One of the important problems of Turkey is ineffective investigation against public officer (especially security forces members) related with their involvement in illegal actions. Investigations, which are opened against public officers related with their actions, are either resulted in “there is no need to process a case” or files are transferred into other cities grounding reason of “security”. Transferring such files violates “natural judge principle”. Evidences, which related with incidents where security force members take part in, are collected by security force members, who work in the same area. It is one of the biggest obstacles to conduct an “effective investigation” against security force members.
Court decisions under these circumstances do not satisfy public conscience and, but; harm confidence to justice.
Another important problem is difference between military and civil judgement. This difference, day by day, gains a status that is “military members can be judged by only military members”. Regrettably civil judgement organs reinforce the difference, which cannot be accepted in a democratic law state, through their decisions.
Events through “Semdinli Trial” are one of the recent samples of the mentioned problem. During the investigation level, even, judicial survey was blocked by soldier’s shooting. The public prosecutor, who opened the investigation, was “dismissed from profession”. Throughout the trial statements, by high rank officials of the State, overshadowed on all of the judicial activities.
Avoiding from behaviours and activities that might be interpreted as intervention to independent, impartial judgement is an obligation, compulsory for everyone particularly the State’s officials. On the other hand; operation of the judiciary mechanism and its impression to others should indicate “judiciary’s independency and impartiality” (principle of objective independency). Unfortunately, vision of the judiciary mechanism during the Semdinli Trial could not make this impression. Decision, by Supreme Court, related with Semdinli Trial overshadowed on impartiality of the judiciary. In its decision, the Supreme Court has not mentioned any attitudes, actions, circumstances that might affect independent and impartial judgement. However; the Supreme Court has used an unusual style and expression in criticism of the local court’s decision. Considering that there are not any relations with “military mission” in the accused crimes except for being member of the military. So; the Supreme Court’s decision, which argues military courts are in charge to judge of these people, indicates that military members cannot be judged by normal (civil) courts under any circumstances. Such a situation is not compatible with being law state and rule of law’s principles.
HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION