceği ya da kaldırılabileceği durumları da sınırlamak gerekmektedir. Zira halka açık yargılama bir insan hakkıdır. İnsan haklarına yönelik sınırlamaların nasıl yapılacağı ise Anayasa'da gösterilmiştir. Bu nedenle sadece AİHS ve Anayasa'da yer alan sebeplerin varlığı halinde, halka açık yargılama ilkesine kısıtlama getirilebilmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra sanığın on sekiz yaşından küçük olduğu yargılamaların mutlak surette kapalı yapılması, normatif olarak benimsenmiştir. Halka açık yapılması gereken yargılamanın kapalı yapılması, hukukumuzda mutlak bozma nedenleri arasındadır. Ancak kapalı yapılması gereken yargılamanın açık yapılması halinde kararın bozulmasının anlamı kalmamaktadır. Bu durumda hakkı ihlal edilen ilgiliye tazminat ödenmesi gerekmektedir.
In a democratic society; The legislative processes of the parliament, the work and transactions of the administration, the judicial activities take place in front of the public. Thanks to this situation, which can be defined as transparency; social control of the legislative, executive and judicial powers is ensured. Supervision of all three powers is extremely important in terms of accountability. Because the phenomenon that gives legitimacy to powers is about being visible. In addition, public trial contributes to the general and specific preventive effects, one of the main purposes of criminal law. The principle called publicity or disclosure has been known since ancient times. In the evolution process of the democratic state of law; A way has been adopted that the trials held in squares, temples and eventually court buildings are open to all. Within the scope of positive law, publicity is given importance in many supranational texts. Likewise, the principle is in our domestic law; found in the constitution and procedural laws. Because trust in the judiciary and social control of the judiciary can only be possible with the public's knowledge of judicial cases through public trial. The European Convention on Human Rights considers public trial within the right to a fair trial. Again, the constitution includes the provision that the hearings are open to everyone. Principle; equality before the law, prohibition of discrimination, human dignity and the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, the public trial shows a different character at every stage of the trial. For this reason, it is important to reveal the relationship between human rights and criminal procedure law institutions and the principle of publicity. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the conflict of other rights with the principle of publicity, which is considered as a fundamental right, and to find a reasonable, balanced and fair solution. The rule of publicity is not just a judgment that the audience knows. At the same time, exporting/transferring what's going on here is also within the scope of the values protected by the principle. Because the rapid developments in information and news sharing caused the trials to attract attention outside the courthouse. Public opinion; It follows the proceedings through the internet and the media, and even the investigation phase, which is as a rule confidential, becomes shared with these tools. For this reason, there are various criticisms of the principle of public openness. In particular, in cases where the accused is exposed as a criminal despite being under the protection of the presumption of innocence, the trials cannot proceed safely due to undue attention, and the judges cannot make a fair decision due to the pressure of some consolidated groups, the shortcomings of the principle may arise. Likewise, while the public's interest in judicial events is high, acquittal decisions do not receive enough attention, and even if he is acquitted, the perpetrator cannot be acquitted by the society. In some cases, it is also possible for organized pressure groups to influence the proceedings and implicate the courts. In this respect, the subject is related to the influence of press law, informatics law and fair trial. Due to the disadvantages that may arise when the public trial is applied exaggeratedly; It is recognized that the principle may be limited in some cases. It is also necessary to limit the situations in which publicity can be restricted or removed. Because public trial is a human right. How to make restrictions on human rights is shown in the constitution. For this reason, restrictions can be imposed on the principle of public trial only in the presence of the ECHR and constitutional reasons. In addition, it has been adopted as normative that the proceedings in which the accused is under the age of eighteen must be held in absolute closed terms. The closed trial, which should be held in public, is among the reasons for absolute reversal in our law. However, if the trial, which should be held in a closed manner, is made open, it is meaningless to reverse the decision. In this case, compensation must be paid to the person whose rights have been violated.
In a democratic society; The legislative processes of the parliament, the work and transactions of the administration, the judicial activities take place in front of the public. Thanks to this situation, which can be defined as transparency; social control of the legislative, executive and judicial powers is ensured. Supervision of all three powers is extremely important in terms of accountability. Because the phenomenon that gives legitimacy to powers is about being visible. In addition, public trial contributes to the general and specific preventive effects, one of the main purposes of criminal law. The principle called publicity or disclosure has been known since ancient times. In the evolution process of the democratic state of law; A way has been adopted that the trials held in squares, temples and eventually court buildings are open to all. Within the scope of positive law, publicity is given importance in many supranational texts. Likewise, the principle is in our domestic law; found in the constitution and procedural laws. Because trust in the judiciary and social control of the judiciary can only be possible with the public's knowledge of judicial cases through public trial. The European Convention on Human Rights considers public trial within the right to a fair trial. Again, the constitution includes the provision that the hearings are open to everyone. Principle; equality before the law, prohibition of discrimination, human dignity and the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, the public trial shows a different character at every stage of the trial. For this reason, it is important to reveal the relationship between human rights and criminal procedure law institutions and the principle of publicity. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the conflict of other rights with the principle of publicity, which is considered as a fundamental right, and to find a reasonable, balanced and fair solution. The rule of publicity is not just a judgment that the audience knows. At the same time, exporting/transferring what's going on here is also within the scope of the values protected by the principle. Because the rapid developments in information and news sharing caused the trials to attract attention outside the courthouse. Public opinion; It follows the proceedings through the internet and the media, and even the investigation phase, which is as a rule confidential, becomes shared with these tools. For this reason, there are various criticisms of the principle of public openness. In particular, in cases where the accused is exposed as a criminal despite being under the protection of the presumption of innocence, the trials cannot proceed safely due to undue attention, and the judges cannot make a fair decision due to the pressure of some consolidated groups, the shortcomings of the principle may arise. Likewise, while the public's interest in judicial events is high, acquittal decisions do not receive enough attention, and even if he is acquitted, the perpetrator cannot be acquitted by the society. In some cases, it is also possible for organized pressure groups to influence the proceedings and implicate the courts. In this respect, the subject is related to the influence of press law, informatics law and fair trial. Due to the disadvantages that may arise when the public trial is applied exaggeratedly; It is recognized that the principle may be limited in some cases. It is also necessary to limit the situations in which publicity can be restricted or removed. Because public trial is a human right. How to make restrictions on human rights is shown in the constitution. For this reason, restrictions can be imposed on the principle of public trial only in the presence of the ECHR and constitutional reasons. In addition, it has been adopted as normative that the proceedings in which the accused is under the age of eighteen must be held in absolute closed terms. The closed trial, which should be held in public, is among the reasons for absolute reversal in our law. However, if the trial, which should be held in a closed manner, is made open, it is meaningless to reverse the decision. In this case, compensation must be paid to the person whose rights have been violated.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Aleniyet, Halka Açıklık, Halka Açıklık İlkesinin İhlali, Kapalı Yargılama, Gizliliğin İhlali, Publicity, Public Openness, Violation of the Principle of Publicity, Closed Judgment, Breach of Privacy
Kaynak
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
Limoncu, M., (2023). Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Halka Açıklık İlkesi. (Doktora Tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
