“The discussions on the indictment of Şemdinli events and recent investigation by executive authority show once again that judgement is not independent in the Turkey”
Turkey is still in dilemma despite all attempts and discourse. Persons, who should be responsible to implement all the tasks for an independent judgement, regard all the criticisms to judicial system as “interference to judgement” and stimulate to open a court case. On the other hand, these persons do not hesitate to interfere directly to the judgement to paralyse judicial investigations and court cases that are against to privileged officials, people, who are protected for many years either by de facto or de jure.
Being independent the all spheres of judgement against the legislation and law enforcement, which are the basic forces of democracy, and media that also regard the 4th force of democracy is the fundamental condition democracy and the permanent assurance the equality of everybody in front of the judgement and freedoms.
One of the most important problems in our country is that being unpunished either de facto or de jure is very common in Turkey. The persons, who had taken part in military coup, massacre, tortures, illegal organizations within the state and cause to obstacles for democracy and freedoms, did not stand in trial until that time. Recently, there was a military coup leader on T.V. The military leader can boast him though; effects of the military coup are still in practice. We have acknowledged that there is an organisation; “JİTEM” (Gendarme Intelligence and Prevention of Terrorism), though its existence has been denied for years. However; there is not any sign those, who have concealed its existence and are responsible for its illegal actions, will have court case.
Regarding democracy, independency of justice, equality under the rules, primacy of law; the discussions on Şemdinli indictment, by politicians from both main opposition and ruling party, are desperate. Those, who regard and transform the indictment by a public prosecutor as “coup against army”, are under a big responsibility.
Any person, whichever position he/she is in, does not have privilege against judgement. Moreover, preventing the investigations of the indictments, which are against individuals, via regarding it against to institutions damages not only primacy of law-democracy but also those who are alleged since there is not any chance to speak in advocacy of their rights.
The Government’s specific responsibility, on this issue, should be underlined. The Minister of Justice, who is member of the Government, orders an investigation against public prosecutor. Such an investigation against public prosecutor, who draws up the indictment, causes Judgement’s violation by the Government. Moreover, the investigation shows Government’s control capacity on Judgement. A Minister of Justice, who could not provide independent judgement in terms of both law-practice and violates its independency via his orders, should not be in such a position. THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.
Discussions and evaluations on the indictment cause a negative effect on the court case. From now on, it is hard to believe that the court case will be conducted without affecting any pressures and effects. Indeed, investigation and court case do not have only one target that is determining juridical positions of those who are revealed and under detention. The target is; bringing all persons up before the court, who take part in crime and have responsibility for the court cases in any stage. Whole process of the court cases is damaged. After all of these speculations on the indictment, accessing the roots of illegal organisations in the state and determining those (both civil servant and army members) who take part in such organisations will not be possible.
Maybe one of the basic problems in our democracy is still civilians’ not accepting that “a civil public prosecutor can draw up an indictment against senior military member”
“Privilege, for any individuals, families, groups or classes cannot be granted. In all activities, State Institutions have to perform their tasks according to principle of equality against law” (The Constitution, Article: 10).
Lawyer Yusuf Alataş
Chairperson of İHD (Human Rights Association)