The Objectionable Rule
The purchase of narcotic or psychotropic substances for use or possession, or use of narcotics or psychotropic substances, it was decided to postpone the opening of a criminal case about the crime of the person, the obligations imposed during the period of deferral, or to insist on being treated in accordance with the requirements of the treatment, re-use or stimulant drug purchase, in investigations opened after a public lawsuit has been filed against him for accepting or possessing or using drugs or stimulants, the decision to postpone the opening of a public case may not be made in accordance with the rule subject to appeal in investigations alleging that the crime has been committed again.
Application Justification
In summary, in the application decision; it was stated that the fact that a public case was opened in terms of the first offense with the rule subject to appeal was an obstacle to the decision to postpone the opening of the case in terms of the second offense, which was incompatible with the presumption of innocence, as a matter of fact, a decision other than a conviction could be made about the defendant in a case filed for the first offense, and the rule was based on the assumption that a conviction decision would be made by ignoring this issue, and the rule was argued that the rule was contrary to the Constitution.
Evaluation Of The Court
Article 38 of the Constitution. in the fourth paragraph of the article “No one can be considered guilty until the conviction is fixed. it is said that “. One of the basic principles of criminal law, the presumption of innocence of a defendant of a crime, which is about a fair trial should be considered innocent until guilt is established by a judgment and to express that constitutes the principle of the rule of law. In accordance with the presumption of innocence, a person can be qualified as a criminal and the imposition of sanctions that fall within the scope of criminal law depends on his conviction with a final verdict.
The purchase of narcotic or psychotropic substances for use or possession, or use of narcotics or psychotropic substances, it was decided to postpone the opening of a criminal case about the crime of the person, the obligations imposed during the period of deferral, or to insist on being treated in accordance with the requirements of the treatment, re-use or stimulant drug purchase, in investigations opened after a public lawsuit has been filed against him for accepting or possessing or using drugs or stimulants, the decision to postpone the opening of a public case may not be made in accordance with the rule subject to appeal in investigations alleging that the crime has been committed again.
From the justification of the rule it becomes clear that it is intended to injure a person only once from the institution of postponing the opening of a public case. The rules on postponing the opening of a public case should be considered by observing the entire institution. The purchase of narcotic or psychotropic substances for use or possession, or use of narcotics or psychotropic substances, criminal investigations criminal case after the decision to postpone the opening of the prediction of a probation order for a period of five years in the installation of a given period and certain obligations of the legislator crime and Delinquency Prevention, deterrence and crime prevention is a system for the purpose of accepted under discretion. In this context, the obligations incurred in the deferral period to insist on being treated in accordance with the requirements of the treatment or repeated use of drugs or psychotropic substances, purchase, acceptance, possession, or use the public due to allegedly committed the same crime again in case after the opening of investigations, which envisages the identification of the decision to postpone the opening of a criminal case granted the appeal, the rule also is a part of this system.
Purchase of drugs or stimulants for use with the institution of postponement of the opening of a public case, accept or possession, or use of narcotics or psychotropic substances as a consequence of the investigative phase of criminal investigations of the public prosecutor obtained with the evidence reaches the conclusion that there is sufficient doubt about the time the crime was committed, even if the indictment is addicted to the substance of the arrangement rather than the suspect and move on with your life by getting rid of her family and community and prosecute suspected to contribute to the control of the person is delayed and the duration of treatment is known to be subjected to during this time if deemed necessary. In spite of this, the deferral period in accordance with the requirements or obligations incurred in the treatment of the one who insisted on being treated, the purchase of narcotic or psychotropic substances for re-use, acceptance, possession or postponement will be removed and subject to the decision to defer to people who use civil prosecution for the crime.
The rule under appeal expresses its provision after this stage and provides that a decision on postponing a public case cannot be made if the same crime is committed again after the opening of a public case. The fact that it cannot be decided to postpone the opening of a public case in accordance with the rule is not a punishment and is a result of the fact that the conditions for using the institution mentioned in terms of this crime have not been fulfilled. In other words, as one of the conditions for using the institution of postponement of the opening of a public case by the rule, the condition of not having used the institution mentioned earlier has been created. As of this moment, the rule prevents the suspect from taking advantage of the institution of postponement of the opening of a public case only one more time, does not provide for the fact that he will be considered guilty in advance or will be subject to a fine. As a matter of fact, in accordance with the rule, if there is no sufficient doubt that the crime in question has been committed in the investigation conducted against the person who has not been able to benefit from the institution of postponing the opening of a public case once again, it is possible to decide that there is no room for prosecution, as well as in the case of sufficient doubt, it is possible that the person will be acquitted in the case that will be opened.
In this respect, there is no aspect of the rule stipulated by the legislator within the scope of his discretion in determining the tools of criminal policy and the conditions related to these tools that violates the principle of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rules are not contrary to the Constitution on the grounds described.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here