|
 Attorney Vahit Bıçak, who is also a professor of criminal law, said: "Both the judicial backlog needs to be addressed and the periods of arrest should be shortened. Unfortunately, the Turkish judicial system is very slow. Keeping suspects under arrest for long periods of time turns this into the execution of a jail term. The reputation of suspects and defendants should be protected. The ECtHR says four years is a reasonable time, no matter how complicated the case. Currently, it is 10 years in our country, much longer than the reasonably accepted average." He said both problems had to be addressed.
Justice minister Ergin: Judicial backlog root of lengthy jail terms
Today's Zaman, 12 December 2011, Monday / ALİ ASLAN KILIÇ, ANKARA
Turkey has a chronic problem of lengthy jail terms for people who are under arrest pending trial without a conviction, but instead of introducing limits to the duration of arrest periods for people who have yet to be convicted, decreasing the judicial backlog to accelerate the legal process is what needs to be done, Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin said during budget talks in Parliament last week.
"If we were to reduce the jail period, then many people would be able to walk away, which will greatly upset the public, and we won't be able to handle the backlash from that," Ergin said. During last week's budget talks, Ergin said the judiciary lacked the human resource base it needed. He said the government was working hard to address the problem of slow court processes, adding that thanks to two regulations adopted in 2011 it had been possible to resolve 2.5 million cases before they were referred to court.
He also noted that the number of Council of State and Supreme Court of Appeals judges have been increased, saying that cases filed in the past used to pile up for at least six months prior to the recent legal amendments. "Currently here are no files pending at the Supreme Court of Appeals. Any file that comes in is taken up either the same day or the next day. For the first time, the Supreme Court of Appeals is able to issue more rulings that the cases it gets."
Ergin said shortening the period of arrests further at this moment would result in the release of about 2,427 people under arrest. "These people include members of the terrorist [Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)], child molesters, people who have killed police officers, rapists and others that will irritate the society."
He recalled that early in 2011 some suspects were released after a new law restricting arrest periods was adopted.
The law, which went into force on Jan. 1, 2011, introduced restrictions to how long a suspect can be kept under arrest while awaiting or standing trial. It was the source of a major controversy, because 10 key members of Hezbollah, who were to stand trial for the brutal killing of 188 people, were released. Some of them fled during this period before their appeal process could be completed.
However, not all experts agree. Addressing the sluggishness of the judiciary is important, but it won't be enough to prevent injustices, according to law professor Hakan Hakeri, the dean of İstanbul Medeniyet University's faculty of law.
Although in theory the minister's assertion made sence, Hakeri said: "It is completely unacceptable to have arrest periods of up to 10 years because our judicial system is slow. The minister, in principle, is saying the right thing, but our system accepts keeping people in jail for 10 years without a conviction. This has to be shortened."
He admitted that there were problems with some of the releases in early 2011. "But those who were released had been under arrest for 10 years," he said. "Our system has two types of periods. Changing this for trials that are completed in a shorter amount of time is not the right thing to do. Especially in high criminal courts, five years is normal. The European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR] also agrees with that. But the specially authorized courts' authority to double that period, prolonging it up to 10 years, is wrong. It has to be changed."
He also noted that the Republican People's Party (CHP) had submitted a proposal for that. "I also know that the Justice Ministry is working on a remedy. We have problems in execution. Our judges order arrests too readily, and they execute it badly. This is something you can't change. But periods of arrest up to ten years should be changed," Hakeri said.
Lawyer Vahit Bıçak, who is also a professor of criminal law, said: "Both the judicial backlog needs to be addressed and the periods of arrest should be shortened. Unfortunately, the Turkish judicial system is very slow. Keeping suspects under arrest for long periods of time turns this into the execution of a jail term. The reputation of suspects and defendants should be protected. The ECtHR says four years is a reasonable time, no matter how complicated the case. Currently, it is 10 years in our country, much longer than the reasonably accepted average." He said both problems had to be addressed.
According to Turkish law, until a verdict is approved by the Supreme Court of Appeals, the inmate is considered under arrest. Only after the approval of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which combines the functions of courts of cassation and appeals, does the inmate under arrest become a convict. Contrary to regulations in most European countries, in Turkey suspects are also considered under arrest after the local court verdict is issued but before it is approved by the Court of Cassation. |
