-SAMPLE PETITION_
ANKARA ( ) MAGISTRATE’S OFFICE
(About to Be Sent)
ANKARA ( ) MAGISTRATE’S OFFICE
QUERY NO :
FILE INFORMATION :
According to the Arrest Warrant
The Objecting Suspect :
ADDRESS :……
THE DEFENDER :
PHONE :
The Alleged Crime : According to Article … of the TCK
The Arrest Warrant
Issue Date :16/08/2021
SUBJECT OF REQUEST: Your Honor’s Office Dated 16/08/2021, 2021/……. It is about our objections to the decision “ARREST of the suspect within the scope of the measure in proportion to the crime attributed” made in the inquiry numbered decision and our request for release.
OUR EXPLANATIONS: Ankara ( ) Magistrate’s Office Dated 16/08/2021, 2021/……. The Query (Ankara CBS Ankara ………. The Prosecutor’s Office has a deadline of 08/16/2021 and a deadline of 2021/….. The statement numbered (with the article number of the investigation) is in the interrogation report:
“… the presence of concrete evidence within the scope of the file indicates a strong suspicion of a crime, CMK m of a breakthrough crime.due to the fact that the catalog listed in Article 100/3-a is one of the crimes, the suspect is likely to escape and the evidence is obscured, the provisions of judicial control will be insufficient for these reasons CMK. 100. Regulations related to Article 5 of the ECHR. CMK 101 of the suspect within the scope of the measure in proportion to the crime attributed under the terms of arrest in the Article. ARREST in accordance with Article”
The decision was given.
However, since the conditions necessary to decide on detention did not find subsidies, it was up to us to appeal the detention decision in question. That is to say;
1.The conditions in CMK 100 have not been formed. ECHR 5. Article 19 of our Constitution. Considering the right of the Person secured in accordance with the Article to Freedom and Security, it is clear that the arrest is a measure, and if the circumstances of the arrest have not been established, the arrest should be considered a punishment given to the suspect.
CMK m.according to Article 100, the conditions that can be considered as a reason for arrest are “The presence of concrete facts that arouse suspicion that the suspect or accused will escape, hide or flee; the behavior of the suspect or accused, an attempt to destroy, hide or change evidence, pressure on the witness, victim or others, and this creates strong doubt in their matters.”
As a matter of fact, these conditions that are considered have not occurred. The suspect has no suspicion of escape, he is a resident of fixed residence. The suspect cannot obscure the evidence.
2.Arrest is the latest measure. The court must rule on the implementation of judicial control before reaching a decision on arrest. If the intended situation with the arrest can be ensured by another measure, the Court should observe this situation. Otherwise, it is clear that the arrest will be a punishment given to the suspect, rather than a measure. This issue is also fixed by the case law of the ECHR.
3.The client has no activity or november in the incident. Despite this, the detention decision made without observing the judicial control decision may create irreparable situations for the client in the future. The arrest warrant issued is contrary to law and procedure. As will be seen from the situation that will be clarified after the trial in the future, detention is a very severe measure.
4.There are no facts that indicate the existence of a strong suspicion of a crime against a suspected client. Although the decision was made to arrest the suspect on a bet that the judicial control provisions would be insufficient for these reasons, where there is a possibility of escaping and obscuring the evidence, it is clear that the evidence has been collected significantly in the file. There is no possibility that the evidence will disappear and be replaced. Because the evidence of the alleged crime has already been transferred to the judicial authorities and has been deposited. Therefore, there is no situation where the client can interfere with the collection of evidence. Moreover, the suspect client has a fixed-term residence and there is no possibility of escape.
5.The continued detention of the suspect will prevent him from continuing his professional activities and, in the long term, will undermine his professional reputation. This will cause irreparable harm to the client and his family, with whom he earns a living. Even in this respect, the detention decision ceases to be a precaution for both the client and his family and becomes a punishment; it is contrary to the procedure and the law.
In accordance with all these statements, it is an extreme measure for the suspect client to remain in custody. As we requested at the hearing, it is necessary to decide on the release of the suspect.
CONCLUSION AND PROMPT : For all the reasons described above, which will be considered if you re,
1.2021/……. of the Ankara ( ) Magistrates’ Court. REMOVAL of the ARREST WARRANT issued within the scope of the Interrogation Numbered File and DECISION ON the RELEASE of the suspect client,
2.If Your Judge 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 respectfully request that our FILE be SENT TO the COMPETENT AUTHORITY in Order to be Decided in Accordance with our Request for Release. 08.2021
Who Requested Eviction