ANKARA ( )CRIMINAL COURT
(About to Be Sent)
ANKARA ( ) HIGH CRIMINAL COURT
FILE NO:2021/…
Continuation of the State of Detention
The Objecting Defendant :
ADDRESS :…
ATTORNEY :
ADDRESS :
PHONE :
Alleged Crime: Manufacture and Trafficking of Drugs or Stimulants in accordance with Article 188 of the TCK
The Decision on the Continuation of the State of Detention
Date of Issue : ../../2021
SUBJECT OF REQUEST :Your court ../../ It is about our objections to the decision “Continuation of Detention” given at the hearing dated 2021 and our request for release.
OUR EXPLANATIONS
Your court ../../ In the minutes of the hearing dated 2021:
“The presence of physical evidence for the existence of a strong suspicion of a crime, the defendant is taken into account when thrown, on penalty of the crime, the lower and upper limits of the amount of the excess to escape, hide, or escape with the recognition that arouse the suspicion of concrete facts that are in the nature of, again, destruction of evidence, concealment, or change the possibility of the presence of the fault thrown mve 100/3 CMK-catalog item with the crimes specified in the issues to be taken into consideration upon the legal opinion of the judicial control measures that will remain insufficient CMK 101. the accused is under arrest for a crime committed in accordance with article A….B….the decision was made to CONTINUE the DETENTION of and to REFUSE the request for release”.
We submit our objections to this decision as follows within the period of time.
The conditions in CMK 100 have not been formed. The accused has no suspicion of escape. He is the owner of a fixed residence. The client lives with his parents at the address of residence and takes care of them. The client helps his father, who is a salesman. In this way, the decision to continue the detention of the client who contributes to the livelihood of his family binds his freedom and greatly damages the life of the client’s family.
The client is struggling with drug addiction; he has neither an income nor a place to go. The client is not in a position to escape; he has no such intention. He wants to get rid of the crime thrown at him.
The defendant cannot obscure the evidence. All the evidence related to the accused crime has been seized; it has been placed in trust. The client does not already have such a situation as evidence blackout, but even if such a situation is considered to be the case, the absence of even a piece of evidence that can be blacked out in the open indicates that the client is being held in custody for no reason.
In addition, Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is taken into account when making a decision on the continuation of detention.the conditions in Article 19/3 of the Constitution and the provisions in Article 19 have not been formed in respect of the accused.
The arrest is the latest measure. The judicial control institution in CMK 109 must be applied first according to the arrest. The ECHR also mentions that arrest should be applied as the last measure in its case law; it says that if the benefit from arrest can be obtained by another measure, the path of arrest should not be taken.
While the court should not have ruled on arrest without first applying judicial control, a direct arrest decision was made on the client. However, the client has neither the suspicion of escape nor the possibility of obscuring the evidence. It is against the procedure and the law for the client’s freedom, who cannot do this even if he wants to, to be bound for no reason.
Although the client did not have any commercial activities in the incident, an arrest warrant was issued against him. It is also obvious that continued detention will create irreparable situations for the client in the future. Because as a result of a great injustice and for no reason, a decision was made to continue the arrest.
The client did not supply drugs to the witness who was jul-tered as a user in any way. Both the client and the witness were addicted to drugs and used the drugs in question together from time to time, but the client never provided drugs to either the witness or anyone else for any price. Jul:
There was an argument between the client and the witness; the witness the aftermath of the debate, your client devotes itself to use drugs, took from a client in a confidential manner and went home. When he was caught by the police, he panicked and said that he had taken the drugs from his client. However, such is not the case. The witness gave such a statement purely out of fear and with the tension of the discussion he had with the client. At Jul time, the client has not supplied drugs to either the witness or anyone else. A crime committed against a client is nothing but slander.
In accordance with all these explanations, it is necessary to decide on the release of the accused by removing the decision on the continuation of the detention imposed on the client.
CONCLUSION AND PROMPT : For all the reasons described above, which will be considered if you re,
1.The DECISION OF the Ankara () High Criminal Court to CONTINUE the ARREST given within the scope of File Number 2021 /… will be LIFTED and the defendant A….B….’s decision to release,
2.If Your Court has the Opposite Opinion, CMK 109 et al. of the Decision on the Continuation of the Arrest. TRANSLATION INTO JUDICIAL CONTROL in accordance with the provisions of,
3.In Case of Refusal of our Request, we request that our FILE be SENT TO the COMPETENT AUTHORITY to be Decided in Accordance with our Request for Release. 15/10/2021
Who Appealed Against the Decision on the Continuation of the State of Detention